|
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. But being wrong is nothing new for you. Takes one to know one. -- 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: 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? -- 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: 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. Hundreds of millions of disarmed dead prove that your examples are aberrations, nothing more. The RKBA is obsolete and irrelevant in today's world. I doubt the dead in Rawanda (among millions of others) would agree with you. I'd be willing to bet anything that they would have very much like to have had a right to keep and bear arms, and the arms to go along with 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 |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 7-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: And does it have to say "this is what God looks like" in order for God to decide to look like something else? What makes you think that God is constrained by the words in a book? It is clearly a waste of time trying to discuss this with you. Clearly. You are simply too stupid to go beyond your preconceptions and deep-seated fear of religion. TinkernTom has already pointed out that what I am talking about is over your head. No, it's over your head. I'm merely arguing at your level. Should you raise the level of discussion beyond rhetorical claptrap, I'll be glad to advance the issue with you. But so long as your best arguments are the sort of shallow thinking you've exhibited here, I see no reason to try to teach you anything more sophisticated. -- 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 7-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: The issue is whether the state has a legitimate interest in proscribing unprotected sexual activity by someone who is known to be infected with an STD. Why don't you address that question? If deliberate transmission of a disease is already forbidden, there is no need to outlaw any sexual activity. The question is not one of "need," it's one of societal will. I grant you that there may be no "need" to outlaw sodomy to avoid this particular issue, but the question is whether society is obligated to regulate in accordance with your view of "needs" or whether it can regulate as it sees fit for that, and/or other reasons? If they use it differently than the textbook definition, they are misusing the term, and thus their scientific credential are in question. I think it's more likely that you are misusing the term, and that the scientists use the proper terms. 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. Scientific definitions are not always the same as those used by the general public. Scientists need specific meanings to terms in order to ensure that communication is concise and precise. Then feel free to post an authoritative and verifiable definition of "morphological changes" so that we can operate from the same definition. Don't expect me to take your word for it though, some references are required because you are facile at mischaracterizing things. Perhaps you are using the wrong word. Perhaps you are full of ****. Nah, only about 1/4 full. I had a nice dump this morning. You don't challenge any other items I posted. I don't? I think you're mistaken. I challenge nearly everything you post, you're just too dimwitted to realize it. Is that an admission that you've been lying and bull****ting all along? Or are you too cowardly to stand up for your ridiculous claims? I'm still waiting for you to refute them with any kind of credible rebuttal. -- 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: For, without the right to keep and bear arms, one is a slave With guns, one is still obliged to obey every other restriction on rights that the government chooses to propose. Not necessarily. You're amazingly inconsistent. No, you're just amazingly ignorant. -- 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 , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/8/05 12:35 AM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: I've lived in Ottawa most of my life and never seen a gun that did not belong to a member of a police force. Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they donąt exist. In fact, gun ownership in Canada is quite high on a per-capita basis. I know they exist. This is my point, it is not a gun culture. Sure it is. No, it isn't. We don't talk about guns, unless it's a conversation about "that idiot with the gun who shot those people in Texas" or something like that. We don't love guns and talk about the right to have a gun as though it is more important than oxygen. It's not a gun culture. Just because YOU don't talk about it doesn't mean other people don't. Clearly you don't know everybody in Canada. Besides, your definition of "gun culture" is specious. Would be safer if gun loving was a more popular part of our culture? Not. Would you be more unsafe? Yes, most definitely. You're dangerously wrong. You also show a deep mistrust of your fellow citizens. I trust that we don't need to shoot each other. Which is true, until it's not. Would the individuals who ARE shot by criminals be safer if they were allowed to carry a gun to defend themselves? No, and other innocent people would be dead. So, it's okay with you that people are killed because they are rendered defenseless by you and your ilk? Amazingly enough, thus far my walking around without a gun hasn't gotten anyone killed. But your advocating that other people not be allowed to walk around with guns almost certainly has. Why is it that BC is opting out of the gun registration scheme, which is WAY over budget and is flatly unsuccessful? Because a bunch of incompetent bureacrats were given the job, and the fact that it was a gun registry that they messed up has little to do with why people are ****ed off. They are ****ed off because they fouled it up and spent way to much. If the car registry system worked that badly, we'd be just as ****ed off. And, it doesn't work. What do you think the registry is intended to do? It's intended to facilitate the confiscation of guns. It can have no other purpose, because no other purported purpose, particularly the ostensible one of reducing criminal access to guns, can possibly be accomplished by a gun registration program. You see, criminals don't register their guns because it's already illegal for them to possess them. The only people who register guns are law-abiding citizens, and there is absolutely no purpose whatsoever for having law-abiding citizens register guns except as a precursor to eventual bans and confiscations. How do you imagine it differs from the registration of cars? The government has no intention of confiscating cars. For one thing, it's so damned easy to pick up a gun in the USA! You can buy a wicked assault weapon like you are buying a pack of gum. That is a flat-out lie. It's entirely untrue, and you know it. What's so hard about acquiring an assault weapon in the USA? Why don't you do some research and get back to me. Done. They sell them in stores. You can buy them there. Can you buy them there like you're "buying a pack of gum?" I like to live in a place where people don't get shot. Who wouldn't. Then perhaps we have little to argue about. Problem is that your plan actually gets MORE people shot, and victimized by violent criminals. What plan? I think the only concrete change I've advocated in any of these gun threads is the elimination of assault weapons. Other than that, what plan have I put forth? That'll do. I happen to believe that a place where people don't associate their love of guns with their love of life is a safer place to be. What a singularly ridiculous statement. According to you, one who loves his life is wrong to wish to protect it. That's not what I said. That's what you implied. You think Gandhi was some sort of wimp, wherease some asshole with a basement full of assault weapons is hot ****? No, I just think that I'm not going to turn the other cheek, and I'm going to defend myself using reasonable and necessary physical force when it's required. Yup, and every moron with a cache of assault weapons in that special hole in the floorboards thinks they are capable of deciding what is resonable and necessary and when it is required, but what actually happens is children, wives, and husbands end up dead in their own house, shot by a member of their own family. Not very often at all Extremely often. How often, exactly? particularly when compared to the number of times that those same firearms are used to thwart a crime. What is the ratio of gun deaths in the US where the dead person was a relative or friend of the shooter vs a stranger committing a crime? You made the claim, so you tell me. Bad things happen. People get killed in accidents every day. More children die by drowning than are accidentally killed by firearms, and the number of children accidentally killed by firearms is at an all-time low and continues to go down, thanks in large part to the NRA. Heehee. What a group of saints they are. Indeed. You should note that Gandhi was killed with a gun, and that even though Britain is not in control of India anymore, there is a wealth of guns, not to mention nuclear weapons, in India at the moment, and that non-violence hasn't gone very far in dealing with Pakistan. Uh. And to you this is an argument for a stronger gun culture? Indeed. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Hold on their pardner. What happened to the police? And the armed forces? Well, in a disarmed society, they most often become tyrants. I don't think you know what is meant by "culture." I do. But the question is whether you do or not. You can have a culture that includes guns without having a gun culture. Since you have yet to define "gun culture" your statement is non sequitur. Peace through superior firepower is even recognized in India, which is why they have an army armed with firearms, among other weapons. Why are you pointing out that India has an armed forces? They have from moment one. To make it clear that even your utopian icon was wrong. My utopian icon? Who or what are you talking about now? You mean Gandhi? I think you brought him up, not me. But just because the world is a violent place full of gun nuts doesn't mean Gandhi was wrong...in fact, the state of the world might be proof that he was right. Er, no. Me, I'll achieve peace through superior firepower. There's a lot of violent people out there hiding in the bushes alongside your path. Best of luck with your journey. ROFL. The myth of the violent stranger in the bush. That's not who is going to kill you. That's who kills most of the people in the world. Actually, it isn't. It's a relative or other person that is known to you. Actually, you're spouting long-debunked HCI claptrap again. Really eh? According to the Journal of Trauma (1998) a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used in self-defense. 