"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the
right
of religious students to pray in school

That's like asking them to defend the right to fire a gun in school.

Why? In case you missed it, the courts have ruled that students are
entitled
to pray in school, just so long as it's not school officials who are
leading
the prayers.

Defending civil liberties means that you don't necessarily go along with
whatever the court has to say on an issue.

It does mean going along with what the Constitution says, however.

No it doesn't.

But that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution
and the religious student's right to freely exercise their religion.

It's their job to be at odds with whatever it is that is threatening
civil
liberties.

Except when the civil liberties threatened happen to be ones that support
things like religion and private property.

Since religion is nothing but an exercise of the imagination, it can't be
threatened. If you mean that the imposition of religious power and influence
threatens civil liberties and needs to be kept in check, that's quite true.

How exactly does the ACLU threaten private property? I'd like to hear some
examples to see where you are coming from on that one.

You must learn
to distinguish between a school and its administration leading, engaging
in
or fostering prayer by students and the free exercise of religion by
individual students, acting on their own. That other students may be
made
uncomfortable by these private displays of religion is not important, as
the
Constitution requires them to tolerate such things.

If the displays are private, there's obviously no problem, because nobody
would even know they were praying.

"Private" does not mean "invisible." I can pray out loud on the sidewalk
all
day long and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

And that's the place for it. Not in a school where other children are
required to be. There, that's one less issue where you have to shriek about
the ACLU :-)

or defense of individual landowners
property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the
government

I'm not sure that civil liberties and property rights are necessarily a
good
fit.

In case you missed it, the right to own private property is one of our

Who is "our" here?

Each and every citizen of the United States, of course.

Oh, I don't know that they all share your perspective Scotty.

the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms

Well, perhaps the concern is the right for other people to be safe from
gun
nuts.

Perhaps, but that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and
the
civil liberty to own a gun.

It's their job to be at odds with anything that threatens civil
liberties.

Except when the threatened civil liberty is the right to keep and bear
arms.

Nope, that too.

Thus, even if a judge rules that it is perfectly fine for Scott Weiser to
park a tank on his front lawn and point it at his neighbor's house, you
might well expect the ACLU to disagree.

Hyperbolic amphigory.

Try to see how it is more than that.

It's a bit like the situation with the gum.

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Tink asks:
==============
Basically I am saying, I am giving you opportunity to proselytize me
with what you believe. Convince me of the wisdom of your way!
=============

What can I say, Tink, except that I found KMAN's list more than
adequate.

As to the other stuff, you may recall that you made some innane comment
about whatever I do ending up on a scrap heap (I can't recall your
exact words, but that pretty-much sums it up). And I explained to you
that whatever I do likely will NOT end up on a scrap heap but, would,
rather, live long past my physical demise. This legacy (for lack of a
better word right now) constitutes my after-life. I'm content with
that. That gves me a warm fuzzy feeling right now.

By way of example, I was up at the field hockey clubhouse last night.
In one of the meetings for novice coaches, I saw 6 girls/young women
who I had coached earlier in their careers. They may well have their
own motives for wanting to coach, but I also know them well enough to
know that by modelling behavior, I influenced them (and I know for a
fact they'll use many of the coaching drills and tactics I used). So,
already a "legacy". Now, if these young ladies have a similar impact on
their players, isn't that one hell of an "after-life" even before I'm
gone. That, Tink, is what an after-life means to me -- making
differences in peoples' lives that they'll not soon forget.

frtzw906

Right on brother!

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink asks:
==============
Basically I am saying, I am giving you opportunity to proselytize me
with what you believe. Convince me of the wisdom of your way!
=============

What can I say, Tink, except that I found KMAN's list more than
adequate.

As to the other stuff, you may recall that you made some innane
comment
about whatever I do ending up on a scrap heap (I can't recall your
exact words, but that pretty-much sums it up). And I explained to you
that whatever I do likely will NOT end up on a scrap heap but, would,
rather, live long past my physical demise. This legacy (for lack of a
better word right now) constitutes my after-life. I'm content with
that. That gves me a warm fuzzy feeling right now.

