USMT2.UNC

[Jim Macklin]

Google

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.



| Can anyone tell me anything about this file or extension?
|
|

 

[JAX]

I may tell you next month. Set your clock.

 

[Hareth]

Its your "Files and Settings Transfer Wizard"...located at
%SYSTEMROOT%\system32\usmt\migwiz.exe

Migrates files and settings from one computer to another.

 

[Miss Perspicacia Tick]

Can anyone tell me anything about this file or extension?

Oh tell yourself! We're not here to do your searching for you! If you can't
use Google then there really is no hope for you!

 

[Jim]

Oh tell yourself! We're not here to do your searching for you! If you can't
use Google then there really is no hope for you!

Still have ¢ünt to brain inversion syndrome, exasperated by your chronic yeast infection eh?

 

[Jim]

Oh tell yourself! We're not here to do your searching for you! If you can't
use Google then there really is no hope for you!

I see you still have ¢ünt to brain inversion syndrome, exacerbated by your chronic yeast infection eh!

 

[Shenan Stanley]

From: "Hank Conner" <>
Subject: USMT2.UNC
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 01:05:18 -0400
Can anyone tell me anything about this file or extension?

Oh tell yourself! We're not here to do your searching for you! If you
can't use Google then there really is no hope for you!

Now now....

As you can see, Hank is from a month in the future.
If you are a believer in the same theory presented in Stephen King's "The
Langoliers", then you must know that the future world is being constructed
as we speak. Obviously the Microsoft Newsgroups are up and going even a
month in the future, but perhaps the Internet search engines - having more
to do and needing to collect as much "up to date" data as possible just
cannot be active that far in the future like Microsoft - in that Microsoft
keeps their data usually far enough behind that even a month in the future,
their most up to date information has not changed much - so it works.

That having been said, Hank - seriously - wait 30 days or so (for us mere
mortals to catch up to you) and then try to use Google to find your answer.
I think you will find it intuitive. Just type in what you are searching for
(bad grammar and such will likely still find results - try it) and search.

As sending a link into the future may not work (who knows what will be there
when you get it - the people may take down the link!) - I will quote a small
bit from one of the Google Search results I used my valuable time doing for
you:

"FAST automatically saves the collected data to a folder called
USMT2.UNC (or similar name) as a file named IMG00001.DAT. ... "

Fascinating, really - Good stuff! Perhaps you should look into this FAST
and related stuff when our time catches up with yours.

If you just cannot wait, or if you find yourself passing us by - can you
tell me if "The Langoliers" was an accurate portrayal of what happens to the
past or if it is just creative nonsense, as one might think?

Or - just change your date and time to match what would be the time for most
people on the planet, so as not to disturb anyone with your invention of
time travel. =)

 

[Hank Conner]

My bad. I was messing around in the Outlook Calendar and left it with the
wrong date. I apologize to the group. Believe it or not, this was the first
time I had posted with the wrong date in my years on the web (I'm 65). I
realize that it is a bush thing to do and will be careful in the future.
Thank you, Shenan, for the advice. I am a big King fan but did not
particular care for "The Langoliers". I guess I should have.

 

[Unknown]

A 'bush' thing to do?????? I think it's a 'kerry' thing to do.

 

[David Candy]

What sort of view of the world do you have to support such a person's philosophy. I was on the right till 28. But I would not have thought Bush was anything other than a dangerous and evil person even then. In Australia the right (an ex PM [and Vietnam era Army Minister] and an ex Federal President of the party) are both strongly anti Bush. The pro USA centre (an ex-PM) is anti Bush. It's rare for these people to join in public debate after retirement. They are of course anti PM Howard for being pro Pres. Bush. Bush is a marginaly better person than Howard as Howard is also a racist which I don't think applies to Bush.

 

[jazz]

It is interesting that this should jump to a political discusion. I noticed
the words evil and dangerous in the same sentence to i can tell there is
some sort of hatred goin on here. I do find it strange that people are
willing to overlook kerry's shortcommings because they dislike bush so
much. Bush is the better (lessor of the two evils) canidate we americans
have to choose from in november. This is sadening because i too am
disapointed in bush as a president. Lets hope that the disapointments of
bush doesn 't create a win for a worse canidate like kerry.

