6 Jul
2001
6 Jul
'01
10:27 a.m.
At 10:58 AM 7/6/01 -0400, joe wrote:
I can see it now, Ganja beer!
Cannabis and the hop plant are so closely related, you can
graft the roots of one to the stem of the other.
- John
6 Jul
6 Jul
10:48 a.m.
Just keep in mind that "The only good druggie is a dead one!"
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Foust" <jfoust(a)threedee.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: OT Celebration (Not intended to be offensive, possible humor)
At 10:58 AM 7/6/01 -0400, joe wrote:
I can see it now, Ganja beer!
Cannabis and the hop plant are so closely related, you can
graft the roots of one to the stem of the other.
- John
11:13 a.m.
No more ganja beer for Dick; he's had enough.
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
Just keep in mind that "The only good druggie is
a dead one!"
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Foust" <jfoust(a)threedee.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: OT Celebration (Not intended to be offensive, possible humor)
> At 10:58 AM 7/6/01 -0400, joe wrote:
> > I can see it now, Ganja beer!
>
> Cannabis and the hop plant are so closely related, you can
> graft the roots of one to the stem of the other.
>
> - John
11:34 a.m.
Never touch the stuff!
It's OK to do stuff that's legal, but remember that I'm the advocate of
immediate and on-the-spot euthanasia for people with so pronounced a death-wish
as indicated by their willingness to violate a law, e.g. by spitting on the
sidewalk, speeding, or murdering a building full of people, with a written
apology issued in the unlikely even that someone unjustly punished complain
because their rights have been violated. It's got to be like violating a law,
any law, is equivalent to jumping from a plane at 40K feet with no parachute.
I've considered that in contrast with my recommendation that immersion in molten
iron be used to dispatch sidewalk spitters, corrupt politicians, and mass
murderers, etc, but, though I like the fact the punished will get the chance to
enjoy the trip, the flight could get to be too costly.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)" <cisin(a)xenosoft.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: OT Celebration (Not intended to be offensive, possible humor)
No more ganja beer for Dick; he's had enough.
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
Just keep in mind that "The only good
druggie is a dead one!"
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Foust" <jfoust(a)threedee.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: OT Celebration (Not intended to be offensive, possible humor)
> At 10:58 AM 7/6/01 -0400, joe wrote:
> > I can see it now, Ganja beer!
>
> Cannabis and the hop plant are so closely related, you can
> graft the roots of one to the stem of the other.
>
> - John
12:06 p.m.
I've never tried it. Is it illegal?
Interesting concept about capital punishment for trivial crimes. Would
that also be the punishment for failing to adequately trim quotes? When
do we start?
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
Never touch the stuff!
It's OK to do stuff that's legal, but remember that I'm the advocate of
immediate and on-the-spot euthanasia for people with so pronounced a death-wish
as indicated by their willingness to violate a law, e.g. by spitting on the
sidewalk, speeding, or murdering a building full of people, with a written
apology issued in the unlikely even that someone unjustly punished complain
because their rights have been violated. It's got to be like violating a law,
any law, is equivalent to jumping from a plane at 40K feet with no parachute.
I've considered that in contrast with my recommendation that immersion in molten
iron be used to dispatch sidewalk spitters, corrupt politicians, and mass
murderers, etc, but, though I like the fact the punished will get the chance to
enjoy the trip, the flight could get to be too costly.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)" <cisin(a)xenosoft.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: OT Celebration (Not intended to be offensive, possible humor)
> No more ganja beer for Dick; he's had enough.
>
>
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>
> > Just keep in mind that "The only good druggie is a dead one!"
> >
> > Dick
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Foust" <jfoust(a)threedee.com>
> > To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
> > Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 9:27 AM
> > Subject: Re: OT Celebration (Not intended to be offensive, possible humor)
> >
> >
> > > At 10:58 AM 7/6/01 -0400, joe wrote:
> > > > I can see it now, Ganja beer!
> > >
> > > Cannabis and the hop plant are so closely related, you can
> > > graft the roots of one to the stem of the other.
> > >
> > > - John
7 Jul
7 Jul
9:09 a.m.
New subject: OT: Re: OT Celebration (Not intended to be offensive, possible humor)
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
It's OK to do stuff that's legal, but remember
that I'm the advocate
of immediate and on-the-spot euthanasia for people with so pronounced
a death-wish as indicated by their willingness to violate a law, e.g.
by spitting on the sidewalk, speeding, or murdering a building full of
people, with a written apology issued in the unlikely even that
someone unjustly punished complain because their rights have been
violated. It's got to be like violating a law, any law, is equivalent
to jumping from a plane at 40K feet with no parachute. I've considered
that in contrast with my recommendation that immersion in molten iron
be used to dispatch sidewalk spitters, corrupt politicians, and mass
murderers, etc, but, though I like the fact the punished will get the
chance to enjoy the trip, the flight could get to be too costly.
Yes, Dick, I dream of the day when friends, family, and perfect strangers,
will be put to death by immersion in molten iron for even spitting on the
sidewalk. Then, our society will be safe, secure, and HAPPY!!!
DICK FOR PRESIDENT!!!
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
10:53 a.m.
Keep in mind, my boy, that there are advocates for ZERO POPULATION out there.
Not zero population growth, but ZERO POPULATION. Think about how much better
that would make the world. None of man's damaging effects on the planet would
be continued, though the effects would probably persist for about 100 millenia.
Probably not a bad idea if you're a frog.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sellam Ismail" <foo(a)siconic.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 8:09 AM
Subject: OT: Re: OT Celebration (Not intended to be offensive, possible humor)
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
It's OK to do stuff that's legal, but
remember that I'm the advocate
of immediate and on-the-spot euthanasia for people with so pronounced
a death-wish as indicated by their willingness to violate a law, e.g.
by spitting on the sidewalk, speeding, or murdering a building full of
people, with a written apology issued in the unlikely even that
someone unjustly punished complain because their rights have been
violated. It's got to be like violating a law, any law, is equivalent
to jumping from a plane at 40K feet with no parachute. I've considered
that in contrast with my recommendation that immersion in molten iron
be used to dispatch sidewalk spitters, corrupt politicians, and mass
murderers, etc, but, though I like the fact the punished will get the
chance to enjoy the trip, the flight could get to be too costly.
Yes, Dick, I dream of the day when friends, family, and perfect strangers,
will be put to death by immersion in molten iron for even spitting on the
sidewalk. Then, our society will be safe, secure, and HAPPY!!!
DICK FOR PRESIDENT!!!
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
10:20 a.m.
New subject: OT: Re: Re: OT Celebration (Not intended to be offensive, possible humor)
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
Keep in mind, my boy, that there are advocates for
ZERO POPULATION out
there. Not zero population growth, but ZERO POPULATION. Think about
how much better that would make the world. None of man's damaging
effects on the planet would be continued, though the effects would
probably persist for about 100 millenia. Probably not a bad idea if
you're a frog.
Well, my decrepit old fool, I'd like to point out that some people
advocate the euthanization of old people who complain too much about
stupid shit.
But as annoying as you are, I still wouldn't want to see you meet such a
fate, despite the fact that you above anyone else deserve it for
advocating similar atrocities.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
12:02 p.m.
New subject: OT: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
No complaints about stupid shit, but about stupid shits like you, Sellam Ismail.
All I've said in this thread is that people should obey the law. If they don't
like it, they can endeavor, within the law, to change it to something they like,
but if they disobey the law, that's prima fasciae evidence that they don't want
to be part of the society, hence, that they need to be removed from the planet.
Making it hurt a little is to keep people from thinking it's a cheap way to
commit suicide.
Clearly, you can't see the sense of this, but that's for reasons you've amply
demostrated in the past. (It's sad when cousins marry ... It's not your fault
... You ARE the fault.)
You know as well as anyone, that if you KNEW for certain that you'd be killed
for speeding, even if you only did it once, you wouldn't speed. You know you'd
be killed for stepping off a cliff, and you don't do that. The fact remains
that if laws were different, people would behave differently.
BTW ... ask an adult what a FOO is, as in "Hey, FOO..."
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sellam Ismail" <foo(a)siconic.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 9:20 AM
Subject: OT: Re: Re: OT Celebration (Not intended to be offensive, possible
humor)
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
Keep in mind, my boy, that there are advocates
for ZERO POPULATION out
there. Not zero population growth, but ZERO POPULATION. Think about
how much better that would make the world. None of man's damaging
effects on the planet would be continued, though the effects would
probably persist for about 100 millenia. Probably not a bad idea if
you're a frog.
Well, my decrepit old fool, I'd like to point out that some people
advocate the euthanization of old people who complain too much about
stupid shit.
But as annoying as you are, I still wouldn't want to see you meet such a
fate, despite the fact that you above anyone else deserve it for
advocating similar atrocities.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
5:12 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
- - - - -
"if {people} disobey the law, that's prima fasciae evidence that they don't
want
to be part of the society, hence, that they need to be removed from the
planet."
- - - - -
Sorry, I can't let a statement like this be made without dissent.
(1) I can't expect an enforceable perfection from others, and
(2) see no need to make any penalties not match the crimes
involved. This is the modern equivalent of 'Eye for an Eye'.
- - - - -
"Clearly, you can't see the sense of this"
- - - - -
Yup, me too.
- - - - -
"You know as well as anyone, that if you KNEW for certain that you'd be
killed
for speeding"
- - - - -
If you're talking about death for speeding and the like, then I believe the
people
would toss law enforcement altogether and start over.
John A.
6:12 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
"if {people} disobey the law, that's prima
fasciae evidence that they don't
want
to be part of the society, hence, that they need to be removed from the
planet."
A bit of irony to that statement being made relative to July 4th, the
celebration of our refusal to obey English law.
8:01 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
Not at all, sir! In fact it's a good illustration of how things ought rightly
to be. If you don't want to obey the laws of one society, then leave that
society and join or build another. The means by which this is done vary widely,
and if you think that it's appropriate, for example, that, say, pot smokers, a
substantial share of the criminal element in the U.S, have what it takes to (1)
go elsewhere and start over, or (2) overthrow, presumably with violence, the
existing system, then they should have at it, taking their chances as they go.
What's wrong is for them simply to thumb their noses at the law and the society
that established those laws, still reaping all the benefits, yet violating the
basic social contract.
After all, the Americans' distaste for English social standards, whether it was
for the British unwarranted taxes or British disdain for the working stiff, was
what "impelled them to the separation" in the words of one of the perpetrators.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Ford" <mikeford(a)socal.rr.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
"if
{people} disobey the law, that's prima fasciae evidence that they don't
want
to be part of the society, hence, that they need to be removed from the
planet."
