IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New To work the system.
"Why not picture you? Courage of convictions and all that."

Simple. To show that we've moved beyond a human society to a machine society. Without my face, all they can identify me by is the machine. But anyone could be driving that machine. What they're doing is ticketing a machine that was operated by an un-identified human. So, the human associated with that machine in the legal records is faulted for the behaviour of that machine.

See where the societal issues are?

We already have this with the "drug property" seizure laws.

"But you *are* endangering others - at least potentially."

But such could be said of ANY action I take. Really. Give me an action and I can show how some poor innocent, hepless, promising, did-I-mention-innocent child's life would be snuffed out.

"What happens when there's a violent crime committed under the blacked out camera?"

Good point. And you know that most of the domestic abuse occures in the home. So, by that logic, we should install cameras in every one's house. This way, we can cut down on violent crimes.

"Heck, when you find someone vandalizing the cameras, is that because they have a moral objection, or merely find them obstacles in their crime career?"

Imagine how much more difficult it would be for criminals to coordinate their activities if we tapped every phone system in the US. Wouldn't it be hard to tell if it were a criminal protesting such activities or just a person interested in preserving his own privacy?

Hey, why not just install cameras EVERYWHERE. With sound, too. That way, the criminals wouldn't have ANYWHERE to plan their crimes.

And anyone who disagrees with this has something to hide and is probably a criminal too.

"Can you make that determination?"

Nope. But we do have this concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Can you prove that I'm going to commit a crime BEFORE you turn that camera on me?

"I'll certainly get the mail box you and I paid for."

Again, my letters. My property. The difference between individuals and governments.

"The *problem* is that the best you and I can do is "Well, we LIKE that, and we don't LIKE this". Because there's *not a difference*, not an objective one."

Actually, it is simple to me. I had more privacy BEFORE. Now I have LESS. Therefore, I have lost something I had.

"If I spray paint the IRS building, you have to pay for me fixing it."

Yep. Fighting against Fascism is never cheap. The question each person has to answer is whether they are willing to pay the additional cost of maintaining their rights or surrender them for a little more "security" from teh "bad peple".

"And does it really change anything? "

If only one person does it. Probably not. He's a flake. If more people do it.....

"Quite often, criminals are just criminals."

Yep. Now the question is, are there more honest citizens or more criminal citizens?
That is the essence of Fascism.

"As do I. But I also don't think much of mob rule."

But Democracy is (in the strictest sense) "mob rule".
Which is why we have laws to limit the power of the mob in this country. Democracy is not always just.
New Work it, bayybeeeee.
But you're trying to change the discussion here. :)

But such could be said of ANY action I take. Really. Give me an action and I can show how some poor innocent, hepless, promising, did-I-mention-innocent child's life would be snuffed out.

Potentially, yes.

But what I mean, is that you are actually impacting "public safety". And there tends to be more of an importance placed on that.

If I go let the air out of your tires, you'll shake you head at me, and give me a Mentos.

But if you drive an ambulance?

Same action = very different impact and judgement.

Good point. And you know that most of the domestic abuse occures in the home.

Now note - this is *you* changing the focus from a *public* place to a *private* place.

Let me repeat that, you tend to be stubborn:
I didn't say that. You did.

So don't try and attribute that to me.

Its a different logic. Because of our arbitrary (largely) distinctions.

So, by that logic, we should install cameras in every one's house. This way, we can cut down on violent crimes.

Not by that logic. The logic is that when police cameras used for security/protection are destroyed, and people are hurt, that the person who didn't want to get a few quid worth of speeding ticket, how are they responsible.

You're changing the whole subject in an attempt to make it unpalatable. If you'd like to discuss that - its another subject. We're talking about *public* places. Public.

Imagine how much more difficult it would be for criminals to coordinate their activities if we tapped every phone system in the US. Wouldn't it be hard to tell if it were a criminal protesting such activities or just a person interested in preserving his own privacy?

