Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.
Poll
The person most directly responsible for the wave of shark attacks is
Bill Clinton 0%
Al Gore 8%
Richard Gephardt 16%
Janet Reno 25%
Tom Daschle 25%
Terry McAuliffe 8%
George McGovern 0%
Walter Mondale 16%

Votes: 12

 Don't Go In The Water

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Sep 05, 2001
 Comments:
Friends, welcome to the Summer of the Shark.

If you've paid any attention at all to the news this summer, you know one thing: shark attacks against innocent bathers have risen exponentially. These days, you can't turn on your television set without being treated to the graphic details of the latest violent shark incident. Recent years have been comparatively quiet on this front .. so why are these attacks on the rise? What (or who) is to blame?

Regular Adequacy readers will not be surprised by the answer.

animals

More stories about Animals
Pet Ownership - Killing Through Kindness
Obesity and the Jennifer Lopez Message
What are Ruminants Fed (and what is a ruminant anyways)
Urban Scavengers
Some major flaws in Evolutionary Theory
Animals: Food for Thought

More stories by
seventypercent

Is Catholicism to be tolerated?
Obesity and the Jennifer Lopez Message
The Truth About Reality TV
From Kids To Commies: The Truth About Daycare
The Scriptural Proof of Extraterrestrial Life
Review: Jurassic Park III
Beating Children Saves Lives
Gutless In Seattle
Isolationism Versus Go-F*ck-Yourself-ism
DVD Versus VHS: The Surprising Truth
Stunned Beef: Dangerous Compassion?
Happy Labor Day -- Now Get Lost
A Day on the Links
The Evil of M*A*S*H
Brett Favre Must Be Stopped
An Early Analysis of Today's Attacks
Dealing With Communism in the Workplace
Why We Need National Missile Defense
Review: Gran Turismo 3
Death Threats on Groups.Google.Com
Adequacy.Org Presents the Commonsense Crossword
Dealing with Nazism in the Workplace
In 1993, the National Marine Fisheries Service, with the full support of the United States Congress (which at that time was controlled by Democrats -- in both houses), implemented stringent new regulations regarding shark fishing. The management plan included 39 species and established a quota of 2,570 metric tons for two groups of sharks: large coastal (e.g. sandbar, blacktip, dusky sharks) and pelagic (e.g. blue, mako, thresher sharks). In addition, the management plan set up a system of catch reporting to stop overfishing and close federal waters when necessary. The federal regulations apply out to 200 miles off the coast of the United States. However, these regulations do not apply to the first three miles off the coast of the United States. This area is state coastal waters and is regulated by each state.

So what have the states done? Let's look at Florida as an example. Florida bowed to environmentalists and made sharks -- all sharks -- a protected species. Shark fishing in Florida waters is still allowed, but anglers are limited to one per day. One. And boats with multiple fisherman are limited to two per boat -- even if there are twenty people in the boat. How can anybody look at this ridiculous governmental intervention and be surprised that the excess sharks are killing our children? For what it's worth, this legislation was put into place under the regime of Democratic governor Lawton Chiles; incidentally, the Supreme Court of Florida is also controlled by Democrats (this is the same court that tried to steal the state of Florida for Al Gore, who is an admitted environmentalist and probable shark-lover.) It should come as no surprise that these draconian regulations and attacks on personal freedom came as a result of Democratic rule.

This legislation, both at the federal and state level, is complete leftivist horseshit -- I'm afraid there is no more diplomatic way to describe it. Now, the enviro-commies will call me an "Earth-hater", but I tend to be a bit more practical about things. I'm one of these weirdos who thinks that human life is more important than shark life. If I'm given a choice between having a shark on my grill or having it on my jugular, then pass me the salt and give me the goddamned tongs, because we're cooking this son of a bitch. And my Sarah's got an apple pie in the oven for dessert.

Naturally, the usual suspects in Washington, D.C. have been quite silent on this issue. In particular, the silence has been deafening from Tom Daschle, the Majority Leader of the Senate. Daschle is an old-school leftivist and a big advocate of government regulations on wildlife and the environment. Much the same can be said about Richard Gephardt, the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives; Gephardt is one of the most left-leaning congressmen in the history of this nation, and in the wake of all of these shark attacks, the man has blood on his hands. Or is that blood in his jaws?

And what was Terry McAuliffe, head of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) doing at the same time that a man was killed and his girlfriend wounded in a horrific Monday shark attack near Cape Hatteras, North Carolina? He was at a $5,000-a-plate Democratic fundraiser intended to help the Florida gubernatorial campaign of ex-Attorney General Janet Reno. Guess what happens to Florida shark policy if Reno gets elected, friends? That's right .. it gets worse, and more innocent people will be eaten. Remember, this is the same Janet Reno that killed countless children at Waco and sent an innocent young boy away from freedom and into the claws of a bloodthirsty Communist butcher.

Here's an interesting factoid: One of the biggest individual contributors to the DNC is filmmaker Steven Spielberg. Spielberg, as you probably recall, made a little film in 1975 about shark attacks. Jaws went on to be one of the biggest blockbusters in history; in fact, it was just released last year in DVD format to celebrate the film's 25th anniversary. Spielberg probably is making quite a killing (pun intended) off of the latest wave of shark attacks; the media interest and resulting paranoia will obviously cause interest in his movie to increase. You can bet that the Democratic politicians that Spielberg has in his pocket aren't going to be lifting any fishing regulations anytime soon .. not as long as Jaws is still making money, that is.