22 times more likely. Which is a long-debunked and biased report based on cooked books. But you sit down there in your safe room with your cache of weapons waiting for the stranger to pop out of the bush. Nah, I'll just go about my daily life while carrying a handgun. Sad. No, happy. And free. And unafraid to walk down the street after dark. You and your big rack of guns are more likely to get turned on a member of your own family Not true. This is more HCI claptrap that has been long disproven. You keep waiting for the stranger then. Do you have a fire extinguisher? How about accident insurance on your car? When fire extinguishers and insurance start killing people, get back to me. You miss the point, again...predictably. - or on yourself. That would be my right, now wouldn't it? Oh, and I wouldn't be surprised if you exercise it one day. And why would that be an issue for you? It will probably be an issue for you, and the person you kill. Um, I believe we're talking about suicide here, so the only person killed would be me. Or you'll put a big hole in some person you've mistaken for an attacker because you are so damned eager to have your chance to be a hero gunslinger. I doubt it. I've been carrying a concealed handgun almost every day of my life for more than 20 years, and I haven't shot anybody yet. I haven't shot anybody either! And I didn't have to carry a gun around for 20 years. Cool! Indeed. Lucky too. Have you checked that fire extinguisher lately? There's an awful lot of lucky people. Yup. Some not so lucky though. Nor do the vast, vast majority of people who choose to be legally armed. The "blood running in the gutters" hysteria you parrot simply doesn't happen where concealed carry is made lawful. Still, I'll take the chance, and I'll take responsibility for every round I'm forced to fire. Nobody said it was easy or that carrying a gun should be taken lightly. Mostly it's a pain in the ass. Guns are weighty, and bulky, and they seriously constrain your wardrobe choices, even in the heat of summer. You have to manage your gun carefully *every second* of the day when you're in public. Mhm. And most people don't seem capable of managing a credit card or even keep their shoes tied. My, do you have a dim view of your fellow man. Just the facts. Take a look at the state of personal debt in north america. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. It makes me more than a little nervous that they are carrying around concealed weapons. Your paranoia is of but little interest. Get used to it because the chances are that one or more of the people you were around today was carrying a gun. Most likely, up in Canada, it was a criminal. At least down here, it's most likely to be a law-abiding citizen. LOL. Also known as a criminal in waiting. Carrying a gun around allows a law-abiding citizen to turn into a murderer quite easily. So does driving a car, only more so. Your wife has a vagina, which allows her to turn into a prostitute quite easily. Should we therefore conclude that she is a prostitute? Strawman argument that has been conclusively disproven by facts and history. Take it off at lunch or at the gym and forget it *just once* and you'll be in deep doo doo with the police. No, it's not for everybody by any means. But what IS for everybody is the right to CHOOSE to be armed, or not to be armed. That is something that NO ONE has a right to deny them, ever. I disagree. And you're free to do so because people with guns secured the right and the ability for you to do so. Sorry, gun nuts like yourself have nothing to do with the freedoms I enjoy. Wrong. But I take my duty to myself and my fellow citizens seriously, so I choose to be inconvenienced in order that I am prepared to step up and defend the defenseless should it be necessary. You take delusions of grandeur seriously, which is what a big part of weapons ownership seems to be about. Dissing people who have courage only proves you a coward. What is courageous about carrying a gun around? It's not the carrying, it's the willingness to use it, at significant risk to one's own safety, to protect others that's courageous. What's cowardly is refusing to take responsibility for either your own safety or show any concern for the safety of others. By refusing to provide for your own safety, you put off your responsibilities onto the police, or on other armed citizens who aren't going to inquire about how much you deserve to be protected (or not) at their risk before they put their safety on the line to save your pathetic, cowardly ass. That's immoral and evil and cowardly. I warrant that you, faced with the situation Wilson faced, would fall to the ground, cower in fear and **** your pants, all the while hoping that someone, anyone with a gun would stand up and save your life. The irony is that the vast majority of armed citizens would do exactly that, for you, one who can do nothing but denigrate and demean the gallant sacrifice of someone who had no legal duty to intervene, but did so because it was the right thing to do. And he got killed for his altruism. Pity you weren't in his place, because he deserves life far more than someone like you does. People like you are a festering boil on the ass of society. You take from others and expect them to do for you that which you are unwilling to do for yourself, and then you insult them when one of them makes the ultimate sacrifice for others. Despicable. I guess to you the bravest person in the world is the drug dealer that shoots up the local park. Yes, that would be your guess. -- 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 |
Tink, commenting on my new view of JC:
================= I clearly made a false assumption about JC being kind, loving and forgiving. Thanks to you, and your refeences to scripture, I have been disabused of such faulty notions. Yes, and Good. ====================== But, Tink, why do you see this as good? Are you thus definitely saying that JC was neither kind, loving, or forgiving? The only reason I repeat my question is because this revelation stuns me. Tink wonders: ==================== I definitely agree that you have some silly notions about the kind and caring prophet, and I would be interested where you got those ideas. ==================== I must get these notions from the society around me. I'm a non-believer, but I have some intellectual curiousity about the people around me (some of whom purport to be Christians). They tell me of a kind, caring, loving, forgiving JC. I guess I've believed them in the past because, in my non-believer mind, the only way I could come even close to accepting this religious stuff, is if it offerred a life philosophy worth emulating: kindnees, peace, charity etc. Now you've explained to me that it isn't so. In your words, they were "silly notions". However, what am I to replace those silly notions with? What, then, if not love and peace, is the true nature of JC? frtzw906 |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... The exception only serves to prove the rule. What rule is that, Sparky? Hundreds of millions of disarmed dead prove that your examples are aberrations, nothing more. Hundreds of millions of armed people have found ways to get dead, too. It ain't that hard to do. Wolfgang |
|
|
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 4:07 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/8/05 12:39 AM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: Leave it to Fox to find someone who could turn a multiple victim public shooting stemming from a custody dispute resulting in the murder of two people and the wounding of four others into a pro-gun piece of claptrap. Well, a gun started it, and guns were the only thing that stopped it. And it's clear that Wilson saved lives by distracting the shooter, at the cost of his own life. Only a complete asshole would denigrate this bravery and sacrifice. Which would be, evidently, you. The asshole(s) are those who are capable of such bizarre thinking as to turn that incident into a pro-gun platform. Amazing. And yet you cannot refute the inescapable fact that without guns, nobody would have been able to stop the killer. Guns are merely inanimate objects and tools that can be used for both good and ill. Most of the time, they are used for good. Only relatively rarely are they used for ill. They are never used for good. They are only used for different degrees of ill. |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 3/8/05 3:47 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message ink.net... snip continuing boring crud my interpretation of that story is correct or not, we know what it does not say: that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. Since it is obvious that everyone in every health care system has to wait for treatment (that's why they have waiting rooms) I neither said, nor believe, that no one in Canada is waiting. You know I never said any such thing. You are making a deliberate false accusation, and you are a scumbag and coward for continuing to do so. ================== You should know all about being those things Only what I have learned from watching you, as you continue in your lies and cowardice. ==================== Nope, I've shown neither, liarman. I've proven what I say, you on the other hand...... Your problem is the lies you tell about other what other people have said. ================== Nope, because I haven't done that. Your problem is that you don't understand what you are writing. You said that some people in Newfoundland were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. I disagreed with you, given one of the doctors in the article described how those patients were in care. In voicing my disagreement, I said "no one is waiting for treatment." ============================= No, fool, that isn't when you made your ignorant statement. That you cannot read or follow the posts, even after you repost them is amusingly apparent. You have responded by making the false accusation that I made the statement that no one in Canada waits for treatment. ================== It was your statment that was false, not mine, liarman. I read exactly what you said, and when you saidit. You did not say it during the post about the boy Nfld. That is a lie, and you are a liar, because I never said that. You are a scumbag and a coward for continuing to repeat your false accusation. ========================== Nothing false about my statement, liarman. Why you continue to blather on about it is only because you cannot discuss the rest of your lies, that no one is dying while waitung for treatment in Canada. Why do you refuse to discuss that lie of yours, liarman? |
