"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in message
oups.com...
KMAN wrote:

[snip]

What we seem to have here is an angry ex-cop anxious for the
opportunity to kill someone.

[snip]


You flatter him. Actually, he is an angry cop-WANNABE. Don't let his
"we in the LEO community" rhetoric fool you; he lived on the outskirts.
He seems to have spent a year or so in the early '90's as a police
dispatcher or a clerk in a police station, or something like that, but
I believe the record will show that he has never been a cop.

Angry and bitter though he is, and misguided in his confusions about
gun ownership vs. social responsibility, property ownership vs. social
responsibility, etc. (the general red-state "rugged individualist"
selfishness and greed institutionalized in our small-minded and
short-sighted Republican Party), I think Scott Weiser has a core of
decency that gets hidden by his usual defensive babble. Much like many
of the religious right, who are actually quite nice people when they
are not trying to force you to live yer life according to their
primitive superstitions, I think Scott is probably quite a nice person
when he is not lost in his idiological stupor, or smarting about the
fact that his life has not been a success and he doesn't quite know
whom to blame.

Could be! But the weight of all that luggage clearly places an excessive
burden on his troubled mind.

A Usenet persona calling itself Oci-One Kanubi wrote:

KMAN wrote:

[snip]

What we seem to have here is an angry ex-cop anxious for the
opportunity to kill someone.

[snip]


You flatter him. Actually, he is an angry cop-WANNABE. Don't let his
"we in the LEO community" rhetoric fool you; he lived on the outskirts.
He seems to have spent a year or so in the early '90's as a police
dispatcher or a clerk in a police station, or something like that, but
I believe the record will show that he has never been a cop.

You would be wrong.


Angry and bitter though he is, and misguided in his confusions about
gun ownership vs. social responsibility, property ownership vs. social
responsibility,

Ah, the typical socialist-collectivist dismissal of private property rights.
You try to characterize anyone who defends their private property rights as
being somehow "socially irresponsible" because it might happen to interfere
with your selfish personal pleasure by excluding you from private streams.

Sorry, but the Constitution guarantees the right of private property owners
to exclude others. If you want to live in a socialist state, I suggest Cuba.

etc. (the general red-state "rugged individualist"
selfishness

More socialist sneering. It's not the "rugged individualists" who are
selfish, it is you, who demands unfettered and unobstructed access to
whatever recreational venues you prefer, no matter that they may belong to
someone else. You're like a two year old coveting your brother's toys.

and greed institutionalized in our small-minded and
short-sighted Republican Party),

And I suppose that the computer you are using to post this swill belongs to
the Proletariat? If so, how about I come and expropriate it, along with your
kayak, because I want to use it? Or are you too greedy, shortsighted and
small minded for that?

I think Scott Weiser has a core of
decency that gets hidden by his usual defensive babble.

How very backhandedly kind of you...

Much like many
of the religious right,

Typical of the liberal left to characterize anyone who doesn't agree with
their socialist agenda as "religious right."

who are actually quite nice people when they
are not trying to force you to live yer life according to their
primitive superstitions, I think Scott is probably quite a nice person
when he is not lost in his idiological stupor, or smarting about the
fact that his life has not been a success and he doesn't quite know
whom to blame.

Or, maybe I just like twitting Netwits like you and watching you parade your
ignorance.

--
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

Weiser says:
================
It's not the "rugged individualists" who are
selfish, it is you, who demands unfettered and unobstructed access to
whatever recreational venues you prefer, no matter that they may belong
to
someone else. You're like a two year old coveting your brother's toys.
===================

Which begs the question -- a public policy question: is it morally
right for certain venues to be private? Or, would it be more
appropriate to keep some venues in the public domain, in perpetuity?
[BTW, the answer to that is very clearly "YES"]

Then there is the further question which pertains to "How" these venues
got into private hands.

And yet another question: Is the public good or public interest being
served by having these venues in private hands?

Private property is private only so long as the state deems it to be
private.

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says:
================
It's not the "rugged individualists" who are
selfish, it is you, who demands unfettered and unobstructed access to
whatever recreational venues you prefer, no matter that they may
belong
to
someone else. You're like a two year old coveting your brother's
toys.
===================

Which begs the question -- a public policy question: is it morally
right for certain venues to be private? Or, would it be more
appropriate to keep some venues in the public domain, in perpetuity?
[BTW, the answer to that is very clearly "YES"]

Then there is the further question which pertains to "How" these
venues
got into private hands.

And yet another question: Is the public good or public interest being
served by having these venues in private hands?

