What are you saying?

You are saying that statistically, the citizens were unlikley to be threatened?
Your face should be red.

Okay, you've lost me. Perhaps something called "an explanation" could be provided?

Very well put. Less time spent reading fiction perhaps?

Perhaps. Can you tell me what the first laws were that were passed by the National Socialists?

I've said that I feel safe from the terrorists. I've said that I don't think I am going to be monitored by the government.

If you feel safe from the terrorists, why are you allowing the government to increase its authority to monitor people?

Because you don't think OTHER people are safe? Is that it?

So, you're advocating that the government be granted greater authority to monitor the people so that some OTHER people can be "safer"? But I thought it was personal to you because you know someone who knows someone who was killed in the attack.

You are the one who is worried. I think your worry is unnecessary.
You don't. I think we are talking about your emotions and your emotional responses.

Really? That is so FASCINATING. So, what am I worried about?

That the government will increase its authority to monitor US citizens?

Ummmm, isn't that EXACTLY what they're proposing?

So, what I'm "worried" about happening is exactly what >IS< happening?

But you think my "worry" is "unnecessary"?

Is that "unnecessary" in that you don't think it is important as you don't feel it will affect you?

Or is that "unnecessary" as in....well, there's really no other phrasing, is there?

You have not listed ONE right which has been surrendered. Because you have not surrendered.
(The right to have wiretapping be made difficult is not a right you have).

It is NOT difficult to get a wire tap on me. It just requires that >I< be under investigation and NOT because I know someone who is under investigation.

>>I've asked you before what, specifically, you'd "monitor" now.
And I told you.....anything which you find a concern.

And you'll find the manpower to do this HOW? Allow me to rephrase this for you. NOW, if an arab tries to carry a box cutter onto a plane, the entire place is locked down. THEN, it was nothing.

The word is "specific".

Oh jeesh........you really thought that was worth pursuing?
Yawn. It kinda goes like this:
a) you identify some people you are interested in examining more closely (see below).
b) you monitor their movements using GPS when they rent a car. You note all the people they visit and put those people under surveillance.
c) you monitor that, coincidentally, several suspected terrorists are arriving at airports at the same time (using GPS).
d) you delay the plane - and discover that they have all bought expensive one way tickets
e) they are given a thorough search
f) the plane is given a thorough search
g) You break up the suspects into smaller groups and tell them they will need to fly on separate planes.
g) you place Federal air marshals on the plane (some in the cockpit some in the cabin)

Okay.

B. This is where your scenario can affect ANYONE. That includes neighbors, co-workers, friends, and so on. I want you to think about the manpower required for this.

C. "suspected terrorists"? And you're letting them move around? Freely? Why? Why aren't they under arrest? Why do you suspect them?

Again, hindsight. If they are "suspected terrorists", then why are they in the country? If you already know about them, then why are they travelling freely?

Allow me to REMIND YOU that the ONE case you quoted was someone in the country ILLEGALLY.

No, your plan, as always, relies upon PRIOR KNOWLEDGE.

If you KNOW they are "suspected terrorists", then they are arrested or deported.

If you do NOT know, then your plan fails from the beginning.

From your articles. Do I really need to say that I told you so? From those reports, it seems that we knew who they were and where they were. Yet nothing was done. Why would that be? Hmmmmm? Because the PEOPLE who were doing the monitoring didn't think that their actions were a threat?

You came up with....they can get wiretaps more easily now.....no talk about your rights and the potential impact whatsoever.

I have gone over the impact already. It is now easier for the government to spy on its citizens.

You're describing something you fear will impact you. You have not submitted ANY evidence of how it will.

No. It will NOT impact me. But that does NOT mean that I want the government to have the AUTHORITY to do so.

You have not submitted any evidence of how things are worse now than they were.

"Worse"? That's a subjective judgement call.

Your ability to point to a government who kept files on famous people is no more relevant than the fact that we have had goverments who supported slavery.

