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 I observe, I see a pattern.
Let's see if I have this straight.
The pattern of argument you have used in this thread is of the "my country, right or wrong" type.

That is a characteristic of fascist thinking.

I make an inference, not an anology, to this with my "Brown shirt" post.

You lose the point entirely, contrasting the brown shirt's lawbreaking with your own pristine existence instead of recognising that the fascist thinking was what I was referring to.

I use your own post title in another portion of this thread (Zoom...) in an attempt to show irony and use the body of my post to clarify my original intent (for those who missed the original inference) with an assertion of the observed fascist tendency of your "reasoning".

You say it's an incorrect analogy.

You are wrong.

It did go over your head.

You missed the point.

You failed to understand.

You attacked.

Hmmm. A valid response. Just not too "thoughtful"
"When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
New But you didn't, that's the problem.
The "pattern" that you saw wasn't the right one, in other words.

The pattern of argument you have used in this thread is of the "my country, right or wrong" type.

Not even close.

So either I'm doing a piss-poor job of elaborating, or you're not reading.

I *thought* I was being very clear, that I was talking about the *problems* with lionizing vandals. That the people mentioned in the first story - the ones who are breaking the law, and destroying public safety equipment to avoid fines for breaking the law - were as serious a problem as overreaching police.

Its entirely possible that I failed utterly with that.

But its not possible that when you compared me to the Nazi thugs (who broke the law), instead of explaining what gave you that impression (which would then be discussable), just insulting me, and I explained why that was wrong, that that then "reinforces" what you thought. Well, let me take that back. Its *possible*, but its even more illogical.

That is a characteristic of fascist thinking.

But it 'tain't what I'ma doing.

Its typical of fascist thinking to tar your opponent with lies and analogies, lacking any factual basis... Like, um "Your brown shirts are ready?"

You say it's an incorrect analogy.
You are wrong.


*Sigh* Only, apparently, because I have a better (or any) understanding of history.

You attacked.
Hmmm. A valid response. Just not too "thoughtful"


And explained (and it still stands, unrefuted) *WHY* (it was wrong). Very thoughtful. Best I could do, given the mere insult that was typical of who you were trying to categorize me with. Ironic, don'tcha think?

Or are you trying to tell me that the "Your brown shirts are ready" was a thought out, explained comment?

Addison
New I apologize
I'm sorry. I was wrong. The brown shirts comment was out of line. I could have made my point in another way. For what it's worth, it wasn't intended as insulting. I was thinking of the original Mussolini brown shirts when I wrote that, not the Nazis. That doesn't make it any less insulting, but I thought (admittedly feeble thinking) it was a mildly humorous comment. I see it wasn't.

Once again, my sincere apologies. I should wait a few minutes before I post something like that and ask myself if it was said to me, how I would feel.

I still don't agree with you on this and many other things. On the other hand, there are many times I find myself saying, "I wish I had said that" when reading your posts.


"When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
New Thanks.
Its not that the comment was out of line - but that you didn't explain why you were making it.

For what it's worth, it wasn't intended as insulting.

C'mon, I didn't fall off the turnip truck *yesterday*. :)

still don't agree with you on this and many other things.

That's fine - heck, if you think there's a real parallel, say so.

But if you don't explain, then its hard to have a discussion. Might as well be slashdot. :)


Addison
New Wimp!
You had him!

I had to give up arguing with him, it's like digging your own grave with a plastic spork. I'm finally over being pissed after two weeks.

You, Boxer, Aston and I could easily wipe out Conrad, Laurent, Scott2 and a cohort of their choosing, in any battle of wits. A gauntlet is thereby tossed earthward.
New Oh, POAD, fuckwit!
And STAY pissed offa here this time.
   Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
New Had?
I beg to differ. The argument was won. The insult was retracted.
"When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
New No, I think it's *you* who are "los[ing] the point entirely"
The "my country, right or wrong" pattern of argument in this thread, Don, exists only where *your* side have used it: It is YOU who are arguing AGAINST the Rule Of Law -- "my *feelings*, 'objective' right or wrong be damned!"

Without a Rule Of Law, what do we get? We get Anarchy -- _or_, as an alternative and/or (more likely) reaction to a period of Anarchy, we get "Might Makes Right": A dictatorship that is (despite possibly being clad in legalistic trappings, as the German Nazis so excelled in doing) based on anything BUT legitimate Rule Of Law.