How i wish the political system would allow a viable third party canidate
that could actually win an election for president. As it is now most people
will refuse to vote for someone like ralph nader or ross pero because they
have been smacked into beliveing it is a vote for another canidate. If
everyone would just vote for the right person that they belive would do the
best job for whatever reason, maybe the 2 major parties would start
listening to what real americans and the rest of the world has to say and do
somethign we care about instead of listening to the few people with money to
throw at them.

We expect the republicans to pay more attention to the ones with money but
now it is apearant the democrates are too. Even kerry is 2 faced at this,
while claiming he would enact laws to keep jobs in american, he hired a firm
that outsources thier work to india for the purpose of seeing if another
canmidate would be on the ballot in michigan. In this day and age when
people expect politicians to be dishonest, the polititions have the nerve to
take it liberaly and act it out. I guess if everyone just voted thier
beliefs instead down a party line, this wouldn't be happening.

Any ways sorry for this off topic rant in an already offtopic discussion. It
was just somethign i had to get off my chest.

What sort of view of the world do you have to support such a person's
philosophy. I was on the right till 28. But I would not have thought Bush
was anything other than a dangerous and evil person even then. In Australia
the right (an ex PM [and Vietnam era Army Minister] and an ex Federal
President of the party) are both strongly anti Bush. The pro USA centre (an
ex-PM) is anti Bush. It's rare for these people to join in public debate
after retirement. They are of course anti PM Howard for being pro Pres.
Bush. Bush is a marginaly better person than Howard as Howard is also a
racist which I don't think applies to Bush.

 

[David Candy]

So what do you stand for? And why do you think you don't stand for,

Killing more people, mosly civilian, since WW2 than Hitler killed Jews
Judicial killing of children (only 4 countries do it - Iran is another)
Ignore international courts
Refuse to sign Geneva conventions that the rest of the world have signed (you'v signed some, incl the main one, but not all)
Breach the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty (you are required to disarm under it and you agreed never to nuke a NNPT non nuclear signority but threaten other countries with nuking and keep developing bombs easier to use)
Get the whole world to sign up to a land mine ban, then refuse to sign yourself (you are now one of the few countries allowed to use land mines)
Refuse to sign the Kyoto treaty
Conduct war in a way that is a war crime in all other western countries (US and Australian (and NATO in Allied Force) couldn't attack many targets the americans attacked.

I'm interested in why you would vote for the above. I understand that's not how you think of it, but it's how the rest of the world thinks of it. What do you think so that the above does not matter or is outweighed by ... ?

I haven't asked about domestic policies. Though I've been known to cry for some people that live in your country. But your President is gearing up to kill Iranians now. His bloodlust knows no bounds.
--
----------------------------------------------------------
'Not happy John! Defending our democracy',
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/29/1088392635123.html

It is interesting that this should jump to a political discusion. I noticed
the words evil and dangerous in the same sentence to i can tell there is
some sort of hatred goin on here. I do find it strange that people are
willing to overlook kerry's shortcommings because they dislike bush so
much. Bush is the better (lessor of the two evils) canidate we americans
have to choose from in november. This is sadening because i too am
disapointed in bush as a president. Lets hope that the disapointments of
bush doesn 't create a win for a worse canidate like kerry.

How i wish the political system would allow a viable third party canidate
that could actually win an election for president. As it is now most people
will refuse to vote for someone like ralph nader or ross pero because they
have been smacked into beliveing it is a vote for another canidate. If
everyone would just vote for the right person that they belive would do the
best job for whatever reason, maybe the 2 major parties would start
listening to what real americans and the rest of the world has to say and do
somethign we care about instead of listening to the few people with money to
throw at them.

We expect the republicans to pay more attention to the ones with money but
now it is apearant the democrates are too. Even kerry is 2 faced at this,
while claiming he would enact laws to keep jobs in american, he hired a firm
that outsources thier work to india for the purpose of seeing if another
canmidate would be on the ballot in michigan. In this day and age when
people expect politicians to be dishonest, the polititions have the nerve to
take it liberaly and act it out. I guess if everyone just voted thier
beliefs instead down a party line, this wouldn't be happening.