Good point. It shows that our government has NOT always been MOST interested in the FREEDOM or SAFETY of its citizens. And that is why I oppose any further extension of its authority. It has abused it in the past and people have to fight and DIE to get those rights. Yes, people died to end slavery and to end segregation and to be allowed to vote.

You recognise that the guy arrested at the canadia border probably prevented a disaster.

Like I've said before. You're plans require prior knowledge. And we've had situations where we've had prior knowledge and the people trained in these matters STILL didn't stop the attack. Because those people do NOT have the advantage of your hindsight.

Ahhh but that was >before<. So what? It proves that the safety of people can be impacted by monitoring and vigilance.

But I never said they couldn't be. Just that there's NO REASON to monitor THE PUBLIC. Nor would monitoring the PUBLIC have stopped the attack.

Become less vigilant and you will become less safe.

Possibly. But that does not mean that becoming more "vigilant" will make you more safe.

You on the other hand are concerned that >YOU< will be monitored.

Nope. I'm not.

And you think its likely that you will be monitored.

Again, nope. I don't.

You have no reason to explain why this should be so.

Because it isn't so.

You have no explanation for why, in this case, the statistics confound you time and again.... but in the case of terrorism.......the statistics leave you completely without danger.

Hmmm, I wasn't aware that you had presented any statistics. Just that you didn't think that you would be monitored.

Actually, allow me to put it in this light.

You cannot GUARANTEE that you'll be a victim of a terrorist attack (on US soil).

I can GUARANTEE that I'll be monitored. All I have to do is cross the lines that trigger the government's paranoia.

Your statistic that you are more likely to be killed by a family member is hopelessly flawed because America is very violent society.

Flawed how? The people who live with you, who love you, who raised you are MORE likely to kill you than a fanatical fundamentalist suicide bomber is? How is that "flawed"?

The statistical relationship changes if you use Norway or England as your backdrop.

Cool. Move there. Now. Otherwise, try to keep the statistics applicable. We're in the US. The attack occured in the US. I'm using US statistics.

The idea that people should measure the threat of terrorism to the nation depending on the context in which it occurs... ..is nothing if not novel.

Novel how? If you're not measuring it in the context in which it occures, how ARE you measuring it?

Which is when/where we get into the question of whether the government will ever care where I go or what I do.

Yes, they will.

The same government that kept a file on Martin Luther King will care where I go.

Or, rather, they will care what vehicles are parked in proximity to certain locations. What cell phones are carried in certain buildings.

As long as you never question the government or meet with those who do, you'll have nothing to worry about.

Yes, you did skip over a bit when you quoted that, didn't you?

Now, context.

I will NOT die from falling off a tall building.

Not because gravity doesn't work.

Not because the fall wouldn't kill me.

Not because I'm "afraid" of gravity.

Not because I'm "afraid" of tall buildings.

But because I'm not going to jump off of a tall building.

So, is the government going to track me?

No.

Am I afraid of the government tracking me?

No.

Can I get the government to track me?

Yes.

Have OTHER people doing LEGAL acts that are "good" been tracked by the government?

Yes.

So, is the government going to track me/am I going to die falling from a building?

No/No.

Would the government track me/would I die falling from a building?

Yes/Yes.

Has the government tracked other "good" people/have other people died from falling from buildings?

Yes/Yes.

You see, the reason I included King's name was to show that the government would track someone doing what King did. Now, have you seen my name on national television doing anything equivalent to King? Now, if I did, would the government track me? If I don't, would the government track me?

"Context".

"Examples".

