A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:
...
Given the fact that I'm both a professional journalist and an
editor, I'd submit that I know a good deal more about copyright
law than you do.

You'd be wrong.

Evidently not. Feel free to cite US copyright law if you like.

You claim to be the expert, go right ahead and cite the appropriate case law.

Nah. I'm quite certain that my use falls squarely within the Fair Use
exception. If you can prove otherwise, please do so. You made the claim,
after all.

I suspect, however, that you suffer from recto-fossal ambiguity syndrome
when it comes to many things, including copyright law, so you will not be
able to do so.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

But it cannot step one inch outside the
boundary we the people have established.

Patriot Act.

It's leaped way outside it.

Really? How, specifically? Can you name specific instances where
enforcements under the Patriot Act have illegally infringed on
protected rights?

You're that ignorant?

IOW, you can't. Just as I thought.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

That is one of the main purposes of the 2nd Amendment. It is
designed to ensure that the whole populace is well armed at all
times and thus fully capable of rising up in arms against a
government that has stepped beyond the boundaries set for it.

The people in the Ukraine and Lebanon have demostrated that
governments can be overthrown without guns.

The exception only serves to prove the rule.

They are the norm today.

The people of Rawanda and Sudan likely disagree.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article 1110340422.0f166db598e207fc9e839e738f0d5c7b@terane ws, Nisarel at
wrote on 3/8/05 10:53 PM:

Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

But it cannot step one inch outside the
boundary we the people have established.

Patriot Act.

It's leaped way outside it.

Really? How, specifically? Can you name specific instances where
enforcements under the Patriot Act have illegally infringed on
protected rights?

You're that ignorant?

I find it interesting the the New York City Council (that's the city where
most of the people in 9/11 actually perished) want the Patrio Act revoked.

Many liberal twits (like most New York City Council members) want it
repealed (not revoked...you repeal a law). Who cares what they want? They
are liberal twits.

The ACLU is right at the top of the liberal twit-list in objecting to
virtually every government program to fight terrorists both within and
outside the US. They don't even want the FBI and INS to be able to inform
local police agencies about the identities of known illegal aliens, some of
whom are certainly terrorist infiltrators.

Now, the ACLU is positively dangerous, and is likely to get more Americans
killed by terrorists.

They obviously aren't as informed as Scott Weiser, but they seem to feel
rather strongly that it infringes on fundamental rights and liberties.

Like most liberal twits, they are full of crap. Nor can they cite any
examples.


I find the most recent version of their resolution quite well written.

http://www.nycbordc.org/resolution0389-2004.html

Even the American Library Association is getting radical!

http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Sect...=/ContentManag
ement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=11891

A search on

Patriot Act infringe on rights

or some such combination will give you a plethora of links to hundreds of
organizations that have come forward (at obvious risk) to stand up against
the anti-freedom (aka Patriot Act) act.

And yet not one of them can actually cite an incident where enforcement of
the Patriot Act has unlawfully infringed on ANYONE'S civil rights.

It's easy to spout leftist/liberal anti-Bush propaganda, but it's somewhat
harder to actually prove that the Patriot Act reduces freedoms. Still, there
is a war on. Get over it.


It's so ironic that at the very same time as US troops are fighting on
foreign soil - according to their President's revised mission to secure
freedom for the Iraqi people - freedoms in the USA are at one of the lowest
points in decades.

Funny, I haven't noticed any substantial impairment to my freedoms. Have
you? What, specifically, has happened to you that impairs your freedoms?
Nothing, I bet.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

KMAN wrote:

A search on

Patriot Act infringe on rights

or some such combination will give you a plethora of links to
hundreds of organizations that have come forward (at obvious risk)
to stand up against the anti-freedom (aka Patriot Act) act.

You'll even discover that a US DOJ investigation that found dozens of serious
rights violations.

Cite them.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 8-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

I don't? I think you're mistaken. I challenge nearly everything you post,
you're just too dimwitted to realize it.

Really - so then what about those points on your bull**** that you
just ignored in the preceding post?

I realize that you try to challenge me - I'm waiting for you to submit
something factual and not something you just made up.

I'm still waiting for you to refute them with any kind of
credible rebuttal.

Nice try, dickhead. You haven't provided one single bit of
evidence to support your ridiculous claims. You have posted loads
of bull**** and don't even attempt to justify it.

You are little more than a boastful bull****ter without the guts to
deal with facts. You try to bury your bull**** with other bull****
and when you run out, you hope no one notices.

If true, that makes you a coprophager par excellence. Mmmmm, good!

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 8-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

your definition of "gun culture" is specious.

Ok, dickhead - if you're the great expert, give us the
definition of gun culture. Provide references, just
to prove you're not making it up as usual.

I didn't suggest there was such a thing, so I need not define it, because
it's a rhetorical nullity that doesn't exist.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 8-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

They define their own textbook definition. Their scientific credentials
are not in question.

Well, since you haven't yet identified a single "scientist" in any credible
manner that would permit examination of their credentials, I judge this to
be argument by authority.