Any ways sorry for this off topic rant in an already offtopic discussion. It
was just somethign i had to get off my chest.

What sort of view of the world do you have to support such a person's
philosophy. I was on the right till 28. But I would not have thought Bush
was anything other than a dangerous and evil person even then. In Australia
the right (an ex PM [and Vietnam era Army Minister] and an ex Federal
President of the party) are both strongly anti Bush. The pro USA centre (an
ex-PM) is anti Bush. It's rare for these people to join in public debate
after retirement. They are of course anti PM Howard for being pro Pres.
Bush. Bush is a marginaly better person than Howard as Howard is also a
racist which I don't think applies to Bush.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
'Not happy John! Defending our democracy',
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/29/1088392635123.html

A 'bush' thing to do?????? I think it's a 'kerry' thing to do.

 

[The Black Wibble]

A 'bush' thing to do?????? I think it's a 'kerry' thing to do.

Now you've done it. Rather than passing off Hank's daft little snipe as a
manifestation of senile dementia you instead had to add your own daft little
snipe. So, now the anti-Bush moonbats have inevitably climbed onboard,
polluting yet another non political newsgroup. Execise some self restaint,
even if others are incapable of it.

Tony.

 

[Tom]

"" But your President is gearing up to kill Iranians now. His bloodlust knows no bounds.""

Agreed totally! It's politics, he needs to find a new foreign enemy which supports groups that want to hurt us here, so he can use this as an election ploy for US nationalists and right wing gun nuts here. He will find some kind of (or not find) evdence for launching an invasion, then use specious reasoning for the attack, and the new installment of another goverment there. Note: Iran is also a major oil producer, yet he doesn't apply the same military might to Afghanistan, where the major evil supposedly lives and hides!

 

[Hank Conner]

Actually, what you credit to senile dementia is your paucity of American
English idioms. "Bush" is not a reference to George Bush. But , instead, to
the expression "bush league" ( a baseball reference). which was meant to
imply that my original post was amateuerish at best. I apologize if there
was a misunderstanding.

 

[David Candy]

Funny how apt that phrase is today. Very useful phrase as both baseballers and non baseballers understood what you meant.

We of course thinks it means Rugby League played in the bush. Amateur (or semi professional $20 bucks a game) but without negative connotations.

 

[The Black Wibble]

Actually, what you credit to senile dementia is your paucity of American
English idioms. "Bush" is not a reference to George Bush. But , instead, to
the expression "bush league" ( a baseball reference). which was meant to
imply that my original post was amateuerish at best. I apologize if there
was a misunderstanding.

Any apology here is entirely mine to make. Sorry, Hank. I got it wrong.

Tony.

 

[jazz]

Wow you do live in a strange little world. Unless you also know something
the rest of us don't then some of your statements are blatantly false too.
Maybe it was for the dramatization of it, or maybe you just don't know the
truth, or maybe you know something the rest of America doesn't. Any ways
were to start?

Most of your pathetic little grip started under another president other then
bush. You know the one that called himself a democrat. Any ways I guess I
should just comment inline with your statement so it isn't out of contexted.
And BTW, some of the stuff I do support like the ABM treaty being undone
That you have called the non-nuclear proliferation treaty. And not signing
the Kyoto protocol as well as certain segments of the new Geneva
conventions, ignoring the "world joke" or world court if you must give it
some credit and not to forget the war you are claiming is illegal but
everyone else knows that's just a "marketing ploy".


So what do you stand for? And why do you think you don't stand for,

"Killing more people, mosly civilian, since WW2 than Hitler killed Jews"

--This is just wrong. were you got your figure from should be examined.
Unless you know of somethign the rest of the country doesn't know i suggest
you just leave this for the other radicles to spout. save your good name.

"Judicial killing of children (only 4 countries do it - Iran is another)"

--When children act as adults and do adult crimes.. well you get the
picture.
BTW kerry has nothign in his platform that will change this, voting for him
on this issue is just wrong. If you want to make a difference then vote for
a canidate that actually opposes this. BTW clinton also did and kerry still
does support this.