This much is clear; the recent wave of shark violence is a direct result of the big government policies of the Democratic party and its organizational structure, the DNC. The evidence trail isn't obvious .. it's blatant. If ever there was a case study to demonstrate why government meddling doesn't work, this is it. You know what's funny? The liberals want me (and the rest of White America) to apologize to the blacks for something that happened centuries ago and that we had nothing to do with (slavery), but those same liberals refuse to apologize to shark victims for something that they (the liberals) directly caused. How's that for a double standard?

Nothing that these people do surprises me any more.

One thing is clear: leftivism's body count is quickly becoming incalculable. The type of politics that is practiced by the Democratic party and those loyal to it have resulted in the horrible deaths of countless innocent souls. How many more shark attacks will it take for us to realize that these monsters ought to be removed from offices? How many more Columbines, Wacoes, Ruby Ridges, and Chandra Levies will it take for people to stand up to the DNC's "politically correct" smokescreen and say "enough is enough?" Our founding fathers are turning in their graves as they survey the collectivist dead zone that we're turning this nation into; luckily, we can still stop them if we fight them, and fight them together.


Sarah is a real pretty name. (4.75 / 4) (#3)
by elenchos on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 09:32:17 PM PST
I've always thought so.

For a while there, I was thinking that the always reliable seventypercent had taken a sudden right turn and was attacking progressives! It worries me to see that kind of political shift, especially when it happens in such a short period of time. Often a person in the midst of a personal crisis will display those kinds of symptoms, and drastic actions, even harmful ones, often follow in the wake of these kinds of outbursts. Especially when they are a sudden shift to the right of the political spectrum.

But when I saw how you kept trying to draw attention to Jeb Bush's upcoming defeat to retain the Governorship of Florida, I realized where you were going here. And THEN the kicker at the end sealed it for me: "we can still stop them if we fight them, and fight them together." Emphasis on "together" of course.

Good one.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Beg pardon? (4.25 / 4) (#4)
by seventypercent on Wed Sep 5th, 2001 at 09:49:02 PM PST
Especially when they are a sudden shift to the right of the political spectrum.

When have I been anything but to the right of the political spectrum? I have been both consistently and proudly conservative. If you're accusing me of leftivistism, I'd like to see what your evidence is.

--
Red-blooded patriots do not use Linux.

 
Freedom (2.50 / 4) (#6)
by kenshi on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 12:32:09 AM PST
What this country needs is freedom. For the past few decades it's been headed towards dictatorship fast. Soon we won't be able to legally own guns or speak our mind in public and people will wonder how it ever got that way. It sickens me to see we're becoming everything we've stood against.


Guns are dangerous (4.00 / 4) (#7)
by twodot72 on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 01:30:58 AM PST
Soon we won't be able to legally own guns or speak our mind in public and people will wonder how it ever got that way.
Isn't it pretty obvious why the pro-gun rights people will eventually disappear? Darwin explained this over a century ago: survival of the fittest. In a nation that is not at war, it is simply not a good survival strategy to play with guns. The high rate of "accidents" will ensure that the pro-gun people will soon exterminate themselves.


You're an ignorant idiot (3.00 / 2) (#21)
by Adam Rightmann on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 08:55:51 AM PST
My family owns guns. At least three guns per person (probably skewed upwards even more by my survivalist, dealer license holding uncle with the machine guns). In the decades and decades of owning and using guns, thousands of deer, rabbits, and quail have died, but not one person. Not one person has even been injured by a gun.

If you know how to handle and treat a gun, no unintended injuries or fatalities will occur.

Of course, the liberals and demorcrats would have you believe jsut being within 20 feet of a locked, unloaded gun is a danger. It is with such hysterical propaganda that they will attempt to disarm America, and turn us into sheeple, unable to resists any odious laws government imposes upon us.

Apparently, this is fine, you will welcome your shackles. Not me.


A. Rightmann

Ignorant? Me? (3.66 / 3) (#23)
by twodot72 on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 09:49:17 AM PST
So tell me, how do you expect anyone to take the pro-gun lobby seriously, when they use this totally moronic argument, which they claim proves that physicians are 9000 times more dangerous than gun owners. And it's not even a sick joke, they're dead serious.

The difference between you and me is that when our uncles get old and are suffering from dementia; my uncle won't be carrying a machine gun when he forgets who he is.

Btw, calling me an idiot won't make your morbid hobby the least bit less dangerous. It especially scares the shit out of me when you admit that you fully intend to kill people who disagree with you.


Substitute gun for hammer, or car (3.00 / 2) (#29)
by Adam Rightmann on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 10:49:53 AM PST
to see the foolishness of your argument. Part of being a responsible gun owner, and being responsible to your family, is watching out for them. I would no more allow a senile uncle to have a machine gun than allow my grandmother with macular degenaration a pistol. We don't allow said grandmother to drive, either.




