pokerfied.com
Promoting poker discussions.

Main
Date: 14 Dec 2008 22:12:18
From: Bill T
Subject: babies with tin-foil hats
If anyone still cares:

I checked around, and apparently no state (that I know of) get baby
footprints for its official birth records. If I am mistaken, let me know.

A newborn's foot or finger ridges/whorls are pretty subtle and unlikely
to be captured by ink imprints. They are considered to be useless for
ID and have been rejected by both the national pediatric and obstetric
bodies 10 years ago.

You can still get your new baby's footprint enshrined by private
parties, for oh-so-cute purposes, or for oh-so-paranoid schemes.

Thanks, folks, for wasting my time. Obama's baby footprints - fuck, yeah.









 
Date: 16 Dec 2008 20:22:37
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
"Bill T"

> If anyone still cares:
>
> I checked around, and apparently no state (that I know of) get baby
> footprints for its official birth records. If I am mistaken, let me know.
>
> A newborn's foot or finger ridges/whorls are pretty subtle and unlikely to
> be captured by ink imprints. They are considered to be useless for ID
> and have been rejected by both the national pediatric and obstetric bodies
> 10 years ago.

You apparently did not check very well.

"As for actual birth certificates, I've got mine. It's 58 years old, has
both my footprints on it, my mother's fingerprint, my weight and length at
birth, time of birth, my parents' names and address, the name and signature
of the attending doctor, and a gold seal with "Garfield Hospital" (a
long-gone Washington, D.C. , facility) affixed in one corner. It even
specifies the room it took place in. There's no mistaking it for the
photocopied "Certificate of Live Birth", which I also have from D.C. records
issued to me some years ago for a passport. There's only one original birth
certificate, and anything else is a derivative of it."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/08/birth-of-a-president/



269 Carol Goodwin // Nov 22, 2008 at 4:01 pm

If he has no legitimate birth certificate, I guess he doesn't have a drivers
license, either. You have to have a birth certificate in order to get the
DL. Or whenever he got his license, did someone make an exception? I guess
we can recall him from his 'elected' post if it turns out he was born in
Kenya.
The simple question is why won't he provide a bonafide U.S. birth
certificate?? It's something of which I am very proud! I have one from the
hospital where I was born that has my footprints on it. I also have the one
from my state capital, Austin that is the only one recognized as official,
which is confusing to me because, it doesn't have a finger print or a foot
print. (???)
I know that at least, in Texas, anyone can check out birth records of those
born here.

http://www.conservablogs.com/velvethammer/2008/03/05/wanted-barack-hussein-obamas-birth-certificate/



There are lots more, of course. Does not prove anything except that the
hospital where Obama was born likely has a certificate of live birth that
has his footprints and his mother's fingerprints. If he was born in a
hospital in Hawai'i. I think he was, I wonder why all the problem.










  
Date: 16 Dec 2008 19:05:51
From: Bill T
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On 12/16/2008 18:22, da pickle wrote:

>
> You apparently did not check very well.


As I clarified to another poster, I don't think *current* practice is to
get footprints. I also said that I do not know what they did in Hawaii
45 years ago.

I've already stated the reasons why states and hospitals stopped getting
baby footprints. I have never seen a baby footprint record, so please
enlighten me: on your record, can you actually see the individual
ridges and depressions on individual digits which made up a finger/foot
print?

The medical consensus is that neonatal inked footprints are useless for
identification.

I never had to show my birth record to get a driver's licence. Even if
Obama had to do so, he would've done it with the "short-form" one
already shown on the Internet - i.e., a "bona fide US birth certificate".

You say that even Texas doesn't require you to produce your footprints.

Oh wait, you are the fake Pickle, right? Never mind.







 
Date: 15 Dec 2008 13:59:23
From: La Cosa Nostradamus
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On Dec 15 2008 1:12 AM, Bill T wrote:

> If anyone still cares:
>
> I checked around, and apparently no state (that I know of) get baby
> footprints for its official birth records. If I am mistaken, let me know.
>
> A newborn's foot or finger ridges/whorls are pretty subtle and unlikely
> to be captured by ink imprints. They are considered to be useless for
> ID and have been rejected by both the national pediatric and obstetric
> bodies 10 years ago.
>
> You can still get your new baby's footprint enshrined by private
> parties, for oh-so-cute purposes, or for oh-so-paranoid schemes.
>
> Thanks, folks, for wasting my time. Obama's baby footprints - fuck, yeah.


Just abort them

--- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



  
Date: 15 Dec 2008 16:29:34
From: mccard
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats

"La Cosa Nostradamus" <a6f44ce@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:ri0j16xad1.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Dec 15 2008 1:12 AM, Bill T wrote:
>
>> If anyone still cares:
>>
>> I checked around, and apparently no state (that I know of) get baby
>> footprints for its official birth records. If I am mistaken, let me
>> know.
>>
>> A newborn's foot or finger ridges/whorls are pretty subtle and unlikely
>> to be captured by ink imprints. They are considered to be useless for
>> ID and have been rejected by both the national pediatric and obstetric
>> bodies 10 years ago.
>>
>> You can still get your new baby's footprint enshrined by private
>> parties, for oh-so-cute purposes, or for oh-so-paranoid schemes.
>>
>> Thanks, folks, for wasting my time. Obama's baby footprints - fuck,
>> yeah.
>
>
> Just abort them
>
Look a pro-abortionist.



 
Date: 15 Dec 2008 10:20:17
From: brewmaster
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On Dec 14 2008 10:12 PM, Bill T wrote:

> If anyone still cares:
>
> I checked around, and apparently no state (that I know of) get baby
> footprints for its official birth records. If I am mistaken, let me know.
>
> A newborn's foot or finger ridges/whorls are pretty subtle and unlikely
> to be captured by ink imprints. They are considered to be useless for
> ID and have been rejected by both the national pediatric and obstetric
> bodies 10 years ago.
>
> You can still get your new baby's footprint enshrined by private
> parties, for oh-so-cute purposes, or for oh-so-paranoid schemes.
>
> Thanks, folks, for wasting my time. Obama's baby footprints - fuck, yeah.