A bit of irony to that statement being made relative to July 4th, the
celebration of our refusal to obey English law.
8:38 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
And those folks were darn lucky that there was a big bunch of land available
which hadn't been claimed by modern governments yet. Now these conditions
largely don't exist anymore. The settling of the New World could only be
done once; thank goodness it turned out as well as it did (for everyone but
the natives, at least...) I think a lot of people forget this when they
compare things in the US to things in other countries, or things now to
things then. It was a unique time and place, and there was a huge
advantage to being a young, fresh, new society with so much unclaimed land.
Some day there will be new frontiers on other planets but until then,
I don't see such an easy escape from the existing governments. Any future
revolutions we have in the US will have all the same problems of revolutions
in older established countries, say, France or Russia; that of trying to
cast off the old ways and being unable to really completely start over,
because the past is always there to haunt you.
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 07:01:31PM -0600, Richard Erlacher wrote:
Not at all, sir! In fact it's a good illustration
of how things ought rightly
to be. If you don't want to obey the laws of one society, then leave that
society and join or build another. The means by which this is done vary widely,
and if you think that it's appropriate, for example, that, say, pot smokers, a
substantial share of the criminal element in the U.S, have what it takes to (1)
go elsewhere and start over, or (2) overthrow, presumably with violence, the
existing system, then they should have at it, taking their chances as they go.
What's wrong is for them simply to thumb their noses at the law and the society
that established those laws, still reaping all the benefits, yet violating the
basic social contract.
After all, the Americans' distaste for English social standards, whether it was
for the British unwarranted taxes or British disdain for the working stiff, was
what "impelled them to the separation" in the words of one of the perpetrators.
--
_______ Shawn T. Rutledge / KB7PWD ecloud(a)bigfoot.com
(_ | |_) http://www.bigfoot.com/~ecloud kb7pwd(a)kb7pwd.ampr.org
__) | | \________________________________________________________________
11:26 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
Well, yes, they were quite lucky. In the meantime, the first thing that has to
go is any tolerance of unwillingness to make the necessary choices. There are
places one could go. It's just that this particular society has made things so
easy for people simply to ingore, and even thumb their noses at the laws, social
contract, and associated rights of others, that they're too coddled to go where
they wouldn't offend anyone by their behavior.
That's why I suggest more radical ways of dealing with them.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shawn T. Rutledge" <ecloud(a)bigfoot.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
And those folks were darn lucky that there was a big
bunch of land available
which hadn't been claimed by modern governments yet. Now these conditions
largely don't exist anymore. The settling of the New World could only be
done once; thank goodness it turned out as well as it did (for everyone but
the natives, at least...) I think a lot of people forget this when they
compare things in the US to things in other countries, or things now to
things then. It was a unique time and place, and there was a huge
advantage to being a young, fresh, new society with so much unclaimed land.
Some day there will be new frontiers on other planets but until then,
I don't see such an easy escape from the existing governments. Any future
revolutions we have in the US will have all the same problems of revolutions
in older established countries, say, France or Russia; that of trying to
cast off the old ways and being unable to really completely start over,
because the past is always there to haunt you.
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 07:01:31PM -0600, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> Not at all, sir! In fact it's a good illustration of how things ought
rightly
> to be. If you don't want to obey the laws of
one society, then leave that
> society and join or build another. The means by which this is done vary
widely,
> and if you think that it's appropriate, for
example, that, say, pot smokers,
a
> substantial share of the criminal element in the
U.S, have what it takes to
(1)
> go elsewhere and start over, or (2) overthrow,
presumably with violence, the
> existing system, then they should have at it, taking their chances as they
go.
> What's wrong is for them simply to thumb
their noses at the law and the
society
> that established those laws, still reaping all
the benefits, yet violating
the
> basic social contract.
>
> After all, the Americans' distaste for English social standards, whether it
was
> for the British unwarranted taxes or British
disdain for the working stiff,
was
> what "impelled them to the separation"
in the words of one of the
perpetrators.
--
_______ Shawn T. Rutledge / KB7PWD ecloud(a)bigfoot.com
(_ | |_) http://www.bigfoot.com/~ecloud kb7pwd(a)kb7pwd.ampr.org
__) | | \________________________________________________________________
11:44 p.m.
New subject: OT: Stupid discussions about Dick's silly ideas
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Shawn T. Rutledge wrote:
Some day there will be new frontiers on other planets
but until then,
I don't see such an easy escape from the existing governments. Any
future revolutions we have in the US will have all the same problems
of revolutions in older established countries, say, France or Russia;
that of trying to cast off the old ways and being unable to really
completely start over, because the past is always there to haunt you.
The problem is even with the intended ideals that the founders put in
place, our political system still ended up becoming corrupt, with
seemingly no way of correcting it short of Armageddon (although it did
take 200 years for it to happen).
Does this mean every couple of centuries we'll have to re-invent the
United States on some other distant expanse of immaculate territory?
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
8 Jul
8 Jul
1:39 a.m.
New subject: OT: Stupid discussions about Dick's silly ideas
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Sellam Ismail wrote:
The problem is even with the intended ideals that the
founders put in
place, our political system still ended up becoming corrupt, with
seemingly no way of correcting it short of Armageddon (although it did
take 200 years for it to happen).
Tammany Hall? Teapot Dome? President Grant? People are people; people
are corrupt.
--
11:19 a.m.
New subject: OT: Stupid discussions about Dick's silly ideas
People in this country don't know what corruption can be. The politicians
in this country are (for the most part) very virtuous. Take Russia or
India. There's corruption. This is nothing. The "corruption" here is
basically the small amount that gets past the radar of the all-consuming
all-terrifying tyrannical American mob. Other countries don't have this
mechanism. It's ok to be idealistic, but we must also be realistic in
that the American public does a *pretty* good job of keeping our
politicians in line.
Peace... Sridhar
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Sellam Ismail wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Shawn T. Rutledge wrote:
Some day there will be new frontiers on other
planets but until then,
I don't see such an easy escape from the existing governments. Any
future revolutions we have in the US will have all the same problems
of revolutions in older established countries, say, France or Russia;
that of trying to cast off the old ways and being unable to really
completely start over, because the past is always there to haunt you.
The problem is even with the intended ideals that the founders put in
place, our political system still ended up becoming corrupt, with
seemingly no way of correcting it short of Armageddon (although it did
take 200 years for it to happen).
Does this mean every couple of centuries we'll have to re-invent the
United States on some other distant expanse of immaculate territory?
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
12:30 p.m.
New subject: OT: Stupid discussions about Dick's silly ideas
People in this country don't know what corruption
can be. The
politicians in this country are (for the most part) very virtuous.
Agree. I studied Indonesia since I had a crush for one of its
expats and found this neat story:
You're running a small business and on one day the liscenced
Air Conditioner inspector comes by and does his thing, then,
a few days later the Gvt Narcotics Police come by and "discover"
a small stash planted in guess where? That's Corruption.
BTW they just rotated their prime minister so there's some progress.
John A.
3:49 p.m.
New subject: OT: Stupid discussions about Dick's silly ideas
You don't have to go to Indonesia for that sort of thing. We had a famous case
here in Colorado regarding the practice of seizing personal assets of suspected
drug dealers that I'll detail if anybody is interested in that sort of thing.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Allain" <allain(a)panix.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: OT: Stupid discussions about Dick's silly ideas
People in this
country don't know what corruption can be. The
politicians in this country are (for the most part) very virtuous.
Agree. I studied Indonesia since I had a crush for one of its
expats and found this neat story:
You're running a small business and on one day the liscenced
Air Conditioner inspector comes by and does his thing, then,
a few days later the Gvt Narcotics Police come by and "discover"
a small stash planted in guess where? That's Corruption.
BTW they just rotated their prime minister so there's some progress.
John A.
3:14 p.m.
New subject: OT: Stupid discussions about Dick's silly ideas
It's not the politicians that are corrupt. It's the citizens who don't hold
up
their end of the social contract.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vance Dereksen" <vance(a)ikickass.org>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: OT: Stupid discussions about Dick's silly ideas
People in this country don't know what corruption can be. The politicians
in this country are (for the most part) very virtuous. Take Russia or
India. There's corruption. This is nothing. The "corruption" here is
basically the small amount that gets past the radar of the all-consuming
all-terrifying tyrannical American mob. Other countries don't have this
mechanism. It's ok to be idealistic, but we must also be realistic in
that the American public does a *pretty* good job of keeping our
politicians in line.
Peace... Sridhar
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Sellam Ismail wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Shawn T. Rutledge wrote:
>
> > Some day there will be new frontiers on other planets but until then,
> > I don't see such an easy escape from the existing governments. Any
> > future revolutions we have in the US will have all the same problems
> > of revolutions in older established countries, say, France or Russia;
> > that of trying to cast off the old ways and being unable to really
> > completely start over, because the past is always there to haunt you.
>
> The problem is even with the intended ideals that the founders put in
> place, our political system still ended up becoming corrupt, with
> seemingly no way of correcting it short of Armageddon (although it did
> take 200 years for it to happen).
>
> Does this mean every couple of centuries we'll have to re-invent the
> United States on some other distant expanse of immaculate territory?
>
> Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer
Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
3:31 p.m.
New subject: OT: Stupid discussions about Dick's silly ideas
I didn't make any observations about the corruption of the populace
here. Only the politicians.
Peace... Sridhar
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
It's not the politicians that are corrupt.
It's the citizens who don't hold up
their end of the social contract.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vance Dereksen" <vance(a)ikickass.org>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: OT: Stupid discussions about Dick's silly ideas
People in this country don't know what corruption can be. The politicians
in this country are (for the most part) very virtuous. Take Russia or
India. There's corruption. This is nothing. The "corruption" here is
basically the small amount that gets past the radar of the all-consuming
all-terrifying tyrannical American mob. Other countries don't have this
mechanism. It's ok to be idealistic, but we must also be realistic in
that the American public does a *pretty* good job of keeping our
politicians in line.
Peace... Sridhar
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Sellam Ismail wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Shawn T. Rutledge wrote:
>
> > Some day there will be new frontiers on other planets but until then,
> > I don't see such an easy escape from the existing governments. Any
> > future revolutions we have in the US will have all the same problems
> > of revolutions in older established countries, say, France or Russia;
> > that of trying to cast off the old ways and being unable to really
> > completely start over, because the past is always there to haunt you.