To digress a little, in historical terms, fascism was -- is -- a revertion from the principles of Enlightenment, to capricious mediaeval absolute monarchy; something that has appealed -- and *still* appeals -- to romantics everywhere. Witness the success of the Knightly Romance from sir Walter Scott in the nineteenth century, to the settings of trash-romance a la' Barbara Cartland or Margit Sandemo in the twentieth; also note the type of society and rule in most -- almost all -- Fantasy novels so popular among Romantics today. Monarchies and feudalism abound, almost to the point of surfeit, don't they?

And believe it or not, but this "literary surfeit of monarchies and feudalism" is a pretty incontrovertible link between emotion-based "reasoning" on the one hand and "Might Makes Right" dictatorship on the other. Trust me, better scholars than I (and if you don't want to take my word for *that* fact, then look them up directly! :-) have noted that on the Intellect-vs.-Feeling scale, it's fascism that's waaay out there on the Feeling end of the see-saw. Which, if I recall correctly, is what *you* are advocating, in opposition to Addison's "bloodless, sterile actuarialism" or whatever Ashton would (and probably has) call it. (Or, in your rather petty-sounding attempt at a put-down, his "pristine existence".)

So what YOU have failed to understand here -- although I personally think that *this* pattern is pretty damn obvious to observe -- is that the side that's closer to "advocating fascism" in this thread _I_S_ *yours*, not Addison's.

That, Don, is the point YOU entirely lost here. (And that, in turn, is why your attempt at irony elsewhere was also rather misplaced, AFAICR.)
   Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything About Fascists And Romantics
New All true, as far as it goes. Just too simplistic.
Agree entirely! that the appeal of the Fascists always was - on the same level of base-emotion mongering as that of any Tee Vee preacher exhorting the flock -- subliminally or sometimes outright! -- to Kill a Fag because Jesus Loves You and That's What Jesus Wants You to Do!\ufffd

But to thus imagine that Emotion! is some dark and tamable? constrainable? unWanted - also superfluous - aspect of homo-sap -- is just as simplistic a dogged unawareness of What We Are.. as I can imagine. No 'discovery' of any enduring kind - has ever come about sans Emotion! Wonder! is Emotion. Intellect is only about 'how' - never (alone) about 'what' to do. Science is by very design (and capability, fortunately) "what-blind".

And to worship! The Law as currently codified in literally millions of words unread, intentionally turgid, often Special-interest created ...[fill in a hundred more] - is neither Reasonable nor IMhO even sane. The Law is a necessary Good/Evil, that's all it can be. It Giveth and it Taketh away -- all depends upon what it's doing for *you* today, how you will describe that elephant - blindfolded 'Justice' indeed! It's the right metaphor.

We have The Law as *A* bulwark against the lengthy catalog of things homo-sap often does to other homo-saps. It *IS* better than anarchy: we all er sorta voted! in a "social contract" (an abstraction I trust that most would ~ agree with). But Deifying this ever-imperfect, constantly in-need-of-revision 'code': is supposed to be the *Other* bulwark we rely upon in our search for maximum individual choices / amidst a mass of others with different ones.

When *THAT* process of ~ er upgrading :-\ufffd becomes too bogged-down then, even and especially [here, anyway] the US Constitution [also not a Holy Book; merely a damn good collection of wise words] even declares that,

[in so many words] Revolution! may become the Right, the Honorable, *the Murican* choice, should __ and __ occur and there is no workable redress.

Now as to destroying public property - *illegal* - or sitting in at lunch counters - *illegal* - or publishing the Pentagon Papers - *illegal* - [etc.]:

Yes of course! that is a Last resort, yet many will and always do - disagree upon *how long* a perceived (dare we say Wrong?) may be tolerated before it is concluded:

This government / local-govt. / regime? - displays no awareness of the problem nor, when confronted - any aim to even consider a referendum or other public chance to make efforts at correction..

How long is.. long enough to wait? No two persons will name the same number re the same 'problem'. And so it goes.