Private property is private only so long as the state deems it to be
private.

frtzw906

Hey Scott, in light of this post, and preceding, I was wondering if it
would be possible for us to meet sometime. I have always wanted to meet
a fire breathing dragon, though I also always thought they were just a
figment of vivid imaginations. And to hear that there is one so close
up in Boulder. I am up that way every once in awhile, and I have heard
that all kinds of strange things live in Boulder, but a dragon I would
really like to see.

However, I would be sure and contact you first, so I don't stumble into
your line of fire with all those guns you keep strapped on you and
probably mounted on fire platforms with fields of fire all scoped in. I
hate getting shot at, or worse yet shot. Especially when I just wanted
to say hi!

Of course I would also like to check out this mighty river running
through their. Now I am familiar with the area a bit, and for the life
of me I can not figure where this hot kayaking spot known as the Grand
Canyon of Boulder is located. If you could send me a map, and also a
visa to visit the Liberal Republic of Boulder, that would be great, and
much appreciated.

It seems strange to me that with all I hear, that you have been able to
even survive in that Liberal bastion. Probably your CCW that has kept
them at bay. Maybe you have also learned to talk to them to keep them
off balance. Seems that you have been doing alright, whatever you had
to learn to survive.

Would you mind if I brought my camera, I would love to take a few
pictures to show some of my friends. They will not believe unless I
show them pictures that I actually saw a fire-breathing, gun-toting,
right-wing nut, survivalist, that lives in Boulder. :-) TnT

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ups.com...

BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says:
================
It's not the "rugged individualists" who are
selfish, it is you, who demands unfettered and unobstructed access to
whatever recreational venues you prefer, no matter that they may
belong
to
someone else. You're like a two year old coveting your brother's
toys.
===================

Which begs the question -- a public policy question: is it morally
right for certain venues to be private? Or, would it be more
appropriate to keep some venues in the public domain, in perpetuity?
[BTW, the answer to that is very clearly "YES"]

Then there is the further question which pertains to "How" these
venues
got into private hands.

And yet another question: Is the public good or public interest being
served by having these venues in private hands?

Private property is private only so long as the state deems it to be
private.

frtzw906

Hey Scott, in light of this post, and preceding, I was wondering if it
would be possible for us to meet sometime. I have always wanted to meet
a fire breathing dragon, though I also always thought they were just a
figment of vivid imaginations. And to hear that there is one so close
up in Boulder. I am up that way every once in awhile, and I have heard
that all kinds of strange things live in Boulder, but a dragon I would
really like to see.

However, I would be sure and contact you first, so I don't stumble into
your line of fire with all those guns you keep strapped on you and
probably mounted on fire platforms with fields of fire all scoped in. I
hate getting shot at, or worse yet shot. Especially when I just wanted
to say hi!

Of course I would also like to check out this mighty river running
through their. Now I am familiar with the area a bit, and for the life
of me I can not figure where this hot kayaking spot known as the Grand
Canyon of Boulder is located. If you could send me a map, and also a
visa to visit the Liberal Republic of Boulder, that would be great, and
much appreciated.

It seems strange to me that with all I hear, that you have been able to
even survive in that Liberal bastion. Probably your CCW that has kept
them at bay. Maybe you have also learned to talk to them to keep them
off balance. Seems that you have been doing alright, whatever you had
to learn to survive.

Would you mind if I brought my camera, I would love to take a few
pictures to show some of my friends. They will not believe unless I
show them pictures that I actually saw a fire-breathing, gun-toting,
right-wing nut, survivalist, that lives in Boulder. :-) TnT


ROFLMAO

Tom, you're getting the hang of it.

--riverman

BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:

[all deleted!]

OMIGOSH man! Don't even start that! you will NOT win! Even I, the "Ivory
Tower Anarchist" agrees with Scott on this one! Shoulds are all fine and
dandy, but we live in a world of is', not shoulds!

If *I* owned a put-in or a take-out, and any waterway boaters wanted to
boat, *I'd* probably let them, but I'd not want to be *forced* to let them,
yano? Nor would you, I can practically guarantee!

John Kuthe...

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
================
It's not the "rugged individualists" who are
selfish, it is you, who demands unfettered and unobstructed access to
whatever recreational venues you prefer, no matter that they may belong
to
someone else. You're like a two year old coveting your brother's toys.
===================

Which begs the question -- a public policy question: is it morally
right for certain venues to be private?

Of course, if they are private. There's nothing at all immoral about owning
something that someone else, or the general public want or covet. What's
immoral is when the public decides that it "needs" the thing more than the
owner and decides to take it away from him without either asking or paying
for the right to do so.

