Your inability to understand what you, yourself, are saying, ain't my problem.

Because you want to misunderstand does not mean that I've changed my position.

Nope.

Because you've changed your tune means you've changed your position.

Golly, how that works.

No. You are free to look at me. You are not free to take pictures of me.

As I keep pointing out, this means that you are establishing a criteria. You.

You are establishing an arbitrary criteria - and as such, can be as arbitrary as you'd like.

Unfortunately for you, it doesn't work that way. Because that's called "anarchy".

You're in public, I certainly can look at you. Even take pictures of you. Not just because its legal, but because its (damn near) impossible to make a disctinction between the two.

You may not like it. You don't have to. Tough. That's what happens when you're in public. You do not have privacy.

We've been over this again and again and again.

Yes, we have. And as long as you continue to misuse the English language, there isn't a way past it.

The distinction is whether a physical copy of my image is made.

Which is your distinction. Thus, accepting that for the sake of argument, means you can then make ANY distinction. (such as ordering no one to look at you) Which I keep pointing out, and because it ILLUSTRATES exactly how ridicolous your argument is, you say that I've "misunderstood".

By that logic, you HAVE to outlaw cameras. You CANNOT have ANYBODY taking ANY PICTURES at Disney World. This isn't *my* logic, its *yours*.

This does *not* mean that there isn't a distinction between the two. But you making it as Emperor Brandioch "Thou shalt take no picture of me, but of my good side" doesn't change that the distinction isn't recognized, BECAUSE of how slight it is.

In fact, the distinctions now made, are not in the *image*, but the *use of said image*. (as I've pointed out many times). I can take your picture. I have to meet certain conditions to publish for profit.

I've had my picture in the newspaper, and on the evening news. (For making a really good looking tackle in a football game, actually). Could I have forbidden anyone from taking my picture, as you claim that I can?

Again, the "problems" you've been pointing out have been clarified in the past.

Just ignored.

ch time as the laws are changed, civil disobediance is an option.

I suppose it is, but under your system, its total anarchy, meaning there isn't any such thing as "civil disobediance".

You advocate anarchy. You demean and reduce "rights" to nothingness in your system. (if anything anybody does is a "right", then the "right" to murder is on a par with the "right" to free speech, and the "right" to molest children....)

Fine. Its you making these unbacked assertations.

If you're in public, there is *no* difference in me witnessing something you do, and videotaping/photographing it. Not currently, and not logically.

If you're worried about the ramifications this implies for the government, by all means, lets put some (arbitrary) limits on what they can do with it.

But that would be useful.

Addison