It is time to start dna fingerprinting every baby born in the U.S., and
taking a dna sample of every person coming to this country legally (and
also the illegals when they are caught) and that info should be recorded
in a national database accessible by all law enforcement agencies.

Brew
--
Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk

_____________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



  
Date: 15 Dec 2008 16:04:09
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:20:17 -0800, "brewmaster"
<a163b@webnntp.invalid > wrote:

>On Dec 14 2008 10:12 PM, Bill T wrote:
>
>> If anyone still cares:
>>
>> I checked around, and apparently no state (that I know of) get baby
>> footprints for its official birth records. If I am mistaken, let me know.
>>
>> A newborn's foot or finger ridges/whorls are pretty subtle and unlikely
>> to be captured by ink imprints. They are considered to be useless for
>> ID and have been rejected by both the national pediatric and obstetric
>> bodies 10 years ago.
>>
>> You can still get your new baby's footprint enshrined by private
>> parties, for oh-so-cute purposes, or for oh-so-paranoid schemes.
>>
>> Thanks, folks, for wasting my time. Obama's baby footprints - fuck, yeah.
>
>It is time to start dna fingerprinting every baby born in the U.S., and
>taking a dna sample of every person coming to this country legally (and
>also the illegals when they are caught) and that info should be recorded
>in a national database accessible by all law enforcement agencies.
>
>Brew

Zeig Heil!


   
Date: 15 Dec 2008 17:56:39
From: brewmaster
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On Dec 15 2008 4:04 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:20:17 -0800, "brewmaster"
> <a163b@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 14 2008 10:12 PM, Bill T wrote:
> >
> >> If anyone still cares:
> >>
> >> I checked around, and apparently no state (that I know of) get baby
> >> footprints for its official birth records. If I am mistaken, let me know.
> >>
> >> A newborn's foot or finger ridges/whorls are pretty subtle and unlikely
> >> to be captured by ink imprints. They are considered to be useless for
> >> ID and have been rejected by both the national pediatric and obstetric
> >> bodies 10 years ago.
> >>
> >> You can still get your new baby's footprint enshrined by private
> >> parties, for oh-so-cute purposes, or for oh-so-paranoid schemes.
> >>
> >> Thanks, folks, for wasting my time. Obama's baby footprints - fuck, yeah.
> >
> >It is time to start dna fingerprinting every baby born in the U.S., and
> >taking a dna sample of every person coming to this country legally (and
> >also the illegals when they are caught) and that info should be recorded
> >in a national database accessible by all law enforcement agencies.
> >
> >Brew
>
> Zeig Heil!

Explain to me how having everyone DNA fingerprinted will in any way
infringe someone's civil rights? I mean, it will greatly cut down on the
number of wrongfully imprisoned and will greatly shorten the amount of
time required to solve many rapes and murders. How would it harm you? We
aren't talking about tattoos or implanted tracking devices. If you don't
leave your DNA at the scene of a crime, then you have nothing to worry
about, right?



Brew
--
Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk

_____________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



    
Date: 16 Dec 2008 17:38:05
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On Dec 15 2008 8:56 PM, brewmaster wrote:

Heil!
>
> Explain to me how having everyone DNA fingerprinted will in any way
> infringe someone's civil rights? I mean, it will greatly cut down on the
> number of wrongfully imprisoned and will greatly shorten the amount of
> time required to solve many rapes and murders. How would it harm you? We
> aren't talking about tattoos or implanted tracking devices. If you don't
> leave your DNA at the scene of a crime, then you have nothing to worry
> about, right?
>


Random testing doesn't give the same results as testing with cause. The
kind of data base you7 suggest encourages random testing which will tend
to increase the number of wrongfully imprisoned.

If a search on bayes theorem and dna tests doesn't explain it to you then
just try bayes and drug testing or bayes and medical screening.

----- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




    
Date: 16 Dec 2008 14:01:30
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On Dec 15 2008 8:56 PM, brewmaster wrote:

> On Dec 15 2008 4:04 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:20:17 -0800, "brewmaster"
> > <a163b@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >On Dec 14 2008 10:12 PM, Bill T wrote:
> > >
> > >> If anyone still cares:
> > >>
> > >> I checked around, and apparently no state (that I know of) get baby
> > >> footprints for its official birth records. If I am mistaken, let me
know.
> > >>
> > >> A newborn's foot or finger ridges/whorls are pretty subtle and unlikely
> > >> to be captured by ink imprints. They are considered to be useless for
> > >> ID and have been rejected by both the national pediatric and obstetric
> > >> bodies 10 years ago.
> > >>
> > >> You can still get your new baby's footprint enshrined by private
> > >> parties, for oh-so-cute purposes, or for oh-so-paranoid schemes.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks, folks, for wasting my time. Obama's baby footprints - fuck,
yeah.
> > >
> > >It is time to start dna fingerprinting every baby born in the U.S., and
> > >taking a dna sample of every person coming to this country legally (and
> > >also the illegals when they are caught) and that info should be recorded
> > >in a national database accessible by all law enforcement agencies.
> > >
> > >Brew
> >
> > Zeig Heil!
>
> Explain to me how having everyone DNA fingerprinted will in any way
> infringe someone's civil rights? I mean, it will greatly cut down on the
> number of wrongfully imprisoned and will greatly shorten the amount of
> time required to solve many rapes and murders. How would it harm you? We
> aren't talking about tattoos or implanted tracking devices. If you don't
> leave your DNA at the scene of a crime, then you have nothing to worry
> about, right?
>
> Brew

Wow. And if you're not Jewish, you have nothing to worry about from
Hitler either.

Fell
--
Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!