A. Rightmann

Ha! (3.66 / 3) (#30)
by twodot72 on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 11:04:08 AM PST
"Responsible gun owner", now that's a killer oxymoron (pun intended).


gun rights (1.00 / 1) (#55)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Sep 8th, 2001 at 05:11:27 PM PST
Guns are dangerous, and they should be controlled, much like we license car drivers. But to argue that ALL gun owners are idiots is specious. Ive known idiots with guns (shot a jeep with antlers mounted on the front, mistaking it for a deer), but most gun owners are very careful with these dangerous tools. The problem is that it only takes one idiot to do extreme amounts of harm, especially if automatic weapons, or semi-auto with large magazines are involved.

I'm all for gun control, not banning guns. Where I live gun control is quite strong, and enjoys popular support. But a government drive to register ALL existing gun owners run into quite a bit of resistance (it still went forward) as most people argued it was a waste of money that would do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Guns are dangerous and should be tightly regulated, but responsible people should not be kept from owning non-automated long weapons, with limited size magazines.


I applaud you sir, for your voice of sanity (5.00 / 2) (#57)
by Adam Rightmann on Sat Sep 8th, 2001 at 05:33:35 PM PST
relatively untainted by the liberal media.

You may wish to reconsider your opposal to automatic weapons. In the fight against tyranny, our Second Amendment rights are best insured by having access to the same kind of weapons that our potential oppressors have.


A. Rightmann

 
Animal lovers to blame? (2.33 / 3) (#8)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 03:51:22 AM PST
That's quite confusing to me, because I thought the increase in shark attacks was due to to decline in Christian moral values, in this great Christian nation. God is punishing us for not electing Pat Robertson.


Illogical (4.00 / 4) (#11)
by seventypercent on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 06:49:55 AM PST
I thought the increase in shark attacks was due to to decline in Christian moral values

That would only make sense if the victims of these shark attacks were enemies of Christ (i.e., atheists, homosexuals, Catholics, etc.) As it stands, the majority of the people who have been bitten are White Christians. This is inconsistent with the idea of divine vengeance.

--
Red-blooded patriots do not use Linux.

True (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by nx01 on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 06:36:29 PM PST
But what if they were bad Christians, such as Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc...


"Every time I look at the X window system, it's so fucking stupid; and part of me feels responsible for the worst parts of it."
-- James Gosling

 
Sheesh. :) (1.00 / 3) (#16)
by William Jefferson Klinton on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 08:16:08 AM PST
Aww, come on. Next thing we know, you'll actually tell us that smoking pot and
enjoying oral sex is wrong. :)) *wink* :))


-- Amateur politician, liberal, and sex enthusiast. There is no contradiction.

 
Jaws marathon (4.00 / 3) (#9)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 05:01:29 AM PST
Apparently, Mr. Spielberg can see into the future since there was a Jaws movie marathon on TV in NC just before the last attack.

Hey, maybe this is all a big conspiracy and he *planned* it?


Oh come now, don't be naive (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by manifold on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 09:50:34 AM PST
Hey, maybe this is all a big conspiracy and he *planned* it?

Now you're just being foolishly paranoid. Of course Stephen Spielberg didn't plan these shark attacks.

However, the influence that films such as Jaws, The Abyss, Deep Rising, Sphere and Virus has played upon the public perception of the ocean is not to be dismissed, and the links between Hollywood and the military-industrial complex are well documented. It makes you wonder exactly why is it that the Government are trying to spread such fear-mongering memes throughout our population, why it is they want our citizens so afraid of what lies beneath the calm blue ocean.




More than enough naivete to go around (none / 0) (#31)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 11:45:39 AM PST
Now you're just being foolishly paranoid

I'm sorry. I forgot to add my sarcasm HTML tags to that last sentence so the sarcasm impaired could more easily understand.

why it is they want our citizens so afraid of what lies beneath the calm blue ocean?

Then how do you explain Free Willy, Flipper or 60's surfer movies?


Free Willy (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by bc on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 11:56:44 AM PST
Is about a whale. Just an attempt to undermine the USA's economic competitors, Norway and Japan.

As for flipper, I understand dolphin meat is popular in China, so they are just beginning the campaign to destroy their native industries too, and starve their burgeoning populations of protein.


♥, bc.

 
ahah! (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by alprazolam on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 01:03:40 PM PST
Then how do you explain Free Willy, Flipper or 60's surfer movies?

The first two, along with countless others, are subtly trying to convince people that the proper way to enjoy "sea life" is by seeing it at a corporately run aquarium, as opposed to buying beachfront property and claiming rights to the animals that visit. If you need explaining why the government doesn't want private individuals owning coastal property, I have a hunch you aren't reading the right website.

Surfer movies can be directly linked to post traumatic stress syndrome and other War related brain deficiencies.


I was going to ask (none / 0) (#37)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 01:40:30 PM PST
what why the government doesn't want private individuals owning coastal property means, but then I thought that it would be best for you to keep your paranoia to yourself.


 
actually, you may have done (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by jsm on Fri Sep 7th, 2001 at 05:26:18 AM PST
<SARCASM> is not one of the permitted HTML tags on adequacy; they are automatically stripped out by the filters.

... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors
... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

 
Hrm. (none / 0) (#39)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 07:07:01 PM PST
My guess would be an enormous pyramid with a glowing red eye. But maybe that's just me.


 
blame electricity (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by motherfuckin spork on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 06:02:11 AM PST
it is well known that sharks are keenly attuned to electrical impulses, be those of nerves telling a muscle to contract, or those of a sporty underwater wrist-watch or a someone's PDA with wireless internet on the shore.

