"Too simplistic"??? That's fucking rich, coming from *you*!

Post #3,130 by CRConrad 7/30/01 8:02:32 PM Reply	"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
Post #3,166 by Ashton 7/31/01 2:54:39 AM Reply	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.
Post #3,169 by pwhysall 7/31/01 3:06:54 AM Reply	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
Post #3,172 by Ashton 7/31/01 3:37:28 AM Reply	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.
Post #3,242 by addison 7/31/01 12:47:31 PM Reply	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.
Post #3,174 by CRConrad 7/31/01 4:21:21 AM Reply	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
Post #3,178 by boxley 7/31/01 8:16:03 AM Reply	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
Post #3,183 by CRConrad 7/31/01 9:06:37 AM Reply	Yeah - follow the link in Peter's post...
Post #3,283 by Ashton 7/31/01 3:31:04 PM Reply	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.

Welcome to IWETHEY!