By way of example, I was up at the field hockey clubhouse last night.
In one of the meetings for novice coaches, I saw 6 girls/young women
who I had coached earlier in their careers. They may well have their
own motives for wanting to coach, but I also know them well enough to
know that by modelling behavior, I influenced them (and I know for a
fact they'll use many of the coaching drills and tactics I used). So,
already a "legacy". Now, if these young ladies have a similar impact
on
their players, isn't that one hell of an "after-life" even before I'm
gone. That, Tink, is what an after-life means to me -- making
differences in peoples' lives that they'll not soon forget.

frtzw906

frtzw, I want you to know that I expect that you are a very nice man,
that we could have a great time paddling or playing chess together. We
could probably enjoy a good conversation over some beer and pretzels.
If my stomping through your memorial gardens seemed unceremonius, and
agregious, and upset you, I apologize. However it was not pointless. I
desired to upset you. If my little rant could upset you, then you must
now add that to your memorial garden. Maybe that you have been attacked
by a rabid Christian should read well on your memorial headstone, or
maybe that you let him get under your skin for being rude! No, that
would not read as well!

That we have had an interesting conversation should also be noted in
your memorial, that you are a nice guy, that you have dedicated your
life to educating young people in sportsmanship, drills and tactics.
That someone 20, 30, or 40 years from now will speak highly of you,
will be your lasting legacy.

I look forward to continuing our converstion, for I am learning alot of
new and wonderful things, That may be on your legacy stone as well!

I did come across some interesting web articles that I wanted to share
with you about the religious right, and conservative politics. I think
you will find them interesting.

http://tinyurl.com/5s3h6

http://tinyurl.com/62d7v


It seems that all is not as it appears in Shangri-la! TnT

On 11-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

This
biometric measurement suggests that they are not the same organism.

There you go, assuming that all scientists are stupid. You've done it
before, you'll do it again.

The fact is that you think you're an expert on morphology because
you read a dictionary definition that you obviously don't understand.
Those of us that are trained in science and engineering _know_ that
morphological characteristics, such as form and structure, can be
independent of size.

I've long ago lost count of how many analyses of structures I've done
that are independent of dimension (I'm a structural engineer). My
master's thesis topic was on risk (mentioned before) and featured
an analysis of the National Building Code for risk parameters. The
structures investigated were all non-dimensional. All dimensions
are normalized out of the model.

Aero-and hydrodynamics work is almost always non-dimensional. Airfoils
are very well defined in _form_ (search on NACA airfoils for examples)
but are not specified as having dimensions. The coefficients (lift,
drag, Reynold's number, Mach number etc) are all dimensionless.
Engineers in this area are able to compare and contrast different
airfoil designs without resorting to dimensional information, working
entirely with the _form_ and non-dimensional coefficients.

In the realm of paleoanthropology, the most recent news has been about
Homo Florensiensis. Skeletal remains found in Indonesia have been
causing quite a stir. Teuku Jakob, an Indonesian paleontologist has
claimed that the skull is simply that of a microcephalic H. sapiens.
However, Dean Falk of Florida State U, has analysed the brain cast
of H. florensiensis and compared it to brain casts of pygmies,
microcephalic H. sapiens and to H. erectus. This was published in
"Science" in the past couple of weeks and she was interviewed on
Discovery Channel. The brain casts show the characteristics typical
of the various species and types. She was able to show that the
H. florensiensis was not a microcephalic and that the its lobes were
closest to H. erectus. These brain casts were _not_the_same_size_.
They don't have to be the same size to be morphologically similar.

Form and structure are not dependent on dimension as you naively
assume.

You have made the ridiculous claim that biometry is a subset of
morphology - PROVE IT.


They are hominids - human ancestors, ***early humans*** not human beings. It
says so in the web page.

Interesting that you excised the QUOTE from the Smithsonian website which
clearly refers to them as "***earlier humans***."

