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



I feel he's already backed down by losing his cool and showing his anger
and
frustration as an ex-cop that is devoting his life to the opportunity to
shoot someone :-\

Actually, you're the one who has been losing his cool. You (and Mike)
insisted on posting personal insults rather than discussing the issues
without rancor.

I'm sure you've twisted it in your mind to see it that way, but that
certainly wasn't the order of operations in our interactions. You blew your
cool and started cursing and hurling insults...

As is my policy, when Netwits such as yourself resort to ad
hominem attack, I reply in kind.

....and you haven't been able to stop since.

Unlike you, however, I'm not in the least bit angry or upset.

I'm sure you're feeling much better.

I don't have
that much emotion invested in an on-line conversation with an idiot like
you.

You see, I still think you are upset and you haven't recovered.

I expect fractional wits such as you to do exactly as you have done. In
fact I welcome it because it simply proves to the world your lack of
intellect and ability to form rational, supportable arguments, and your
inability to accept your limitations without resorting to bluster and
insult.

Again, it seems to me that you are the one engaging in the bluster and
insult.

Once I find Netwits like you, I like to have some fun twitting you and
watching you foam at the mouth, rant, and rave. It's most amusing, and you
are the one making a fool of yourself.

I am sure that would be fun, but thus far, the only ranting and raving is
coming from Scott Weiser.

As anyone who's been around here a while can tell you, I'm perfectly happy
to return to polite, if spirited discourse at any time and engage anyone
interested in some intellectual exercise in a debate that may, or may not
lead to a mutually satisfactory conclusion.

It sounds like you have control issues but at the same time you feel the
need to maintain a veneer of decency.

I enjoy the journey, but have no particular destination in mind, so I just
go with the flow of the debate, following it where it goes until I get
bored.

You haven't really bored me yet, because it's still funny to watch you
froth
and flail about.

Again, check the mirror, wipe your mouth, and get a grip. You need to read
your own blather and see where the frothing and flailing is really coming
from.

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

A Usenet persona calling itself John Kuthe wrote:

KMAN wrote:

I feel he's already backed down by losing his cool and showing his anger and
frustration as an ex-cop that is devoting his life to the opportunity to
shoot someone :-\

Youi are still hooked!

....and he's getting tired too. I'm about to reel him in, whack him over the
head, gut him, clean him, fillet him and plop him in the pan with some
butter and herbs.


Let it go, man!! ;-)

He can't. He's already addicted...


John Kuthe...

Nice to hear from you again, John.

--
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 Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:

You obviously haven't been chatting/arguing with Scott long enough here if
you don't know what he does/did for a living back in the early days (since
we were all protesting that he was posting from his work email address)


He was a Kampus Kop at University of Colorado who became famous locally for
driving his Hummer in the left lane of the highway at 55mph.... One of the
Boulder newsgroups had a story about him from a local paper once...

I miss netcom... service was good for a while...

No, no, no... Once again, I was not a police officer at the University of
Colorado, I was a police dispatcher at CU. I was a police officer elsewhere,
prior to becoming a police dispatcher at CU. My retirement from being a
police officer was the result of a back injury, and I took up dispatching
because I was well qualified for the job, having been a cop, and my back
problems didn't preclude me from doing it.

As for driving in the left lane, that's true, though the speed was "the
legal speed limit," not necessarily 55 mph. I still do it, though there are
now some legal hoops to jump through to do it legally in Colorado.

And the story was an article by Wayne Laugesen in the Boulder Weekly called
"A Most Annoying Netizen." It may still be in the BW archives.
--
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:

Nice to hear from you again, John.

Me too Scott! :-)

John Kuthe...

Scott Weiser wrote:

As for driving in the left lane, that's true, though the speed was "the
legal speed limit," not necessarily 55 mph. I still do it, though there are
now some legal hoops to jump through to do it legally in Colorado.

I'm a left lane driver too Scott! Because as I understand it, the left lane is
for faster traffic, and I *am* faster traffic! If I drive in the right lane, I
have to keep changing lanes into the left lane to pass the person driving slower
than I am in the right lane, then changing lanes back again, thereby increasing
the miles I must drive to go the same linear distance, plus all the hazards
associated with changing lanes!

Of couse, one responsibility of any left lane driver is they must always be
mindful of their rear view, because if someone is driving faster that they are
and coming up behind them in the left lane, they *must* get over to the right
lane to allow them to pass, as passing on the right is very unsafe!! ;-)

John Kuthe...

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

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