It is a simple matter of human interference with the shark's ability to detect a fish's movement. We must lobby to have all electrical devices banned from use on or near the oceans. It is the only way to keep both us and the sharks safe.


I am not who you think I am.

 
I blame fishermen (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by westgeof on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 07:03:50 AM PST
We're overfishing the waters, pure and simple. The sharks have to eat something, and if we eliminate their natural prey, they will just have to find something else. The poor guy was just hungry, not evil....

[rant on]
Of course I find it silly that people are talking about this like it's a big deal. The reason you hear about a shark attack everytime you turn on the tv (a tool of the devil if there ever was one,) is because they keep going over and over and over and over and over the same one. The coverage on the little boy in VA beach (30 miles from here, in fact) really sickens me. It's terrible how badly they've commercialized their son's death. I'm tempted to go on a killing spree to give the reporters something else to cover. Even if you spend all day in the water, you're still more likely to spontaneously combust than be eaten by sharks. (mild exaggeration, I know, but there are so many other things that are more dangerous and more likely. )

Which brings me to the core of my rant. People are now afraid of sharks simply because the media said 'Sharks will kill you. Don't go in the water. Obey us. Sharks will kill you....etc.' They decide what they want us to think, and then look for stories to emphasize it. Everyone thinks it must be a real problem if it's on every channel, but you've got to remember that's just how they work. Hell, where I am there was an arson attack at a local high school. The reporting? "Attempted arson at school, but back to the shark story"

"Film at 11, Leftist Propoganda at 11:01"

[rant off]

As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

Fishermen have to make a living too (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by seventypercent on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 07:26:42 AM PST
We're overfishing the waters, pure and simple. The sharks have to eat something, and if we eliminate their natural prey, they will just have to find something else. The poor guy was just hungry, not evil....

The problem is not overfishing. Fishermen are people too, and they (like a lot of people) have families to feed. In addition, they often have dogs, kittens, etc. to take care of as well. I don't know what you're advocating by suggesting that their livelihood be taken away from them, but I will say this: This is not Europe. The last thing that we need is a bunch of mile-long bread lines and burning trash barrels marring our cities.

No, the problem is not overfishing; if anything, it is underfishing. The problems that you mention relating to the dietary needs of sharks would not exist if the liberals allowed fishermen to fish for sharks! When you consider the current liberal policy that allows fishermen to yank metric tons of everything except sharks, it's no wonder that there is such an imbalance. Let the fishermen equally fish for everything; this is an effective way to guarantee that the existing ecological balance is maintained, and that sharks do not have to wander into bathing areas to feast on human beings when they could be munching on their natural prey.

Of course, the enviro-commies will start throwing around phrases like "endangered species" and "extinction", but come on .. how stupid do they think we are? How many shark attacks are there on innocent people each day? These animals certainly don't seem to be "endangered" to me. Honestly, even if we were to somehow wipe out the entire specifies, if God was such a big fan of these animals He couid just make some more of them. Nobody has died or been seriously injured by the fact that there are no more dodo birds or passenger pigeons. There's no reason to assume it would be any different for sharks, which are viscious and unredeeming predators.

--
Red-blooded patriots do not use Linux.

Taste like chicken (none / 0) (#17)
by westgeof on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 08:39:10 AM PST
Sorry, didn't mean to speak against fishermen. I really did mean fishing, not fishermen. Your solution sounds great to me. After all, the sharks like to eat us, so why not return the favor? I hear it tastes pretty good.


As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

actually (none / 0) (#18)
by motherfuckin spork on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 08:42:40 AM PST
I've been told shark tastes like crap - not litterally, mind you, but shark meat is not very tender and the flavor is fairly nasty.

But, as seeing how I despise seafood, I'm probably slightly biased.


I am not who you think I am.

Don't tell the UKians (none / 0) (#19)
by Adam Rightmann on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 08:48:21 AM PST
for apparently there national dish, fish and chips, is typically made with dogfish, which is a kind of shark.

Say what you want about those British folk, but they are refreshingly free of any kind of sentiment towards lesser life forms.


A. Rightmann

 
Shark fin (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by specom on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 09:08:48 AM PST
The fin makes tasty soup. Throw the rest away. Unless you want to start a quack remedy company, then save the cartilage.


Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

 
Skinny europeans (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by twodot72 on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 08:50:16 AM PST
This is not Europe. The last thing that we need is a bunch of mile-long bread lines and burning trash barrels marring our cities.
It never occured to me before, but in Europe people starve to death, while in the US people die of obesity. This is probably why Europe don't have a shark problem. Europeans are too skinny and tasteless!


Good point (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by westgeof on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 10:29:40 AM PST
After all, the attack that's been getting most of the press around here was on a pudgy little boy. Although I'm guessing he was pretty short (he's only 10 after all) he sure had some meat on them bones...

Of course that's another reason I haven't been to worried about getting in the water. After all, the shark is probably full right now, so it should be safe for a few days still.


As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

 
over fishing (1.00 / 1) (#54)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Sep 8th, 2001 at 04:59:18 PM PST
Are you insane! You truly think that more fishing is required? And what will all these fishermen catch once all the fish are gone?