______________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



    
Date: 16 Dec 2008 00:55:22
From: Pepe Papon
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:56:39 -0800, "brewmaster"
<a163b@webnntp.invalid > wrote:

>If you don't
>leave your DNA at the scene of a crime, then you have nothing to worry
>about, right?

We should also allow them to tap our phones and bug our homes. And
let's get rid of those pesky search warrants and just let them do
searches if they think they have to. If you're jnot doing anything
wrong, you have nothing to worry about, right?


    
Date: 15 Dec 2008 23:38:09
From: ChrisRobin
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On Dec 15 2008 8:56 PM, brewmaster wrote:

> On Dec 15 2008 4:04 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:20:17 -0800, "brewmaster"
> > <a163b@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >On Dec 14 2008 10:12 PM, Bill T wrote:
> > >
> > >> If anyone still cares:
> > >>
> > >> I checked around, and apparently no state (that I know of) get baby
> > >> footprints for its official birth records. If I am mistaken, let me
know.
> > >>
> > >> A newborn's foot or finger ridges/whorls are pretty subtle and unlikely
> > >> to be captured by ink imprints. They are considered to be useless for
> > >> ID and have been rejected by both the national pediatric and obstetric
> > >> bodies 10 years ago.
> > >>
> > >> You can still get your new baby's footprint enshrined by private
> > >> parties, for oh-so-cute purposes, or for oh-so-paranoid schemes.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks, folks, for wasting my time. Obama's baby footprints - fuck,
yeah.
> > >
> > >It is time to start dna fingerprinting every baby born in the U.S., and
> > >taking a dna sample of every person coming to this country legally (and
> > >also the illegals when they are caught) and that info should be recorded
> > >in a national database accessible by all law enforcement agencies.
> > >
> > >Brew
> >
> > Zeig Heil!
>
> Explain to me how having everyone DNA fingerprinted will in any way
> infringe someone's civil rights? I mean, it will greatly cut down on the
> number of wrongfully imprisoned and will greatly shorten the amount of
> time required to solve many rapes and murders. How would it harm you? We
> aren't talking about tattoos or implanted tracking devices. If you don't
> leave your DNA at the scene of a crime, then you have nothing to worry
> about, right?

In order to make that conclusion you must first believe that law
enforcement, intelligence agencies, and other assorted local/state/federal
government douchebags are freakishly moral and just, and acting in your
best interests 100% of the time. Frankly, that's a pretty asinine position.

Assuming you're not trolling, of course.

_______________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




    
Date: 15 Dec 2008 19:14:23
From: risky biz
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On Dec 15 2008 6:56 PM, brewmaster wrote:

> On Dec 15 2008 4:04 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:20:17 -0800, "brewmaster"
> > <a163b@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >On Dec 14 2008 10:12 PM, Bill T wrote:
> > >
> > >> If anyone still cares:
> > >>
> > >> I checked around, and apparently no state (that I know of) get baby
> > >> footprints for its official birth records. If I am mistaken, let me
know.
> > >>
> > >> A newborn's foot or finger ridges/whorls are pretty subtle and unlikely
> > >> to be captured by ink imprints. They are considered to be useless for
> > >> ID and have been rejected by both the national pediatric and obstetric
> > >> bodies 10 years ago.
> > >>
> > >> You can still get your new baby's footprint enshrined by private
> > >> parties, for oh-so-cute purposes, or for oh-so-paranoid schemes.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks, folks, for wasting my time. Obama's baby footprints - fuck,
yeah.
> > >
> > >It is time to start dna fingerprinting every baby born in the U.S., and
> > >taking a dna sample of every person coming to this country legally (and
> > >also the illegals when they are caught) and that info should be recorded
> > >in a national database accessible by all law enforcement agencies.
> > >
> > >Brew
> >
> > Zeig Heil!
>
> Explain to me how having everyone DNA fingerprinted will in any way
> infringe someone's civil rights? I mean, it will greatly cut down on the
> number of wrongfully imprisoned and will greatly shorten the amount of
> time required to solve many rapes and murders. How would it harm you? We
> aren't talking about tattoos or implanted tracking devices. If you don't
> leave your DNA at the scene of a crime, then you have nothing to worry
> about, right?

Wrong.

______________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



    
Date: 15 Dec 2008 20:19:34
From: FL Turbo
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:56:39 -0800, "brewmaster"
<a163b@webnntp.invalid > wrote:

>On Dec 15 2008 4:04 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:20:17 -0800, "brewmaster"
>> <a163b@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >On Dec 14 2008 10:12 PM, Bill T wrote:
>> >
>> >> If anyone still cares:
>> >>
>> >> I checked around, and apparently no state (that I know of) get baby
>> >> footprints for its official birth records. If I am mistaken, let me know.
>> >>
>> >> A newborn's foot or finger ridges/whorls are pretty subtle and unlikely
>> >> to be captured by ink imprints. They are considered to be useless for
>> >> ID and have been rejected by both the national pediatric and obstetric
>> >> bodies 10 years ago.
>> >>
>> >> You can still get your new baby's footprint enshrined by private
>> >> parties, for oh-so-cute purposes, or for oh-so-paranoid schemes.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks, folks, for wasting my time. Obama's baby footprints - fuck, yeah.
>> >
>> >It is time to start dna fingerprinting every baby born in the U.S., and
>> >taking a dna sample of every person coming to this country legally (and
>> >also the illegals when they are caught) and that info should be recorded
>> >in a national database accessible by all law enforcement agencies.
>> >
>> >Brew
>>
>> Zeig Heil!
>
>Explain to me how having everyone DNA fingerprinted will in any way
>infringe someone's civil rights? I mean, it will greatly cut down on the
>number of wrongfully imprisoned and will greatly shorten the amount of
>time required to solve many rapes and murders. How would it harm you? We
>aren't talking about tattoos or implanted tracking devices. If you don't
>leave your DNA at the scene of a crime, then you have nothing to worry
>about, right?
>

Have you gotten so bored that you can help but do a little Trolling?
Hey! NTTAWT

I expect Orangie to chime in any minute now.