What excising? You still can't read - a kindergarden kop pretending to
be an editor.

"The phylogenetic tree below shows one reconstruction of the relationships
among early human species, as we best know them today."

Any ambiguity about the use of the term "human" aside - you are still wrong.

Every one of the species that you listed as an early human (including all
australopithicines, the paranthropus and homo species) for which adequate
skeletal remains have been found share one significant characteristic -
THEY ALL WALKED ERECT. You're still wrong, dickhead.

Give it up, you're beaten.

Speak for yourself, dickhead.

Mike

On 11-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

it's still illegal to sell a gun to a disqualified person, even
in a private sale.

A technicality of no consequence to those that firmly believe
that the constitution protects their right to have guns.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the
right
of religious students to pray in school

That's like asking them to defend the right to fire a gun in school.

Why? In case you missed it, the courts have ruled that students are
entitled
to pray in school, just so long as it's not school officials who are
leading
the prayers.

Defending civil liberties means that you don't necessarily go along with
whatever the court has to say on an issue.

It does mean going along with what the Constitution says, however.

No it doesn't.

If they don't comport with the Constitution, they aren't protecting "civil
liberties."


But that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution
and the religious student's right to freely exercise their religion.

It's their job to be at odds with whatever it is that is threatening
civil
liberties.

Except when the civil liberties threatened happen to be ones that support
things like religion and private property.

Since religion is nothing but an exercise of the imagination, it can't be
threatened. If you mean that the imposition of religious power and influence
threatens civil liberties and needs to be kept in check, that's quite true.

How exactly does the ACLU threaten private property? I'd like to hear some
examples to see where you are coming from on that one.

I didn't say they threatened private property, though I suspect they do by
interfering with land transfers (think Wal-Mart) and perhaps by supporting
restrictions on the use and enjoyment of private land found in land use
codes, I said that they did not SUPPORT private property rights. There's not
a chance in hell that the ACLU would, for example, take up my case against
the State of Colorado for the unlawful appropriation of a right of way
across my land by the legislature.

And yet the issue of unlawful eminent domain takings is certainly involved
with "civil rights," since the right to own private property and be
compensated when the state appropriates it, is a fundamental civil right.


You must learn
to distinguish between a school and its administration leading, engaging
in
or fostering prayer by students and the free exercise of religion by
individual students, acting on their own. That other students may be
made
uncomfortable by these private displays of religion is not important, as
the
Constitution requires them to tolerate such things.

If the displays are private, there's obviously no problem, because nobody
would even know they were praying.

"Private" does not mean "invisible." I can pray out loud on the sidewalk
all
day long and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

And that's the place for it.

Well, the point is that neither you nor the government gets to decide that.

Not in a school where other children are
required to be.

That they are required to be there does not mean that they have a right to
be protected from displays of religious beliefs by other students who choose
to freely exercise their First Amendment rights.

There, that's one less issue where you have to shriek about
the ACLU :-)

Hardly.


or defense of individual landowners
property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the
government

I'm not sure that civil liberties and property rights are necessarily a
good
fit.

In case you missed it, the right to own private property is one of our

Who is "our" here?

Each and every citizen of the United States, of course.

Oh, I don't know that they all share your perspective Scotty.

If they don't, they are socialist asses.


the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms

Well, perhaps the concern is the right for other people to be safe from
gun
nuts.

Perhaps, but that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and
the
civil liberty to own a gun.

It's their job to be at odds with anything that threatens civil
liberties.

Except when the threatened civil liberty is the right to keep and bear
arms.

Nope, that too.

But they absolutely refuse to defend the right to keep and bear arms, which
is a civil liberty. As I said, they are a biased, hard-left group with a
socialist agenda.


--
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 11-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

This
biometric measurement suggests that they are not the same organism.

There you go, assuming that all scientists are stupid.

Not them, just you.

You've done it
before, you'll do it again.

The fact is that you think you're an expert on morphology because
you read a dictionary definition that you obviously don't understand.
Those of us that are trained in science and engineering _know_ that
morphological characteristics, such as form and structure, can be
independent of size.