Only 400 years ago the Grand Banks had so many fish (cod) that you could lower a basket into the water, and pull it out full. Now there is not enough cod to support a commercial fishery. Fisherman have every right to fish, but it is short sighted to have so many fishermen, using such efficient means that you catch so many fish that they can not replenish themselves. Would you tell a rancher having a hard year to slaughter all his cattle, thus ensuring the end of his business?

Shark attacks are DOWN, world-wide, compared to last year. The only difference is that photogenic american children were bitten instead of smarmy surf bums.


 
Too true (3.66 / 3) (#13)
by Adam Rightmann on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 07:23:33 AM PST
like the Communists in Russia, the Democrats won't be happy until every last private fisherman is ruined, and there are no more sea-worthy boats in private hands. It's all about control, masquerading as earth-friendliness.


A. Rightmann

Hey, back off there. (1.00 / 2) (#15)
by William Jefferson Klinton on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 07:55:23 AM PST
I don't see anything wrong with Communism.
I've been to Russia in the swingin' 60's,
(while evading the draft :)) and it seems to
me like a really nice place. The people there
seemed really tolerant, and laid-back.
I think our nation really has something to
learn from those "communists", as you call
them.


-- Amateur politician, liberal, and sex enthusiast. There is no contradiction.

 
It's the media, stupid (none / 0) (#26)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 10:31:33 AM PST
Sorry to interrupt the hysteriapalooza that is going on here about the "exponential" rise in shark attacks, but I've got bad news for you. According to this story at Discovery.com this is not out of the ordinary for normal years. To shamelessly pull a direct quote:
"Worldwide, 48 attacks had been recorded, with 37 of those reported in the United States and 28 of those in Florida. That compares to 84 recorded worldwide last year, including 53 in the United States and 37 of those in Florida."
I'll shorten it for you: the only thing out of the ordinary with this years shark attack numbers is the sensationalistic coverage of The Media�. You can come out of your houses, folks. The sky is certainly not falling and the sharks are not out to get you.


Damnit (none / 0) (#28)
by Harvey Fish on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 10:43:25 AM PST
I'll get the hang of this someday.


Hmm... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by elby on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 12:10:22 PM PST
You should be able to login and just stay logged in. Are you having problems with that?

-lb


Browser problem (none / 0) (#35)
by Harvey Fish on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 01:12:01 PM PST
I wasn't logged in, but I was using my login and password on the posting page. When I went to preview the password disappeared. That was the first screwup. My fault, but it'd be cool if the password carried over to preview (unless it was the wrong password, which might be the case). The second screwup was when I didn't type in a correct password, again on the posting page. Instead of warning me it just AR'ed me. Again my fault, but it would be cool if the code came back with user name filled in and comments still filled in with a "Wrong password, moron" warning. I found a clue laying in my desk drawer and used it to log in on the main page.


alright.. (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by elby on Thu Sep 6th, 2001 at 01:14:00 PM PST
I wanted to make sure people weren't having login problems again. Some of the posting stuff is a bit clunky, but logging in on the front page is the best way to use the site, definitely.

-lb


 
imagine (none / 0) (#40)
by Nobody on Fri Sep 7th, 2001 at 03:27:31 AM PST
Imagine if the situation was reversed. The sharks have hunted mankind within a gnat's genitals of extinction ... I can hardly imagine them holding a conference to debate the ethics of finishing us off! "We'll spare the last few poor little humans. Ah bless 'em, they're only doing what they have to [hunting sharks for food]."

Species come, species go - it's nature. All I can say is, if the evil ones with great big teeth go, all the better. :-)


 
Are you stupid, is that your problem? (1.66 / 3) (#42)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 7th, 2001 at 07:08:23 AM PST
Friends, welcome to the Summer of the Shark.

Welcome to summer in September? Just setting the moronic tone the rest of the article follows I suppose.

If you've paid any attention at all to the news this summer, you know one thing: shark attacks against innocent bathers have risen exponentially.

Of course, if you actually pay attention to the numbers and don't slavishly believe every line of shit Fox News spits out at you, you would realise this is a bald faced lie.

These days, you can't turn on your television set without being treated to the graphic details of the latest violent shark incident.

I most certainly can.

Recent years have been comparatively quiet on this front .. so why are these attacks on the rise?

They aren't. We're below average for those comparitively quiet recent years. Are you really such a drone as to not do ANY research of your own? Or do you blindly believe anything the news tells you?

What (or who) is to blame?

Easy, people swimming in the ocean. Duh.

Regular Adequacy readers will not be surprised by the answer.

Finally an acurate statement! Congratulations.

Since your entire argument is based on an incorrect assumption, it's all pure-a horseshit.

Regular Adequacy readers are not surprised by the hyper-typical crypto-fascist drivel spewed here.


Yeesh (3.66 / 3) (#43)
by seventypercent on Fri Sep 7th, 2001 at 08:21:01 AM PST
Welcome to summer in September? Just setting the moronic tone the rest of the article follows I suppose.

The autumnal equinox isn't until September 22, you bumbling, collectivist boob. Oops .. how embarassing for you. :-)

Of course, if you actually pay attention to the numbers and don't slavishly believe every line of shit Fox News spits out at you, you would realise this is a bald faced lie.