"Ignore international courts"

--I aspecialy agree with this and write my congressman every time the issue
comes up. The worl court has tryed to place laws over the american
population that has nothign to do with treaties we have sighned or laws we
already have in place. I'm not a bug fan of giving up out soveirnty. Unless
the ICC will restrict itself to rulling on treaties we have alreay signed
onto and definatly carry no criminal penalties, i as well as several other
americans will still refuse to honor it. BTW clinton did and as far as i
know kerry still does but he changes his opinion everytime a poll is taken.
maybe this week he will read this and decide not to support it but what you
really have to worry about is what he support if he is elected.

"Refuse to sign Geneva conventions that the rest of the world have signed
(you'v signed some, incl the main one, but not all)"

we have signed ontp the ones that matter. Some of the article go against our
national laws and will actually be making laws that contradict ours. If they
could be changed significantly as to not violate the will of the american
people then things would be different. Also some of the parts of the treaty
require us to dedicate different moneys and in the american system that has
to be done when the time comes up. I'm surprised your not bitching about
the US not paying a portion of thier United natiotions bill as it has been
laid out. Of course they redone that one to be more fair and i think it is
paid to date. BWT both of these were done under clinton too. Kerry to date
has given no indecation he would be any different. looking into his past he
voted against adding the revisions once and didn't show for a vote 2 other
times. so i'm prety usre it isn't real important to him either.

"Breach the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty (you are required to disarm
under it and you agreed never to nuke a NNPT non nuclear signority but
threaten other countries with nuking and keep developing bombs easier to
use)"
--why yes i also support this. And i do asume you are talking about anti
balist missle treaty we had with russia. This was violated not because we
continued to develope missle (that was allowed uunder the treaty) it was
violated because the treaty didn't serve a good purpose anymore. There have
been subsequent treaties that have replaced that and were in the working
when america gave notice to withdraw. The world is in a safer state of mind
because of it. The old treaty was geared around a country that doesn't exist
USSR now it shell is rusia once again. The same thought and purpose of the
old treaties are being observed in the new ones but now we have the benefit
of of them being adapted to modern threats and situations that werent
present at the time it was made. Also several developments have made it
somewhat obsolete and inefective in a modern society. we didn't break the
treaty we withdrew from it and forced another treaty to be made that is more
durable and lasting. BTW the workings for this were done under clinton and
kerry voted yes National Missile Defense Act of 1999 wich is what required
the removal of the old ABM treaty. My guess is he suppots it too. All
americans should support it if the took the time to read the thing instead
of waiting for people against it to tell them what to think. i guess that
just too much to ask to day isn't it.

"Get the whole world to sign up to a land mine ban, then refuse to sign
yourself (you are now one of the few countries allowed to use land mines)"
I'm not exactly sure wich one this is? i do know we are restricted in our
ability to use land mine and that was done durring the clinton years. I know
the landmine issue and some treaties were being floated around durring his
administration too. we might be onboard but i have no specific knolwedge and
can't seem to find what your talking about on a google search.

"Refuse to sign the Kyoto treaty"
--This has nothign to do with bush. Congress and only congrees has the
authority to sign us onto a treaty. Gore signed with intent to review bacj
durring the clinton years but it was rejected in congress somethign like by
3/4 of the vote. Has somethign significantly changed since then? or is it
still the same stuff that wasn't exceptable when we had a democrate for
president? From what i could see i am against it too. What i was able to
read and understand it is nothign more then some globalization and
punishment plan that tries to distibute wealthe to other countries. I think
the majority of americans saw it as that too when they flooded thier
congressmans office with opinions of it. If global warming is anythign
actually serious as it is said to be, then i would suggest somethign else be
brought to the table instead fo crying over not getting this piece of
rubbish. All the good if any is being swetp out of sight by all the robin
hood take from the rich and give to the poor bs in it.

"Conduct war in a way that is a war crime in all other western countries (US
and Australian (and NATO in Allied Force) couldn't attack many targets the
americans attacked."