>
> The problem is even with the intended ideals that the founders put in
> place, our political system still ended up becoming corrupt, with
> seemingly no way of correcting it short of Armageddon (although it did
> take 200 years for it to happen).
>
> Does this mean every couple of centuries we'll have to re-invent the
> United States on some other distant expanse of immaculate territory?
>
> Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer
Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
4:19 p.m.
New subject: OT: Stupid discussions about Dick's silly ideas
That's like saying, "I don't worry about the causes. I just complain about
the
effects."
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vance Dereksen" <vance(a)ikickass.org>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Stupid discussions about Dick's silly ideas
I didn't make any observations about the corruption of the populace
here. Only the politicians.
Peace... Sridhar
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> It's not the politicians that are corrupt. It's the citizens who don't
hold
up
their end of
the social contract.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vance Dereksen" <vance(a)ikickass.org>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: OT: Stupid discussions about Dick's silly ideas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People in this country don't know what corruption can be. The politicians
in this country are (for the most part) very virtuous. Take Russia or
India. There's corruption. This is nothing. The "corruption" here is
basically the small amount that gets past the radar of the all-consuming
all-terrifying tyrannical American mob. Other countries don't have this
mechanism. It's ok to be idealistic, but we must also be realistic in
that the American public does a *pretty* good job of keeping our
politicians in line.
Peace... Sridhar
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Sellam Ismail wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Shawn T. Rutledge wrote:
> > Some day there will be new
frontiers on other planets but until then,
> > I don't see such an easy escape from the existing governments. Any
> > future revolutions we have in the US will have all the same problems
> > of revolutions in older established countries, say, France or Russia;
> > that of trying to cast off the old ways and being unable to really
> > completely start over, because the past is always there to haunt you.
> The problem is even with the intended
ideals that the founders put in
> place, our political system still ended up becoming corrupt, with
> seemingly no way of correcting it short of Armageddon (although it did
> take 200 years for it to happen).
> Does this mean every couple of
centuries we'll have to re-invent the
> United States on some other distant expanse of immaculate territory?
> Sellam Ismail
Vintage Computer
Festival
4:22 p.m.
New subject: OT: Stupid discussions about Dick's silly ideas
I'm sorry, but I gotta respond to this one before stuffing 'Richard
Erlacher'
into my procmail black-hole...
Richard Erlacher wrote:
It's not the politicians that are corrupt.
It's the citizens who don't
hold up
their end of the social contract.
I've seen you use the phrase 'social contract' more than a dozen times in
this
thread, and am left with no option but to conclude that _you_ don't
understand
"the" social contract.
Society doesn't value individuals based on how well they conform to the law.
It values them on their contribution to society. One can have a separate
debate on how to valuate such contributions, but the fact that seems to both
be eluding you and the source of your frustration is this: society is self
promoting and not willing to shoot itself in the foot simply to stand on
principle.
To illustrate this, I'll take the case of the prototypical "pot smoker"
that
you've held out as an example of someone flaunting the law. The US
government
is quite happy to extend TS clearances to people who have been arrested for
crimes related to use, possession and cultivation -- even if they are
_still_
using controlled substances -- as long as they admit to it. Why? Because
the individuals have something that society -- as personified by
government --
values highly, and as long as the individual admits to it -- and thus
removes
it as a possible source of blackmail -- society doesn't care. The NSA
requires
"lifestyle" questions on polygraph examinations, but on more than one
occasion
has backed down when a candidate told them to pound sand -- it turns out
that
"society" values the contribution of cryptomathmaticians far above
conformance
with the law. Where those curves cross is a direction function of the
perceived contribution of the individual.
Does this result in unequal administration of justice? Yes. Does that
result
in the infringement of the rights of others? No. There's no enumerated
right
in the constitution requiring that just because you might be prosecuted for
a
crime someone else must also be so prosecuted. This flexibility allows
society to, in effect, optimize the risk that an individual poses to society
against the reward that they present to society. Even if one were to create
a highly inflexible and intolerant judicial system, where the responsibility
of
the defendant at trial (assuming there _is_ a trial) is to prove their
innocence,
and wherein even the most petty crimes resulted in death, "society" would
still
make exceptions -- no society can afford to place itself at a competitive
disadvantage relative to other societies for any significant length of time.
In another attempt to drag this back on topic, does anyone know where lift
gate
trucks can be rented in the south bay? Ideally for a one-way rental with
drop-off
in Sac or Reno?
Sheesh,
Chris.
--
Chris Kennedy
chris(a)mainecoon.com
http://www.mainecoon.com
PGP fingerprint: 4E99 10B6 7253 B048 6685 6CBC 55E1 20A3 108D AB97
9 Jul
9 Jul
7:34 a.m.
New subject: OT: Stupid discussions about Dick's silly ideas
At 12:19 PM 7/8/01 -0400, you wrote:
It's ok to be idealistic, but we must also be
realistic in
that the American public does a *pretty* good job of keeping our
politicians in line.
Peace... Sridhar
I'd rather say that the American public does a lousy job of keeping its
perception of reality in line.
carlos.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
9:48 a.m.
New subject: Stupid discussions
The discussion has become stupid, if only because everybody complains, yet I'm
the only one, so far, that's presented a positive construct. Everybody else
just opposes whatever anyone else says. What does that tell you?
There's a wide range of what folks perceive as reality. At one extreme are
folks like me who think the law should be strictly obeyed, and at another
extreme are guys like Sellam, and he's not alone in this, who believe that
everybody should do what he, Sellam, wants. There are probably other, equally
extreme positions. Somewhere, however, there must be a common ground. The
trick is for people to look for that common ground rather than trying to go off
by themselves to do what they want, irrespective of anyone else's rights.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carlos Murillo" <cmurillo(a)emtelsa.multi.net.co>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 6:34 AM
Subject: Re: OT: Stupid discussions about Dick's silly ideas
At 12:19 PM 7/8/01 -0400, you wrote:
It's ok to be idealistic, but we must also be
realistic in
that the American public does a *pretty* good job of keeping our
politicians in line.
Peace... Sridhar
I'd rather say that the American public does a lousy job of keeping its
perception of reality in line.
carlos.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
8:24 p.m.
New subject: OT: Dick's lack of a penis (was Re: Stupid discussions)
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
The discussion has become stupid, if only because
everybody complains,
yet I'm the only one, so far, that's presented a positive construct.
Everybody else just opposes whatever anyone else says. What does that
tell you?
It tells me that you're a fucking moron if you really believe what you are
espousing appeals to anyone other than closed-minded, rectum lechers like
yourself.
The discussion WAS stupid the moment you contributed your typically
non-sensical drivel. The only thing you've done so far is annoy the fuck
out of everyone here.
Why don't you shut the fuck up already?
There's a wide range of what folks perceive as
reality. At one
extreme are folks like me who think the law should be strictly obeyed,
If there are more of you then I hope you all stay hidden in the shadows
like the vermin you are.
and at another extreme are guys like Sellam, and
he's not alone in
this, who believe that everybody should do what he, Sellam, wants.
You complete tool. How far up your ass did you reach to get this one?
There are probably other, equally extreme positions.
Somewhere,
however, there must be a common ground. The trick is for people to
look for that common ground rather than trying to go off by themselves
to do what they want, irrespective of anyone else's rights.
The trick is to prepare a party for the day you depart this earth so that
we have something positive to occupy us, and look forward to, while you're
still here.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
7 Jul
7 Jul
10:38 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
Not at all, sir! In fact it's a good illustration
of how
things ought rightly
to be. If you don't want to obey the laws of one
society,
then leave that
society and join or build another.
There's clearly a second alternative, which is to be
prepared to pay the penalty. For example, I often speed,
but if caught I don't complain about having to pay a fine.
I have assumed the risk.
11:14 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
There's clearly a second alternative, which is to
be
prepared to pay the penalty. For example, I often speed,
but if caught I don't complain about having to pay a fine.
I have assumed the risk.
That's called person responsibility, and with the way lawyers
have made everyone believe that they are the victim, it's a rare
thing to see. I do the same thing though...if I'm doing something
like speeding it's because I conciously decided to and if I'm stopped
for it, I'll pay the price for doing so.
Jeff
--
Collector of Classic Microcomputers and Video Game Systems:
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
8 Jul
8 Jul
1:01 a.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
The trick is to assign a penalty so severe that all people, no matter how many
trillions they have, will not want to pay it, and that, having paid the penalty,
they will absolutely not make the choice to do that again. I can only think of
one such penalty, though there are many ways of administering it.
For example, if the fine for speeding were 100% of all your personal holdings,
irresprctive of how much that might be, including clothing and other personal
belongings, and 95% of all you earn or otherwise acquire for the next 30 years,
assuming you can survive that long on only 5% of what you acquire, you might not
choose to speed, particularly since it would require you to watch your children
starve, if they hadn't already. It would be costly and diffucult to exact that
penalty, while a quick bullet between the eyes would be easy and simple. If a
mistake were made, well, a posthumous apology would have to suffice.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Hellige" <jhellige(a)earthlink.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
There's
clearly a second alternative, which is to be
prepared to pay the penalty. For example, I often speed,
but if caught I don't complain about having to pay a fine.
I have assumed the risk.
That's called person responsibility, and with the way lawyers
have made everyone believe that they are the victim, it's a rare
thing to see. I do the same thing though...if I'm doing something
like speeding it's because I conciously decided to and if I'm stopped
for it, I'll pay the price for doing so.
Jeff
--
Collector of Classic Microcomputers and Video Game Systems:
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
1:59 a.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
...and what does this have to do with vintage computers?
Why don't you take your useless punk-ass ideas over to the alt.simpleminded
newsgroup where it belongs. Besides, I don't even believe that you agree
with what you're saying here because no one could be that stupid. I think
that you just want to get a rise out of the folks in this group, which
you've achieved, so why not stuff a cork in your pie hole and STFU.
Ernest
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:owner-classiccmp@classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of Richard Erlacher
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 11:01 PM
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
The trick is to assign a penalty so severe that all people, no
matter how many
trillions they have, will not want to pay it, and that, having
paid the penalty,
they will absolutely not make the choice to do that again. I can
only think of
one such penalty, though there are many ways of administering it.