    
Date: 15 Dec 2008 18:09:28
From: La Cosa Nostradamus
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On Dec 15 2008 8:56 PM, brewmaster wrote:

> On Dec 15 2008 4:04 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:20:17 -0800, "brewmaster"
> > <a163b@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >On Dec 14 2008 10:12 PM, Bill T wrote:
> > >
> > >> If anyone still cares:
> > >>
> > >> I checked around, and apparently no state (that I know of) get baby
> > >> footprints for its official birth records. If I am mistaken, let me
know.
> > >>
> > >> A newborn's foot or finger ridges/whorls are pretty subtle and unlikely
> > >> to be captured by ink imprints. They are considered to be useless for
> > >> ID and have been rejected by both the national pediatric and obstetric
> > >> bodies 10 years ago.
> > >>
> > >> You can still get your new baby's footprint enshrined by private
> > >> parties, for oh-so-cute purposes, or for oh-so-paranoid schemes.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks, folks, for wasting my time. Obama's baby footprints - fuck,
yeah.
> > >
> > >It is time to start dna fingerprinting every baby born in the U.S., and
> > >taking a dna sample of every person coming to this country legally (and
> > >also the illegals when they are caught) and that info should be recorded
> > >in a national database accessible by all law enforcement agencies.
> > >
> > >Brew
> >
> > Zeig Heil!
>
> Explain to me how having everyone DNA fingerprinted will in any way
> infringe someone's civil rights? I mean, it will greatly cut down on the
> number of wrongfully imprisoned and will greatly shorten the amount of
> time required to solve many rapes and murders. How would it harm you? We
> aren't talking about tattoos or implanted tracking devices. If you don't
> leave your DNA at the scene of a crime, then you have nothing to worry
> about, right?
>

what if i put your DNA there ?

personally i think ur idea is OK
>
>
> Brew
> --
> Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk

-------- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




     
Date: 15 Dec 2008 18:16:21
From: brewmaster
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On Dec 15 2008 6:09 PM, La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:

> On Dec 15 2008 8:56 PM, brewmaster wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15 2008 4:04 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:20:17 -0800, "brewmaster"
> > > <a163b@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Dec 14 2008 10:12 PM, Bill T wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> If anyone still cares:
> > > >>
> > > >> I checked around, and apparently no state (that I know of) get baby
> > > >> footprints for its official birth records. If I am mistaken, let me
> know.
> > > >>
> > > >> A newborn's foot or finger ridges/whorls are pretty subtle and
unlikely
> > > >> to be captured by ink imprints. They are considered to be useless
for
> > > >> ID and have been rejected by both the national pediatric and
obstetric
> > > >> bodies 10 years ago.
> > > >>
> > > >> You can still get your new baby's footprint enshrined by private
> > > >> parties, for oh-so-cute purposes, or for oh-so-paranoid schemes.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks, folks, for wasting my time. Obama's baby footprints - fuck,
> yeah.
> > > >
> > > >It is time to start dna fingerprinting every baby born in the U.S., and
> > > >taking a dna sample of every person coming to this country legally (and
> > > >also the illegals when they are caught) and that info should be recorded
> > > >in a national database accessible by all law enforcement agencies.
> > > >
> > > >Brew
> > >
> > > Zeig Heil!
> >
> > Explain to me how having everyone DNA fingerprinted will in any way
> > infringe someone's civil rights? I mean, it will greatly cut down on the
> > number of wrongfully imprisoned and will greatly shorten the amount of
> > time required to solve many rapes and murders. How would it harm you? We
> > aren't talking about tattoos or implanted tracking devices. If you don't
> > leave your DNA at the scene of a crime, then you have nothing to worry
> > about, right?
> >
>
> what if i put your DNA there ?
>
> personally i think ur idea is OK

My dna and all of my prints are in there already.

> >
> >
> > Brew
> > --
> > Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk


Brew
--
Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk

-------- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



      
Date: 16 Dec 2008 15:10:50
From: Kyle T. Jones
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
brewmaster, my dear, dear friend, there was this time, oh, 12/15/2008
8:16 PM or thereabouts, when you let the following craziness loose on
Usenet:

>> what if i put your DNA there ?
>>
>> personally i think ur idea is OK
>
> My dna and all of my prints are in there already.
>

Uhh, I think he means put your DNA at the scene of a crime, not into
some central database.

Originally, DNA was basically being used to verify actual police work.
But, you're certainly "with" the trend, which is increasingly to use it
as the primary means of identification.

It's a tough issue. I don't think it's exactly Big Brother as some have
indicated: that has to do more with keeping people under constant
scrutiny. It does seem like it's gonna make it easier to frame folks,
though, if all they are doing is finding a hair at the scene of a crime,
running the DNA, and saying "ha, we got our guy!".

Cheers.


       
Date: 16 Dec 2008 15:50:10
From: Susan
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats

"Kyle T. Jones" <KBfoMe@realdomain.net > wrote in message
news:gi95h2$k6t$1@news.motzarella.org...
> brewmaster, my dear, dear friend, there was this time, oh, 12/15/2008 8:16
> PM or thereabouts, when you let the following craziness loose on Usenet:
>
>>> what if i put your DNA there ?
>>>
>>> personally i think ur idea is OK
>>
>> My dna and all of my prints are in there already.
>>
>
> Uhh, I think he means put your DNA at the scene of a crime, not into some
> central database.
>
> Originally, DNA was basically being used to verify actual police work.
> But, you're certainly "with" the trend, which is increasingly to use it as
> the primary means of identification.
>
> It's a tough issue. I don't think it's exactly Big Brother as some have
> indicated: that has to do more with keeping people under constant
> scrutiny. It does seem like it's gonna make it easier to frame folks,
> though, if all they are doing is finding a hair at the scene of a crime,
> running the DNA, and saying "ha, we got our guy!".
>
> Cheers.

And this would be different than framing an innocent person with
fingerprints?