Is that so? Where are these numbers that you so worship? The only other respondent to this article to make the same claim pointed me to the "Discovery Channel." If that is the best that you can do, then it does my heart good since it demonstrates that leftivistism is dying in this nation. It is going the way of the dodo. It used to be that you people could call up the editor of any major newspaper in the country to get some propaganda printed; the fact that you are now limited to the "Discovery Channel" is evidence that the recent efforts by the moral community to take back the media are, in fact, working. Once again .. how embarassing for you! :-)

I most certainly can.

This is understandable since it appears that you get your knowledge of current events from the "Cartoon Network."

Easy, people swimming in the ocean. Duh.

Nope. Big-government leftivists such as yourself are to blame. If the regulations weren't in place, the sharks wouldn't be attacking people. The deaths of innocent people are your fault. The sad thing is this: if the sharks were attacking Blacks or homosexuals, you liberals would be screaming bloody murder about how we need to pass "hate attack" laws and start rounding up the sharks. But since they are only attacking White Christians, liberals don't seem to care too much about it. This reveals your true agenda.

How utterly embarassing for you!

--
Red-blooded patriots do not use Linux.

I'd rather be in the water (3.00 / 1) (#44)
by westgeof on Fri Sep 7th, 2001 at 08:46:57 AM PST
Than endure such blind vicious hate.

You were right about the equinox, so naturally I thought you might be worth listening to. I guess I should have known better.

Do you really believe that shark attacks are on the rise just because the media says so? I sincerely hope you are not the type of person who lets them do the "research" for you. You seem to be railing against the liberals in the last paragraph, but here you are supporting them and their propoganda machine.

Again, your suggestion that the only way to avoid brainwashing by the liberal slavers is by watching "Cartoon network" saddens me. There are other channels there that don't constantly spew what they want us to believe. I don't watch tv myself anymore, I find it rather dull and repetitive, but from what I've seen there still is hope.

Fortunately you closed with a more sound principle. I personally am not racist and have no problems around homosexuals, but I detest all these laws out there to protect them. If they were truly unable to protect themselves I'd feel different, but the plain fact is that the liberals simply want to bring everyone down to the same low standard. I say let Darwin reign.


As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

Cartoon Network == COMMUNISM (4.00 / 1) (#50)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 7th, 2001 at 10:34:59 PM PST
From the communistivistic Smurfs to the "let's have a gay old time" Flintstones, the Cartoon Network is nothing but a bastion of liberalistivistic indoctrination. No sir, I'm keeping my children as far away from that irresponsible antimoralivisticismaticism as humanly or divinely possibly.


Please good sir, sign up! (4.00 / 2) (#56)
by Adam Rightmann on Sat Sep 8th, 2001 at 05:30:32 PM PST
Adequacy needs more right thinking men who are not brainwashed about the dangers of the liberal secular humanist media. Sometimes I feel like a voice in the wilderness, crying about the pro-drug, pro gay and lesbian, anti-capitalist nature of cartoons like Scooby Doo (Shaggy = drug user, Velma = lesbian, Fred = gay, villian = typical Capitalist), but one when person responds with similar observations, it heartens me.

Of course, if you live in a socialist hell hole like Europe, I can understand a ned for secrecy, at least until the time is right.


A. Rightmann

No way! (5.00 / 2) (#59)
by iat on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 01:36:27 AM PST
Fred = gay

Although the sexuality of young man who chooses to wear a cravat must be treated with some suspicion, it is obvious that Fred was as heterosexual as you or I. It is well-known that the sexual tension that existed between Fred and Daphne as they solved mysteries was the inspiration for the X-Files.


Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

Heh (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 10th, 2001 at 09:10:44 AM PST
...it is obvious that Fred was as heterosexual as you or I...

Well that sure clarifies things.


 
Do some research (2.33 / 3) (#45)
by Harvey Fish on Fri Sep 7th, 2001 at 10:11:55 AM PST
I have a feeling that you get some sort of sexual gratification for getting your articles on the front page of this website, seventypercent. You churn them out so quickly that you fail to get any numbers to back yourself up. Maybe you do this because actual facts will blow your story out of the water, because your diatribes are based upon hysteria and not statistics.

I referenced Discovery Channel Online last post because it was the one that I had just read recently. My hopes were that you would use that opportunity to do some research and find out that your paranoid ramblings were unfounded. Silly me to think that a major character flaw would be aligned that easily.

First off I'll link to The Washington Post where they quote someone from The Mote Marine Laboratory stating quite plainly that there is nothing unusual about this years shark attack numbers compared to previous years attack numbers. The numbers up through 1999 can be found at the International Shark Attack website. They've been trending upwards since numbers started being kept due to increased populations of people using shark-infested waters as swimming holes, as well as better reporting numbers.

What more proof do you need? There is no rampage of shark attacks going on right now. There is only a rampage by the media to cover them.

There. I've backed up my information with facts and figures. All you have provided are unrelated links and anecdotes without any proof in this so-called increase in shark attacks. If you want to spew your shit about your right-wing agenda do NOT try and mask it under the pretense of a non-existant crisis. All you are doing is making yourself look like an uneducated troll.


 
Gimme an M! Gimme an O! Gimme an R.... (1.00 / 2) (#46)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 7th, 2001 at 11:27:56 AM PST
The autumnal equinox isn't until September 22, you bumbling, collectivist boob. Oops .. how embarassing for you.