For example, if the fine for speeding were 100% of all your
personal holdings,
irresprctive of how much that might be, including clothing and
other personal
belongings, and 95% of all you earn or otherwise acquire for the
next 30 years,
assuming you can survive that long on only 5% of what you
acquire, you might not
choose to speed, particularly since it would require you to watch
your children
starve, if they hadn't already. It would be costly and diffucult
to exact that
penalty, while a quick bullet between the eyes would be easy and
simple. If a
mistake were made, well, a posthumous apology would have to suffice.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Hellige" <jhellige(a)earthlink.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
There's clearly a second alternative, which is to be
prepared to pay the penalty. For example, I often speed,
but if caught I don't complain about having to pay a fine.
I have assumed the risk.
That's called person responsibility, and with the way lawyers
have made everyone believe that they are the victim, it's a rare
thing to see. I do the same thing though...if I'm doing something
like speeding it's because I conciously decided to and if I'm stopped
for it, I'll pay the price for doing so.
Jeff
--
Collector of Classic Microcomputers and Video Game Systems:
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
11:23 a.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
If society were to take this kind of horrible intolerable turn, I would be
forced to take up arms. I would kill as many people as I could (it would
be quite a few, I think. Myself and a couple other intelligent people
might be able to think up ingenious ways of destroying, if necessary.) and
then I would happily go off to the executioner. If the penalty was the
former of your two examples, I would make sure to produce absolutely
nothing.
Peace... Sridhar
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
The trick is to assign a penalty so severe that all
people, no matter how many
trillions they have, will not want to pay it, and that, having paid the penalty,
they will absolutely not make the choice to do that again. I can only think of
one such penalty, though there are many ways of administering it.
For example, if the fine for speeding were 100% of all your personal holdings,
irresprctive of how much that might be, including clothing and other personal
belongings, and 95% of all you earn or otherwise acquire for the next 30 years,
assuming you can survive that long on only 5% of what you acquire, you might not
choose to speed, particularly since it would require you to watch your children
starve, if they hadn't already. It would be costly and diffucult to exact that
penalty, while a quick bullet between the eyes would be easy and simple. If a
mistake were made, well, a posthumous apology would have to suffice.
Dick
12:04 a.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
Yes, one should pay the penalty, but I'm advocating that the penalty for
violating the law, any law, should be the same, since it is the casual disregard
of the law that's bringing about the current wave of disorder, not the nature of
the ways in which the law is broken. The purpose of the penalty should be, and,
in some cases, is, (1) to ensure that others are deterred from committing the
same offense, and (2) to ensure that the perpetrator never, under any
circumstances commits that offense again. Only one penalty can accomplish that,
and that's what I'm advocating.
more below ...
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne M. Smith" <wmsmith(a)earthlink.net
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
Actually, there should probably be two penalties, both the same, really, but
one, immediate immersion in molten iron, which is relatively swift and painless,
and the other, the same process, but carefully executed at about one inch per
minute, feet first, during halftime at the SuperBowl, for those who
intentionally thumb their noses at the law and do what they know they shouldn't
in spite of the law, so that their expression of remorse can be an example to
others.
Not at all,
sir! In fact it's a good illustration of how
things ought rightly
to be. If you don't want to obey the laws of
one society,
then leave that
society and join or build another.
There's clearly a second alternative, which is to be
prepared to pay the penalty. For example, I often speed,
but if caught I don't complain about having to pay a fine.
I have assumed the risk.
7 Jul
7 Jul
11:27 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
example, that, say, pot smokers, a substantial share
of the criminal
element in the U.S,
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
11:11 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Mike Ford wrote:
We're talking, after all, about a guy named "Dick", who obviously
doesn't
understand the ferociously offensive implications of what he is
advocating, let alone the irony.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
"if
{people} disobey the law, that's prima fasciae evidence that they don't
want
to be part of the society, hence, that they need to be removed from the
planet."
A bit of irony to that statement being made relative to July 4th, the
celebration of our refusal to obey English law.
7:45 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
see below, plz.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Allain" <allain(a)panix.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
- - - - -
"if {people} disobey the law, that's prima fasciae evidence that they don't
want
to be part of the society, hence, that they need to be removed from the
planet."
- - - - -
Sorry, I can't let a statement like this be made without dissent.
(1) I can't expect an enforceable perfection from others, and
It's the notion of intent that's the problem. You can't measure that,
however,
so it's the act that's got to be the determining factor.
(2) see no need to make any penalties not match the
crimes
involved. This is the modern equivalent of 'Eye for an Eye'.
That's the other side of the coin. If you adhere to the slippery slope notion,
then you recognize that if one is mildly punished for stealing a grape, but
severely punished for stealing a pig, it's easy to make the transition. If
one's killed for either, it makes no difference, since it will only have to be
dealt with once.
Just ask yourself, "What would it take to make me (meaning YOU) adhere to all
the laws all the time?" Adhering to the laws is far from perfection, since the
laws aren't perfect. Laws are the minimal conduct needed from every citizen in
order to have a liveable society. If you don't care to live in a society with a
given set of laws, you should leave. If there's no place on the planet where
there are laws that suit you, then you should go elsewhere. The laws define the
minimal acceptable behavior within a given society. If you don't want to adhere
to those minimae, then you should be ejaculated from the society. Surely
there's someplace that will tolerate your behavior, but others, those willing to
behave within the legal standards, shouldn't have to tolerate your antisocial
and extralegal behavior.
If you don't like a law, then set about to change it within the system. In the
meantime, however, you must still behave as a law abiding citizen. Part of
effecting change involves work and suffering, the rest is waiting.
You enjoy the freedoms you enjoy only because others, less selfish than you
repress their urge to harm you whenever your extralegal behavior irritates them.
If you KNEW for certain that someone else would take it upon himself to punish
you by some equally illegal act, and any illegal act is equally illegal, you
might not behave as you do.
- - - - -
"Clearly, you can't see the sense of this"
- - - - -
Yup, me too.
- - - - -
"You know as well as anyone, that if you KNEW for certain that you'd be
killed
for speeding"
- - - - -
If you're talking about death for speeding and the like, then I believe the
people
would toss law enforcement altogether and start over.
John A.
8:27 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
It was thus said that the Great Richard Erlacher once stated:
If you don't care to live in a society with a
given set of laws, you should leave. If there's no place on the planet where
there are laws that suit you, then you should go elsewhere.
Um, Richard ... if there is no place on the planet where there are laws
that suit you, where can you go? It's not like there's cheap (or even
moderately expensive) flights to say, the moon, or Mars. Fact is, there
*IS* no place left on this planet to go in such a case.
And US$20,000,000.00 will only get you to orbit.
If you don't like a law, then set about to change
it within the system. In the
meantime, however, you must still behave as a law abiding citizen. Part of
effecting change involves work and suffering, the rest is waiting.
Tell that to Rosa Parks.
You enjoy the freedoms you enjoy only because others,
less selfish than you
repress their urge to harm you whenever your extralegal behavior irritates them.
If you KNEW for certain that someone else would take it upon himself to punish
you by some equally illegal act, and any illegal act is equally illegal, you
might not behave as you do.
``The more laws a society has, the more corrupt it is.'' An old quote, I
forget who said it, but it was said during the Roman Empire I believe (or
about the Roman Empire). Do *YOU* know all the laws of the Federal, State
and local governments of where you live? I certainly hope so.
Idaho state law makes it illegal for a man to give his sweetheart a
box of candy weighing less than fifty pounds.
In Denver it is unlawful to lend your vacuum cleaner to your
next-door neighbor.
In Devon, Connecticut, it is unlawful to walk backwards after
sunset.
In Tulsa, Oklahoma, it is against the law to open a soda bottle
without the supervision of a licensed engineer.
New Hampshire law forbids you to tap your feet, nod your head, or in
any way keep time to the music in a tavern, restaurant, or cafe.
Texas law forbids anyone to have a pair of pliers in his possession.
The Arkansas legislature passed a law that states that the Arkansas
River can rise no higher than to the Main Street bridge in Little
Rock.
Frankfort, Kentucky, makes it against the law to shoot off a
policeman's tie.
The state law of Pennsylvania prohibits singing in the bathtub.
Now, to at least get this somewhat back on topic: Should Microsoft be
killed for breaking Lotus under MS-DOS 2.0?
-spc (Even Bill Gates has been arrested, don't 'cha know?)
11:22 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
What you say is true, and I'm glad I don't have to reckon with it!
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner" <spc(a)conman.org>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
the
them.
It was thus said that the Great Richard Erlacher once
stated:
>
> If you don't care to live in a society with a
> given set of laws, you should leave. If there's no place on the planet
where
there are laws
that suit you, then you should go elsewhere.
Um, Richard ... if there is no place on the planet where there are laws
that suit you, where can you go? It's not like there's cheap (or even
moderately expensive) flights to say, the moon, or Mars. Fact is, there
*IS* no place left on this planet to go in such a case.
And US$20,000,000.00 will only get you to orbit.
> If you don't like a law, then set about to change it within the system. In
meantime,
however, you must still behave as a law abiding citizen. Part of
effecting change involves work and suffering, the rest is waiting.
Tell that to Rosa Parks.
> You enjoy the freedoms you enjoy only because others, less selfish than you
> repress their urge to harm you whenever your extralegal behavior irritates
> If you KNEW for certain that someone else would
take it upon himself to
punish
you by some
equally illegal act, and any illegal act is equally illegal, you
might not behave as you do.
``The more laws a society has, the more corrupt it is.'' An old quote, I
forget who said it, but it was said during the Roman Empire I believe (or
about the Roman Empire). Do *YOU* know all the laws of the Federal, State
and local governments of where you live? I certainly hope so.
Idaho state law makes it illegal for a man to give his sweetheart a
box of candy weighing less than fifty pounds.
In Denver it is unlawful to lend your vacuum cleaner to your
next-door neighbor.
In Devon, Connecticut, it is unlawful to walk backwards after
sunset.
In Tulsa, Oklahoma, it is against the law to open a soda bottle
without the supervision of a licensed engineer.
New Hampshire law forbids you to tap your feet, nod your head, or in
any way keep time to the music in a tavern, restaurant, or cafe.
Texas law forbids anyone to have a pair of pliers in his possession.
The Arkansas legislature passed a law that states that the Arkansas
River can rise no higher than to the Main Street bridge in Little
Rock.
Frankfort, Kentucky, makes it against the law to shoot off a
policeman's tie.
The state law of Pennsylvania prohibits singing in the bathtub.
Now, to at least get this somewhat back on topic: Should Microsoft be
killed for breaking Lotus under MS-DOS 2.0?
-spc (Even Bill Gates has been arrested, don't 'cha know?)