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 4:51 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/8/05 12:35 AM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: I've lived in Ottawa most of my life and never seen a gun that did not belong to a member of a police force. Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they donąt exist. In fact, gun ownership in Canada is quite high on a per-capita basis. I know they exist. This is my point, it is not a gun culture. Sure it is. No, it isn't. We don't talk about guns, unless it's a conversation about "that idiot with the gun who shot those people in Texas" or something like that. We don't love guns and talk about the right to have a gun as though it is more important than oxygen. It's not a gun culture. Just because YOU don't talk about it doesn't mean other people don't. Clearly you don't know everybody in Canada. Besides, your definition of "gun culture" is specious. I wasn't talk about all of Canada. And yes, one could write books and books about what constitutes a gun culture, but I know I am not in one. People here are more interested in identifying bird species than they are in guns. Would be safer if gun loving was a more popular part of our culture? Not. Would you be more unsafe? Yes, most definitely. You're dangerously wrong. You also show a deep mistrust of your fellow citizens. I trust that we don't need to shoot each other. Which is true, until it's not. I should probably carry a machine gun waiting for that special day when it's not, and yet, I manage to carry on happily each day without it. Would the individuals who ARE shot by criminals be safer if they were allowed to carry a gun to defend themselves? No, and other innocent people would be dead. So, it's okay with you that people are killed because they are rendered defenseless by you and your ilk? Amazingly enough, thus far my walking around without a gun hasn't gotten anyone killed. But your advocating that other people not be allowed to walk around with guns almost certainly has. ROFL. OK, you are really losing it now. And I really didn't think you had room for progress in that area. Why is it that BC is opting out of the gun registration scheme, which is WAY over budget and is flatly unsuccessful? Because a bunch of incompetent bureacrats were given the job, and the fact that it was a gun registry that they messed up has little to do with why people are ****ed off. They are ****ed off because they fouled it up and spent way to much. If the car registry system worked that badly, we'd be just as ****ed off. And, it doesn't work. What do you think the registry is intended to do? It's intended to facilitate the confiscation of guns. It can have no other purpose, because no other purported purpose, particularly the ostensible one of reducing criminal access to guns, can possibly be accomplished by a gun registration program. You see, criminals don't register their guns because it's already illegal for them to possess them. The only people who register guns are law-abiding citizens, and there is absolutely no purpose whatsoever for having law-abiding citizens register guns except as a precursor to eventual bans and confiscations. The gun registry has the same intent as an automobile registry. How do you imagine it differs from the registration of cars? The government has no intention of confiscating cars. Cars do get taken away from people who aren't supposed to have them, and I believe the fact that cars are registered enables this in many cases. For one thing, it's so damned easy to pick up a gun in the USA! You can buy a wicked assault weapon like you are buying a pack of gum. That is a flat-out lie. It's entirely untrue, and you know it. What's so hard about acquiring an assault weapon in the USA? Why don't you do some research and get back to me. Done. They sell them in stores. You can buy them there. Can you buy them there like you're "buying a pack of gum?" There are some minor inconveniences, but if you can handle opening a bank account, you won't be dettered by the process of getting a gun. I like to live in a place where people don't get shot. Who wouldn't. Then perhaps we have little to argue about. Problem is that your plan actually gets MORE people shot, and victimized by violent criminals. What plan? I think the only concrete change I've advocated in any of these gun threads is the elimination of assault weapons. Other than that, what plan have I put forth? That'll do. Why are assault weapons needed? I happen to believe that a place where people don't associate their love of guns with their love of life is a safer place to be. What a singularly ridiculous statement. According to you, one who loves his life is wrong to wish to protect it. That's not what I said. That's what you implied. Not even close. You think Gandhi was some sort of wimp, wherease some asshole with a basement full of assault weapons is hot ****? No, I just think that I'm not going to turn the other cheek, and I'm going to defend myself using reasonable and necessary physical force when it's required. Yup, and every moron with a cache of assault weapons in that special hole in the floorboards thinks they are capable of deciding what is resonable and necessary and when it is required, but what actually happens is children, wives, and husbands end up dead in their own house, shot by a member of their own family. Not very often at all Extremely often. How often, exactly? particularly when compared to the number of times that those same firearms are used to thwart a crime. What is the ratio of gun deaths in the US where the dead person was a relative or friend of the shooter vs a stranger committing a crime? You made the claim, so you tell me. A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. Bad things happen. People get killed in accidents every day. More children die by drowning than are accidentally killed by firearms, and the number of children accidentally killed by firearms is at an all-time low and continues to go down, thanks in large part to the NRA. Heehee. What a group of saints they are. Indeed. You should note that Gandhi was killed with a gun, and that even though Britain is not in control of India anymore, there is a wealth of guns, not to mention nuclear weapons, in India at the moment, and that non-violence hasn't gone very far in dealing with Pakistan. Uh. And to you this is an argument for a stronger gun culture? Indeed. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Hold on their pardner. What happened to the police? And the armed forces? Well, in a disarmed society, they most often become tyrants. You have a tyrant now. I don't think you know what is meant by "culture." I do. But the question is whether you do or not. I questioned you first. You can have a culture that includes guns without having a gun culture. Since you have yet to define "gun culture" your statement is non sequitur. Actually, it's not a non sequitur at all. Just because a term in a particular statement has not been defined that alone does not establish the information that follows as illogical. Peace through superior firepower is even recognized in India, which is why they have an army armed with firearms, among other weapons. Why are you pointing out that India has an armed forces? They have from moment one. To make it clear that even your utopian icon was wrong. My utopian icon? Who or what are you talking about now? You mean Gandhi? I think you brought him up, not me. But just because the world is a violent place full of gun nuts doesn't mean Gandhi was wrong...in fact, the state of the world might be proof that he was right. Er, no. I disagree. Me, I'll achieve peace through superior firepower. There's a lot of violent people out there hiding in the bushes alongside your path. Best of luck with your journey. ROFL. The myth of the violent stranger in the bush. That's not who is going to kill you. That's who kills most of the people in the world. Actually, it isn't. It's a relative or other person that is known to you. Actually, you're spouting long-debunked HCI claptrap again. Really eh? According to the Journal of Trauma (1998) a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used in self-defense. 22 times more likely. Which is a long-debunked and biased report based on cooked books. Somehow I thought you would say that. But you sit down there in your safe room with your cache of weapons waiting for the stranger to pop out of the bush. Nah, I'll just go about my daily life while carrying a handgun. Sad. No, happy. And free. And unafraid to walk down the street after dark. If you were not afraid you would not need to carry a gun. You and your big rack of guns are more likely to get turned on a member of your own family Not true. This is more HCI claptrap that has been long disproven. You keep waiting for the stranger then. Do you have a fire extinguisher? How about accident insurance on your car? When fire extinguishers and insurance start killing people, get back to me. You miss the point, again...predictably. Let me know. - or on yourself. That would be my right, now wouldn't it? Oh, and I wouldn't be surprised if you exercise it one day. And why would that be an issue for you? It will probably be an issue for you, and the person you kill. Um, I believe we're talking about suicide here, so the only person killed would be me. How often do you think about it? Or you'll put a big hole in some person you've mistaken for an attacker because you are so damned eager to have your chance to be a hero gunslinger. I doubt it. I've been carrying a concealed handgun almost every day of my life for more than 20 years, and I haven't shot anybody yet. I haven't shot anybody either! And I didn't have to carry a gun around for 20 years. Cool! Indeed. Lucky too. Have you checked that fire extinguisher lately? There's an awful lot of lucky people. Yup. Some not so lucky though. Maybe it's not luck. Nor do the vast, vast majority of people who choose to be legally armed. The "blood running in the gutters" hysteria you parrot simply doesn't happen where concealed carry is made lawful. Still, I'll take the chance, and I'll take responsibility for every round I'm forced to fire. Nobody said it was easy or that carrying a gun should be taken lightly. Mostly it's a pain in the ass. Guns are weighty, and bulky, and they seriously constrain your wardrobe choices, even in the heat of summer. You have to manage your gun carefully *every second* of the day when you're in public. Mhm. And most people don't seem capable of managing a credit card or even keep their shoes tied. My, do you have a dim view of your fellow man. Just the facts. Take a look at the state of personal debt in north america. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. I was pointing out that a lot of people have trouble with some basic tasks in life, and I'm not comforted by the idea of those same people walking around with guns making decisions on whether or not to blow someone else's brains out. It makes me more than a little nervous that they are carrying around concealed weapons. Your paranoia is of but little interest. Get used to it because the chances are that one or more of the people you were around today was carrying a gun. Most likely, up in Canada, it was a criminal. At least down here, it's most likely to be a law-abiding citizen. LOL. Also known as a criminal in waiting. Carrying a gun around allows a law-abiding citizen to turn into a murderer quite easily. So does driving a car, only more so. Check your statistics. There's a lot of cars out there. Not too many of them get used as murder weapons. Not so for guns. Your wife has a vagina, which allows her to turn into a prostitute quite easily. ACtually, being a prostitute has very little to do with having a vagina. Should we therefore concludethat she is a prostitute? No, we should conclude that you are a blithering idiot, LOL. Strawman argument that has been conclusively disproven by facts and history. It's hard to argue my most recent assertion though! Take it off at lunch or at the gym and forget it *just once* and you'll be in deep doo doo with the police. No, it's not for everybody by any means. But what IS for everybody is the right to CHOOSE to be armed, or not to be armed. That is something that NO ONE has a right to deny them, ever. I disagree. And you're free to do so because people with guns secured the right and the ability for you to do so. Sorry, gun nuts like yourself have nothing to do with the freedoms I enjoy. Wrong. Not only that, but apparently you've got a major god complex too! But I take my duty to myself and my fellow citizens seriously, so I choose to be inconvenienced in order that I am prepared to step up and defend the defenseless should it be necessary. You take delusions of grandeur seriously, which is what a big part of weapons ownership seems to be about. Dissing people who have courage only proves you a coward. What is courageous about carrying a gun around? It's not the carrying, it's the willingness to use it Oh, that's just beautiful! , at significant risk to one's own safety, to protect others that's courageous. Man, you can't WAIT for the chance to play hero and kill somebody, can you? Really, be honest...you just can't WAIT! What's cowardly is refusing to take responsibility for either your own safety or show any concern for the safety of others. By refusing to provide for your own safety, you put off your responsibilities onto the police, or on other armed citizens who aren't going to inquire about how much you deserve to be protected (or not) at their risk before they put their safety on the line to save your pathetic, cowardly ass. That's immoral and evil and cowardly. I've actually devoted most of the last ten years of my life to supporting some of the most vulnerable people in our community, and doing my best to ensure their safety has had nothing to do with carrying a gun. Not everyone has to carry a gun in order to be responsible or courageous. The police here don't feel that their safety is on the line because citizens don't all carry weapons around. In fact, quite the opposite, their lives are at greater risk were they carrying out their duties in a gun culture full of gun nuts like you. I warrant that you, faced with the situation Wilson faced, would fall to the ground, cower in fear and **** your pants, all the while hoping that someone, anyone with a gun would stand up and save your life. The irony is that the vast majority of armed citizens would do exactly that, for you If you are representative of the vast majority of armed citizens, that's because you spend much (if not most) of your day fantasizing out getting the opportunity to kill someone with your gun. one who can do nothing but denigrate and demean the gallant sacrifice of someone who had no legal duty to intervene, but did so because it was the right thing to do. And he got killed for his altruism. Pity you weren't in his place, because he deserves life far more than someone like you does. People like you are a festering boil on the ass of society. You take from others and expect them to do for you that which you are unwilling to do for yourself, and then you insult them when one of them makes the ultimate sacrifice for others. Despicable. Interesting. All because I don't want to walk around with a gun. I guess to you the bravest person in the world is the drug dealer that shoots up the local park. Yes, that would be your guess. By the way, were you by any chance kicked out of the police academy for being too trigger-happy? That would explain a lot, particularly your latest furious outburst. |
in article t, rick at
wrote on 3/8/05 8:05 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 3/8/05 3:47 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message ink.net... snip continuing boring crud my interpretation of that story is correct or not, we know what it does not say: that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. Since it is obvious that everyone in every health care system has to wait for treatment (that's why they have waiting rooms) I neither said, nor believe, that no one in Canada is waiting. You know I never said any such thing. You are making a deliberate false accusation, and you are a scumbag and coward for continuing to do so. ================== You should know all about being those things Only what I have learned from watching you, as you continue in your lies and cowardice. ==================== Nope, I've shown neither, liarman. I've proven what I say, you on the other hand...... Your problem is the lies you tell about other what other people have said. ================== Nope, because I haven't done that. Your problem is that you don't understand what you are writing. You said that some people in Newfoundland were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. I disagreed with you, given one of the doctors in the article described how those patients were in care. In voicing my disagreement, I said "no one is waiting for treatment." ============================= No, fool, that isn't when you made your ignorant statement. That you cannot read or follow the posts, even after you repost them is amusingly apparent. That you are trying to slink away from your false accusation is glaringly apparent. You have responded by making the false accusation that I made the statement that no one in Canada waits for treatment. ================== It was your statment that was false, not mine, liarman. I read exactly what you said, and when you saidit. You did not say it during the post about the boy Nfld. The only statement you have referenced is the following: === in article , KMAN at wrote on 2/20/05 2:14 PM: in article t, rick at wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM: Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their 'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the medical systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility in need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years for treatment. No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of scan in a specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies. === I did not say that no one in Canada waits for treatment. You are lying. And this conversation is over. You are a scumbag, and determined to remain as such. |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 3/8/05 8:05 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article t, rick at wrote on 3/8/05 3:47 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message ink.net... snip continuing boring crud my interpretation of that story is correct or not, we know what it does not say: that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. Since it is obvious that everyone in every health care system has to wait for treatment (that's why they have waiting rooms) I neither said, nor believe, that no one in Canada is waiting. You know I never said any such thing. You are making a deliberate false accusation, and you are a scumbag and coward for continuing to do so. ================== You should know all about being those things Only what I have learned from watching you, as you continue in your lies and cowardice. ==================== Nope, I've shown neither, liarman. I've proven what I say, you on the other hand...... Your problem is the lies you tell about other what other people have said. ================== Nope, because I haven't done that. Your problem is that you don't understand what you are writing. You said that some people in Newfoundland were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. I disagreed with you, given one of the doctors in the article described how those patients were in care. In voicing my disagreement, I said "no one is waiting for treatment." ============================= No, fool, that isn't when you made your ignorant statement. That you cannot read or follow the posts, even after you repost them is amusingly apparent. That you are trying to slink away from your false accusation is glaringly apparent. ========================== LOL Where am I going? I've been right here, exposing your willful ignorance and lies. You have responded by making the false accusation that I made the statement that no one in Canada waits for treatment. ================== It was your statment that was false, not mine, liarman. I read exactly what you said, and when you saidit. You did not say it during the post about the boy Nfld. The only statement you have referenced is the following: ====================== Yep, and it is not during the post about Nfld, now was it liarman? It's a discussion about the convenience of waiting, and whose convenience the wait is for. In your case, it's the convenience of the health care system. === in article , KMAN at wrote on 2/20/05 2:14 PM: in article t, rick at wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM: Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their 'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the medical systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility in need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years for treatment. No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of scan in a specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies. === I did not say that no one in Canada waits for treatment. You are lying. And this conversation is over. You are a scumbag, and determined to remain as such. ===================== Yes, you did, liarman, as you have just again proven... Why you continue to blather on about it is only because you cannot discuss the rest of your lies, that no one is dying while waitung for treatment in Canada. Why do you refuse to discuss that lie of yours, liarman? Still trying to dodge this lie too, I see, liarman. |