Yep, it would be much more difficult. Luckily, there are laws in place to protect your privacy there. (They start with the presumption that you are "private" on each end of the phone, you might want to notice). If you stand up on a street and yell "I'm going to go pick up they money I stole from the bank" - and the police come over and arrest you (which is a analogous (roughly, the roughness is because audio is questionable, depending how the wiretapping laws are)) this doesn't have anything to do with wiretaps, they don't need a warrent to hear you, and they aren't invading your privacy.

Because you're on a public street.

I don't understand *why* you're having a problem with "public" and "private". I really don't.

Nope. But we do have this concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Can you prove that I'm going to commit a crime BEFORE you turn that camera on me?

If I'm not following you - if I'm capturing everyone equally, no discrimination, its not an issue. At this point its not a question of "presumed guilty". Anymore than a police cruiser sitting by the side of the road running radar "presumes" that you're going to be speeding.

They look at the people going by, and stop the ones who speed. Pretty simple. They don't pull you on the presumption that you might.

Cameras in public places aren't there because they think YOU are about to commit a crime, they're there to observe what happens.

If you don't like it, get a law passed. Don't destroy public property (or explain to me how its different from my other example).

Again, my letters. My property. The difference between individuals and governments.

Not once you mail them, they're not. (I don't think. Someone might have to tell me the law there). But if I destroy the mailBOXes - that still impacts you - now you haev nowhere to mail your letters. And you have to pay to replace them.

Me: "The *problem* is that the best you and I can do is "Well, we LIKE that, and we don't LIKE this". Because there's *not a difference*, not an objective one."

Actually, it is simple to me. I had more privacy BEFORE. Now I have LESS. Therefore, I have lost something I had.

But that completly has nothing to do with what I said.

What's the objective difference? There's not one. Its subjective. And further, you may well consider youself to have lost something (and I might agree) - but it was privacy because there wasn't the tech/people to invade it. Not because you had a right to anything there.

I know, you don't see it yet.

Right now, if you're in public, you don't have privacy.

You didn't "lose" privacy if somebody puts up a camera... Not really.

You might have lost defacto privacy - but nothing stopped anybody before from filming in public (look at Zapruder), and catching things going on.

If you disagree, that's fine. Just explain to me the DIFFERENCE.

You're complaining about losing something you never had to begin with... You might have thought you had/the ability might have been too low/probability too low for you to worry, and that's changed, but that's still something you still didn't "own", so to speak.

(And if you want to change that, fine, lets get a law passed to protect your "privacy" in "public". How you manage to describe that, I don't know.).

Addison

And another point, slightly tangential - Do you trust government (which theoretically is more answerable to the people) less than the big corps, who can quite legitimately/legally capture video of you all day from their property....
New so when you get a letter to show up for yer gps ass chip
and assure you it is only to differenciate between you and the bad boys are you going to show up for the implantation? Why not it is already in your 2002 high end vehicles?
thanx,
bill
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
New You're changing the subject even more.
Which means that I infer that you might be realising the problem with your initial stand. :)

The question isn't of tracking software.

*YOUR* misunderstanding, no matter how I explain - is that MY problem, or YOURs?

(when you don't bother to assimilate new data).

So, lets stick to the same issues, shall we?

Addison
New Perhaps you are simply realizing it, less and less?
re.

What's the objective difference? There's not one. Its subjective. And further, you may well consider youself to have lost something (and I might agree) - but it was privacy because there wasn't the tech/people to invade it. Not because you had a right to anything there.
Here you and Scalia are arguing against the principle of "rights not specifically abrogated - belong to the people". Their fancy name for this is of course, 'strict constructionist' - we gots euphemisms for everything, even for Draconian misinterpretations of the Constitution. (And that: ya can't even call 'conservative' - it's plain reactionary)

A second assertion contained above - is that we may simply ignore the effect of the tech people, as you put it! As if there is not, could not be any significant "difference" because we just happen to install one? a dozen, a million? er cameras (this particular time..) wherever. Nope, no difference at all because:

While we have survived since 1776 or so WITHOUT massive surveillance systems operated by (whomever) - WE COULD have had such* and.. they weren't specifically prohibited you see, and... ergo: it's just a minor and unimportant development that, merely 'the tech people' have gotten around to doing. Just now.