8 Jul
8 Jul
12:40 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
The Arkansas legislature passed a law that states that
the Arkansas
River can rise no higher than to the Main Street bridge in Little
Rock.
Has it obeyed?
Tom
Applefritter
www.applefritter.com
3:50 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
BOY! That would take a helluva large cupola of molten iron, wouldn't it?
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Owad" <owad(a)applefritter.com>
To: "Classic Computer" <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
The Arkansas
legislature passed a law that states that the Arkansas
River can rise no higher than to the Main Street bridge in Little
Rock.
Has it obeyed?
Tom
Applefritter
www.applefritter.com
7 Jul
7 Jul
8:59 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
- - - - -
"in the meantime, however, you must still behave as a law abiding citizen. "
- - - - -
Smells pretty musty.
But seriously, should, not must, is what the citizenry of the US seems
to live by, and parking tickets and other small fines are the cost of...
Expressing ones free opinions in this way.
- - - - -
"others, ...repress their urge to harm you whenever your extralegal
behavior irritates them."
- - - - -
Just the price of being an adult, I believe.
- - - - -
"...any illegal act is equally illegal, ..."
- - - - -
You might not be be getting anywhere with this. IE What???
John A.
11:53 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
Unfortunately, the slippery slope has led to where it is not "should" but
"SHALL," is more like it, with a not so swift and horribly painful end imposed
immediately on accusation, with an apology for any inadvertent error, provided
posthumously, of course.
The "should" came from a time when we didn't have to live so close together
that
one guy firing his gun in his living room could affect anyone else, and, even
then, folks were routinely hung when suspected of one foul deed or another.
Today we have far too many people, and far too few of them willing to live up to
their own expectations of others.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Allain" <allain(a)panix.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
- - - - -
"in the meantime, however, you must still behave as a law abiding citizen. "
- - - - -
Smells pretty musty.
But seriously, should, not must, is what the citizenry of the US seems
to live by, and parking tickets and other small fines are the cost of...
Expressing ones free opinions in this way.
So, you feel that YOU have the right to disobey laws as YOU see fit? Surely you
don't extend that privilege to just anyone? You find it inconvenient to leave
the handicap-designated parking space available for someone fitting in the
intended category, hence you disregard the associated statute, right? Well, by
the same right, shouldn't I be casually forgiven for putting a couple of rounds
into your right ear, right? All I've really done in that case is discharge a
firearm into a public nuissance, right?
- - - - -
"others, ...repress their urge to harm you whenever your extralegal
behavior irritates them."
- - - - -
Just the price of being an adult, I believe.
Then why do you expect them to pay it when you routinely refuse? Aren't you
an
adult?
- - - - -
"...any illegal act is equally illegal, ..."
- - - - -
You might not be be getting anywhere with this. IE What???
I don't need to get anywhere. I obey the laws, but I don't tolerate those
who
don't. There are ways ...
John A.
8 Jul
8 Jul
12:13 a.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 10:53:30PM -0600, Richard Erlacher wrote:
The "should" came from a time when we
didn't have to live so close together that
one guy firing his gun in his living room could affect anyone else, and, even
then, folks were routinely hung when suspected of one foul deed or another.
Darn right, overpopulation is at the root of most of our problems. And what
are we going to do about it?
--
_______ Shawn T. Rutledge / KB7PWD ecloud(a)bigfoot.com
(_ | |_) http://www.bigfoot.com/~ecloud kb7pwd(a)kb7pwd.ampr.org
__) | | \________________________________________________________________
9:26 a.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Shawn T. Rutledge wrote:
Darn right, overpopulation is at the root of most of
our problems. And what
are we going to do about it?
Ah, the solutions to that are very simple, and would result in
more land being available for future generations:
1. Implement a child tax for people with more than two children and
stop giving people tax breaks for having children. Give people tax
breaks for not having children.
2. Do away with religions dogma that makes people believe that it's ok
to go forth and multiply like rabits, flies, etc.
3. Intitute a ban on the building of new houses, unless for the purpose of
replacement. Ban the building of business parks and other such commercial
development that's destroying the woodlands and farms that we have left.
Halt all new road construction.
4. Reduce immigration by at least 95 percent.
5. Spay and geld all illegal immigrants; then send them back home.
and...
6. Have a revolution and then elect me to be the king. If elected, I
promise that hacking shall be encouraged and promoted, and that PERQs,
PDP-11/45s --- or at least blinken-light equipped, faster,
and modern pseudo-equivalents of them, valved radios, audio amplifiers
and large automobiles shall be manufactured in plentiful supply.
...and in addition, I'll not tax farm land. :-)
11:41 a.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
This is the kind of mentality that allowed demagogues like Hitler and
Stalin to flourish.
(I didn't think you were serious, but I still had to respond.)
Peace... Sridhar
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, R. D. Davis wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Shawn T. Rutledge wrote:
Darn right, overpopulation is at the root of most
of our problems. And what
are we going to do about it?
Ah, the solutions to that are very simple, and would result in
more land being available for future generations:
1. Implement a child tax for people with more than two children and
stop giving people tax breaks for having children. Give people tax
breaks for not having children.
2. Do away with religions dogma that makes people believe that it's ok
to go forth and multiply like rabits, flies, etc.
3. Intitute a ban on the building of new houses, unless for the purpose of
replacement. Ban the building of business parks and other such commercial
development that's destroying the woodlands and farms that we have left.
Halt all new road construction.
4. Reduce immigration by at least 95 percent.
5. Spay and geld all illegal immigrants; then send them back home.
and...
6. Have a revolution and then elect me to be the king. If elected, I
promise that hacking shall be encouraged and promoted, and that PERQs,
PDP-11/45s --- or at least blinken-light equipped, faster,
and modern pseudo-equivalents of them, valved radios, audio amplifiers
and large automobiles shall be manufactured in plentiful supply.
...and in addition, I'll not tax farm land. :-)
3:40 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
Well, actually, you're wrong, in those two cases. A quick review of history
will reveal that neither found his way to power that way. However, leaders like
George-I, a mental midget by comparison with his predecessor Ronald R, Billary,
and George-II, AKA DUBYA, came to power from the total lack of responsibility
of the voting public. You don't suppose they're getting what they deserve?
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vance Dereksen" <vance(a)ikickass.org>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
This is the kind of mentality that allowed demagogues like Hitler and
Stalin to flourish.
(I didn't think you were serious, but I still had to respond.)
Peace... Sridhar
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, R. D. Davis wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Shawn T. Rutledge wrote:
> > Darn right, overpopulation is at the root of most of our problems. And
what
> > are we going to do about it?
>
> Ah, the solutions to that are very simple, and would result in
> more land being available for future generations:
>
> 1. Implement a child tax for people with more than two children and
> stop giving people tax breaks for having children. Give people tax
> breaks for not having children.
> 2. Do away with religions dogma that makes people believe that it's ok
> to go forth and multiply like rabits, flies, etc.
> 3. Intitute a ban on the building of new houses, unless for the purpose of
> replacement. Ban the building of business parks and other such
commercial
development
that's destroying the woodlands and farms that we have left.
Halt all new road construction.
4. Reduce immigration by at least 95 percent.
5. Spay and geld all illegal immigrants; then send them back home.
and...
6. Have a revolution and then elect me to be the king. If elected, I
promise that hacking shall be encouraged and promoted, and that PERQs,
PDP-11/45s --- or at least blinken-light equipped, faster,
and modern pseudo-equivalents of them, valved radios, audio amplifiers
and large automobiles shall be manufactured in plentiful supply.
...and in addition, I'll not tax farm land. :-)
1:21 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Shawn T. Rutledge wrote:
Darn right, overpopulation is at the root of most of
our problems. And what
are we going to do about it?
I just shot the breeder next door. I've done my part.
M. K. Peirce
Rhode Island Computer Museum, Inc.
Shady Lea, Rhode Island
"Casta est quam nemo rogavit."
- Ovid
7 Jul
7 Jul
11:21 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
laws aren't perfect. Laws are the minimal conduct
needed from every
citizen in order to have a liveable society. If you don't care to
live in a society with a given set of laws, you should leave. If
Then fucking GO already, since you obviously don't like the existing laws
here in the US!!!
behavior within a given society. If you don't
want to adhere to those
minimae, then you should be ejaculated from the society. Surely
So we would get to go out in a stream of semen with a smile on our face?
there's someplace that will tolerate your
behavior, but others, those
willing to behave within the legal standards, shouldn't have to
tolerate your antisocial and extralegal behavior.
I get it, this is some kind of joke, right? "Dick" is really just a bot
that spews forth obnoxious and inflammatory rhetoric just so the list will
always go wildly off-topic. Ok, who subscribed him?
If you don't like a law, then set about to change
it within the
system. In the meantime, however, you must still behave as a law
abiding citizen. Part of effecting change involves work and
suffering, the rest is waiting.
Yeah, I'll go about my merry way while you try to get the law changed so
that the next time I use a naughty word in an e-mail message I'll be put
to death.
You enjoy the freedoms you enjoy only because others,
less selfish
than you repress their urge to harm you whenever your extralegal
behavior irritates them. If you KNEW for certain that someone else
would take it upon himself to punish you by some equally illegal act,
and any illegal act is equally illegal, you might not behave as you
do.
Ok, I waited to get sober before commenting on this part, but it still
doesn't make any sense.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
8 Jul
8 Jul
1:31 a.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
YOU're the one who doesn't like the laws, so YOU go! I obey the laws. I simply
expect others to do that too.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sellam Ismail" <foo(a)siconic.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 10:21 PM
Subject: Re: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
laws aren't perfect. Laws are the minimal
conduct needed from every
citizen in order to have a liveable society. If you don't care to
live in a society with a given set of laws, you should leave. If
Then fucking GO already, since you obviously don't like the existing laws
here in the US!!!
behavior within a given society. If you
don't want to adhere to those
minimae, then you should be ejaculated from the society. Surely
So we would get to go out in a stream of semen with a smile on our face?
there's someplace that will tolerate your
behavior, but others, those
willing to behave within the legal standards, shouldn't have to
tolerate your antisocial and extralegal behavior.
I get it, this is some kind of joke, right? "Dick" is really just a bot
that spews forth obnoxious and inflammatory rhetoric just so the list will
always go wildly off-topic. Ok, who subscribed him?
If you don't like a law, then set about to
change it within the
system. In the meantime, however, you must still behave as a law
abiding citizen. Part of effecting change involves work and
suffering, the rest is waiting.