So if it hasn't been obvious, as we have engaged in the usual lazy play-of-Boolean-opposites in this thread (surprise!):

No one here imagines (I think) that "it is time to spray paint on all cameras you happen to spot". If there is any consensus among the Anti-Surveillance crowd, I'd guess it might be ~

Should there develop.. a trend whereby municipalities are flocking to install cameras - many as they can afford now and next - a la Florida hick town: THEN we shall see the 'early raiders' begin and.. a nationwide effort at coordinated opposition.

Spray-painting *IS* a last resort, then. D'Oh - was that not clear? In every situation there will be all those infinite varieties of responses. Some do behave as anarchists - fortunately most often just ego-talking that to death. Most do not, being quite as well aware of the concept of anarchy as you are.

ie THERE *IS* NO EITHER/OR in 'real life'. Only in academic fanciful musings, mathematical fantasies and.. longings for Perfect Authority. (that's why so many people's heads hurt)
There is 'mind' and there is 'heart' - only sometimes do they work in accord. And those in whom this is a common daily experience (that accord) - we call wise.

{sheesh}



Ashton
who believes there are many more things we know about which, "don't work well" than - do. Or - ya can always spot the defects much better than ever - the virtues.
New "Too simplistic"??? That's fucking rich, coming from *you*!
But to thus imagine that Emotion! is some dark and tamable? constrainable? unWanted - also superfluous - aspect of homo-sap

      [ . . . ]

And to worship! The Law as currently codified in literally millions of words unread, intentionally turgid, often Special-interest created

      [ . . . ]

But Deifying this ever-imperfect, constantly in-need-of-revision 'code'
These fucking over-simplifications from YOU are beginning to SERIOUSLY piss me off.

Is it that you don't realize how fucking insulting they are, or that you don't realize you're making them all the fucking time?!?


THERE *IS* NO EITHER/OR in 'real life'.
Gee, really? Whod'a'thunkit!

It's not as if the rest of us were taking that for granted, eh? No, we NEED Wise Old Papa Ashton to *tell* us obvious shit like this...


Yes of course! that is a Last resort, yet many will and always do - disagree upon *how long* a perceived (dare we say Wrong?) may be tolerated before it is concluded:
Too fucking bad you only get around to mentioning that NOW, then, after having argued all the time as if it should be Standard Operating Procedure.


How long is.. long enough to wait? No two persons will name the same number re the same 'problem'. And so it goes.
And that's why everybody letting their own personal emotions run away with them isn't going to work. Why "civil disobedience" must, yes, MUST, be and remain a LAST resort, not -- as you and your cohorts have so far seemed to be advocating -- SOP.

Why, as SOP, ones fucking Holy Emotions MUST be held in check by informed Reason. (Q. E. fucking D, BTW.)

And why Khasimioch, if he really means it about going around smashing cameras, is being a whacko.


No one here imagines (I think) that "it is time to spray paint on all cameras you happen to spot".
You "think"?!? Dunno if you've just forgot what the debate was about, or if you're seriously trying to claim that that isn't exactly what Khasimioch has SAID he'd do.


Spray-painting *IS* a last resort, then. D'Oh - was that not clear?
Re-read the thread, and TRY (for fucking *once*!) to act as less of a parody of a James Joyce novel and more of an ordinary Mensch: "Clear" is usually the *last* thing you are.
   Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
New So.. you want clarity and simplicity - with 'romantics'?
Make up your mind.

Here's simple: when a 'legally passed' law proves to be despised - it Will be violated. Just as in English law, nullification by jury was its logical antecedent.

Ditto re cameras + the absolutely

Inevitable Fucking Databases and their misuse.

We have seen only the barest hint of what existing dbs shall wreak, once interconnected - for Corp and other nefarious purposes. The hints are bring noticed.

To equate civil disobedience against this potential horror - with mobs n'torches - fails. There will be plenty of reasoning and calculation IMO. (Certainly the GPL counter to Corporate patent of Everything - was the epitome of That!)

We have already seen One US municipality attempt this - and against his own City Council's vote: that mayor persists! Tell me this is some 'overreaction' - or that an emotional overview of it's.. yes! *meaning* is somehow a violation of governing principles!

Cameras indeed may come to be smashed, eventually - a lot will depend upon what many city councils imagine is meant by 'surveillance' - and the Murican way of dealing with anything we call 'controversial'. (Muricans don't like that)

Like I said - the style of these forums is almost inevitably: a play of opposites -- then one or another moves away from the fringe. We could try another style, but it doesn't seem popular.