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. They obviously aren't as informed as Scott Weiser, but they seem to feel rather strongly that it infringes on fundamental rights and liberties. 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. 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. |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink, commenting on my new view of JC: ================= I clearly made a false assumption about JC being kind, loving and forgiving. Thanks to you, and your refeences to scripture, I have been disabused of such faulty notions. Yes, and Good. ====================== But, Tink, why do you see this as good? Are you thus definitely saying that JC was neither kind, loving, or forgiving? The only reason I repeat my question is because this revelation stuns me. I believe it is better to figure out what is not right and fix it, than to think every thing is Ok, and find out that it is not! I think it is good that your incorrect notions are exposed for being incorrect, then we can work on figuring out what is the truth. Your notions may be comforting, and make you feel all warm and fuzzie, but if they are false, they will eventually get you in trouble. For example, if you were getting ready to go on a boat trip, and were going to rent a boat. Now, I knew the guy that ownes the rental fleet, rents boats that were poorly maintained. Would you rather have me tell you that the boat you are going out in had a hole that had been patched with paper-mache. Or would you rather have me not dampen the excitement of your trip, and let you get out in the deep water, where the paper mache gets wet and falls out, and exposes the hole. And the boat fills with water, and things go from bad to worst? Now if you were operating on misconceptions about God, would it be right for me to let you continue, without at least trying to warn you. You may find that some very long held misconceptions, get disturbed, but hopefully, you and your boat do not end up at the bottom of some very deep water. Now, obviously if you are content to paddle around in the farm pond, a little hole may not be anything to worry about. A lot of Christians like to paddle around in their little ponds, and they may even be the best boater in the pond. Not that I would want to trust them, and their experience in deep water! 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. Suffice to say that the Scriptures say that "God is Love", so if you have already jumped to a conclusion that "God is not Love," then I would expect that your conclusion is incorrect, due to incomplete data, and probably other continuing silly notions. Tink wonders: ==================== I definitely agree that you have some silly notions about the kind and caring prophet, and I would be interested where you got those ideas. ==================== I must get these notions from the society around me. I'm a non-believer, but I have some intellectual curiousity about the people around me (some of whom purport to be Christians). They tell me of a kind, caring, loving, forgiving JC. I guess I've believed them in the past because, in my non-believer mind, the only way I could come even close to accepting this religious stuff, is if it offerred a life philosophy worth emulating: kindnees, peace, charity etc. Now you've explained to me that it isn't so. In your words, they were "silly notions". The silly notions were primarily in your understanding of the nature and character of God. The apparent expression ot peoples faith is another matter, which I must tell you many Christians have a few silly notions about as well. So if you end up with some accompaning silly notions about how Christians are, and maybe should be "from the society around me", I am not surprised! However, what am I to replace those silly notions with? What, then, if not love and peace, is the true nature of JC? frtzw906 Let me start to answer your last question, by asking you a question. I am going to go out on a limb here and make a big assumption, If I am wrong, please let me know. 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? Actually that is three questions, I was never that good with math! Answer these questions for me, and I will be able to answer your last Question above. BTW, I appreciate your intellectual honesty and curiosity! TnT |
KMAN wrote: "rick" wrote in message ink.net... snip continuing boring crud my interpretation of that story is correct or not, we know what it does not say: that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. Since it is obvious that everyone in every health care system has to wait for treatment (that's why they have waiting rooms) I neither said, nor believe, that no one in Canada is waiting. You know I never said any such thing. You are making a deliberate false accusation, and you are a scumbag and coward for continuing to do so. ================== You should know all about being those things Only what I have learned from watching you, as you continue in our lies and cowardice. There may be the proverbial Freudian slip! TnT |
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? 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 |
in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/9/05 12:05 AM: KMAN wrote: "rick" wrote in message ink.net... snip continuing boring crud my interpretation of that story is correct or not, we know what it does not say: that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. Since it is obvious that everyone in every health care system has to wait for treatment (that's why they have waiting rooms) I neither said, nor believe, that no one in Canada is waiting. You know I never said any such thing. You are making a deliberate false accusation, and you are a scumbag and coward for continuing to do so. ================== You should know all about being those things Only what I have learned from watching you, as you continue in our lies and cowardice. There may be the proverbial Freudian slip! TnT yeah, har har |
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. Mike |
On 8-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Clearly. You are simply too stupid to go beyond your preconceptions and deep-seated fear of religion. There you go inventing stories about me based on nothing I ever said. You're still nothing but bull****. I'm merely arguing at your level. You couldn't if you tried. You have never bothered to offer any facts. Mike |
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 |
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. Mike |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/8/05 3:48 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: Interesting thesis, inapplicable analogy. Totally applicable. While discrimination based on sexuality may interfere with someone's pleasure, it's hardly the same thing as denying someone the tools for defending their very lives. ? Preventing someone from enjoying an orgasm (regardless of the sex of the partner) is not the same thing as placing them at risk of death because they have been forcibly disarmed. You can always make up for a missed orgasm, but once you're dead, you're dead. What the hell are you talking about now?!?!? I'm not surprised you're confused. Who woulnd't be! Since it makes no sense. To you, of course. If you (as I am sure you dream) were the leader of a country and you declared that homosexuals have the status of slave, could you then see that parallel? Slavery is unlawful. It is now. Yup. What's your point? Things change. Indeed. It's absurd to discriminate against homosexuals. Move on. Now all you have to do is convince the various legislators involved. If black people were not allowed to get married, that would be discrimination. Indeed. And unlawful discrimination at that. Being black is a status. One does not get to choose to not be black. Why is it different for gay people? It's not different for gay people. It's not illegal to be gay. Just illegal for gay people to get married. Yup. Marriage is a sanction of the state, at least insofar as the benefits conferred upon couples who are married under state law. The state has authority to determine to whom those benefits are offered. Whether they should offer those benefits to gay couples is a matter of public policy, not a matter of rights. It's a matter of discrimination to deny them the right to marry. Yes, it is. The question is whether it is unlawful discrimination or whether it is discrimination based in some legitimate societal concern. As I've said, I happen to think that the whole issue of state involvement in the issue of marriage should be limited to recording of the contract. Which, after much blather from you, brings us right back to the simple point that this is no better than deying the right to marry to black people. Incorrect. Which is discriminatory, Discrimination is not a priori unlawful or even immoral. Discrimination against gay people simply because you do not like gay people is no better than discrimination against black people simply because you do not like black people. On that we can agree. It is most certainly immoral, and should be unlawful in a society that is not governed by hatred. Well, here we diverge somewhat. The issue of making "discrimination" unlawful is a delicate one because it necessarily impacts an individual's First Amendment rights of freedom of association and free exercise of religion. The justifications for banning racial discrimination in the providing of public accommodations had to surmount the freedom of association hurdle, and it was a very difficult fight. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that the pubic interest in preventing racial discrimination in public accommodations outweighed the First Amendment interests of restaurant and motel owners. Since then the racial anti-discrimination laws have spread to most public accommodations, including businesses, home loans and suchlike. It is still, however, not only legal, but moral for people who don't care for blacks to decline to associate with them outside the realm of public accommodation. You may find such bigotry to be indefensible, but the right of freedom of association does not require someone to defend their choices. But again, the racial anti-discrimination laws are based on a status, not on a behavior. While it may be reasonable to compel a southern motel owner or restaurant owner to treat blacks equally, the issue of homosexuals is somewhat more complex. For example, a motel owner, or more applicably an apartment owner who is deeply religious and believes that homosexual sodomy is a heinous and disgusting sin, and that facilitating it is also sinful, ought not be compelled to rent a basement apartment to two gay people who will be engaging in acts the owner finds intolerable. To force the landlord to suffer this outrage is an infringement of HIS First Amendment right to freedom of association, which implicitly includes a right to NOT associate with people he doesn't like. So, when you say that it's "immoral" for a religious person to discriminate against gays, you are in fact saying that the individual has no right to disassociate himself from a group of people whom he finds to be objectionable. Another example is that of the Jewish landlord who survived the Bergen-Belsen death camp, but whose family did not. Should he be compelled to rent his basement apartment to a neo-nazi white supremecist merely because it's "discriminatory" of him to decline? So, while we may agree that it's narrow-minded and bigoted to discriminate against gays (and we do) we have to balance the First Amendment rights of individuals against the desire of gay individuals to force their agenda and/or their behaviors on those unwilling to tolerate or accept such behavior. Again, it's not the fact that one is of homosexual orientation, it's the issue of what one chooses to DO about that orientation, and how far another individual, or indeed society as a whole, is required to go by way of tolerating and accepting such