Do you welcome people to your house 5 minutes before they leave? You see, the word "welcome" is traditionaly used at the begining of an event, not most of the way through it. If need be I might be able to use smaller words to explain that to you. Grunt twice if you need me to do so.

Now onto the (lack of) meat of your argument:

The yearly total of 79 unprovoked attacks was the largest tally since the ISAF began recording such statistics in 1958. By comparison, 58 unprovoked attacks were recorded in 1999 and the yearly average during the decade of the 1990's was 54. Since the late 1980's, the number of unprovoked shark attacks has grown at a steady rate, rising from 38 in 1988 to all-time highs of 62 in 1994 and 74 in 1995. Overall, the 1990's had the highest number of attacks (536) of any previous decade, continuing an upward trend exhibited throughout the twentieth century.

-Year 2000 stats from the International Shark Attack File at The University of Florida's Icthyology dept.

That would be the FIRST RETURN from Google. According to this article at CNN the total so far this year is 52. Now I'll leave it to you to look up "exponential" and so discover what a complete and utter fucking moron you are showing yourself to be (look up "research" and "context" while you are at it). How embarising for you... no probably not, you dirt stupid psuedo-fascists haven't a shred of dignity to begin with.




I have to say (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by seventypercent on Fri Sep 7th, 2001 at 03:24:26 PM PST
This is among the most hateful things I have ever read on Adequacy. It's obvious you didn't even read my article; if you had, you wouldn't have offered up these ridiculous statistics. The whole gist of the article is that leftivist regulations from the state of Florida are preventing moral fishermen from keeping the shark population down. You claim that shark attacks are in fact down this year, and you back it up with statistics from the University of Florida. These are the same people that caused these problems in the first place!

Are you normally this gullible?

I won't even touch the article that you linked from Clinton News Network (CNN.) If you're unaware that CNN is the biggest mouthpiece in existence for the liberal anti-religious left, then I can do nothing further to help you. I would say that life is a lot more worthwhile if you learn to stop hating and start living. CNN is a network founded on hate, and so are its viewers.

--
Red-blooded patriots do not use Linux.

Where are your facts? (1.50 / 2) (#49)
by Harvey Fish on Fri Sep 7th, 2001 at 09:05:50 PM PST
You keep avoiding this. Where are your facts showing that there are more shark attacks this year than last? Where? What? You don't HAVE ANY? Then shut up.

The sharks are there because it is their feeding grounds. It has been for thousands of years. For some reason tourists think that it is safe to swim there. ***NEWS FLASH*** It is NOT! Of course, more people die of bee stings or drownings than shark attacks every year. Maybe we should go and eradicate bees. Or even water, cuz that stuff ain't safe ya know!

So why, you ask, is the conservative right so concerned about the shark attacks? Money. All those oceanside hotels want the waters to be artificially safe, so they want you to believe that the shark population is out of control. They want you to believe this so that they can go on killing the sharks again, because even though the sharks have been there for thousands and thousands of years they feel that the shark is trespassing on their revenue source.

Sorry, that doesn't hold water. If you don't want to be bit by sharks, stay out of shark water. It's really that simple.


Where are YOURS? (5.00 / 3) (#53)
by seventypercent on Sat Sep 8th, 2001 at 08:37:40 AM PST
You are the one making the positive assertion here (that liberalistic policies have not increased the number of people eaten by sharks), not I. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you. Why should I have to provide evidence of something that is intuitively obvious?

With regards to your "stay out of the shark water" crack, I'd say that you're coming dangerously close to hatred here. This type of humanist, feel-good "live and let live" attitude might float your boat, but as a member of the moral community I am bound by a different set of principles. My principles include the fact that we (humans) are created beings with dominion over the animals and the Earth that we live on. That includes dominion over all animals and all the Earth, not "most" of it. I realize that many people reject these basic principles, but when it comes time to pay the piper, that will be your problem .. not mine.

--
Red-blooded patriots do not use Linux.

Don't look TOO far down (1.50 / 2) (#60)
by Harvey Fish on Sun Sep 9th, 2001 at 08:30:21 PM PST
I've already shown you my facts provided by shark attack experts. That's right, it is their job to track these things. They are an internationally-respected institution, so this is my proof. They are numbers. Stastistics. You cannot bend those figures any other way. They are confirmed attacks.

You have provided nothing except paranoia, hysteria, and rhetoric. Until you can provide hard numbers from any reasonably-respected source you will be considered a panic-monger and not anything close to the journalist you pretend yourself to be.


 
And an O and an N... (2.00 / 4) (#62)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 10th, 2001 at 06:42:20 AM PST
This is among the most hateful things I have ever read on Adequacy.

Awwww, did I hurt your wittle feelings? Perhaps I should have flung unsubstantiatable accusations of murder instead? You deserve more scorn than I could ever hope to heap upon you.

It's obvious you didn't even read my article; if you had, you wouldn't have offered up these ridiculous statistics

No, if I had signed on to your insane neofascist ideology I wouldn't have offered any statistics since good information is the mortal enemy of lines of bullshit like yours.

The whole gist of the article is that leftivist regulations from the state of Florida are preventing moral fishermen from keeping the shark population down.

And the statistics prove you wrong. W-R-O-N-G.