A.

And pissed off or not, I see LOTS of fucking Boolean 'advice' in these forums - though usually less from you.
New Here's why "direct action" is a bad idea...
...People are *stupid*.

In the UK, at the height of the paedophilia hysteria, a mob [link|http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/wales/newsid_901000/901723.stm|attacked ] the home of a paediatrician, because they were TOO FUCKING STUPID to realise that a paediatrician is a doctor who specialises in children.

THAT, my dear Ashton, is what scares the CRAP out of me about "direct action" and violent civil disobedience - not the kinds of people who post here, but the knee-jerk nutters with room-temperature IQs.
--
Peter
Shill For Hire
New Point taken. and.. Ugh!
Words fail on this incident.

Yet too - spray cans means: government has utterly failed to address legitimate concerns, presented in lawful ways. Of course mobs suck - but I doubt this issue would galvanize more than a handful of people actively disabling a fait accompli (array of new cameras or such).

Were the Freedom Riders in the segregated south - a mob action? If so - certainly a well-organized one, with the screaming and rioting occurring on the opponents' side. The demonstrators' forbearance was almost super-human.

Somewhere in between - villagers unclear on the concept of paedo- and the utter nonviolence of the Freedom Riders - is what might occur. IF..
(No occasion for pitched battles.)


Ashton
It's really hard to calculate the dumbth card, though.. as you say.
New Re: Here's why "direct action" is a bad idea...
What else to quote but:

[link|http://us.imdb.com/Title?0072431|Young Frankenstein]

Inspector Kemp: A riot isss an ugly thing. And vonce you get one started, there is leettle chance of stopping it, short of bloodshed. I think, before we go around killing people, we had better make daeemned! sure! of our evidence. And we had better confeerm the fact that Young Frankenstein is indeed following in his grandfather's footschteps.

All: What?

Inspector Kemp: Following in his grandfather's footschteps, [stomping feet] footschteps, footschteps.

All: Oh, footsteps.
New No - I want clarity and simplicity *from YOU*, here.
If you want to discuss, then please discuss clearly and reasonably -- yes, "logically", if you want to call it that. (But if so, *please* ferfuxxake spare us the "simplistically Boolean!" stupid insults!)

If, OTOH, you want to be ruled by your emotions, then WTF are you doing here? Remember, discussions such as these are a meeting of the *minds*, not hearts. Just grab a can of spray paint and run out and find a camera!

Or a paediatrician.
   Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
New inneresting my kids go to a pediatrician
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 Yeah - follow the link in Peter's post...
New You've defined a 'clarity/simplicity' which doesn't exist:
An "emotion free" logical sequence. Works fine for .. lots of things - doesn't apply *at all* to actual persons' responses to actions they (always via personal judgment) deem unjust? dangerous to such Biggies as "personal privacy" - YES, even in so-called 'public"! Does *that* idea need to be parsed again, too? (The upper limit of, 'constant surveillance' is, I think the opposite of No surveillance. What we have thus-far is: somewhere in between.)

As we have seen demonstrated in just this thread.

No one can agree upon a perfect 'definition' of "privacy" - let alone how much? little? of that concept -- exists in 'public' today - ought to exist? - Will exist if ___ such and such occur next.

Now if you imagine you Can reduce this dilemma to nice neat description and deduction, and even capture the *feeling* of being watched, logged and indexed - in a neat intellectial syllogism:

Go for it.

A.
New Re: Spray painting.
Here in Charlotte, North Carolina, we have at many intersections cameras capturing images of folks "running" a red traffic light. It is apparently a very cost effective revenue generator for the city. When people pay their fines that is. There is one character that had over 50 unpaid "tickets".

Anyway, to get to the point of the post. The preferred method of "getting even" with the city by those that were caught is to shoot paint balls at the transparent panel on the box housing the camera. The boxes are positioned at a height beyond easy reach for spray painting.

Alex

This is my sig. There's another almost like it, but this one is mine.
New Small prediction
Should very many munis follow the lead of the mayor in the Fla backwater (not even the lead of the city council BTW) - paint-ball gun sales shall somewhat follow camera sales.

We may hope this is all tempest in a teapot - there just Can't be that many folk around who never read even 1984 and Brave New World. Can there?



A.
     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)

Live long and prosper.
308 ms