--i don't know what your talking about here either. We are completlty within
our rights at every place of conflict that we are at. Also, i am getting
rather discusted at the assclowns still spounting that we are in an ilegal
war. This could be noothing further from the truth. I suppose you are
talking about Iraq and what most people forget is that a cease fire was sign
and then repeatedly violated with iraq. If i had my way about it, he would
have been dealt with back in the clionton years. As a matter of fact, I
think saddam was directly responcable for inciting the currage the 9/11
hijackers had and that whole piece of history wouldn't have happened if
clinton would have shown some muscle over there in the first place. But that
is another topic for discusion. AS of now there is nothign we are acountable
for that can be not legal except maybe some of the prisoner abuses and they
are being dealt with.

"I'm interested in why you would vote for the above. I understand that's not
how you think of it, but it's how the rest of the world thinks of it. What
do you think so that the above does not matter or is outweighed by ... ?"

--I'm not sure why you are saying i would vote for the above by declaring to
vote for a third party canidate. Maybe it was the bush is better then karry
comment. Well what you said above isn't going to change with kerry in
office. As a matter of fact he was in the office that makes the decisions
for 90% of what you just spoke of and didn't lift a finger to do anythign
differently. He even in most all the cases i could find, voted to support
the position the current president as well as the previous president took on
those same issues. My original post was about making a third party canidate
viable for being elected so we can start getting the polaticions listening
to what really matters. Of course from what you chose to question about, i
guess we don't really agree on alot of it anyways.

"I haven't asked about domestic policies. Though I've been known to cry for
some people that live in your country. But your President is gearing up to
kill Iranians now. His bloodlust knows no bounds."

--This is typical, i hear is from all the bush bashers. "Lets scare everyone
and he won't vote for bush" The situation with iran will be totally
different then with Iraq much the same reason it is with N. korea. Those
that arent smart enouhg to figure that out deserve to live in fear. Lets
examine a few things. 1: the U.N not the U.S it going after iran, 2: the
government of iran is creditable and while somewhat hostile to western
powers, it is receptive to diplomacy. there is alot of room for diplomacy
to work here. Iran has also be verry receptive in the terrorist ties and is
making concesions for everythign we have made a case for. Get past your
"hate for bush" and see what is going on. I would prefer to vote for
someoen else in this upcoming election but out of the canidates likly to
win, bush is the one that should and will do a better job. He simply is the
better canidate. Beisdes if kerry wins and is assasinated the speaker of the
house automaticaly becomes president.

----------------------------------------------------------
'Not happy John! Defending our democracy',
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/29/1088392635123.html

It is interesting that this should jump to a political discusion. I noticed
the words evil and dangerous in the same sentence to i can tell there is
some sort of hatred goin on here. I do find it strange that people are
willing to overlook kerry's shortcommings because they dislike bush so
much. Bush is the better (lessor of the two evils) canidate we americans
have to choose from in november. This is sadening because i too am
disapointed in bush as a president. Lets hope that the disapointments of
bush doesn 't create a win for a worse canidate like kerry.

How i wish the political system would allow a viable third party canidate
that could actually win an election for president. As it is now most people
will refuse to vote for someone like ralph nader or ross pero because they
have been smacked into beliveing it is a vote for another canidate. If
everyone would just vote for the right person that they belive would do the
best job for whatever reason, maybe the 2 major parties would start
listening to what real americans and the rest of the world has to say and do
somethign we care about instead of listening to the few people with money to
throw at them.

We expect the republicans to pay more attention to the ones with money but
now it is apearant the democrates are too. Even kerry is 2 faced at this,
while claiming he would enact laws to keep jobs in american, he hired a firm
that outsources thier work to india for the purpose of seeing if another
canmidate would be on the ballot in michigan. In this day and age when
people expect politicians to be dishonest, the polititions have the nerve to
take it liberaly and act it out. I guess if everyone just voted thier
beliefs instead down a party line, this wouldn't be happening.

Any ways sorry for this off topic rant in an already offtopic discussion. It
was just somethign i had to get off my chest.

What sort of view of the world do you have to support such a person's
philosophy. I was on the right till 28. But I would not have thought Bush
was anything other than a dangerous and evil person even then. In Australia
the right (an ex PM [and Vietnam era Army Minister] and an ex Federal
President of the party) are both strongly anti Bush. The pro USA centre (an
ex-PM) is anti Bush. It's rare for these people to join in public debate
after retirement. They are of course anti PM Howard for being pro Pres.
Bush. Bush is a marginaly better person than Howard as Howard is also a
racist which I don't think applies to Bush.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
'Not happy John! Defending our democracy',
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/29/1088392635123.html

A 'bush' thing to do?????? I think it's a 'kerry' thing to do.

even

a

having

more

happens

to

invention

of

 

[Guest]

you said you cry for some people that live in the united
states. who do you cry for david? btw, did you ever send
cliff a picture of yourself?