I've long ago lost count of how many analyses of structures I've done
that are independent of dimension (I'm a structural engineer). My
master's thesis topic was on risk (mentioned before) and featured
an analysis of the National Building Code for risk parameters. The
structures investigated were all non-dimensional. All dimensions
are normalized out of the model.

Aero-and hydrodynamics work is almost always non-dimensional. Airfoils
are very well defined in _form_ (search on NACA airfoils for examples)
but are not specified as having dimensions. The coefficients (lift,
drag, Reynold's number, Mach number etc) are all dimensionless.
Engineers in this area are able to compare and contrast different
airfoil designs without resorting to dimensional information, working
entirely with the _form_ and non-dimensional coefficients.

In the realm of paleoanthropology, the most recent news has been about
Homo Florensiensis. Skeletal remains found in Indonesia have been
causing quite a stir. Teuku Jakob, an Indonesian paleontologist has
claimed that the skull is simply that of a microcephalic H. sapiens.
However, Dean Falk of Florida State U, has analysed the brain cast
of H. florensiensis and compared it to brain casts of pygmies,
microcephalic H. sapiens and to H. erectus. This was published in
"Science" in the past couple of weeks and she was interviewed on
Discovery Channel. The brain casts show the characteristics typical
of the various species and types. She was able to show that the
H. florensiensis was not a microcephalic and that the its lobes were
closest to H. erectus. These brain casts were _not_the_same_size_.
They don't have to be the same size to be morphologically similar.

Form and structure are not dependent on dimension as you naively
assume.

But that's a claim I've never made. I said that size is a component of form
and structure, which is clearly the case. There is no form and structure in
organisms without size, except in the abstract. I did not say that form and
structure were dependent on size. Thus, "morphology," which describes the
form and structure of an organism includes as a part of the description of
the morphology an analysis of size. I did not suggest that size was
determinative. You affirm my statement with your discussion of H.
florensiensis.

The root of this debate was the question of intelligent design versus
evolution and my quest for an explanation of why sharks have not changed
from sharks to something else in 400 million years while humans have
advanced remarkably in less than 2 million years.

You said:
We know that DNA mutations occur in humans as well, and at a fairly quick
rate. In spite of that, there have been no morphological changes in
skeletal remains during the entire history of Homo Sapiens.

I said:
I disagree. If nothing else, the average height of humans has increased
substantially in recorded history. And how do you link, for example, Homo
Neandrathalsis to Homo Sapiens? Where are the intervening morphological
changes that show that one became the other? Sorry, but that record simply
does not exist. There is not just one "missing link," there are BILLIONS of
missing links. If DNA shifts cause gradual morphological changes that result
in the evolution of a species, one would expect to find a panoply of slightly
different specimens in different geological strata that would show the
evolution. Instead, what we see are a very, very few examples of fossil
remains that are morphologically distinct from one another, with no evidence
of the co-existence of different "Darwinian dead-end" variants. Some
paleontologists posit that Neanderthal and Sapien may have co-existed, but the
overlap is speculative at this point.

You said there have been "no morphological changes in skeletal remains
during the entire history of Homo Sapiens."

I suggested that, if nothing else, the average height has increased in
recorded history. One of the "other things" is, for example, the larger
brain case, more complex brain, and "lighter skeletal structure" than
earlier forms. All of these are morphological differences, not merely size
differences, as your H. florensiensis quote demonstrates. You tried to limit
the discussion specifically to H sap., but the issue is larger than that.

I then broadened the scope by including other forms of humans to show that
there have indeed been morphological changes. Indeed, it's the morphological
changes in ancestral humans that cause scientists to give them different
names.


You have made the ridiculous claim that biometry is a subset of
morphology - PROVE IT.

Simple logic proves it:

Premise: Organisms cannot exist without form and structure.
Premise: Organisms cannot exist without size.
Conclusion: Form, structure and size are required for an organism to exist.