conduct. just as it would be if black people were not allowed to get married. Nope. Once again, being black is a status, being gay and wishing to get married is a voluntary choice. Prohibiting state-sanctioned marriage because of ones status is generally unlawful. Prohibiting state-sanctioned marriage because of ones choices of behavior is not. Being black is a status, being black and wishing to get married is a voluntary choice. Yup. And it's unlawful to discriminate in marriage based on race. Being gay is a status, being gay and wishing to get married is a voluntary choice. Correct. Being disabled is a status, being disabled and wishing to get married is a voluntary choice. Indeed. However, from the above examples, only gay people are not allowed to get married. That's discrimination, and it is discrimination founded in hatred and fear. I agree. As I said, I see no reason why the state should have any say whatsoever in re marriage. Nor do I think that the state should deny the right of an individual to designate ANYONE to receive whatever benefits may accrue to an individual. In fact, I object to the government offering benefits to families or married couples that they will not offer to a single person. That's discrimination that has no rational basis at all. If a public benefit is available, it should be available to every individual, regardless of spousal status, and that individual should be permitted to designate a beneficiary without regard to spousal status. That's my solution to the problem. My take on it is that the state should have nothing whatever to do with marriage at all, either by sanction or prohibition, and any benefit of the state offered to two people cohabiting should be offered to any two people cohabitating, without regard for sex, race or religion. "Marriage" is one of two things: It is either a religious observance, in which case the state has no place in the equation, or it is a civil contract between two individuals, in which case the only interest of the state is that the contract be valid and enforceable. Marriage is a great many more things than that. Not from the point of view of the state. In the simplest and most important terms, it is the highest-ranking social status for relationships in north american society. Making it unavailable to homosexuals is all about hatred and fear and wanting to deny that group access to the same social status that can be enjoyed by heterosexual couples. I agree. But add to that "non-married" couples and single persons. The common excuse given by government for providing preference to married couples has to do mostly with creating the next generation of taxpayers. If an individual has a benefit or a right, like a pension or health care or the right to determine medical treatment, available to them, then that person should be able to assign "power of attorney" and beneficiary status on ANYONE THEY WANT, whether a spouse, sex partner, brother, sister, friend or whatever. The state has no legitimate interest in dictating to whom an individual may grant power of attorney or to whom a person may grant state benefits due that person. That would take the whole marriage issue off the plate entirely. Gay people can engage in whatever solemnization of their partnership they choose, they can write whatever contract of cohabitation they choose, and heterosexuals can do the same thing, and the state would do nothing other than simply record (not license) the transaction in the county records. What is it with freaks like you? Interesting. I'm actually agreeing with you, you ****wit, and you're still being insulting. Would it not be easier to simply allow gay marriage? Good grief. No, it wouldn't. This is because the whole "state sanctioned marriage" issue is so deeply ingrained in our societal psyche that it's going to be pretty much impossible to get society to agree to give state sanction to homosexuals for what most of America views as a sacred relationship between a man and a woman. It's a societal mores and beliefs issue. The problem is that what gays *say* they are mostly interested in is gaining access to the public benefits of state sanctioned marriage like social security, pensions, rights of survivorship and other legal issues that attach only to "married" couples. It's my view that this is only part of the agenda. I believe that gays are demanding equal rights when it comes to marriage for another reason: They want their lifestyle to be legitimized and equalized with heterosexual relationships. This is why the ideas I espouse above are not often embraced by the gay community in my opinion. It's more about an attempt to force society into acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle than it is about access to benefits, which can be accomplished in other ways. While I understand the desire of gays to be "mainstreamed" in society, so that their lifestyle becomes non-controversial and accepted, I often think that they are going about it in the wrong way, and that they are alienating the people they need to persuade by engaging in radical actions that focus attention on their lifestyle. Fact is that most people in America don't think that the homosexual lifestyle is acceptable. One does not persuade these people to accept homosexuality as within societal norms by rubbing their noses in it day in and day out. We can see that this tactic is not very effective in the large number of state legislatures that are passing specific laws refusing to recognize gay marriages that are sanctioned by some states. Now, the issue of the Full Faith and Credit provisions of the Constitution aside for a moment, is there perhaps a better plan for garnering acceptance than radical homosexual politics? That being said, however gays wish to put forth their agenda is up to them, and I certainly hope that they succeed. I, for one, don't care what they do in their bedroom. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans do care, and it is they who have to be persuaded. It's the logic of the law. I never said that the law was "right." I'm merely explaining to you why it's not a violation of a gay person's civil rights to prohibit sodomy or "gay marriage." And you are wrong. Well, legally speaking, I'm right. And so is the law. That's a complex issue of both law and societal belief. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. It's not the fault of gay people that the law is an ass. Probably true, though they don't necessarily always act persuasively to convince those who have the power to change the law that it's in society's best interests to do so. Perhaps you should give them the benefit of your wisdom as to how they should go about it. Not my department. It's the fault of people who have the power to change the law that the law is ass. Indeed. Thus, one would think that rational and dispassionate debate would be preferable to radical flaunting of something that many members of society find to be obscene and disgusting. Whether that feeling is justifiable or not is beside the point. Oh, you are one of those guys that blames the girl for dressing provacatively when she is raped, aren't you? Well, no, not exactly. Provocative dress never justifies rape. However, dressing (and acting) provocatively may impose a large burden of personal responsibility on an individual who might have been better off to dress and act more modestly. Moreover, at some point, provocative conduct may be justifiably viewed as consent to sexual activity that imposes a strict burden of unequivocal and firm revocation of consent if rape is to be claimed. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Yes, well, that's the thing about being a marginalized group, if you just shut up and take it, you'll stay marginalized. The fact that you are shutting up and taking it might be welcomed, but it's not likely to bring any progress. I wasn't suggesting that. Talk about intellectual weakness...comparing adult homosexual consenting relationships with pedophilia? What is the point of that? It's not a comparison, it's an analogy. Try to discern the difference. The choice of analogy happens to be the same choice of analogy that is most popular with right-wing religious fanatics. It's a valid analogy, why shouldn't they use it? I hope I don't need to point out to you that there are some heterosexual couples that engage in anal sex, and some homosexual couples that do not. You do realize that, right? Of course. It's central to my argument because if anal sex is proscribed by law, then it MUST be proscribed for EVERYONE, regardless of sexual orientation. Surprise! That's just the way it works. That's WHY the civil rights of homosexuals are not violated by bans on sodomy. What kind of a screwed up country tries to put a ban on what consenting adults want to do in their own bedrooms? It depends on what the acts are. There are numerous reasons the state might have a legitimate interest in banning certain private conduct. It's amazing. The same guy that doesn't want the state to take away the right to keep an assault weapon under his pillow thinks it's just fine for the state to tell people what parts of their bodies they can rub together. You grossly mischaracterize my statements. Not that I'm surprised. Only in America!!! Hardly. In most of the rest of the world as well. You think it's bad here, try Iran or Saudi Arabia or Africa, where they flog you, cut off your hands, or your head or your clitoris for "immodesty." Not sex, just dressing wrongly or revealing your face to a non-family male. As for homosexuals, in most of the world, they get killed outright. Homosexuals in America ought to consider themselves extremely lucky. But there is a huge difference between relations between consenting adults and acts of rape or pedophilia. To include them together in this way is totally illogical, and frankly, indecent. Not at all. For one thing, your definition of "pedophilia" presumes that no child is capable of giving consent. While this is the current legal policy, any child psychologist or historian can tell you that this is not necessarily universally true. Heck, as recently as the last century, it was not at all unusual for girls of 13 to be of "marriageable age." How have children changed in the intervening hundred years that makes them any less "marriageable?" Rape and pedophilia (whatever your definition) have nothing to do with two consenting adults having sexual relations, and the attempt to link homosexuality with rape and pedophilia are typical descipable tactics of anti-gay fanatics. Again, it depends on how you define the terms. Second example: Persons A and B like to engage in sadomasochistic and "water sports" as well as coprography. They choose to do so while B's underage children observe. The children are not involved in the acts, but merely watch. Does the state have a legitimate interest in protecting these children from exposure to such acts? Sure, in the same way that it is inappropriate for children to have access to the porn channel. Some people would argue that exposing children to sex early, even if they don't