Yeah, I'll go about my merry way while you try to get the law changed so
that the next time I use a naughty word in an e-mail message I'll be put
to death.
You enjoy the freedoms you enjoy only because
others, less selfish
than you repress their urge to harm you whenever your extralegal
behavior irritates them. If you KNEW for certain that someone else
would take it upon himself to punish you by some equally illegal act,
and any illegal act is equally illegal, you might not behave as you
do.
Ok, I waited to get sober before commenting on this part, but it still
doesn't make any sense.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
7:09 a.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
YOU're the one who doesn't like the laws, so
YOU go! I obey the laws. I simply
expect others to do that too.
I don't understand the premise that you think that everyone else is trying
to change the laws.
Are you saying that the laws where you are currently make the penalties
for infractions and misdemeanors the same as the penalty for shooting
Dick?
What color is the sky there?
8:58 a.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
see below, plz
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)" <cisin(a)xenosoft.com To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 6:09 AM
Subject: Re: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
I didn't say that. I said that if folks don't want to obey the existing laws,
they should, within the existing legal framework, endeavor to change them, not
simply disregard them.
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> YOU're the one who doesn't like the laws, so YOU go! I obey the laws. I
simply
expect others
to do that too.
I don't understand the premise that you think that everyone else is trying
to change the laws. Are you saying that the laws where you are currently
make the penalties
for infractions and misdemeanors the same as the penalty for shooting
Dick?
No, but perhaps they should be. The real offense is the violation of the social
contract, not the petty misdemeanor. I didn't say, and certainly don't believe,
that the best thing to do is make all penalties the same, but I do think and
have stated that it would lead to better adherence to the law.
I said that you don't just step off a cliff on a whim, and, therefore, it's
reasonble to assume that, since the outcome would be the same, you wouldn't spit
on the sidewalk if the penalty for that were capital. It's not, of course, but,
clearly, if everyone gets to choose which laws he/she obeys and which not, then
we're all in trouble.
Think about it! One guy thinks it's OK for him to spit on the sidewalk.
Another thinks it's OK to drive 40 mph in that 25 mph zone. He can afford to
pay the fine. Acceptance of that means that the guy with a 7-figure income
basically can ignore the "lesser" laws that carry penalties he can afford to
pay.
Now, another guy thinks it's OK to have a couple of extra drinks before he
drives home from the bar. He figures it's worth the risk, and he can afford to
pay the fines, and he can afford to hire a lawyer to minimize what he does have
to pay. In most states there no significant additional penalty for being drunk
and killing half a dozen people than simply for causing a wreck resulting in
jnjury because he's drunk. Is that the right way? Should he be able to make
the choices resulting in the deaths of several people just because he can pay
the fines and pay the lawyers? Should we tolerate that he do it again? How
does that differ from the guy who gets drunk and shoots his neighbor in an
argument? What about the guy who shoots his neighbor in an argument, but
doesn't get drunk first? What if there was no argument first. What if he just
sneaks up on the guy and shoots him? What if he does it in order to rob the
guy?
What color is the sky there?
Same as where you are, but I'm really tired of folks ingoring the
"minor" laws
we, as a society, have put in place in order to make the community safer and
more liveable, only to have some jerk who feels he's more important than the
rest of us go off and do somethng that puts us, our safety, and our peace of
mind at risk. The business with the illegal fireworks that everybody views with
a blind eye seems a good example. Another one would be the really loud car
stereo.
What it boils down to is that adherence to the social contract is, for some
people, what they expect of others, though they don't expect to adhere to it
themselves. I just believe that THAT is wrong.
9:42 a.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
Richard,
I can see you're putting a lot of effort in your posts.
But at this point I think I should tell you that all I'm doing
with them is [DEL], [DEL], [DEL].
John A.
11:13 a.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
Richard Erlacher wrote:
No, but perhaps they should be. The real offense is the violation of the social
contract, not the petty misdemeanor. I didn't say, and certainly don't believe,
that the best thing to do is make all penalties the same, but I do think and
have stated that it would lead to better adherence to the law.
What it boils down to is that adherence to the social contract is, for some
people, what they expect of others, though they don't expect to adhere to it
themselves. I just believe that THAT is wrong.
Dick, I think your words have been getting in the way of what you are trying
to say. The above statement seems to boil it all down pretty well. And of
course, you are right :)!!! And to add just a bit, some of the laws that are
passed seem to be politically motivated, and the hell with the betterment of
society. Personally, I would like to see the politicians justify ALL laws
that get passed including the pork barrel attachments. Little to nothing is
being done to encourage people to obey the laws, and passing stupid laws
just promotes disrespect for the law.
11:02 a.m.
New subject: OT: Re: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Marvin wrote:
Dick, I think your words have been getting in the way
of what you are
trying to say. The above statement seems to boil it all down pretty
well. And of course, you are right :)!!! And to add just a bit, some
of the laws that are passed seem to be politically motivated, and the
hell with the betterment of society. Personally, I would like to see
the politicians justify ALL laws that get passed including the pork
barrel attachments. Little to nothing is being done to encourage
people to obey the laws, and passing stupid laws just promotes
disrespect for the law.
And we can blame part of this on our beacon of morality who sets an
example for the American citizenry, our President!
;)
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
9 Jul
9 Jul
12:22 a.m.
New subject: Celebration (enough already)
Ok, I'll be the first to beg - can we end this thread on politics and get
back to classic computers?
Jay West
8 Jul
8 Jul
12:55 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (enough already)
On 09-Jul-2001 Jay West wrote:
Ok, I'll be the first to beg - can we end this
thread on politics and
get back to classic computers?
Hear hear! Deleting all this crap each time i download my mail is
annoying and time-wasting.
-Philip
3:52 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (enough already)
If you were using Outlook Express, you could expunge the titles you don't
anticipate reading with a little "Mail Rule" that would erase it as it comes
in.
Too bad one can't just skip the things. If I didn't have to read 'em as they
come in, I wouldn't have to respond ... <sigh>
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: <gwynp(a)artware.qc.ca>
To: "Jay West" <west(a)tseinc.com>
Cc: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Celebration (enough already)
On 09-Jul-2001 Jay West wrote:
Ok, I'll be the first to beg - can we end
this thread on politics and
get back to classic computers?
Hear hear! Deleting all this crap each time i download my mail is
annoying and time-wasting.
-Philip
6:01 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (enough already)
At 12:22 AM 09/07/2001 -0500, you wrote:
Ok, I'll be the first to beg - can we end this
thread on politics and get
back to classic computers?
Jay West
My abject apologies for starting the thread. I didn't think it
would get out of hand. Regarding the War of 1812, I just saw on Detroit TV
that they are celebrating the anniversary of the date that we gave it back.
Probably the smartest thing we ever did. I do wish your side had held on to
Toronto when you had it.
Cheers
Charlie Fox
Chas E. Fox Video Productions
793 Argyle Rd. Windsor ON N8Y 3J8
foxvideo(a)wincom.net
Check out:
Camcorder Kindergarten at http://chasfoxvideo.com
3:11 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
Yes, perhaps words have gotten in the way, but, however true it is that stupid
laws promote their own irrelevance, the fact that they are disregarded also
promotes the passage of more stupid laws. If they were taken seriously, and the
politicians not allowed to get by with weak and senseless laws, people would
take them more seriously. Everybody knows, however, that politicians won't be
the ones to take the lead.
If folks would do their part in keep the social contract, the politicians would
have to follow. If everybody simply does what they've been doing, things will
never improve.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marvin" <marvin(a)rain.org>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
Richard Erlacher wrote:
>
> No, but perhaps they should be. The real offense is the violation of the
social
> contract, not the petty misdemeanor. I
didn't say, and certainly don't
believe,
that the best
thing to do is make all penalties the same, but I do think and
have stated that it would lead to better adherence to the law.
What it boils down to is that adherence to the social contract is, for some
people, what they expect of others, though they don't expect to adhere to it
themselves. I just believe that THAT is wrong.
Dick, I think your words have been getting in the way of what you are trying
to say. The above statement seems to boil it all down pretty well. And of
course, you are right :)!!! And to add just a bit, some of the laws that are
passed seem to be politically motivated, and the hell with the betterment of
society. Personally, I would like to see the politicians justify ALL laws
that get passed including the pork barrel attachments. Little to nothing is
being done to encourage people to obey the laws, and passing stupid laws
just promotes disrespect for the law.
11:40 a.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
Reponses inline:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
Some of the most grave injustices are social contracts that were forced on
people. Sometimes simply "leaving" is not an option.
You are aware that most of these "really loud stereos" don't violate noise
ordinance right? Even the ones with 4 12-inchers in a three-way bandpass.
You advocate communism. Everyone is the most important. That is what it
means to live in America. Move to Cuba. Or bettter yet, move to China.
I didn't say that. I said that if folks don't
want to obey the existing laws,
they should, within the existing legal framework, endeavor to change them, not
simply disregard them.
There are times when endeavoring to change a law is simply not enough.
Suppose that the law called for your execution for something that was out
of your control? Like the circumstances of your birth? How about forced
sterilization due to a genetic abnormality? What if the majority believes
in this? Without civil disobedience, our black friends would not be our
black friends. They would simply be the niggers living screwing up our
neighborhoods. There would still be acceptable scientific theories
regarding the genetic superiority of certain races.
Are you saying
that the laws where you are currently make the penalties
for infractions and misdemeanors the same as the penalty for shooting
Dick?
No, but perhaps they should be. The real offense is the violation of the social
contract, not the petty misdemeanor. I didn't say, and certainly don't believe,
that the best thing to do is make all penalties the same, but I do think and
have stated that it would lead to better adherence to the law. I said that you don't just step off a cliff on a
whim, and, therefore, it's
reasonble to assume that, since the outcome would be the same, you wouldn't spit
on the sidewalk if the penalty for that were capital. It's not, of course, but,
clearly, if everyone gets to choose which laws he/she obeys and which not, then
we're all in trouble.
But if you accidentally step off a cliff, you still die. Are you saying
that, through no fault of your own, if you break the law, you should be
executed? I cannot and will not subscribe to this idea.
Think about it! One guy thinks it's OK for him to
spit on the sidewalk.
Another thinks it's OK to drive 40 mph in that 25 mph zone. He can afford to
pay the fine. Acceptance of that means that the guy with a 7-figure income
basically can ignore the "lesser" laws that carry penalties he can afford to
pay.