Post #33,537 by Brandioch 3/26/02 5:47:14 PM Reply	What are you saying? You are saying that statistically, the citizens were unlikley to be threatened? Your face should be red. Okay, you've lost me. Perhaps something called "an explanation" could be provided? Very well put. Less time spent reading fiction perhaps? Perhaps. Can you tell me what the first laws were that were passed by the National Socialists? I've said that I feel safe from the terrorists. I've said that I don't think I am going to be monitored by the government. If you feel safe from the terrorists, why are you allowing the government to increase its authority to monitor people? Because you don't think OTHER people are safe? Is that it? So, you're advocating that the government be granted greater authority to monitor the people so that some OTHER people can be "safer"? But I thought it was personal to you because you know someone who knows someone who was killed in the attack. You are the one who is worried. I think your worry is unnecessary. You don't. I think we are talking about your emotions and your emotional responses. Really? That is so FASCINATING. So, what am I worried about? That the government will increase its authority to monitor US citizens? Ummmm, isn't that EXACTLY what they're proposing? So, what I'm "worried" about happening is exactly what >IS< happening? But you think my "worry" is "unnecessary"? Is that "unnecessary" in that you don't think it is important as you don't feel it will affect you? Or is that "unnecessary" as in....well, there's really no other phrasing, is there? You have not listed ONE right which has been surrendered. Because you have not surrendered. (The right to have wiretapping be made difficult is not a right you have). It is NOT difficult to get a wire tap on me. It just requires that >I< be under investigation and NOT because I know someone who is under investigation. >>I've asked you before what, specifically, you'd "monitor" now. And I told you.....anything which you find a concern. And you'll find the manpower to do this HOW? Allow me to rephrase this for you. NOW, if an arab tries to carry a box cutter onto a plane, the entire place is locked down. THEN, it was nothing. The word is "specific". Oh jeesh........you really thought that was worth pursuing? Yawn. It kinda goes like this: a) you identify some people you are interested in examining more closely (see below). b) you monitor their movements using GPS when they rent a car. You note all the people they visit and put those people under surveillance. c) you monitor that, coincidentally, several suspected terrorists are arriving at airports at the same time (using GPS). d) you delay the plane - and discover that they have all bought expensive one way tickets e) they are given a thorough search f) the plane is given a thorough search g) You break up the suspects into smaller groups and tell them they will need to fly on separate planes. g) you place Federal air marshals on the plane (some in the cockpit some in the cabin) Okay. B. This is where your scenario can affect ANYONE. That includes neighbors, co-workers, friends, and so on. I want you to think about the manpower required for this. C. "suspected terrorists"? And you're letting them move around? Freely? Why? Why aren't they under arrest? Why do you suspect them? Again, hindsight. If they are "suspected terrorists", then why are they in the country? If you already know about them, then why are they travelling freely? Allow me to REMIND YOU that the ONE case you quoted was someone in the country ILLEGALLY. No, your plan, as always, relies upon PRIOR KNOWLEDGE. If you KNOW they are "suspected terrorists", then they are arrested or deported. If you do NOT know, then your plan fails from the beginning. From your articles. Do I really need to say that I told you so? From those reports, it seems that we knew who they were and where they were. Yet nothing was done. Why would that be? Hmmmmm? Because the PEOPLE who were doing the monitoring didn't think that their actions were a threat? You came up with....they can get wiretaps more easily now.....no talk about your rights and the potential impact whatsoever. I have gone over the impact already. It is now easier for the government to spy on its citizens. You're describing something you fear will impact you. You have not submitted ANY evidence of how it will. No. It will NOT impact me. But that does NOT mean that I want the government to have the AUTHORITY to do so. You have not submitted any evidence of how things are worse now than they were. "Worse"? That's a subjective judgement call. Your ability to point to a government who kept files on famous people is no more relevant than the fact that we have had goverments who supported slavery. Good point. It shows that our government has NOT always been MOST interested in the FREEDOM or SAFETY of its citizens. And that is why I oppose any further extension of its authority. It has abused it in the past and people have to fight and DIE to get those