-----Original Message-----
So what do you stand for? And why do you think you don't stand for,

Killing more people, mosly civilian, since WW2 than Hitler killed Jews
Judicial killing of children (only 4 countries do it - Iran is another)
Ignore international courts
Refuse to sign Geneva conventions that the rest of the

world have signed (you'v signed some, incl the main one,
but not all)

Breach the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty (you are

required to disarm under it and you agreed never to nuke a
NNPT non nuclear signority but threaten other countries
with nuking and keep developing bombs easier to use)

Get the whole world to sign up to a land mine ban, then

refuse to sign yourself (you are now one of the few
countries allowed to use land mines)

Refuse to sign the Kyoto treaty
Conduct war in a way that is a war crime in all other

western countries (US and Australian (and NATO in Allied
Force) couldn't attack many targets the americans attacked.

I'm interested in why you would vote for the above. I

understand that's not how you think of it, but it's how
the rest of the world thinks of it. What do you think so
that the above does not matter or is outweighed by ... ?

I haven't asked about domestic policies. Though I've been

known to cry for some people that live in your country.
But your President is gearing up to kill Iranians now. His
bloodlust knows no bounds.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
'Not happy John! Defending our democracy',
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/29/1088392635123.ht ml

It is interesting that this should jump to a political discusion. I noticed
the words evil and dangerous in the same sentence to i can tell there is
some sort of hatred goin on here. I do find it strange that people are
willing to overlook kerry's shortcommings because they dislike bush so
much. Bush is the better (lessor of the two evils) canidate we americans
have to choose from in november. This is sadening because i too am
disapointed in bush as a president. Lets hope that the disapointments of
bush doesn 't create a win for a worse canidate like kerry.

How i wish the political system would allow a viable third party canidate
that could actually win an election for president. As it is now most people
will refuse to vote for someone like ralph nader or ross pero because they
have been smacked into beliveing it is a vote for another canidate. If
everyone would just vote for the right person that they belive would do the
best job for whatever reason, maybe the 2 major parties would start
listening to what real americans and the rest of the world has to say and do
somethign we care about instead of listening to the few people with money to
throw at them.

We expect the republicans to pay more attention to the ones with money but
now it is apearant the democrates are too. Even kerry is 2 faced at this,
while claiming he would enact laws to keep jobs in american, he hired a firm
that outsources thier work to india for the purpose of seeing if another
canmidate would be on the ballot in michigan. In this day and age when
people expect politicians to be dishonest, the polititions have the nerve to
take it liberaly and act it out. I guess if everyone just voted thier
beliefs instead down a party line, this wouldn't be happening.

Any ways sorry for this off topic rant in an already offtopic discussion. It
was just somethign i had to get off my chest.

What sort of view of the world do you have to support such a person's
philosophy. I was on the right till 28. But I would not have thought Bush
was anything other than a dangerous and evil person even then. In Australia
the right (an ex PM [and Vietnam era Army Minister] and an ex Federal
President of the party) are both strongly anti Bush. The pro USA centre (an
ex-PM) is anti Bush. It's rare for these people to join in public debate
after retirement. They are of course anti PM Howard for being pro Pres.
Bush. Bush is a marginaly better person than Howard as Howard is also a
racist which I don't think applies to Bush.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/29/1088392635123.htm
l

Calendar and left it with
the not, this was the
first careful in the
future. searching for you! If
you presented in Stephen King's
"The world is being
constructed are up and going even
a search engines - having
more data as possible
just Microsoft - in that
Microsoft days or so (for us
mere what you are
searching results - try it) and
search. my valuable time
doing should look into this
FAST passing us by - can
you portrayal of what happens
to would be the time
for with your invention
of

.

 

[Hank Conner]

Can anyone tell me anything about this file or extension?