participate, is psychologically beneficial, and that in fact, concealing sex and sexuality from children, even when they are quite young, is pathological behavior that is harmful to the child's healthy sexual development, in part because it reinforces the "forbidden fruit" syndrome. This was a strongly prevailing attitude in the 60's, particularly in alternative "free" schools. Who's right? I'd agree that concealing sexuality from children is unhealthy. But I'm starting to get very lost once again in figuring out how this relates to the fairly simple issue of gay marriage. It has to do with how societies regulate themselves. People who don't want gay people to get married don't want it because they don't like gay people. Well, they are allowed not to like gay people, after all. Should they be forced to like gay people? Would that not infringe on their fundamental right of freedom of association? It's really not all that complicated. Problem is it's quite complicated. It's not a simple legal matter, it's a complex societal matter that involves many factors. Third example: Persons A and B get off on having sex in public places in the view of passers-by. Does the state have a legitimate interest in prohibiting public displays of sexual behavior? Sure. Third example: Persons A and B engage in consensual sexual activity that includes partial asphyxiation. A strangles B during a sex act, but during orgasm fails to release the stranglehold and B dies. Does the state have a legitimate interest in prosecuting A for homicide, in spite of the fact that B consented to the strangulation? You got me, sounds like a debate for a Law and Order episode during ratings week. Fourth example: Persons A and B engage in consensual bondage and torture. A binds B and causes serious physical injury to B that requires hospitalization, at public expense, to heal and rehabilitate B. Does the state have a legitimate interest in proscribing consensual sexual behavior that poses an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to one of the partners? You got me, sounds like a debate for a Law and Order episode during ratings week. What does any of this have to do with discriminating against homosexuals? What it has to do with it is that the state obviously does have some interest in regulating private consensual sexual behavior. What the limits on that interest is are a matter of societal beliefs and mores, not just the personal preferences of the people involved. The people who are against gay marriage are against it because they hate and/or are afraid of homosexuals/homosexuality. Perhaps. Then again they may simply believe that marriages are for heterosexuals because heterosexual relationships are the glue that keeps society running. After all, homosexuals cannot procreate among themselves. Clearly society has a bias towards favoring the traditional man/woman/children family model that provides societal stability and continued existence. Whether that ought to be used to interfere with the intimate relationships between people who choose not to procreate is another matter entirely. Sometimes, the exercise of even carefully protected and explicitly recognized fundamental rights are justifiable regulated. Viz: the First Amendment does not protect one from state sanction for falsely shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Likewise, if the people who have been granted authority to enact law find reasons to prohibit sodomy, well, that's what they are paid to do and we have two choices: We can accept their judgment, or we can unelect them and elect those who see things differently and then change the law. But the fact that a prior administration has made a particular choice about regulating sexual conduct does not mean that the regulation is illegal, immoral or fattening. Society determines what is immoral and illegal. Science generally determines what's fattening. Here we go again. Gay people do not have a monopoly on sodomy. True. Nor are anti-sodomy laws only applied to gays. We've been over this. So gay marriage is not about sodomy. Good point. It is true that marriage is about much more than sex, but most of society recognizes that sex is an important part of marriage. In the traditional mode, it's there for the survival of the species, for without heterosexual relationships, children are not born. So, while gay marriage is not ALL about sodomy, it is at least in part about sodomy. Those who oppose gay marriage do not want gay people to get married, because they don't like gay people. Which is their right. It would seem to me that the objective would be to get them to like, or at least be neutral towards gay people. This is in fact what's happening, over time, in the US. Acceptance of gays in society is light years ahead of where it was even when I was dating a bisexual girl. As a society, however, we haven't yet come to acceptance of gay marriage. Eventually I suspect we will, though it may well take another generation or two. That's discrimination based in fear and hatred, and it is most certainly immoral, and most definitely pathetic. Well, it's bigoted, but as to "immoral," that's not quite so simple. One has to agree on a definition of "immorality" before making such a statement. Problem is that the definitions of "immorality" used by straights and gays are just about exactly 180 degrees opposed. This makes it very difficult for people to come to consensus about what is immoral and what is not. Scott Weiser: asinus asinorum in saecula saeculorum **** you to, dickwad. And I mean that in the nicest possible way. -- 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 |
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. 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. Mike |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/8/05 4:07 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/8/05 12:39 AM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: Leave it to Fox to find someone who could turn a multiple victim public shooting stemming from a custody dispute resulting in the murder of two people and the wounding of four others into a pro-gun piece of claptrap. Well, a gun started it, and guns were the only thing that stopped it. And it's clear that Wilson saved lives by distracting the shooter, at the cost of his own life. Only a complete asshole would denigrate this bravery and sacrifice. Which would be, evidently, you. The asshole(s) are those who are capable of such bizarre thinking as to turn that incident into a pro-gun platform. Amazing. And yet you cannot refute the inescapable fact that without guns, nobody would have been able to stop the killer. Guns are merely inanimate objects and tools that can be used for both good and ill. Most of the time, they are used for good. Only relatively rarely are they used for ill. They are never used for good. They are only used for different degrees of ill. What a remarkably ignorant statement. The vast majority of the time, guns are used to provide pleasure, and the only thing "harmed" is a piece of paper or a tin can. But your assertion utterly ignores the obvious fact that guns can be, and very frequently are used to protect the innocent against violent attack. That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates that you have lost touch with reality. Take a pill. -- 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 , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/8/05 4:51 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/8/05 12:35 AM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: I've lived in Ottawa most of my life and never seen a gun that did not belong to a member of a police force. Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they donąt exist. In fact, gun ownership in Canada is quite high on a per-capita basis. I know they exist. This is my point, it is not a gun culture. Sure it is. No, it isn't. We don't talk about guns, unless it's a conversation about "that idiot with the gun who shot those people in Texas" or something like that. We don't love guns and talk about the right to have a gun as though it is more important than oxygen. It's not a gun culture. Just because YOU don't talk about it doesn't mean other people don't. Clearly you don't know everybody in Canada. Besides, your definition of "gun culture" is specious. I wasn't talk about all of Canada. Evasion. Now you're trying to backpedal again. And yes, one could write books and books about what constitutes a gun culture, but I know I am not in one. People here are more interested in identifying bird species than they are in guns. And you know this because you personally listen in on every conversation in Canada simultaneously? Your megalomania is showing. I trust that we don't need to shoot each other. Which is true, until it's not. I should probably carry a machine gun waiting for that special day when it's not, and yet, I manage to carry on happily each day without it. Well, a compact handgun is probably adequate... What do you think the registry is intended to do? It's intended to facilitate the confiscation of guns. It can have no other purpose, because no other purported purpose, particularly the ostensible one of reducing criminal access to guns, can possibly be accomplished by a gun registration program. You see, criminals don't register their guns because it's already illegal for them to possess them. The only people who register guns are law-abiding citizens, and there is absolutely no purpose whatsoever for having law-abiding citizens register guns except as a precursor to eventual bans and confiscations. The gun registry has the same intent as an automobile registry. Not hardly. Automobile registries are for collecting taxes and providing information to police about a specific vehicle on the highway that may be breaking the law. Gun registries have nothing to do with that. They have no purpose or effect other than to provide a mechanism for eventual confiscation. They don't prevent crime, they don't identify criminals, they don't track the location of guns. They merely identify who is the putative "owner" of the gun and where the gun might likely be located at some point. The ONLY potential benefit to a gun registry is that it might, in the odd case, allow a stolen gun to be returned to its rightful owner. However, it's usually more efficient and less costly to simply wait for an owner who has had a gun stolen to report it to the police, whereupon the serial number and description is entered in the national stolen property database. It's sophistry to suggest that universal gun registration is intended only to facilitate the return of stolen guns. How do you imagine it differs from the registration of cars? The government has no intention of confiscating cars. Cars do get taken away from people who aren't supposed to have them, and I believe the fact that cars are registered enables this in many cases. Almost never. Cars in the possession of those who aren't supposed to have them are seized based on the direct observation of the police that the occupant is doing something wrong. Gun