*all we had to do was discover Germanium a bit earlier, refine it and do a little physics and - voila! Maybe we could have had these cameras so that McCarthy could have actually LOOKED under every Murican bed to see if there was a Com-symp hiding there.

Same situation / earlier time / Wow! could those cameras have really Helped\ufffd "prove I'm not a Commyunist to the Senator, who surely then would have given me my job back?" Surely he would have. Wouldn't he?

No, I really don't think *you* get the importance. (Never mind whether Scalia does or doesn't - or gets to decide for the rest of us. As with the President Select.)

We will remain on different sides of the barricade, it seems. I'll spray 'em and you'll go around cleaning 'em - to be safe from that er potential? likely? possible! guy who's... gonna be noticed making plans to burglarize yer stash of ___ later in the day.

Or was it a laundry ticket he surreptitously scribbled on 'suspiciously' before that camera? (like the Senator's list of 52, later 55 'Comsymps in the State Department' = an actual er 'fact' BTW re "his laundry list", depending upon which historian's sources you want to verify)

No sale. I've already seen the earlier effects. Right here in Murica. They weren't pretty then. They stink now. And we haven't gotten a lot smarter about 'creeping gradualism' since, IMO. You certainly haven't.


Ashton
New Re: Perhaps you are simply realizing it, less and less?
Their fancy name for this is of course, 'strict constructionist' - we gots euphemisms for everything, even for Draconian misinterpretations of the Constitution.

And the euphemism for your brand of "It doesn't have to make sense, but its the way I feel" sort of non-interpretation (and particularly non-logic) of the law is what?

(I'd have made one, but it would have been far more insulting.)

Maybe we could have had these cameras so that McCarthy

Maybe, one of these days, people will sit and think about what they're doing.

Maybe, one of these days they'll actually ponder "Does this make sense, and is it consistant with my other beliefs".

I'm not holding my breath, in the meantime, as far too many people flock to church without thinking about it, and far too many people advocate a society without sense, or reason, and then deny that's exactly what they're doing.

We're talking about public, Ashton. Public.

Perhaps you should save the insults.

PUBLIC.

What you did in the 50s ***IN PUBLIC*** wasn't protected. And had you done that on a movie set, in front of a camera, and it had been taken to those hearings (WHICH! you would have MORE of, as its "how you feel" thats important, not "what does the law say").

We're NOT talking about cameras in PRIVATE.(Funny thing that's all you can argue against them)

Same situation

Not at all. Not even close.

However, according you *you*, who prefer mob rule and rampage to a specified, written, interpreted law, *THE MCCARTHY HEARINGS WERE FINE!*

Mob rule, heck yeah. Cameras! Rip 'em down! Pigs on patrol? Kill 'em!

No sale. I've already seen the earlier effects. Right here in Murica. They weren't pretty then. They stink now. And we haven't gotten a lot smarter about 'creeping gradualism' since, IMO. You certainly haven't.

Speaking of smarter......

Why then are you agitating for the exact sort of irrational, emotional thinking that CAUSED THE SITUATION IN THE FIRST PLACE?

That's what *I* don't understand, and it makes your insults (and insinuations that I, and others, are incapable of thinking) all the more hypocritical.

Addison
New It's simple, really - but it won't be, for you.
"Making sense" is about much more than your logical deductions from posits not universally shared.

You imagine that The Law may be a nice intellectual recitation of all the things which matter in a society. And all those things which matter are neatly enumerated: are Authorized! one-by-one. Then you equate all emotional aspects of the human condition to ~ "Mob Rule, I Want, ___"

Hell, create a few more silly syllogisms. Your er emotional attachment to digital logic shines right on through.

