Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 26 Nov 2006 20:37 In article <enfjm21i31bvbtnt04akie4qkp2gog1g3l(a)4ax.com>, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: [....] >AIUI, even today it's considered in bad taste (maybe it's even >illegal ;) for one to speak to royalty unless one is spoken to >first. I spoke first and am still here to tell of it. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: lucasea on 26 Nov 2006 20:42 "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:ekcnmh$g1o$1(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <OX9ah.15796$9v5.2965(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message >>news:ekaas8$8a0$1(a)blue.rahul.net... >>> In article <a2165$45687e83$4fe7197$8951(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>> [....] >>>>The lemming reference isn't an idle insult, but a comment >>>>that the person is heading over the cliff into the sea by >>>>following some invisible passion (in the case of the >>>>immediate discussion, the immediate discussion) blindly. >>> >>> Ok. >>> >>> The "invisible passion" part I'd missed. I'd taken it as following a >>> person. >> >>Unsettled knows perfectly well that the usual meaning of the "lemming" >>label >>involves blindly following another person, and that essentially everybody >>would read it this way. To claim otherwise is hypocrisy. > > No, you are making a claim about him knowing something without proof. > Elsewhere you have suggested that he is ignorant on other subjects. His > explanation of what he meant works for me. I am sort of surprised that it > doesn't work for you too. If he means "invisible passion" you have some > very good arguments you can use against the claim. You let him off his disingenuity too easily. Hold his feet to the fire. He knows damn well he didn't mean "invisible passion", as that is not the standard meaning of the word "lemming". >>>>> The lurkers are the ones that both sides have a chance to convince. >>>>> You >>>>> can't convince them if they get bored and quit reading. IIRC I made >>>>> this >>>>> point somewhere in the first week of this thread. >>>> >>>>While that's true, usually I'm just trying to have a discussion. >> >>Bullshit. He's one of the three biggest insult-mongers in this thread. > > Perhaps that is only "was". Lately he has been fairly mild in his use of > them. He may actually be trying to have a discussion. Now is your chance > to convince him that you are right and he is wrong. Go for it. > > >>He's not even honest about his reasons for killfiling, since he routinely >>responds to my posts through somebody else's response to me. If he really >>found me to be unworthy or reading, he simply wouldn't read anything I >>write, or respond to it. His only purpose for killfiling people is to >>make >>a big show of denigrating their opinion just because they won't fall down >>and fawn over everything he says. >> >>He is a gutless hypocrite. > > Even if he was a one legged gutless hypocrite, don't you think it would be > far better to try to convince him of a better philosophy than to complain > about him not already accepting it? False premise. He is not willing to be convinced of anything that goes against his pre-conceived notions. > "the world is flat", "the world is round", "the world is flat", "the world > is round", "the world is flat", "the world is round", "the world is flat", > "the world is round", "the world is flat", "the world is round", "the > world is flat", "the world is round", "the world is flat", "the world is > round". Doesn't get anywhere. > > Try "when a ship is far away, you can't see the whole ship but you can see > the mast". Nah, when you try that tack, he accuses you of changing the subject and missing the original point of the argument. He's not worth taking seriously--he still insult-mongers, and ignores me when I make rational arguments to which he has no answer. Pointing out the gutless hypocrisy of his ignoring me but not really ignoring me is the best contribution I can make to this discussion regarding him. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 26 Nov 2006 20:48 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:3237a$4569e7ea$4fe775f$22927(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <OX9ah.15796$9v5.2965(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>>He is a gutless hypocrite. >> >> >> Even if he was a one legged gutless hypocrite, don't you think it would >> be >> far better to try to convince him of a better philosophy than to complain >> about him not already accepting it? > > There are a few virtual mouths incapable of rational > discourse in this thread. I've made several rational arguments. Your only response was to hurl insults and eventually killfile me because you couldn't refute what I was saying. Gutless hypocrite. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 26 Nov 2006 21:58 "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:ekcrj1$g1o$8(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <79c91$4568893d$4fe7197$9163(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >>> In article <MPG.1fd11c17f0518b5a989c65(a)news.individual.net>, >>> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>> [.....] >>> >>>>Whether you like it or not, radio is an interstate issue. Perhaps >>>>there should be some local control for ultra=-low power, but other >>>>than that 50 FCCs would be a nightmare. Can you imagine getting 50 >>>>certifications for a piece of gear? >>> >>> >>> I like radio just fine. >>> >>> Is radio "interstate commerce" if the broadcast can't be heard in >>> another >>> state? If not, I don't think the constitution gives the federal >>> government preemptive control. >> >>How many microwatts will cross the border when you're >>standing next to a state line with the transmitter? > > Why is an FM station in SanFransisco under FCC control? This is of course a pathological example, as is Honolulu, Anchorage, and other stations that do not broadcast beyond state borders. However, I suspect in the majority of cases, a station in one state does reach another state, could legitimately be considered "interstate commerce", setting aside issues like "how strong of a signal has to appear in another state for it to be considered interstate commerce. In my opinion, it wouldn't make much sense to have one set of radio stations (including many FM and all AM stations) under the thumb of the FCC, while a few stations that are smaller, lower power, and centrally-located in large states that are not under the FCC. krw puts forth a good argument for a unified system, and in order to have a sensible system, we have agreed to put up with federal control in a situation that might not warrant it, considered in isolation. The fact is, there are plenty of situation that, taken in isolation, the Federal government is overstepping the bounds in a strict literal interpretation of the Constitution. Usually, something that the states have come to rely upon, like highway funding, is used as leverage. However, I don't think health care would be such a case. First, the health of the populace does directly affect interstate commerce, because of the ubiquity of interstate travel (which, by the way, the framers of the Constitution could never have anticipated.) Aside from this, the key issue is the "general welfare" clause. By definition and by etymology, "welfare" can easily be interpreted to include care of the health of the populace. See, for example, http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&defl=en&q=define:welfare&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title. Ignoring references to "social welfare" as likely being irrelevant, hits high on the list include such verbiage as "something that aids or promotes well-being", "for the common good", and so on. Some of these, like "promotes well-being" clearly refer to health care. Others require a little analysis, but I think it is clear that disease pandemics are clearly contrary to "the common good", and so even these imply that health care is squarely in the purview of the Federal government. Some have said silly things, like "that's not what the framers meant". First, it is arrogant to think that anyone now can determine that. Sdcond, it *is* arguable that the framers could have meant exactly things like health care, based on the etymology of the word "welfare" From: http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=welfare, "condition of being or doing well". Condition of being well....sounds like health to me. I simply haven't heard a credible or reasonable argument that suggests that a national health care system set up by the Federal government would face Constitutional issues, especially in the face of things like Medicare, Social Security, and other Federal welfare programs that have withstood the Constitutional test of time. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 26 Nov 2006 22:03
"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:ekcrq6$g1o$10(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <4568E61C.7E27585B(a)earthlink.net>, > Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>Ken Smith wrote: >>> >>> In article <MPG.1fd11c17f0518b5a989c65(a)news.individual.net>, >>> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>> [.....] >>> >Whether you like it or not, radio is an interstate issue. Perhaps >>> >there should be some local control for ultra=-low power, but other >>> >than that 50 FCCs would be a nightmare. Can you imagine getting 50 >>> >certifications for a piece of gear? >>> >>> I like radio just fine. >>> >>> Is radio "interstate commerce" if the broadcast can't be heard in >>> another >>> state? If not, I don't think the constitution gives the federal >>> government preemptive control. >> >> >> You can't keep the signal from crossing the state lines at night. I >>can hear radio stations from Ohio (700 KHz) and Tennessee (650 KHz) at >>night on the standard AM broadcast band. I can hear stations from most >>of the rest of the world on the shortwave bands. Not only is the RF >>spectrum controlled from the federal level, it is controlled under >>international agreement. > > Things like FM and 802.11 can be kept within the bounds of a state. In > that case, it is not "interstate commerce". Terrell makes a good point. The Federal government has the right to enter into treaties, of which the control over the RF broadcast spectrum is one. The Federal government also has the responsibility to regulate our participation in a treaty, so that would give them the authority to regulate the use of the RF broadcast spectrum. However, since I seriously doubt that that treaty covers things like decency standards, clearly part of what the FCC does has nothing to do with treaty enforcement. Eric Lucas |