As far as I know, deseases etc. don't show up in DNA.

I think that within 10 years, newer technology than DNA will be the
scientific finding of note - and DNA will be as common place as
fingerprinting is now and not something to even be discussed.




        
Date: 17 Dec 2008 13:30:55
From: Kyle T. Jones
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
Susan, my dear, dear friend, there was this time, oh, 12/16/2008 3:50 PM
or thereabouts, when you let the following craziness loose on Usenet:
> "Kyle T. Jones" <KBfoMe@realdomain.net> wrote in message
> news:gi95h2$k6t$1@news.motzarella.org...
>> brewmaster, my dear, dear friend, there was this time, oh, 12/15/2008 8:16
>> PM or thereabouts, when you let the following craziness loose on Usenet:
>>
>>>> what if i put your DNA there ?
>>>>
>>>> personally i think ur idea is OK
>>> My dna and all of my prints are in there already.
>>>
>> Uhh, I think he means put your DNA at the scene of a crime, not into some
>> central database.
>>
>> Originally, DNA was basically being used to verify actual police work.
>> But, you're certainly "with" the trend, which is increasingly to use it as
>> the primary means of identification.
>>
>> It's a tough issue. I don't think it's exactly Big Brother as some have
>> indicated: that has to do more with keeping people under constant
>> scrutiny. It does seem like it's gonna make it easier to frame folks,
>> though, if all they are doing is finding a hair at the scene of a crime,
>> running the DNA, and saying "ha, we got our guy!".
>>
>> Cheers.
>
> And this would be different than framing an innocent person with
> fingerprints?
>

Easier, anyway. IMO.

> As far as I know, deseases etc. don't show up in DNA.
>

Some do. What's more worrisome is the fact that "likelihoods" tend to
show up in DNA. It can show that you are severely at risk for, say,
heart disease, and somewhat at risk for, say, Alzheimer's, and that you
have, say, almost no risk of developing breast cancer.

I don't know that those are all exactly accurate, but it's the general
idea. This is why an important piece of legislation was just passed
(after facing fierce opposition) that won't allow employers, insurance
companies, etc., refuse to hire/service someone because their DNA
indicates predispositions that they don't like.

> I think that within 10 years, newer technology than DNA will be the
> scientific finding of note - and DNA will be as common place as
> fingerprinting is now and not something to even be discussed.
>

I don't know about that, Susan. DNA is useful because we leave it all
over the place, whether we realize it or not. What do you think will be
the new thing they start finding at crime scenes that will replace DNA
as an identification tool?

Cheers.


         
Date: 17 Dec 2008 13:53:47
From: Susan
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats

"Kyle T. Jones" <KBfoMe@realdomain.net > wrote in message
news:gibk1r$otu$1@news.motzarella.org...
> Susan, my dear, dear friend, there was this time, oh, 12/16/2008 3:50 PM
> or thereabouts, when you let the following craziness loose on Usenet:
>> "Kyle T. Jones" <KBfoMe@realdomain.net> wrote in message
>> news:gi95h2$k6t$1@news.motzarella.org...
>>> brewmaster, my dear, dear friend, there was this time, oh, 12/15/2008
>>> 8:16 PM or thereabouts, when you let the following craziness loose on
>>> Usenet:
>>>
>>>>> what if i put your DNA there ?
>>>>>
>>>>> personally i think ur idea is OK
>>>> My dna and all of my prints are in there already.
>>>>
>>> Uhh, I think he means put your DNA at the scene of a crime, not into
>>> some central database.
>>>
>>> Originally, DNA was basically being used to verify actual police work.
>>> But, you're certainly "with" the trend, which is increasingly to use it
>>> as the primary means of identification.
>>>
>>> It's a tough issue. I don't think it's exactly Big Brother as some have
>>> indicated: that has to do more with keeping people under constant
>>> scrutiny. It does seem like it's gonna make it easier to frame folks,
>>> though, if all they are doing is finding a hair at the scene of a crime,
>>> running the DNA, and saying "ha, we got our guy!".
>>>
>>> Cheers.
>>
>> And this would be different than framing an innocent person with
>> fingerprints?
>>
>
> Easier, anyway. IMO.
>
>> As far as I know, deseases etc. don't show up in DNA.
>>
>
> Some do. What's more worrisome is the fact that "likelihoods" tend to
> show up in DNA. It can show that you are severely at risk for, say, heart
> disease, and somewhat at risk for, say, Alzheimer's, and that you have,
> say, almost no risk of developing breast cancer.

I understood that "likelihoods" only show up if you have DNA from family
members to compare to, not just from the DNA itself? I've looked and can't
find anything that explains it.

>
> I don't know that those are all exactly accurate, but it's the general
> idea. This is why an important piece of legislation was just passed
> (after facing fierce opposition) that won't allow employers, insurance
> companies, etc., refuse to hire/service someone because their DNA
> indicates predispositions that they don't like.
>
>> I think that within 10 years, newer technology than DNA will be the
>> scientific finding of note - and DNA will be as common place as
>> fingerprinting is now and not something to even be discussed.
>
> I don't know about that, Susan. DNA is useful because we leave it all
> over the place, whether we realize it or not. What do you think will be
> the new thing they start finding at crime scenes that will replace DNA as
> an identification tool?

LOL you asking me? I still am hanging on to my VCR and cassette player
because I can't keep up with whats new out there.

>
> Cheers.