"Public"? you say - so then, it's OK for a creeping Police State mentality to propagate.. everywhere that more than 3 are assembled? just so long as ya can retreat to *your* tiny little er "Private" stronghold - defended by the Gatling guns (legally single-shot modified o'course ;-)

Fortress Freedom perhaps? amidst the er Public Recorders of All Things (\ufffdMicrosloth Corp - a Global Consortium). Join Passport to - view selected files we have on *You*. $1/second. We take PayPal. (OK - that's for 2004; I'm just a little.. ahead here.)

Nope, we have Fundament-al disagreement about what makes a life worth the trouble of Living. You want nice, fully tabulated Authorized Rules for - just about anything you can imagine. And those who "feel that That Ain't a life worth Living" -?- well "feelings" cannot ever compete with a nicely documented Permission list - now can they? (Why then life would not be logical. What an idea.)

By now a rather familiar attitude BTW, re the "entire pseudo-science of the law" [Fred C. Rodell, Dean Yale Law School - long ago] But a fatally flawed idea of the Majesty of the Law. And of how homo-sap Lives. IMhO.

You appear not even to get the idea that, after all the verbal BS of which we are all so capable:

NO ONE ever 'does' anything they are not Moved.. to do.

Logic? Hah !! (It has its pedestrian uses of course - but you will find logic the Prime controller only in ROBOTS. Remember?)



Ashton

Nothing can go wrong with our surveillance recording and indexing software go wrong go wrong go wr {click}
New Its only simple if you're stupid.
Because *nothing* is simple when you start looking at all the other ramifications.

And its utter complete ignorance to stick your head in the sand and pretend otherwise, no matter what your motivation.

You imagine

I do you the favor of not trying to figure out what you're thinking (mostly because I can't imagine that much LSD), but because its just damn rude.

You are *consistantly* wrong with what you say I think.

So stop trying and telling me what I think, you don't know.

Then you equate all emotional aspects of the human condition to ~ "Mob Rule, I Want, ___"

Look at Brandioch flailing down below.

See, he hasn't thought his point through. What he's said is "if I think a law is wrong, I don't have to obey it, and that's OK" (Now he's somehow trying to backtrack on that and say that he'll be punished. I might wait for him to re-read this thread and retry to integrate his answers (he'll have to change something).

But that's what this thread started about "Hooray! Someone is breaking the law and I like it!"

That's mob rule. No reference to law, and as much as you hate it, the POINT of law is to have a standard, a reference, something ABOVE the lynch mobs and gangs.

And when you advocate/support things that break the rule of law, you create a situation where only Mob Rule exists. They're opposites. Either you have laws, or you have mob rule.

Hell, create a few more silly syllogisms.

Yeah. Silly. I notice you don't say WHY they're silly. Why you'd have a problem with some anti-authority figure disabling an ambulance while you lie bleeding. Or.. is that.. different? (I have a feeling I"m going to be insulted more for pointing that out).

"Public"? you say - so then, it's OK for a creeping Police State mentality to propagate..

As opposed to Mob Rule? (Which then will lead to a Poilce State - just not a police state constrained by any laws?)

Nope, we have Fundament-al disagreement about what makes a life worth the trouble of Living

Yep. I don't like people hurting other people and taking their stuff.

I believe in thinking things through.

It would appear you don't. Because you don't believe anybody should have to have their "freedom restricted" with those silly laws that keep you from taking other people's stuff.

Golly. How silly of me. To the Gates! With Torches!

Addison
New The issue (for me) is thresholds.
Hi All,

Addison wrote:

And when you advocate/support things that break the rule of law, you create a situation where only Mob Rule exists. They're opposites. Either you have laws, or you have mob rule.

I don't think Brandioch and Ashton are saying that. They're saying that in our society there comes a point where laws must be disregarded because they violate what's right. I think we agree that there were instances in the past when laws which were egregiously wrong were on the books and were enforced. It took people breaking the laws to have society change them.

I think they're arguing that there are some instances when that's the correct course of action. Not that all laws they find inconvenient/annoying/etc. should be disregarded. They're not advocating mob rule. They feel, as I understand it, that there are thresholds which are being crossed that they feel violate their freedom/rights/etc.