Or, would it be more
appropriate to keep some venues in the public domain, in perpetuity?
[BTW, the answer to that is very clearly "YES"]

Indeed, but the key word is "some." Too many paddlers want it all, and won't
be satisfied with "some."

And, all you have to do to obtain a particular venue that you treasure and
place it in the public domain in perpetuity is to PAY FOR IT. That is what
the Constitution requires. You don't get to use it without paying for it if
somebody else already owns it.


Then there is the further question which pertains to "How" these venues
got into private hands.

By grants of Congress and devolvement of title according to law.

The only way to interfere with that title is according to law. You don't get
to use it or take it just because you want it.

And yet another question: Is the public good or public interest being
served by having these venues in private hands?

When it comes to private property, private rights trump public interest
unless and until the public comes up with the cumshaw (and the legal
justification of "public use") to purchase that which it wants to put to
public use.

Private property is private only so long as the state deems it to be
private.

Maybe in Canada. Down here, private property is private until the state
lawfully exercises its powers of eminent domain and provides just
compensating for the taking.

If you want to use it, or open it to public use, all you have to do is pay
for it. Pretty simple, actually. Unfortunately, most liberal-socialists are
parsimonious in the extreme and think they ought to be given everything for
free.

Sorry, but that's not the way it works down here.

--
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

Scott Weiser wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
It's not the "rugged individualists" who are
selfish, it is you, who demands unfettered and unobstructed access
to
whatever recreational venues you prefer, no matter that they may
belong
to
someone else. You're like a two year old coveting your brother's
toys.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D

Which begs the question -- a public policy question: is it morally
right for certain venues to be private?

Of course, if they are private. There's nothing at all immoral about
owning
something that someone else, or the general public want or covet.
What's
immoral is when the public decides that it "needs" the thing more
than the
owner and decides to take it away from him without either asking or
paying
for the right to do so.

Or, would it be more
appropriate to keep some venues in the public domain, in
perpetuity?
[BTW, the answer to that is very clearly "YES"]

Indeed, but the key word is "some." Too many paddlers want it all,
and won't
be satisfied with "some."

And, all you have to do to obtain a particular venue that you
treasure and
place it in the public domain in perpetuity is to PAY FOR IT. That is
what
the Constitution requires. You don't get to use it without paying for
it if
somebody else already owns it.


Then there is the further question which pertains to "How" these
venues
got into private hands.

By grants of Congress and devolvement of title according to law.

The only way to interfere with that title is according to law. You
don't get
to use it or take it just because you want it.

And yet another question: Is the public good or public interest
being
served by having these venues in private hands?

When it comes to private property, private rights trump public
interest
unless and until the public comes up with the cumshaw (and the legal
justification of "public use") to purchase that which it wants to put
to
public use.

Private property is private only so long as the state deems it to
be
private.

Maybe in Canada. Down here, private property is private until the
state
lawfully exercises its powers of eminent domain and provides just
compensating for the taking.

If you want to use it, or open it to public use, all you have to do
is pay
for it. Pretty simple, actually. Unfortunately, most
liberal-socialists are
parsimonious in the extreme and think they ought to be given
everything for
free.

Sorry, but that's not the way it works down here.

--
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

=A9 2005 Scott Weiser

Scott, I must not have made myself clear, and riverman missed my point.
I would like to meet the real Scott Weiser. Will the real Scott Weiser
please stand up? I have trouble believing all the bad things they say
about you as being true. I have not had opportunity to go back and read
all the archives, and would really appreciate the opportunity to form
my own opinion. So is it possible to meet? TnT

BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says:
================
It's not the "rugged individualists" who are
selfish, it is you, who demands unfettered and unobstructed access to
whatever recreational venues you prefer, no matter that they may belong
to
someone else. You're like a two year old coveting your brother's toys.
===================

Which begs the question -- a public policy question: is it morally
right for certain venues to be private? Or, would it be more
appropriate to keep some venues in the public domain, in perpetuity?
[BTW, the answer to that is very clearly "YES"]

Wilf, please do yourself and all of us a favour, and don't go there...
Weiser's views on that issue have been known to RBP for about a decade,
and while he's probably more than happy to repeat them ad infinitum, you
won't gain anything from getting a monologue like that from him.

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

Wilko begs:
===============
Wilf, please do yourself and all of us a favour, and don't go there...
Weiser's views on that issue have been known to RBP for about a decade,
and while he's probably more than happy to repeat them ad infinitum,
you
won't gain anything from getting a monologue like that from him.
==============

OK. Fair enough. Perhaps I'll check the archives and have that
discussion with Scott vicariously.

Thanks for the ti.

frtzw906