Premise: Form and structure may be described without reference to size.
Premise: Size may not be described without reference to form and structure.
Conclusion: Size is a component of form and structure.

Premise: Size is a component of form and structure.
Premise: Morphology describes the form and structure of an organism.
Premise: Biometry describes the organism's size.
Conclusion: Biometry is a component of morphology.

"The phylogenetic tree below shows one reconstruction of the relationships
among early human species, as we best know them today."

Any ambiguity about the use of the term "human" aside - you are still wrong.

Every one of the species that you listed as an early human (including all
australopithicines, the paranthropus and homo species) for which adequate
skeletal remains have been found share one significant characteristic -
THEY ALL WALKED ERECT. You're still wrong, dickhead.

Not quite, you merely misunderstand the point of the debate. At some stage
in evolution, the precursors to early humans did not walk erect, or so
evolutionary theory would have it. If evolution is true, then we evolved
from pond-scum and passed through a nearly infinite number of intermediate
forms that resulted in what we are today. Where are all those intermediate
forms, and why haven't sharks also gone through intermediate morphological
changes en route to some greater destiny?

Or, somewhere in pre-history, something sudden and episodic happened that
resulted in a change to upright gait, which is one of the markers that
scientists use to differentiate between lower primate forms and humans.

Is the change to upright gait a gradual shift that would suggest
morphological change through adaptation or is it a sudden and inexplicable
change from one morphology to another with no intervening intermediary
forms?

If the former, where are the intervening forms?
If the latter, what caused the sudden morphological changes?

Gamma rays?
God?

Speak for yourself, dickhead.

I always do, Netwit.

--
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 12-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Form and structure are not dependent on dimension as you naively
assume.

But that's a claim I've never made.

On 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

I am using the term morphology correctly. It is about shape and
form, not size.

Not according to the only authoritative definition of the word posted so
far.

On 10-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

I don't see the word "size" or "dimension" anywhere in here.

That's because you're an idiot, ****-brick.
[...]
morphology inherently includes size as a component of form and structure.

You are claiming that morphology is based on dimension even though the
definition that you provide does not even contain any reference to dimension.
You have claimed that within morphology, you can't have form or structure
without dimension.

On 10-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Thus biometry is an aspect of morphology.

I have given many examples of scientists and engineers using morphological
characteristics without _any_ reference to dimension. Morphology is
_independent_ of dimension. Form and structure are independent of size.
It is only when one moves from the study of a class of forms to the
study of an individual instance of an entity that one invokes size and
hence biometry. The problem is that you can't distinguish between classes
of objects and instances of objects. Morphology is about classification
and biometry is about measuring an instance of an object independent of
its class. Two different activities with two different objectives.
They are not the same thing and are not done with the same objective.
One is not a subset of the other.

It is you that does not understand the slightest thing about morphology
and biometry, nor about science. You insist in claiming expertise because
you misunderstand a dictionary entry. Why don't you actually _study_
something about the topic instead of continuing to post bull****.

You affirm my statement with your discussion of H. florensiensis.

And yet at every point up to now you've tried to claim that size
is important.

You said there have been "no morphological changes in skeletal remains
during the entire history of Homo Sapiens."

I suggested that, if nothing else, the average height has increased in
recorded history. One of the "other things" is, for example, the larger
brain case, more complex brain, and "lighter skeletal structure" than
earlier forms. All of these are morphological differences, not merely size
differences, as your H. florensiensis quote demonstrates. You tried to limit
the discussion specifically to H sap., but the issue is larger than that.

Yes - you tried to change the topic. Every time you get stuck, you try
to change the topic instead of address the facts presented.

There are morphological differences because they are in different classes.
Each is a separate species, dickhead. Within a single species, changes
in structure are extremely slow to occur - my point and one you don't want
to hear.

Simple logic proves it:

You prove nothing. See above. If you want to prove this, try finding
a reference that agrees with your ridiculous claims.

Not quite, you merely misunderstand the point of the debate.