I think both sides are making good points. It's a shame that rather than the issues of public annonymity, privacy, the limits of what is acceptable datagathering of public places, etc., being clarified by this discussion it's instead being more muddled by extraneous issues.

I'll give my take again - I don't believe I have privacy rights as such when I'm in public. Newspapers and TV cameras can take my image when I'm part of a crowd or attenting a public event. I have no problem with that if I remain anonymous. I believe I have rights to annonymity. I don't like the idea of my motions, personal data, etc., being tracked in public even if, say, 20,000 other people at the same public event are being tracked the same way. It still causes me to lose my right to remaining anonymous. That's why I oppose things like the FL camera system we discussed a few weeks ago.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Are we civilised or are we not?
That, to me, is the issue.

One of the downsides in living in an organised and civilised society is that one cannot pick and choose the laws one wishes to obey today, because in order for laws to change, there *IS* a clear legislative and political process -- a process that is likely long, tedious and hard.

If one wants to circumvent that process, then one is effectively cutting the democratic process out of the loop. That's not grown-up politics and lawmaking, that's spitting one's dummy out and throwing a tantrum because one can't have what one wants.

We ignore two-year-olds who do that.

Just because one can shout very loudly doesn't make one any more right than the person who chooses to whisper.




--
Peter
Shill For Hire
New I think you're overstating the case...

One of the downsides in living in an organised and civilised society is that one cannot pick and choose the laws one wishes to obey today, because in order for laws to change, there *IS* a clear legislative and political process -- a process that is likely long, tedious and hard.

If one wants to circumvent that process, then one is effectively cutting the democratic process out of the loop. That's not grown-up politics and lawmaking, that's spitting one's dummy out and throwing a tantrum because one can't have what one wants.

We ignore two-year-olds who do that.

One the things about living in an organized and civilizied society is the one CAN pick and choose which laws one wishes to obey and disobey. However, one who decides to disobey the laws must realize the risks and possible penalities that they may face for breaking those laws. MLK and others broke numerous laws; they knew the risks they were taking and the possible punishments that they may have to face. However, they willingly took these risks and penalities for what they believed in.


Furthermore, such actions can not be considered to be cutting out the democratic process. The entire nature of a democracy is that these are the rules everyone agrees to. By that very nature, disagreeing with the law is a factor in democracy. In fact, is a very humanizing part of the lawmaking process and may be the ultimate in checks_n_balances: lawmakers can make whatever laws they want - but does it mean anything unless everyone agrees to follow them? Example: if Congress were to pass a maximum 25 mph speed limit, it would be law. But if the police do not enforce the law, courts refuse to hear cases on the law and people ignore the law, what real effect does the law have?

Stainless steel traps breed stainless steel rats.
New Minor correction
I don't know anyone here who lives in a democracy. in the USA, we live in a democratic republic, which is quite different. Those British and Austrailian members here also do not live in a democracy.
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
New Fishing...
It's all a question of whether the police should be 'anglers' (rod and reel, trolling for individual law-breakers) or whether they should longliners, raking in everybody, and accepting the collateral damages. Anonymity IS important, but police use of 'facial profiling' basically removes any anonymity you have AND introduces a real possibility of error. Unless, of course, you move to the next logical step, and tattoo (via UV sensitive ink, perhaps, for the 'beautiful people'?) SS numbers onto the foreheads of citizens and green-card holders?

When DOES action essentially for the convenience of the police 'cross the line', anyway?

Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait

  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
New Flailing?
"Look at Brandioch flailing down below."

Why is it that you are UNABLE to respond to questions about slavery?

Was it LEGAL?

Was it RIGHT?

Was breaking that law RIGHT or WRONG?

Your problem is that you equate LAW with RIGHT.

But such is not always the case.

So, you have a situation where RIGHT is NOT the same as LEGAL.

Which causes your world view to collapse upon itself.

If legal is not right and right is not legal
-then-
reality collapses and we have mob rule!

Now, let's see if you can grasp the fact that some laws are not "right".

Which will lead to the philosophical question of "do you obey laws that are not right".