registries have no purpose other than giving authorities information on where to go to gather up gun when they are eventually banned. Nor can you actually state a legitimate reason for gun registries. At best you can provide specious analogies. For one thing, it's so damned easy to pick up a gun in the USA! You can buy a wicked assault weapon like you are buying a pack of gum. That is a flat-out lie. It's entirely untrue, and you know it. What's so hard about acquiring an assault weapon in the USA? Why don't you do some research and get back to me. Done. They sell them in stores. You can buy them there. Can you buy them there like you're "buying a pack of gum?" There are some minor inconveniences, but if you can handle opening a bank account, you won't be dettered by the process of getting a gun. Well, there you go. You were lying, and you've been caught lying and now you're trying to weasel out of your lie. I like to live in a place where people don't get shot. Who wouldn't. Then perhaps we have little to argue about. Problem is that your plan actually gets MORE people shot, and victimized by violent criminals. What plan? I think the only concrete change I've advocated in any of these gun threads is the elimination of assault weapons. Other than that, what plan have I put forth? That'll do. Why are assault weapons needed? It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights. Besides, "assault weapons" are the civilian equivalent of military arms, and as I've said before, one of the primary purposes of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the whole populace is armed with military-capable arms. You think Gandhi was some sort of wimp, wherease some asshole with a basement full of assault weapons is hot ****? No, I just think that I'm not going to turn the other cheek, and I'm going to defend myself using reasonable and necessary physical force when it's required. Yup, and every moron with a cache of assault weapons in that special hole in the floorboards thinks they are capable of deciding what is resonable and necessary and when it is required, but what actually happens is children, wives, and husbands end up dead in their own house, shot by a member of their own family. Not very often at all Extremely often. How often, exactly? I note you cannot answer this question. particularly when compared to the number of times that those same firearms are used to thwart a crime. What is the ratio of gun deaths in the US where the dead person was a relative or friend of the shooter vs a stranger committing a crime? You made the claim, so you tell me. A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. You're parroting debunked gun-banner propaganda. What happened to the police? And the armed forces? Well, in a disarmed society, they most often become tyrants. You have a tyrant now. How so? Really eh? According to the Journal of Trauma (1998) a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used in self-defense. 22 times more likely. Which is a long-debunked and biased report based on cooked books. Somehow I thought you would say that. Truth hurts, doesn't it? But you sit down there in your safe room with your cache of weapons waiting for the stranger to pop out of the bush. Nah, I'll just go about my daily life while carrying a handgun. Sad. No, happy. And free. And unafraid to walk down the street after dark. If you were not afraid you would not need to carry a gun. You have that exactly backwards. It is because I carry a gun that I am unafraid. Walking through Capitol Hill at night without a gun is a pretty scary proposition. I do it frequently and without fear because I know I'm prepared to defend myself. And I look the part, so criminals avoid me like the plague. If you walk like a sheep, the jackals will eat you alive. Mhm. And most people don't seem capable of managing a credit card or even keep their shoes tied. My, do you have a dim view of your fellow man. Just the facts. Take a look at the state of personal debt in north america. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. I was pointing out that a lot of people have trouble with some basic tasks in life, and I'm not comforted by the idea of those same people walking around with guns making decisions on whether or not to blow someone else's brains out. Your statement is patently false and deliberately defamatory. The fact is that "a lot of people" don't have problems with daily tasks, only a very small number do, and if they are truly mentally impaired, they generally aren't issued CCW permits. It makes me more than a little nervous that they are carrying around concealed weapons. Your paranoia is of but little interest. Get used to it because the chances are that one or more of the people you were around today was carrying a gun. Most likely, up in Canada, it was a criminal. At least down here, it's most likely to be a law-abiding citizen. LOL. Also known as a criminal in waiting. Carrying a gun around allows a law-abiding citizen to turn into a murderer quite easily. So does driving a car, only more so. Check your statistics. There's a lot of cars out there. Not too many of them get used as murder weapons. Not so for guns. The issue is not the numbers, it's the potential. Cars get used to commit murder all the time. Much more frequently than guns. The point is, however, that merely possessing a tool that can be used to kill does not magically turn people into raving homicidal maniacs, as much as you might like it to be so to suit your anti-gun agenda. Your wife has a vagina, which allows her to turn into a prostitute quite easily. ACtually, being a prostitute has very little to do with having a vagina. Statistically speaking, the vast majority of prostitutes are females, but again you miss the point. Should we therefore concludethat she is a prostitute? No, we should conclude that you are a blithering idiot, LOL. Evasion. Dissing people who have courage only proves you a coward. What is courageous about carrying a gun around? It's not the carrying, it's the willingness to use it Oh, that's just beautiful! Particularly when you're waiting for someone to shoot you dead in the Luby's cafeteria and you don't have a gun. , at significant risk to one's own safety, to protect others that's courageous. Man, you can't WAIT for the chance to play hero and kill somebody, can you? Really, be honest...you just can't WAIT! I can wait. I hope and pray that I'll never be called upon to draw my gun, much less shoot someone with it. That doesn't mean that I can't or won't if it's necessary to do so. That's the difference between us. You are a moral coward who wouldn't lift a finger to help someone in need, whereas I'm willing to put my life on the line, just as Wilson did, to protect those who cannot protect themselves. What's cowardly is refusing to take responsibility for either your own safety or show any concern for the safety of others. By refusing to provide for your own safety, you put off your responsibilities onto the police, or on other armed citizens who aren't going to inquire about how much you deserve to be protected (or not) at their risk before they put their safety on the line to save your pathetic, cowardly ass. That's immoral and evil and cowardly. I've actually devoted most of the last ten years of my life to supporting some of the most vulnerable people in our community, and doing my best to ensure their safety has had nothing to do with carrying a gun. Good for you. Too bad you're wrong, and too bad that you can't "ensure" anything, and too bad that people believe your claptrap...it might get them killed. Not everyone has to carry a gun in order to be responsible or courageous. Quite right. Nor is anyone required to do so. What's really reprehensible is when you advocate PREVENTING people who wish to do so from doing so. When you do that, you take direct moral responsibility for their complete safety, and if they get hurt because your advocacy supported their disarmament, their blood is on your hands. The police here don't feel that their safety is on the line because citizens don't all carry weapons around. What the police feel about is is not relevant. They are public servants, and if one of the things they have to get used to is that law-abiding citizens may be armed, so be it. Fact is that on occasion, armed citizens come to the defense of officers who are being attacked and not infrequently save their lives. That's what Wilson did just the other day, and he died doing so. In fact, quite the opposite, their lives are at greater risk were they carrying out their duties in a gun culture full of gun nuts like you. Nope. They are far safer, in fact. And most line cops down here know that full well. The major objectors to CCW are police administrators who are trying to curry favor with anti-gun politicians. Your tired "cops blood will be running in the gutters if we legalize CCW" argument is noxiously false. It's simply a lie. I warrant that you, faced with the situation Wilson faced, would fall to the ground, cower in fear and **** your pants, all the while hoping that someone, anyone with a gun would stand up and save your life. The irony is that the vast majority of armed citizens would do exactly that, for you If you are representative of the vast majority of armed citizens, that's because you spend much (if not most) of your day fantasizing out getting the opportunity to kill someone with your gun. I know you'd like to think thatąs what I think, but in reality you are just trying to insult me because you have no cogent argument to make. So, I'll respond in kind, just out of principle: Go **** yourself. one who can do nothing but denigrate and demean the gallant sacrifice of someone who had no legal duty to intervene, but did so because it was the right thing to do. And he got killed for his altruism. Pity you weren't in his place, because he deserves life far more than someone like you does. People like you are a festering boil on the ass of society. You take from others and expect them to do for you that which you are unwilling to do for yourself, and then you insult them when one of them makes the ultimate sacrifice for others. Despicable. Interesting. All because I don't want to walk around with a gun. No, because you demean and denigrate those law-abiding citizens (like me...and there are millions like me) who choose to be armed, even when they make the ultimate sacrifice trying to protect others. I guess to you the bravest person in the world is the drug dealer that shoots up the local park. Yes, that would be your guess. By the way, were you by any chance kicked out of the police academy for being too trigger-happy? Nope, I graduated and was certified and went to work as a police officer for many years. That would explain a lot, particularly your latest furious outburst. What, you don't like being called a coward and a despicable piece of human flotsam? Why ever not? You richly deserve 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 |
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:19 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com