That's why we have license revocation and demerit points. Do you think
millionaires *like* to pay fines? No way. Millionaires become
millionaires (outside of the inheritance case) by being thrift-wise.
Now, another guy thinks it's OK to have a couple
of extra drinks before he
drives home from the bar. He figures it's worth the risk, and he can afford to
pay the fines, and he can afford to hire a lawyer to minimize what he does have
to pay. In most states there no significant additional penalty for being drunk
and killing half a dozen people than simply for causing a wreck resulting in
jnjury because he's drunk. Is that the right way? Should he be able to make
the choices resulting in the deaths of several people just because he can pay
the fines and pay the lawyers? Should we tolerate that he do it again? How
does that differ from the guy who gets drunk and shoots his neighbor in an
argument? What about the guy who shoots his neighbor in an argument, but
doesn't get drunk first? What if there was no argument first. What if he just
sneaks up on the guy and shoots him? What if he does it in order to rob the
guy?
Well, ideally, the public defender should be the best attorney in the lot.
Ideally.
What color is
the sky there?
Same as where you are, but I'm really tired of folks ingoring the
"minor" laws
we, as a society, have put in place in order to make the community safer and
more liveable, only to have some jerk who feels he's more important than the
rest of us go off and do somethng that puts us, our safety, and our peace of
mind at risk. The business with the illegal fireworks that everybody views with
a blind eye seems a good example. Another one would be the really loud car
stereo. What it boils down to is that adherence to the social
contract is, for some
people, what they expect of others, though they don't expect to adhere to it
themselves. I just believe that THAT is wrong.
That is why I say that you value the society over its members. Let me say
that I don't completely disagree with you. It is just that it is not the
American way. Period.
Peace... Sridhar
3:35 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
Reponses inline:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vance Dereksen" <vance(a)ikickass.org>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
I wonder if you're qualified to discuss this circumstance. As it happens,
that
was the practice in the country where I was born.
Why not? That's how I happen to be here instead of there.
So, you believe that because a guy who kills with his car because he
"accidentally" consumed that line of coke or third joint, or fifteenth beer,
should be let go?
... and you figure this is working?
laws
Communism is a socioeconomic system not a legal structure. You are running out
of logic, because you've, so far, refused to consider what I've said. I've
suggested a single way, not necessarily the best, or even right, way, but a way
which would get the job done. There have been lots of idle and thoughtless
whines, but no positive contstructs put forth.
It all started with someone's mention of how much fun it is to set of illegal
fireworks. I simply mentioned that because people do that, I have to spend my
4th of July evening at home so I can put out the small fires on my roof and in
my shrubbery because others don't obey the laws.
That's not what they claim, though. It's said that the whole is greater
than
the sum of its parts. Your comment has nothing to do with the American way ...
it's just YOUR way you're concerned about.
Reponses inline:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> I didn't say that. I said that if folks don't want to obey the existing
laws,
> they should, within the existing legal framework,
endeavor to change them,
not
simply
disregard them.
There are times when endeavoring to change a law is simply not enough.
Suppose that the law called for your execution for something that was out
of your control? Like the circumstances of your birth? How about forced
sterilization due to a genetic abnormality? What if the majority believes
in this? Without civil disobedience, our black friends would not be our
black friends. They would simply be the niggers living screwing up our
neighborhoods. There would still be acceptable scientific theories
regarding the genetic superiority of certain races.
> > Are you saying that the laws where you are currently make the penalties
> > for infractions and misdemeanors the same as the penalty for shooting
> > Dick?
> >
> No, but perhaps they should be. The real offense is the violation of the
social
> contract, not the petty misdemeanor. I
didn't say, and certainly don't
believe,
that the best
thing to do is make all penalties the same, but I do think and
have stated that it would lead to better adherence to the law.
Some of the most grave injustices are social contracts that were forced on
people. Sometimes simply "leaving" is not an option.
> I said that you don't just step off a cliff on a whim, and, therefore, it's
> reasonble to assume that, since the outcome would be the same, you wouldn't
spit
> on the sidewalk if the penalty for that were
capital. It's not, of course,
but,
> clearly, if everyone gets to choose which laws
he/she obeys and which not,
then
we're all
in trouble.
But if you accidentally step off a cliff, you still die. Are you saying
that, through no fault of your own, if you break the law, you should be
executed? I cannot and will not subscribe to this idea.
> Think about it! One guy thinks it's OK for him to spit on the sidewalk.
> Another thinks it's OK to drive 40 mph in that 25 mph zone. He can afford
to
pay the fine.
Acceptance of that means that the guy with a 7-figure income
basically can ignore the "lesser" laws that carry penalties he can afford to
pay.
That's why we have license revocation and demerit points. Do you think
millionaires *like* to pay fines? No way. Millionaires become
millionaires (outside of the inheritance case) by being thrift-wise.
> Now, another guy thinks it's OK to have a couple of extra drinks before he
> drives home from the bar. He figures it's worth the risk, and he can afford
to
> pay the fines, and he can afford to hire a lawyer
to minimize what he does
have
> to pay. In most states there no significant
additional penalty for being
drunk
> and killing half a dozen people than simply for
causing a wreck resulting in
> jnjury because he's drunk. Is that the right way? Should he be able to
make
> the choices resulting in the deaths of several
people just because he can
pay
> the fines and pay the lawyers? Should we
tolerate that he do it again? How
> does that differ from the guy who gets drunk and shoots his neighbor in an
> argument? What about the guy who shoots his neighbor in an argument, but
> doesn't get drunk first? What if there was no argument first. What if he
just
sneaks up on
the guy and shoots him? What if he does it in order to rob the
guy?
Well, ideally, the public defender should be the best attorney in the lot.
Ideally.
> > What color is the sky there?
> >
> Same as where you are, but I'm really tired of folks ingoring the
"minor" > we, as a society, have put in place in order to
make the community safer and
> more liveable, only to have some jerk who feels he's more important than the
> rest of us go off and do somethng that puts us, our safety, and our peace of
> mind at risk. The business with the illegal fireworks that everybody views
with
a blind eye
seems a good example. Another one would be the really loud car
stereo.
You are aware that most of these "really loud stereos" don't violate noise
ordinance right? Even the ones with 4 12-inchers in a three-way bandpass.
You advocate communism. Everyone is the most important. That is what it
means to live in America. Move to Cuba. Or bettter yet, move to China.
What it boils down to is that adherence to the
social contract is, for some
people, what they expect of others, though they don't expect to adhere to it
themselves. I just believe that THAT is wrong.
That is why I say that you value the society over its members. Let me say
that I don't completely disagree with you. It is just that it is not the
American way. Period.
Peace... Sridhar
10:45 a.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
YOU're the one who doesn't like the laws, so
YOU go! I obey the laws.
I simply expect others to do that too.
What's the penalty for kicking you square in the nuts? I'll gladly pay
it.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
3:42 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
As I said before, it's the same as it is for me dropping a couple of rounds
through your ear. That by itself is, AFAIK, the only reason you're alive today,
though I figure it wouldn't be worth even the price of the bullets to me.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sellam Ismail" <foo(a)siconic.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
YOU're the one who doesn't like the laws,
so YOU go! I obey the laws.
I simply expect others to do that too.
What's the penalty for kicking you square in the nuts? I'll gladly pay
it.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
8:33 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
As I said before, it's the same as it is for me
dropping a couple of
rounds through your ear. That by itself is, AFAIK, the only reason
you're alive today, though I figure it wouldn't be worth even the
price of the bullets to me.
Hey Dick, are you threatening to murder me with a gun, in a public message
on a public forum? I'm certainly taking it as such.
That's pretty brainless considering this highly litigious society we live
in, don't you think?
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
9 Jul
9 Jul
12:03 a.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
No, Sam, it's not a threat of murder, which you'd know if you'd learn to
read.
Literacy issues aside, however, up to a point it's interesting that you always
stake out one extreme and I stake out another. I guess it's true that where you
sit determines what you see.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sellam Ismail" <foo(a)siconic.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
As I said before, it's the same as it is for
me dropping a couple of
rounds through your ear. That by itself is, AFAIK, the only reason
you're alive today, though I figure it wouldn't be worth even the
price of the bullets to me.
Hey Dick, are you threatening to murder me with a gun, in a public message
on a public forum? I'm certainly taking it as such.
That's pretty brainless considering this highly litigious society we live
in, don't you think?
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
1:06 a.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
No, Sam, it's not a threat of murder, which
you'd know if you'd learn
to read.
Would you like me to pass your e-mail message on to your local law
enforcement and let them decide?
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
9:38 a.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
Sure, go ahead, but include the entire thread, will you. I bet you don't have
the stones to do that.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sellam Ismail" <foo(a)siconic.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 12:06 AM
Subject: Re: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
No, Sam, it's not a threat of murder, which
you'd know if you'd learn
to read.
Would you like me to pass your e-mail message on to your local law
enforcement and let them decide?
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
8:15 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
Sure, go ahead, but include the entire thread, will
you. I bet you
don't have the stones to do that.
The relevant portion is you threatening to shoot me in the head. The rest
will just make you look like more of an ass.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
8 Jul
8 Jul
10:12 a.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
What is this CRAP!
All all laws just and fair? Hell no.
How about a law against long, off-topic threads on this list!
Lets not kill the messanger (yet), but lets kill the OT threads, please.
Richard Erlacher wrote:
see below, plz.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Allain" <allain(a)panix.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
- - - - -
"if {people} disobey the law, that's prima fasciae evidence that they don't
want
to be part of the society, hence, that they need to be removed from the
planet."
- - - - -
Sorry, I can't let a statement like this be made without dissent.
(1) I can't expect an enforceable perfection from others, and
It's the notion of intent that's the problem. You can't measure that,
however,
so it's the act that's got to be the determining factor.
(2) see no need to make any penalties not match
the crimes
involved. This is the modern equivalent of 'Eye for an Eye'.
That's the other side of the coin. If you adhere to the slippery slope notion,
then you recognize that if one is mildly punished for stealing a grape, but
severely punished for stealing a pig, it's easy to make the transition. If
one's killed for either, it makes no difference, since it will only have to be
dealt with once.
Just ask yourself, "What would it take to make me (meaning YOU) adhere to all
the laws all the time?" Adhering to the laws is far from perfection, since the
laws aren't perfect. Laws are the minimal conduct needed from every citizen in
order to have a liveable society. If you don't care to live in a society with a
given set of laws, you should leave. If there's no place on the planet where
there are laws that suit you, then you should go elsewhere. The laws define the
minimal acceptable behavior within a given society. If you don't want to adhere
to those minimae, then you should be ejaculated from the society. Surely
there's someplace that will tolerate your behavior, but others, those willing to
behave within the legal standards, shouldn't have to tolerate your antisocial
and extralegal behavior.