          
Date: 17 Dec 2008 13:54:38
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On Dec 17 2008 2:53 PM, Susan wrote:

> "Kyle T. Jones" <KBfoMe@realdomain.net> wrote in message
> news:gibk1r$otu$1@news.motzarella.org...
> > Susan, my dear, dear friend, there was this time, oh, 12/16/2008 3:50 PM
> > or thereabouts, when you let the following craziness loose on Usenet:
> >> "Kyle T. Jones" <KBfoMe@realdomain.net> wrote in message
> >> news:gi95h2$k6t$1@news.motzarella.org...
> >>> brewmaster, my dear, dear friend, there was this time, oh, 12/15/2008
> >>> 8:16 PM or thereabouts, when you let the following craziness loose on
> >>> Usenet:
> >>>
> >>>>> what if i put your DNA there ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> personally i think ur idea is OK
> >>>> My dna and all of my prints are in there already.
> >>>>
> >>> Uhh, I think he means put your DNA at the scene of a crime, not into
> >>> some central database.
> >>>
> >>> Originally, DNA was basically being used to verify actual police work.
> >>> But, you're certainly "with" the trend, which is increasingly to use it
> >>> as the primary means of identification.
> >>>
> >>> It's a tough issue. I don't think it's exactly Big Brother as some have
> >>> indicated: that has to do more with keeping people under constant
> >>> scrutiny. It does seem like it's gonna make it easier to frame folks,
> >>> though, if all they are doing is finding a hair at the scene of a crime,
> >>> running the DNA, and saying "ha, we got our guy!".
> >>>
> >>> Cheers.
> >>
> >> And this would be different than framing an innocent person with
> >> fingerprints?
> >>
> >
> > Easier, anyway. IMO.
> >
> >> As far as I know, deseases etc. don't show up in DNA.
> >>
> >
> > Some do. What's more worrisome is the fact that "likelihoods" tend to
> > show up in DNA. It can show that you are severely at risk for, say, heart
> > disease, and somewhat at risk for, say, Alzheimer's, and that you have,
> > say, almost no risk of developing breast cancer.
>
> I understood that "likelihoods" only show up if you have DNA from family
> members to compare to, not just from the DNA itself? I've looked and can't
> find anything that explains it.
>


I don't think you understood what he said.

What he's saying is that people with genetic profile A are more likely to
acquire syndrome X than those with genetic profile B.

For example, there's a genetic marker that 10% of the population have, and
5% of the population are shizo. But of those with that genetic marker,
40% are schizo. And, most smokers get lung cancer but most schizo's smoke
and don't get lung cancer.

The predispositions can get convoluted, but knowing someone's DNA can tell
you a lot about the probability of them having various ailments. It's
something insurance companies would love to base rates on.

______________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



           
Date: 17 Dec 2008 16:00:28
From: Susan
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats

"garycarson" <garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu >

> I don't think you understood what he said.
>
> What he's saying is that people with genetic profile A are more likely to
> acquire syndrome X than those with genetic profile B.
>
> For example, there's a genetic marker that 10% of the population have, and
> 5% of the population are shizo. But of those with that genetic marker,
> 40% are schizo. And, most smokers get lung cancer but most schizo's smoke
> and don't get lung cancer.
>
> The predispositions can get convoluted, but knowing someone's DNA can tell
> you a lot about the probability of them having various ailments. It's
> something insurance companies would love to base rates on.

thank you




        
Date: 16 Dec 2008 17:53:36
From: Bill T
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On 12/16/2008 13:50, Susan wrote:

>
> And this would be different than framing an innocent person with
> fingerprints?

It's tougher to plant someone's fingerprints than his DNA.
>
> As far as I know, deseases etc. don't show up in DNA.

A few diseases do. Most don't, and are unlikely to do so. A recent
study found that there is no good correlation between various common
diseases and variations in DNA within a population. This makes sense,
since even a moderately maladaptive gene (not also present in everyone
else) gets eliminated in just tens of generation.


      
Date: 15 Dec 2008 20:29:31
From: FL Turbo
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:16:21 -0800, "brewmaster"
<a163b@webnntp.invalid > wrote:

>On Dec 15 2008 6:09 PM, La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:
>
>> On Dec 15 2008 8:56 PM, brewmaster wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 15 2008 4:04 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:20:17 -0800, "brewmaster"
>> > > <a163b@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >On Dec 14 2008 10:12 PM, Bill T wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> If anyone still cares:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I checked around, and apparently no state (that I know of) get baby
>> > > >> footprints for its official birth records. If I am mistaken, let me
>> know.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> A newborn's foot or finger ridges/whorls are pretty subtle and
>unlikely
>> > > >> to be captured by ink imprints. They are considered to be useless
>for
>> > > >> ID and have been rejected by both the national pediatric and
>obstetric
>> > > >> bodies 10 years ago.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> You can still get your new baby's footprint enshrined by private
>> > > >> parties, for oh-so-cute purposes, or for oh-so-paranoid schemes.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Thanks, folks, for wasting my time. Obama's baby footprints - fuck,
>> yeah.
>> > > >
>> > > >It is time to start dna fingerprinting every baby born in the U.S., and
>> > > >taking a dna sample of every person coming to this country legally (and
>> > > >also the illegals when they are caught) and that info should be recorded
>> > > >in a national database accessible by all law enforcement agencies.
>> > > >
>> > > >Brew
>> > >
>> > > Zeig Heil!
>> >
>> > Explain to me how having everyone DNA fingerprinted will in any way
>> > infringe someone's civil rights? I mean, it will greatly cut down on the
>> > number of wrongfully imprisoned and will greatly shorten the amount of
>> > time required to solve many rapes and murders. How would it harm you? We
>> > aren't talking about tattoos or implanted tracking devices. If you don't
>> > leave your DNA at the scene of a crime, then you have nothing to worry
>> > about, right?
>> >
>>
>> what if i put your DNA there ?
>>
>> personally i think ur idea is OK
>
>My dna and all of my prints are in there already.
>

You are one up on me.
I know that my fingerprints are on file in multiple Gummint databases
(please don't ask me how I know), but AFAIK, my DNA isn't there yet.

I could be wrong, though.

Hell, I'm old enough to remember when my Social Security card had the
disclaimer "Not to be used for Identification Purposes".

Ha Ha.