Something to think about, we had this discussion in the military. The problem was very real there. Your commander could order you to perform illegal activities. Failure to follow his commands could result in your execution. So, what do you do?
New not changing the subject at all
I as an individual think for myself. I do not accept that society should think for me.
You say all this surveilance gear is ok by you as you dont intend to be a lawbreaker and you are comfortable with the governments ability to track your everymove.

lets agree to disagree and I will remove and disable such devices and we will both pay for the re-installation until they put me in a camp or the constitution sets you free.
thanx,
bill
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
New Ya, Bill, you are.
Drastically.

And you're not listening to what I'm saying.

Most importantly:

Public != Private.

You are talking about PRIVATE things, and said monitoring there.

I am talking about PUBLIC things.

That's a VAST gulf, right there.

I'm *not* telling you that society should think for you.

I *am* saying that vandals need to be punished.

I am *not* saying that surveillance gear is OK unless you're planning to break the law.

I *am* saying that its no different than any other piece of public safety equipment (Ambulance, Police Cruiser).

lets agree to disagree

I'm sorry Bill, I can't do that.

Because you aren't actually paying attention to the issue at hand. So I can't say "OK, we have a difference in opinion". What we have is a failure to communicate. Even after me explicitly explaining, you persist in attributing to me fallacies/strawmen.

And I can't agree with you on that.

You change the subject from night to day, and try and insist that they're related.

And I can't agree with you on that.

Not even to disagree.

Addison
New ok then lets continue
quote
I am *not* saying that surveillance gear is OK unless you're planning to break the law.
I *am* saying that its no different than any other piece of public safety equipment (Ambulance, Police Cruiser).
end quote
perhaps this is where we differ, cameras to me eqal wiretap on all the phones = monitoring all ip traffic things that normally need a specific target and a warrant from a judge to be allowed. to allow such things without a warrant to me is creeping big brotherism. I cannot escape that thought and since I cannot I will resist. Wether I am right or wrong will not be judged by you and me but by history.
thanx,
bill
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
New Re: ok then lets continue
cameras to me eqal wiretap on all the phones = monitoring all ip traffic things that normally need a specific target and a warrant from a judge to be allowed.

Then that's a bad equasion.

Those other things - they apply to things where you can exclude others. Where you can have privacy.

You can refuse to open the trunk of your car to an officer - that's private. To open it, he must comply with the laws pertaining to the 4th amendment.

If you have something illegal sitting on the back seat of your car, and he can see it, then he's in full compliance for arresting you based on the sight.

Cameras in public do NOT equate to wiretapping private conversations.