No, I'm addressing the fact that _you_ do not bother with facts and
that _you_ will post anything that comes to your mind even if it
nothing but bull****. Stop changing the topic. You are nothing
but a bull****ter.

Mike

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/12/05 3:52 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the
right
of religious students to pray in school

That's like asking them to defend the right to fire a gun in school.

Why? In case you missed it, the courts have ruled that students are
entitled
to pray in school, just so long as it's not school officials who are
leading
the prayers.

Defending civil liberties means that you don't necessarily go along with
whatever the court has to say on an issue.

It does mean going along with what the Constitution says, however.

No it doesn't.

If they don't comport with the Constitution, they aren't protecting "civil
liberties."

Nonsense.

But that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution
and the religious student's right to freely exercise their religion.

It's their job to be at odds with whatever it is that is threatening
civil
liberties.

Except when the civil liberties threatened happen to be ones that support
things like religion and private property.

Since religion is nothing but an exercise of the imagination, it can't be
threatened. If you mean that the imposition of religious power and influence
threatens civil liberties and needs to be kept in check, that's quite true.

How exactly does the ACLU threaten private property? I'd like to hear some
examples to see where you are coming from on that one.

I didn't say they threatened private property, though I suspect they do by
interfering with land transfers (think Wal-Mart) and perhaps by supporting
restrictions on the use and enjoyment of private land found in land use
codes, I said that they did not SUPPORT private property rights. There's not
a chance in hell that the ACLU would, for example, take up my case against
the State of Colorado for the unlawful appropriation of a right of way
across my land by the legislature.

Perhaps because defending civil liberties doesn't necessarily equate to
defending Scotty Weiser's world view.

And yet the issue of unlawful eminent domain takings is certainly involved
with "civil rights," since the right to own private property and be
compensated when the state appropriates it, is a fundamental civil right.

I'm not sure that Scotty Weiser's right to control his private property
usurps all other rights.

You must learn
to distinguish between a school and its administration leading, engaging
in
or fostering prayer by students and the free exercise of religion by
individual students, acting on their own. That other students may be
made
uncomfortable by these private displays of religion is not important, as
the
Constitution requires them to tolerate such things.

If the displays are private, there's obviously no problem, because nobody
would even know they were praying.

"Private" does not mean "invisible." I can pray out loud on the sidewalk
all
day long and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

And that's the place for it.

Well, the point is that neither you nor the government gets to decide that.

Who gets to decide?

Not in a school where other children are
required to be.

That they are required to be there does not mean that they have a right to
be protected from displays of religious beliefs by other students who choose
to freely exercise their First Amendment rights.

I disagree.

There, that's one less issue where you have to shriek about
the ACLU :-)

Hardly.

Oh well. Keep on shrieking.

or defense of individual landowners
property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the
government

I'm not sure that civil liberties and property rights are necessarily a
good
fit.

In case you missed it, the right to own private property is one of our

Who is "our" here?

Each and every citizen of the United States, of course.

Oh, I don't know that they all share your perspective Scotty.

If they don't, they are socialist asses.

And that's pretty much what your serious mental health issues boil down to.

Anyone who disagrees with Scotty Weiser is a socialist ass.

the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms

Well, perhaps the concern is the right for other people to be safe from
gun
nuts.

Perhaps, but that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and
the
civil liberty to own a gun.

It's their job to be at odds with anything that threatens civil
liberties.

Except when the threatened civil liberty is the right to keep and bear
arms.

Nope, that too.

But they absolutely refuse to defend the right to keep and bear arms

Good for them. I've never made a donation to the ACLU, but you are making a
good case for it.

which is a civil liberty

Only if you are nuts.

As I said, they are a biased, hard-left group with a
socialist agenda.

You've done nothing to substantiate your silly claim.

In article ,
"Michael Daly" wrote:

On 11-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

it's still illegal to sell a gun to a disqualified person, even
in a private sale.

A technicality of no consequence to those that firmly believe
that the constitution protects their right to have guns.

You misspelled "criminals".

Which do not obey the laws in question.