rights. Yes, people died to end slavery and to end segregation and to be allowed to vote. You recognise that the guy arrested at the canadia border probably prevented a disaster. Like I've said before. You're plans require prior knowledge. And we've had situations where we've had prior knowledge and the people trained in these matters STILL didn't stop the attack. Because those people do NOT have the advantage of your hindsight. Ahhh but that was >before<. So what? It proves that the safety of people can be impacted by monitoring and vigilance. But I never said they couldn't be. Just that there's NO REASON to monitor THE PUBLIC. Nor would monitoring the PUBLIC have stopped the attack. Become less vigilant and you will become less safe. Possibly. But that does not mean that becoming more "vigilant" will make you more safe. You on the other hand are concerned that >YOU< will be monitored. Nope. I'm not. And you think its likely that you will be monitored. Again, nope. I don't. You have no reason to explain why this should be so. Because it isn't so. You have no explanation for why, in this case, the statistics confound you time and again.... but in the case of terrorism.......the statistics leave you completely without danger. Hmmm, I wasn't aware that you had presented any statistics. Just that you didn't think that you would be monitored. Actually, allow me to put it in this light. You cannot GUARANTEE that you'll be a victim of a terrorist attack (on US soil). I can GUARANTEE that I'll be monitored. All I have to do is cross the lines that trigger the government's paranoia. Your statistic that you are more likely to be killed by a family member is hopelessly flawed because America is very violent society. Flawed how? The people who live with you, who love you, who raised you are MORE likely to kill you than a fanatical fundamentalist suicide bomber is? How is that "flawed"? The statistical relationship changes if you use Norway or England as your backdrop. Cool. Move there. Now. Otherwise, try to keep the statistics applicable. We're in the US. The attack occured in the US. I'm using US statistics. The idea that people should measure the threat of terrorism to the nation depending on the context in which it occurs... ..is nothing if not novel. Novel how? If you're not measuring it in the context in which it occures, how ARE you measuring it?
Post #33,552 by Mike 3/26/02 8:57:00 PM 3/26/02 9:01:26 PM Reply	Do us all a favor Hey ...send us a special sign whenever your fundamental position changes, that way we can stop wasting our time on you. Much appreciated. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=33065\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=33065] Brandioch: Which is when/where we get into the question of whether the government will ever care where I go or what I do. Yes, they will. The post above: Mike: You on the other hand are concerned that >YOU< will be monitored. Brandioch: Nope. I'm not. Mike: And you think its likely that you will be monitored. Brandioch: Again, nope. I don't. Mike: You have no reason to explain why this should be so. Brandioch: Because it isn't so. This one's over. You're wasting my time. -- William Shatner's Trousers -- Edited by Mike March 26, 2002, 08:59:39 PM EST Edited by Mike March 26, 2002, 09:01:26 PM EST Expand All History
Post #33,599 by Brandioch 3/27/02 11:49:29 AM Reply	Let me explain "context" to you. Which is when/where we get into the question of whether the government will ever care where I go or what I do. Yes, they will. The same government that kept a file on Martin Luther King will care where I go. Or, rather, they will care what vehicles are parked in proximity to certain locations. What cell phones are carried in certain buildings. As long as you never question the government or meet with those who do, you'll have nothing to worry about. Yes, you did skip over a bit when you quoted that, didn't you? Now, context. I will NOT die from falling off a tall building. Not because gravity doesn't work. Not because the fall wouldn't kill me. Not because I'm "afraid" of gravity. Not because I'm "afraid" of tall buildings. But because I'm not going to jump off of a tall building. So, is the government going to track me? No. Am I afraid of the government tracking me? No. Can I get the government to track me? Yes. Have OTHER people doing LEGAL acts that are "good" been tracked by the government? Yes. So, is the government going to track me/am I going to die falling from a building? No/No. Would the government track me/would I die falling from a building? Yes/Yes. Has the government tracked other "good" people/have other people died from falling from buildings? Yes/Yes. You see, the reason I included King's name was to show that the government would track someone doing what King did. Now, have you seen my name on national television doing anything equivalent to King? Now, if I did, would the government track me? If I don't, would the government track me? "Context". "Examples".

Welcome to IWETHEY!