Addison
     UK's surveillance camera vigilantes! - (Ashton) - (138)
         That's a slippery slope, too. - (addison) - (137)
             "Time and distance" was never allowed in US traffic - (Ashton) - (6)
                 Then it shouldn't be a problem. - (addison)
                 Actually, not to nitpick... - (Simon_Jester) - (4)
                     There is a difference... - (hnick)
                     Also New Mexico... - (Fearless Freep)
                     1992 study of Photo Radar proposal for DC Capital Beltway - (Another Scott) - (1)
                         60%? Right. - (Brandioch)
             what the heck is wrong with scofflaws? - (boxley) - (129)
                 The root word of "justice" is "just". - (addison) - (119)
                     tim mcveigh did obey his own law - (boxley) - (116)
                         And we as a society had a problem with that. - (addison) - (115)
                             in response - (boxley) - (114)
                                 Everybody who's name starts with "B", you're under arrest. - (addison) - (110)
                                     It is a judgement call usually - (orion)
                                     Here's a simple syllogism, if not quite rational enough for - (Ashton) - (2)
                                         mama said to save it until I was married - (boxley)
                                         Yep, that's simple. - (addison)
                                     My slightly radical opinion. - (Brandioch) - (21)
                                         Re: My slightly radical opinion. - (addison) - (20)
                                             Work all angles. - (Brandioch) - (19)
                                                 Re: Work all angles. - (addison) - (18)
                                                     To work the system. - (Brandioch) - (17)
                                                         Work it, bayybeeeee. - (addison) - (16)
                                                             so when you get a letter to show up for yer gps ass chip - (boxley) - (15)
                                                                 You're changing the subject even more. - (addison) - (14)
                                                                     Perhaps you are simply realizing it, less and less? - (Ashton) - (9)
                                                                         Re: Perhaps you are simply realizing it, less and less? - (addison) - (8)
                                                                             It's simple, really - but it won't be, for you. - (Ashton) - (7)
                                                                                 Its only simple if you're stupid. - (addison) - (6)
                                                                                     The issue (for me) is thresholds. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                                                         Are we civilised or are we not? - (pwhysall) - (2)
                                                                                             I think you're overstating the case... - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
                                                                                                 Minor correction - (wharris2)
                                                                                         Fishing... - (imric)
                                                                                     Flailing? - (Brandioch)
                                                                     not changing the subject at all - (boxley) - (3)
                                                                         Ya, Bill, you are. - (addison) - (2)
                                                                             ok then lets continue - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                 Re: ok then lets continue - (addison)
                                     another point of view - (boxley) - (83)
                                         Re: another point of view - (addison) - (82)
                                             sorry - (boxley) - (81)
                                                 I'm going to have to ask you, as painful as it is, to come - (addison) - (80)
                                                     I can handle that one. - (Brandioch) - (78)
                                                         I don't think you did. - (addison) - (77)
                                                             Legallity vs. right. - (Brandioch) - (76)
                                                                 I think the point is going over your head. - (addison) - (75)
                                                                     the point vs pointy head - (boxley) - (70)
                                                                         Re: the point vs pointy head - (addison) - (69)
                                                                             Addison, your laundry called. Your brown shirts are ready. -NT - (DonRichards) - (68)
                                                                                 Um... - (addison) - (67)
                                                                                     Zoom. It goes over his head. - (DonRichards) - (66)
                                                                                         Not really. - (addison) - (65)
                                                                                             Whatever - (DonRichards) - (64)
                                                                                                 Whatever - (addison) - (59)
                                                                                                     You poor dear. Why *of course* your Logic is superior - (Ashton) - (38)
                                                                                                         Re: You poor dear. Why *of course* your Logic is superior - (addison)
                                                                                                         "Reasoning" with your emotions in stead of logic??? - (CRConrad) - (36)
                                                                                                             Now then CRC. We may eventually get this done, - (Ashton) - (35)
                                                                                                                 Not likely. - (addison) - (32)
                                                                                                                     I think that your position is - (boxley) - (31)
                                                                                                                         You really haven't read me in my posts. - (addison) - (26)
                                                                                                                             dont bother with the facts - (boxley) - (25)
                                                                                                                                 You're still missing Addison's point Bill. - (Another Scott) - (24)
                                                                                                                                     I understand the point just disagreeing with it - (boxley) - (16)
                                                                                                                                         No, you don't. - (addison) - (15)
                                                                                                                                             heres another reason (thanx, freep!) - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                                                                                 Re: heres another reason (thanx, freep!) - (addison)
                                                                                                                                             *sigh* - (imric) - (12)
                                                                                                                                                 That's not what I said. - (addison) - (11)
                                                                                                                                                     What he said: - (imric) - (10)
                                                                                                                                                         Yep. - (addison) - (9)
                                                                                                                                                             Hasn't been done so far? - (imric) - (8)
                                                                                                                                                                 No. - (addison) - (7)
                                                                                                                                                                     Question about recording - (drewk) - (2)