       
Date: 15 Dec 2008 19:03:19
From: brewmaster
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On Dec 15 2008 6:29 PM, FL Turbo wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:16:21 -0800, "brewmaster"
> <a163b@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 15 2008 6:09 PM, La Cosa Nostradamus wrote:
> >
> >> On Dec 15 2008 8:56 PM, brewmaster wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Dec 15 2008 4:04 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:20:17 -0800, "brewmaster"
> >> > > <a163b@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >On Dec 14 2008 10:12 PM, Bill T wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> If anyone still cares:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> I checked around, and apparently no state (that I know of) get
baby
> >> > > >> footprints for its official birth records. If I am mistaken, let
me
> >> know.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> A newborn's foot or finger ridges/whorls are pretty subtle and
> >unlikely
> >> > > >> to be captured by ink imprints. They are considered to be useless
> >for
> >> > > >> ID and have been rejected by both the national pediatric and
> >obstetric
> >> > > >> bodies 10 years ago.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> You can still get your new baby's footprint enshrined by private
> >> > > >> parties, for oh-so-cute purposes, or for oh-so-paranoid schemes.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Thanks, folks, for wasting my time. Obama's baby footprints -
fuck,
> >> yeah.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >It is time to start dna fingerprinting every baby born in the U.S.,
and
> >> > > >taking a dna sample of every person coming to this country legally
(and
> >> > > >also the illegals when they are caught) and that info should be
recorded
> >> > > >in a national database accessible by all law enforcement agencies.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Brew
> >> > >
> >> > > Zeig Heil!
> >> >
> >> > Explain to me how having everyone DNA fingerprinted will in any way
> >> > infringe someone's civil rights? I mean, it will greatly cut down on
the
> >> > number of wrongfully imprisoned and will greatly shorten the amount of
> >> > time required to solve many rapes and murders. How would it harm you?
We
> >> > aren't talking about tattoos or implanted tracking devices. If you
don't
> >> > leave your DNA at the scene of a crime, then you have nothing to worry
> >> > about, right?
> >> >
> >>
> >> what if i put your DNA there ?
> >>
> >> personally i think ur idea is OK
> >
> >My dna and all of my prints are in there already.
> >
>
> You are one up on me.
> I know that my fingerprints are on file in multiple Gummint databases
> (please don't ask me how I know), but AFAIK, my DNA isn't there yet.
>

fingerprints, palmprints, side of hand prints, and whatever else the fuck
they could think of to print

> I could be wrong, though.
>
> Hell, I'm old enough to remember when my Social Security card had the
> disclaimer "Not to be used for Identification Purposes".
>
> Ha Ha.


Brew
--
Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk

________________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



        
Date: 15 Dec 2008 22:35:40
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:03:19 -0800, "brewmaster"
<a163b@webnntp.invalid > wrote:

LOL you trust the government. Retard.


         
Date: 15 Dec 2008 19:57:20
From: brewmaster
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On Dec 15 2008 7:35 PM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:03:19 -0800, "brewmaster"
> <a163b@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> LOL you trust the government. Retard.

Who said I trusted them? I didn't exactly give them my prints willingly.
Give me a scenario where they could use a computerized dna fingerprint to
harm you somehow.

Brew
--
Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk

--- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




          
Date: 16 Dec 2008 15:50:25
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:57:20 -0800, "brewmaster"
<a163b@webnntp.invalid > wrote:

>On Dec 15 2008 7:35 PM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:

>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:03:19 -0800, "brewmaster"
>> <a163b@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>> LOL you trust the government. Retard.

>Who said I trusted them? I didn't exactly give them my prints willingly.
>Give me a scenario where they could use a computerized dna fingerprint to
>harm you somehow.

Ever heard of eugenics?


          
Date: 15 Dec 2008 23:42:48
From: ChrisRobin
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On Dec 15 2008 10:57 PM, brewmaster wrote:

> On Dec 15 2008 7:35 PM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:03:19 -0800, "brewmaster"
> > <a163b@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > LOL you trust the government. Retard.
>
> Who said I trusted them? I didn't exactly give them my prints willingly.

Then don't you think that you should exhibit a little more concern?

> Give me a scenario where they could use a computerized dna fingerprint to
> harm you somehow.

You can't be serious.

-------- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




  
Date: 15 Dec 2008 16:53:43
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:20:17 -0800, "brewmaster"
<a163b@webnntp.invalid > wrote:

>It is time to start dna fingerprinting every baby born in the U.S.,

Why not just tattoo them with their ethnic status, maybe a little gold
star for Jews and a cross for Christians, and a serial number, so they
can be tracked for the rest of their life, too?

Better yet, include a brain implant so their cephalic activity can be
shut down if they think the wrong thoughts.

Sieg Heil!


  
Date: 15 Dec 2008 13:54:48
From: ChrisRobin
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On Dec 15 2008 1:20 PM, brewmaster wrote:

> On Dec 14 2008 10:12 PM, Bill T wrote:
>
> > If anyone still cares:
> >
> > I checked around, and apparently no state (that I know of) get baby
> > footprints for its official birth records. If I am mistaken, let me know.
> >
> > A newborn's foot or finger ridges/whorls are pretty subtle and unlikely
> > to be captured by ink imprints. They are considered to be useless for
> > ID and have been rejected by both the national pediatric and obstetric
> > bodies 10 years ago.
> >
> > You can still get your new baby's footprint enshrined by private
> > parties, for oh-so-cute purposes, or for oh-so-paranoid schemes.
> >
> > Thanks, folks, for wasting my time. Obama's baby footprints - fuck, yeah.
>
> It is time to start dna fingerprinting every baby born in the U.S., and
> taking a dna sample of every person coming to this country legally (and
> also the illegals when they are caught) and that info should be recorded
> in a national database accessible by all law enforcement agencies.

Yeah, I'm sure that'll do wonders for the tourism industry.