What a crock of ****. Scientists use their own terminology and don't need
your approval. Get over it.

It's not they, it's you that I judge to be evading.


Then feel free to post an authoritative and verifiable definition of

You're still short quite a few references for the crap you claim to
be true. When you catch up, get back to me.

some references are
required because you are facile at mischaracterizing things.

Trying to accuse me of what you do? That's rich. More bull****
from the weiner.

How's it taste? You must really like it.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
===============
Now all that I have addressed so far is why it is good to have our
notions disturbed. As to the exact nature of those notions, and maybe
more important, the true notions, that may take a bit longer to
consider.
=================

I don't want to do riddles. Just give it to me straight -- what IS
the
TRUE notion?

The first and most important TRUE notion is that Jesus is God. Jesus
said, "I and the Father are one. If you have seen me, you have seen the
Father!"

If He is not who He says He is, then He is a Liar, and a Fraud, a
Madman, and certainly noone you would want to set as an example of love
and peace, or look to for political options.

If He is who He says He is, then you have to be prepared to deal with
God, if you are going to talk about dealing with Jesus.

If He is who He says He is, and you want to talk about Jesus, but don't
want to acknowledge Him Being God, you may be the liar, fraud, or
madman. For being God, what He says about any issue, is supremely
important, and what He says about a significant issue such as capital
punishment, only one of the above would casually handle at best, or
ignore to their own peril at worst.

Only someone with silly notions plays hot-patato with a nuclear bomb!
If you are naieve, you may do so in bliss, but the inevitable result is
the same!


Tink says:
==============
The silly notions were primarily in your understanding of the nature
and character of God.
=============

Sorry Tink. I was NEVER talking about a god. I'm not interested in
any
theism. I was talking about JC. I'm open to your interpretations of
JC's position on issues.

Tink says:
===============
Have you ever heard the Scripture, "Thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"? Would you say that this phrase
sets a high mark to strive for in the New Testament? Do you think we
should try to live according to this Scripture today?
=================

Sounds good to me. In fact, it sounds kinda "liberal" to me. You know
what, that's exactly my point to begin with. Recall my initial point:
that JC and the NT were more likely liberal or left-wing than
right-wing?

And further, Tink, as a non-believer, that's EXACTLY the principle
I've
been trying to live my life by. Ain't life strange?

frtzw906

And so, many folk attempt to live their lives, and especially those who
claim to be Christians, who then feel compelled to emminate this high
ideal. We see this in many noble societies, as you observe those around
you, and see men at their noble best trying to live loving and peaceful
live, truly a liberal existance, and not necessarily an exclusive
Christian expression!

The only problem with this high ideal, as stated by Jesus, was that He
was only summarizing the Old Testament, when He made the statement. As
a summary, though couched in gentler terms, was never the less, still
just an Old Testament teaching. You know the one that has been
mentioned before, that talks about judgement, and death, and killing,
and in particular - Capital punishment! It is all part of the same
bundle, and you can't claim part without taking the whole Old
Testament.

Now many "Christians" try to live, according to this noble clause, and
noble indeed it is. But please understand that in so doing, they are
showing they do not have the foggiest idea about the New Testament
which Jesus spoke about. They often times have the silly notion, and
they share this silly notion with people around, that their lives
somehow illustrate what Jesus would do. And in reality it is just a
silly notion, that may be comfortable, but nonetheless silly. Their
lives may illustrate at best the Old Testament, but it has nothing to
do with the true life that Jesus offers in the New Testament, and
cetainly not one that reflects Him in the world in which we live, with
the issues and concerns which you ask about!

Jesus, as God spoke of the New Testament, which is leagues above the
Old Testament, in comparison. Everything you have tried to talk about,
is the Old Testament, and though noble and probably very liberal, in
points, is passe as far as Jesus is concerned, and as far as any claim
on our attention, and discussion, it may be academically of interest,
but lacks in depth application for it falls short of the New Testament.

You say you want to talk about deep water stuff, but then stay at the
farm pond, and even there, say you don't want to get your feet wet, you
just want to watch the other paddlers. That may be wise on your part to
not even get in the water even there, if you don't know how to swim,
and are not really interested in learning! The deep water is certainly
out of your league at this time, though it is there awaiting your
exploration!

Does Jesus have things to say about certain issues in our life today,
certainly! I just don't know whether you can handle it? One of your
first silly notions was thinking you could, and I always offer the
opportunity to acknowlege your own short comings before taking you into
deep water where you may not really want to go! Respectfully, TnT

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 8-Mar-2005, KMAN wrote:

It's absurd to discriminate against homosexuals. Move on.

Dickhead likes to pretend that he supports freedom and rights.
In fact, he only supports the status quo. It is impossible
for him to imagine that amerika can be improved in any way.
Given that his view of the world is from the inside of his
ass, it's not surprising.

Mike

He's so worried about sodomy, and now it makes sense, he's concerned about
additional brain damage.