                                                                                                                                                                         Not sure about other places. - (DonRichards) - (1)
                                                                                                                                                                             Heh.. Kinda like the Windoze EULA, no ? - (Ashton)
                                                                                                                                                                     Interesting point. - (imric) - (3)
                                                                                                                                                                         Re: Interesting point. - (addison)
                                                                                                                                                                         Cruiser cams - (wharris2) - (1)
                                                                                                                                                                             And as such, I have no problem with them - (mhuber)
                                                                                                                                     But aren't you eliding the "powers reserved to the people" - (Ashton) - (6)
                                                                                                                                         I don't think so. - (addison) - (5)
                                                                                                                                             Forget.. mobs dressed in black, smashing cameras. - (Ashton) - (4)
                                                                                                                                                 Not the only thing forgotten. - (addison) - (3)
                                                                                                                                                     Once again you speak of The Law, monolithically - (Ashton) - (2)
                                                                                                                                                         What can I say? - (addison) - (1)
                                                                                                                                                             I regret you are taking a characterization of a mindset - (Ashton)
                                                                                                                         I think you might be slightly mistaken... - (bepatient) - (3)
                                                                                                                             Actually, I believe it is illegal to listen in on - (Simon_Jester) - (2)
                                                                                                                                 Isn't recording the problem, cell phone or live? - (drewk) - (1)
                                                                                                                                     And that's my problem with the cameras - (mhuber)
                                                                                                                 Je crois que vous avez misaperc,u cet expression: - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                                                                                     Re: apres mois le deluge.. - (Ashton)
                                                                                                     I observe, I see a pattern. - (DonRichards) - (19)
                                                                                                         But you didn't, that's the problem. - (addison) - (5)
                                                                                                             I apologize - (DonRichards) - (4)
                                                                                                                 Thanks. - (addison)
                                                                                                                 Wimp! - (deSitter) - (2)
                                                                                                                     Oh, POAD, fuckwit! - (CRConrad)
                                                                                                                     Had? - (DonRichards)
                                                                                                         No, I think it's *you* who are "los[ing] the point entirely" - (CRConrad) - (12)
                                                                                                             All true, as far as it goes. Just too simplistic. - (Ashton) - (11)
                                                                                                                 "Too simplistic"??? That's fucking rich, coming from *you*! - (CRConrad) - (8)
                                                                                                                     So.. you want clarity and simplicity - with 'romantics'? - (Ashton) - (7)
                                                                                                                         Here's why "direct action" is a bad idea... - (pwhysall) - (2)
                                                                                                                             Point taken. and.. Ugh! - (Ashton)
                                                                                                                             Re: Here's why "direct action" is a bad idea... - (addison)
                                                                                                                         No - I want clarity and simplicity *from YOU*, here. - (CRConrad) - (3)
                                                                                                                             inneresting my kids go to a pediatrician -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                                                                 Yeah - follow the link in Peter's post... -NT - (CRConrad)
                                                                                                                             You've defined a 'clarity/simplicity' which doesn't exist: - (Ashton)
                                                                                                                 Re: Spray painting. - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
                                                                                                                     Small prediction - (Ashton)
                                                                                                 Re: Whatever - (dpeterson) - (3)
                                                                                                     Lighten up. - (DonRichards) - (2)
                                                                                                         Hey.. a little Evul is Good for the Soul! - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                                                                             if there was no evil all the cops would be on welfare :) -NT - (boxley)
                                                                     Not over my head. - (Brandioch) - (3)
                                                                         Zoom. - (addison) - (2)
                                                                             You're going to have to do better than that. - (Brandioch) - (1)
                                                                                 Why? - (addison)
                                                     a police cruiser usually - (boxley)
                                 Genoa is a current case. - (addison) - (1)
                                     not my hero's it is an organised - (boxley)
                                 There was a time in the US,... - (a6l6e6x)
                     Puke - (deSitter) - (1)
                         now now - (boxley)
                 Scofflaws are part of the system of checks and balances - (mhuber) - (8)
                     Re: Scofflaws are part of the system of checks and balances - (addison) - (3)
                         Speed enforcement - (wharris2) - (1)
                             Re: Speed enforcement - (addison)
                         Jumping off the slippery slope - (mhuber)
                     After some reflection, I'm going to have to disagree with - (addison) - (3)
                         Not a defence. - (Brandioch)
                         defend mcveigh? - (boxley) - (1)
                             Um. - (addison)

Not even for a Scooby Snack...?
142 ms