You claim that shark attacks are in fact down this year, and you back it up with statistics from the University of Florida.

Attack the messenger, typical response from the mentally feeble right. C'mon Herr Goering, show some counter statistics.

These are the same people that caused these problems in the first place!

Says you, show some numbers. Otherwise shut your filth spewing trap.

Are you normally this gullible?

Are you normally this dense?

I won't even touch the article that you linked from Clinton News Network (CNN.)

Keep attacking that messenger.

If you're unaware that CNN is the biggest mouthpiece in existence for the liberal anti-religious left, then I can do nothing further to help you.

Help me? Oh please, slap those blinders on me jackboot boy. If you think CNN (The network that recently met with congressional republicans in order to cater to them better) is liberal it just shows what a fucking dolt you continue to be.

I would say that life is a lot more worthwhile if you learn to stop hating and start living.

Who's throwing accusations of complicity in murder around? How can you be so blind to your own hate? I'm not, so stop yanking my lariat.

CNN is a network founded on hate, and so are its viewers.

I can only laugh at the..uh, hate in this phrase. Pot, kettle, black.


 
The official Libertarian response. (5.00 / 2) (#48)
by Craig McPherson on Fri Sep 7th, 2001 at 03:40:18 PM PST
I was going to write a response to this article dealing with the real reason shark attacks have reached an epidemic, but today I got word from my good friend Steve Dasbach (a national directory of the Libertarian Party, and a sometime reader of Adequacy, I might add) that he's beaten me to the punch. Here's what he has to say about the issue, from an op-ed piece he wrote recently.

Here's some advice for Americans who are shocked, horrified -- and perhaps even a bit puzzled -- by the recent surge of shark attacks along the East Coast: Don't blame the sharks. Blame the government.

That's right. The government.

Back in 1993, federal employees (with the best of intentions) decided to protect sharks from commercial fishermen. The results have been deadly for humans.

That year, in response to claims by some interest groups that sharks were an endangered species, the federal government began managing the US commercial shark fishery. To increase their number, it shortened the commercial shark-fishing season, slashed the number of commercial shark-fishing permits by 90 percent, and declared some sharks off lmits.

At about the same time, state officials in Florida -- where the majoirty of shark attacks occur - launched a similar program. They instituted a strict one-shark-per-person fishing limit and banned two common fishing techniques within 3 miles of the shore, in effect creating a shark "sanctuary" near beaches.

The result? The shark population has increased dramaticaly. In fact, an average of 237,000 fewer sharks are caught annually now than in 1993, acording to government statistics.

At the same time, the number of shark attacks has increased dramatically. Nationwide, the number of attacks off US coasts jumped to 51 last year -- up from only 21 in 1993, according to the International Shark Attack File at the Florida Museum of Naural History.

And in Florida, the state where most shark attacks occur, the number of sharck attack victims rose by an astounding 325 percent, to 34 last year. In fact, so many swimmers have been terrorized over the past few months that Time magazine has labeled this "Season of the Shark."

Over the Labor Day weekend alone, two peole were killed by sharks. A 28-year-old Russian man was killed as he and his girlfriend swam in shallow water off the North Carolina coast, and a 10-year-old boy suffered fatal injuries when a 7-foot shark savaged him as he surfed with his father near Virginia Beach. In one especially horiffic case in July, a bull shark tore the arm off an 8-year-old Mississippi boy who was swimming near Pensacola, Fla.

While it is impossible to say with 100 percent certainty that the shark-stock rebuilding program directly caused those attacks, it's plausible that the two are connected.

On one hand, hundreds of thousands of additional federally protected sharks are swimming around off the US coastline. On the other hand, there has been a shark rise in the number of shark attacks. You don't have to be a marine biologist to figure out that more sharks are going to lead to more shark attacks.

Tragically, the government didn't figure that out before plunging ahead with a a program designed to increase the shark population.

That's why the shark-stock rebuilding program illustrates perfectly the Law of Unintended Conequences: Politicians pass a law to "solve" on problem, and unwittingly cause another problem -- frequently worse than the original one.

For example, welfare programs intended to alleviate poverty end up getting poor people addicted to government handouts. Minimum wage laws designed to help the poor find good-pyaing jobs end up causing unemployment. And federal mandates forcing employers to provide medical care end up increasing heachcare costs and cauing employers to drop coverage.

So why should we be surprised that a program designed to protect sharks also has an unintended consequence -- jeapardizing the lives of swimmers?

The real surprise would be if politicians started honestly informing us of the potenial adverse effects of their programs, as well as the benefits. But doing that would jeapordize those very programs, along with the votes, the campaign contributions, and the re-elections that come along with them.

That's why politicians work so hard to extol the benefits of their programs, while concealing their true costs.

After all, it's easy to win the public approval for protcting an "endangered species." Yet by doing so, unthinking politicians have endangered another, much more precious species: human beings.

So the next time some politician praises the virtues of his pet program, remind him about the federal shark-stock rebuilding project.

And try to imagine what the real consequences might be.

~Steve Dasbach
As usual, Steve has his finger right on the pulse of the issue.


--
If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

The (un)official gonzo response (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 10th, 2001 at 01:33:45 PM PST
As usual, Steve has his finger right on the pulse of the issue.

Sure about that? That would require said finger being removed from his ass.


 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.