A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott asserts:
==============
Every time he's confronted by real, everyday, practical questions
about
how he thinks the system works, he starts making stuff up. TOO FUNNY!

And yet you can't refute them. Interesting.
=================

Have done so every time. And every one gets batted right out of the
ballpark.

Nah. You just evade the issues with pettifoggery.


But that's OK. At least you're getting an education about the Cnadian
system. Good on USENET.

Well, somebody's getting an education anyway.

--
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:
================
Well, somebody's getting an education anyway.
==================

No thanks required. Think nothing of it.

frtzw906

On 31-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Nah. You just evade the issues with pettifoggery

And you have evaded every demand that you actually prove
your claims. You lie and make things up and then try
to accuse others of the same thing. You're the one
living in a dream world.

Mike

Scott asks:
==============
On
these things, I'm very much a "user pay" advocate (including, if
you'll
recall and earler thread, agriculture, which you seem to want to
support).

Why not for health care and schools too?
===============

Wow! That's a simple one. Because healthcare and schools are, in my
world, fundamental "rights". Further, on the water issue, while I'm in
favor of metering and user pay, I would provide some basic amount
"free". I'm interested in metering for purposes of reducing waste.

Ditto, garbage collection: a basic amount of garbage (for purposes of
public health and safety) collected for free, and then a user fee above
that amount. Again, I want to charge those being wasteful.

frtzw906

Scott informs:
=============
Well, down here, water belongs to whomever first diverts it and puts it
to
beneficial use.
===============

That may be the way it is in CO, but that doesn't make it "right".

IMHO, water, like air, belongs to the people (the state) and anyone who
wants to use it (or abuse it) ought to pay a fee (or a fine). And,
IMHO, anyone who "first diverts it" without permission ought to be
thrown in jail. Further, what is or isn't beneficial ought to be
determined by those who own the water -- the people!

That may not be the way it is in CO but, more's the pity!

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott informs:
=============
Well, down here, water belongs to whomever first diverts it and puts it
to
beneficial use.
===============

That may be the way it is in CO, but that doesn't make it "right".

Sure it does. It's in our Constitution, therefore it's quintessentially
"right" because that's what the people of Colorado chose as their law.


IMHO, water, like air, belongs to the people (the state) and anyone who
wants to use it (or abuse it) ought to pay a fee (or a fine).

Fortunately, down here we don't live in a communist/socialist system. We
believe in free enterprise and the right to own private property.

And,
IMHO, anyone who "first diverts it" without permission ought to be
thrown in jail. Further, what is or isn't beneficial ought to be
determined by those who own the water -- the people!

That may not be the way it is in CO but, more's the pity!

Actually, to be perfectly technical, all water in CO DOES belong to the
people, subject to prior appropriation by private users. This means that the
water in a stream is public property until somebody diverts and appropriates
it. The system recognizes a "first in time, first in right" system that
grants the most senior user the right to that amount of water he claimed and
used over junior appropriators *provided that he continues to put the water
to beneficial use.* It is possible to lose a senior water right if you fail
to divert and put the water to beneficial use.

This system is a societal recognition of the environmental realities in the
arid western states. Without the ability to divert and use water, Colorado's
economy would never have emerged and the state would still be uninhabited
desert.
--
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

don't you guys knwo how to edit out old verbiage?

Stephen Hawking does not have an intellectual disability. I haven't been

He was in no way disabled as a child.

I disagree with forcing kids to "socialize". It can be terribly traumatic
to an intelligent sensitive mind. If a kid want's to be alone with his or
her thoughts then leave him or her be.

I also don't agree with focdign people of any age to take certified
paddling instrctions.

It's all a plot by busy bodies who want to control other people's lives
because they are such failures in their own lives. It's the same reason
peopel who can't solve thier own mental problems become clinical
psychologists.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-FreeNet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned

A Usenet persona calling itself William R. Watt wrote:


don't you guys knwo how to edit out old verbiage?

Stephen Hawking does not have an intellectual disability. I haven't been

He was in no way disabled as a child.

I disagree with forcing kids to "socialize". It can be terribly traumatic
to an intelligent sensitive mind. If a kid want's to be alone with his or
her thoughts then leave him or her be.

Bad idea. It results in isolated, depressed, socially-inept people who are
rarely successful or happy in later life.

Sometimes it ends up in suicide.
--
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 in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself William R. Watt wrote:


don't you guys knwo how to edit out old verbiage?

Stephen Hawking does not have an intellectual disability. I haven't been

He was in no way disabled as a child.

I disagree with forcing kids to "socialize". It can be terribly traumatic
to an intelligent sensitive mind. If a kid want's to be alone with his or
her thoughts then leave him or her be.

Bad idea. It results in isolated, depressed, socially-inept people who are
rarely successful or happy in later life.

Sometimes it ends up in suicide.

That's what mainstreaming does, because it teaches the person with a
disability that they are useless (since they are just filling up space
watching someone else's curriculum) and it teaches the non-disabled peers
the same thing (since they can see that the person is just filling up
space).