If you don't like a law, then set about to change it within the system. In the
meantime, however, you must still behave as a law abiding citizen. Part of
effecting change involves work and suffering, the rest is waiting.
You enjoy the freedoms you enjoy only because others, less selfish than you
repress their urge to harm you whenever your extralegal behavior irritates them.
If you KNEW for certain that someone else would take it upon himself to punish
you by some equally illegal act, and any illegal act is equally illegal, you
might not behave as you do.
>
> - - - - -
> "Clearly, you can't see the sense of this"
> - - - - -
> Yup, me too.
>
>
> - - - - -
> "You know as well as anyone, that if you KNEW for certain that you'd be
> killed
> for speeding"
> - - - - -
> If you're talking about death for speeding and the like, then I believe the
> people
> would toss law enforcement altogether and start over.
>
>
> John A.
>
>
>
1:23 p.m.
New subject: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
see below, plz
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Shannon" <bshannon(a)tiac.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
What is this CRAP!
All all laws just and fair? Hell no.
How about a law against long, off-topic threads on this list!
Well, that's what I've been driving at, isn't it? If the legal
structure isn't
what you want, don't ignore it, but FIX IT!
Lets not kill the messanger (yet), but lets kill the OT threads, please.
Richard Erlacher wrote:
> see below, plz.
>
> Dick
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Allain" <allain(a)panix.com>
> To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
> Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 4:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
>
<major snip>
7 Jul
7 Jul
11:07 p.m.
New subject: OT: Re: OT: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
No complaints about stupid shit, but about stupid
shits like you,
Sellam Ismail. All I've said in this thread is that people should obey
the law. If they don't like it, they can endeavor, within the law, to
change it to something they like, but if they disobey the law, that's
prima fasciae evidence that they don't want to be part of the society,
hence, that they need to be removed from the planet. Making it hurt a
little is to keep people from thinking it's a cheap way to commit
suicide.
This boils down to you being a fucking facist and obnoxious prick about
silly little shit. It would be one thing if you were joking about putting
people to death for spitting on a sidewalk or cursing in public or itching
their ass in plain view of a woman or whatever, but I really think you are
fucked up enough to be serious.
Your idea of justice and morality, I assure you, is not shared by many
other people, at least not people with any sort of sense. If you think it
would be appropriate to dole out harsh sentences for meaningless actions
such as spitting on a sidewalk, or maybe getting or giving a blowjob
(which is technically illegal in a few states), then you are one seriously
fucked up individual and you need to move to some country that is more
compatible with your point of view, like Afghanistan or Iran. Go
someplace where your silly-assed views won't run up against any
opposition. You'll be much happier, and won't have to criticize assholes
like me for being so damn liberal.
You know as well as anyone, that if you KNEW for
certain that you'd be
killed for speeding, even if you only did it once, you wouldn't speed.
You know you'd be killed for stepping off a cliff, and you don't do
that. The fact remains that if laws were different, people would
behave differently.
Thank god people like you will be dead soon.
BTW ... ask an adult what a FOO is, as in "Hey,
FOO..."
I hope it means "big brown smelly turd", because that's what I want to be
to you. The big brown smelly turd that will annoy and insult you until
the day you finally succumb to some terrible disease.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
8 Jul
8 Jul
1:29 a.m.
New subject: OT: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
Hi, Foo!
Fascism is a socioeconomic system, characterized by close ties between
government and industry, not a legal structure. (Learn to read and you'll find
such things out! Learning the language well enough to leave out the irrelevant
and not particularly useful expletives wouldn't be a bad thing either.)
It's not about spitting or scratching, but about putting yourself above the rest
of society. Back when it was 25 miles to the nearest neighbor, it didn't matter
whether you fired your gun or set off a stick of dynamite. Now that folks are
forced by circumstances to live near enough to others that they can't totally
avoid your wierd beaviors, it's appropriate that you be forced, like everyone
else, to adhere to the social contract. Because you insist on being a problem
child, part of that is a penalty. That penalty must ensure that you will under
no circumstances cause annoyance to anyone else ever again, and it should serve
as an example to others who might consider such transgressions. In the process,
perhaps it will move society back to a population level at which you and others
of your persuasion won't be such an annoyance to others.
see below, plz.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sellam Ismail" <foo(a)siconic.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 10:07 PM
Subject: OT: Re: OT: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
Yeah ... and you, too ... and in English, it's customary to capitalize specific
references to the deity, though nonspecific references or plural references need
not be capitalized. (Errors in grammar, syntax, and orthography need not be met
with capital punishment ... cleaning the blackboards for a week will suffice.)
Since I'm not as into blowjobs as you are, it's unlikely. Moreover, since
you're far enough away, I won't be able to appreciate your odor ... a fact I
don't particularly regret.
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
It's probably not illegal where you live. That's how this is supposed to work,
right?
No complaints about stupid shit, but about stupid
shits like you,
Sellam Ismail. All I've said in this thread is that people should obey
the law. If they don't like it, they can endeavor, within the law, to
change it to something they like, but if they disobey the law, that's
prima fasciae evidence that they don't want to be part of the society,
hence, that they need to be removed from the planet. Making it hurt a
little is to keep people from thinking it's a cheap way to commit
suicide.
This boils down to you being a fucking facist and obnoxious prick about
silly little shit. It would be one thing if you were joking about putting
people to death for spitting on a sidewalk or cursing in public or itching
their ass in plain view of a woman or whatever, but I really think you are
fucked up enough to be serious.
Your idea of justice and morality, I assure you, is not shared by many
other people, at least not people with any sort of sense. If you think it
would be appropriate to dole out harsh sentences for meaningless actions
such as spitting on a sidewalk, or maybe getting or giving a blowjob (which is technically illegal in a few states), then
you are one seriously
fucked up individual and you need to move to some country that is more
compatible with your point of view, like Afghanistan or Iran. Go
someplace where your silly-assed views won't run up against any
opposition. You'll be much happier, and won't have to criticize assholes
like me for being so damn liberal.
It doesn't bother me that you're liberal. It doesn't even bother me
that you're
an asshole, as those are choices it's your right to make. What bothers me is
that you seem to think you have rights that you wouldn't allow others to
exercise. If you can smoke dope if you want, then I can shoot you if I want,
right? What? You dont' like that? Well, who gets to select the laws that we
get to break? You? I think not!
I can live within the legalism we have. I may not like it, but I can do it. If
you'd grow up, you could do it too. You just don't want to do that, since it
involves inhibiting your urges. For most people, that's learned at between
about age 20-30 months.
You know as well as anyone, that if you KNEW for
certain that you'd be
killed for speeding, even if you only did it once, you wouldn't speed.
You know you'd be killed for stepping off a cliff, and you don't do
that. The fact remains that if laws were different, people would
behave differently.
Thank god people like you will be dead soon. BTW ... ask an adult what a FOO is, as in
"Hey, FOO..."
I hope it means "big brown smelly turd", because that's what I want to be
to you. The big brown smelly turd that will annoy and insult you until
the day you finally succumb to some terrible disease.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
9:31 a.m.
New subject: OT: Celebration (intended to be offensive, possible humor)
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
child, part of that is a penalty. That penalty must
ensure that you
will under no circumstances cause annoyance to anyone else ever
again, and it should serve
Hmmmm... perhaps Dick needs our help with his education. Shall we set
up a little meeting to explain the use of tar and feathers to him? ;-)
--
Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.net 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.net beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
4:58 p.m.
On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 10:34:48AM -0600, Richard Erlacher wrote:
Never touch the stuff!
It's OK to do stuff that's legal, but remember that I'm the advocate of
immediate and on-the-spot euthanasia for people with so pronounced a death-wish
as indicated by their willingness to violate a law, e.g. by spitting on the
sidewalk, speeding, or murdering a building full of people, with a written
apology issued in the unlikely even that someone unjustly punished complain
because their rights have been violated. It's got to be like violating a law,
any law, is equivalent to jumping from a plane at 40K feet with no parachute.
I've considered that in contrast with my recommendation that immersion in molten
iron be used to dispatch sidewalk spitters, corrupt politicians, and mass
murderers, etc, but, though I like the fact the punished will get the chance to
enjoy the trip, the flight could get to be too costly.
Have you taken even one minute to think about this? Mandating the death
penalty for spitting on the sidewalk? This fucked up idea can happily
result in _major_ violence:
- guy spits on sidewalk,
- police man spots him, tries to arrest him (to send him off to the
executioner)
- guy realizes that his now in for death anyway, so things _can't_
possible get any worse.
- guys just kills the police man
- guy decides to at least have some fun before he is catched and killed
- guy steals really big truck, lots of barrels full of fertilizer
and some fuel oil (anybody saying ANFO?) some sticks of dynamite,
blasting caps ...
- guys drives directly into big government building and sets up his
10 ton ANFO bomb
Mandating extreme punishment for even small misdemeanours simply promotes
extreme escalation of violence for the simple reason that whatever you
do _then_ - your punishment _can't_ get any harder (hey, you can only
die once) so you might as well have some fun / do lots of damage to those
trying to kill you.
Modern law has generally accepted the idea that the punishment should
match the crime (i.e.: steal a candy bar - pay for it and do some hours
of community work, kill a person - off to the executioner with you (in
some countries) or behind bars for a very long time).
Regards,
Alex.
--
We have gone from a world of concentrated knowledge and wisdom to one of
distributed ignorance. And we know and understand less while being
increasingly capable. -- Prof. Peter Cochrane, formerly of BT Labs
8584
days inactive
8587
days old
72 comments
24 participants
participants (24)
-
allain＠panix.com -
als＠thangorodrim.de -
at258＠osfn.org -
bshannon＠tiac.net -
chris＠mainecoon.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
cmurillo＠emtelsa.multi.net.co -
ecloud＠bigfoot.com -
edick＠idcomm.com -
ernestls＠home.com -
foo＠siconic.com -
foxvideo＠wincom.net -
gwynp＠artware.qc.ca -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
jhellige＠earthlink.net -
marvin＠rain.org -
mikeford＠socal.rr.com -
owad＠applefritter.com -
rdd＠smart.net -
spc＠conman.org -
thompson＠mail.athenet.net -
vance＠ikickass.org -
west＠tseinc.com -
wmsmith＠earthlink.net