_______________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




  
Date: 15 Dec 2008 11:46:11
From: charrison100
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On Dec 15 2008 1:20 PM, brewmaster wrote:

> On Dec 14 2008 10:12 PM, Bill T wrote:
>
> > If anyone still cares:
> >
> > I checked around, and apparently no state (that I know of) get baby
> > footprints for its official birth records. If I am mistaken, let me know.
> >
> > A newborn's foot or finger ridges/whorls are pretty subtle and unlikely
> > to be captured by ink imprints. They are considered to be useless for
> > ID and have been rejected by both the national pediatric and obstetric
> > bodies 10 years ago.
> >
> > You can still get your new baby's footprint enshrined by private
> > parties, for oh-so-cute purposes, or for oh-so-paranoid schemes.
> >
> > Thanks, folks, for wasting my time. Obama's baby footprints - fuck, yeah.
>
> It is time to start dna fingerprinting every baby born in the U.S., and
> taking a dna sample of every person coming to this country legally (and
> also the illegals when they are caught) and that info should be recorded
> in a national database accessible by all law enforcement agencies.
>
> Brew
> --
> Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk

I'm all for it. I am also thinking Branding or UPC tattooing upon birth.

Chris

________________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




   
Date: 16 Dec 2008 17:33:23
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On Dec 15 2008 2:46 PM, charrison100 wrote:


> > --
> > Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk
>
> I'm all for it. I am also thinking Branding or UPC tattooing upon birth.
>
> Chris

On conception, you liberal heathen prick.

------- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




    
Date: 17 Dec 2008 05:53:55
From: charrison100
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On Dec 16 2008 8:33 PM, garycarson wrote:

> On Dec 15 2008 2:46 PM, charrison100 wrote:
>
>
> > > --
> > > Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk
> >
> > I'm all for it. I am also thinking Branding or UPC tattooing upon birth.
> >
> > Chris
>
> On conception, you liberal heathen prick.

I am not saying on conception as they are not formed enough to do that
too. when they come out and they take the blood and all the other tests
have a biker with a tattoo gun and a farmer with a branding iron. the kids
going to be pissed off enough already might as well just do it. Kind of
like that snip snip for the boys.

Chris

______________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



  
Date: 15 Dec 2008 10:56:02
From: Peter Secor
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
"brewmaster" <a163b@webnntp.invalid > wrote:

>It is time to start dna fingerprinting every baby born in the U.S., and
>taking a dna sample of every person coming to this country legally (and
>also the illegals when they are caught) and that info should be recorded
>in a national database accessible by all law enforcement agencies.

Great idea Big Brother!

Best,

Peter
--
http://zbigniew.pyrzqxgl.com/bargegeek.html
A+++ G++ PKR+ PEG- B+ TB ADB++ M+
www.barge.org
"There are no strangers at BARGE, just friends we haven't met yet"


  
Date: 15 Dec 2008 10:30:05
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On Dec 15 2008 1:20 PM, brewmaster wrote:

> On Dec 14 2008 10:12 PM, Bill T wrote:
>
> > If anyone still cares:
> >
> > I checked around, and apparently no state (that I know of) get baby
> > footprints for its official birth records. If I am mistaken, let me know.
> >
> > A newborn's foot or finger ridges/whorls are pretty subtle and unlikely
> > to be captured by ink imprints. They are considered to be useless for
> > ID and have been rejected by both the national pediatric and obstetric
> > bodies 10 years ago.
> >
> > You can still get your new baby's footprint enshrined by private
> > parties, for oh-so-cute purposes, or for oh-so-paranoid schemes.
> >
> > Thanks, folks, for wasting my time. Obama's baby footprints - fuck, yeah.
>
> It is time to start dna fingerprinting every baby born in the U.S., and
> taking a dna sample of every person coming to this country legally (and
> also the illegals when they are caught) and that info should be recorded
> in a national database accessible by all law enforcement agencies.
>
> Brew
> --
> Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk

..

OK George.

Fell
--
Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!

------ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



 
Date: 15 Dec 2008 07:32:34
From: James L. Hankins
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats

"Bill T" <wctom1@pacbell.net > wrote in message
news:4945ba9c$0$5540$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> If anyone still cares:
>
> I checked around, and apparently no state (that I know of) get baby
> footprints for its official birth records. If I am mistaken, let me know.



I'm pretty sure my footprints are on my copy of my birth certificate.
Although, I suppose such certificates might just be souvenir-type things and
not the official version.




  
Date: 15 Dec 2008 16:01:58
From: Bill T
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On 12/15/2008 05:32, James L. Hankins wrote:
> "Bill T"<wctom1@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:4945ba9c$0$5540$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>> If anyone still cares:
>>
>> I checked around, and apparently no state (that I know of) get baby
>> footprints for its official birth records. If I am mistaken, let me know.
>
>
>
> I'm pretty sure my footprints are on my copy of my birth certificate.
> Although, I suppose such certificates might just be souvenir-type things and
> not the official version.
>


Sorry, I mean it is not current practice. I don't know when states and
hospitals stopped doing it.


 
Date: 14 Dec 2008 23:41:58
From: risky biz
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
On Dec 14 2008 11:12 PM, Bill T wrote:

> If anyone still cares:
>
> I checked around, and apparently no state (that I know of) get baby
> footprints for its official birth records. If I am mistaken, let me know.

The hugeness of this conspiracy is matched only by the audacity of it's
purpose. They are all in on it.

>
> A newborn's foot or finger ridges/whorls are pretty subtle and unlikely
> to be captured by ink imprints. They are considered to be useless for
> ID and have been rejected by both the national pediatric and obstetric
> bodies 10 years ago.
>
> You can still get your new baby's footprint enshrined by private
> parties, for oh-so-cute purposes, or for oh-so-paranoid schemes.
>
> Thanks, folks, for wasting my time. Obama's baby footprints - fuck, yeah.

_____________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




  
Date: 15 Dec 2008 00:04:12
From: Lynx
Subject: Re: babies with tin-foil hats
Speaking of tin-foil hats, where's pokertoker? I was expecting to hear
some more of his sub-ludicrous rants about Obama losing the electoral
college vote tomorrow.

______________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com