Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 4 Jan 2007 06:05 In article <enj0je$8qk_002(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <fbWdnV_HIsVVfwbYnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:engg2h$8qk_004(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <enbata$6p7$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>In article <enb17e$8qk_002(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>In article <en90n9$5un$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>>>In article <em3gds$8qk_001(a)s969.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>[....] >>>>>>You should care. It is the very things that have made the US a free >>>>>>country that are being lost. >>>>> >>>>>I see. You cannot list those who are denied their US Constituional >>>>>rights. Perhaps those who are being monitored under this law >>>>>are those who have no Constitutional rights? IOW, they are not >>>>>of this country but are an enemy of this country. >>>> >>>>I listed one that should matter to you. You BAH have been denied your >>>>Constitutional rights. >>> >>> No, I haven't. It is only your opinion that I have, but you are >>> wrong. >>> >>>> Bush has made the claim that he can listen to your >>>>phone calls. In your opinion, perhaps you don't deserve these rights. >>> >>> He can listen using the procedures described in the Patriot Act >>> if, and only if, I cause attraction to myself by talking about >>> procurement and disbrusement of mess-making subjects. So I don't >>> do that. I also haven't said the word bomb in an airport since >>> 1975 or so. >>> >>> Has my Constitutional rights been taken away because it is no >>> longer a prudent thing to say the word bomb when I'm going >>> through security? >>> >>> Use your noodle. >> >>But you have used it in an USENET post now, so I assume from this point >>forward all your electronic comms are monitored. > >I do not falsely believe that my posts to newsgroups can >be considered private. Do you believe that newsgroups is >a private communication? Do you believe that email is >a private communication? When you use your wireless telephone, >do you believe that conversation is a private communication? > >/BAH > From the gov't? You better believe it. The constitution says so.
From: T Wake on 4 Jan 2007 12:34 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eniv6c$8qk_001(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <a633e$459c0f5b$4fe756c$30709(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>T Wake wrote: >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> news:engenc$8qk_012(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > <snip> > >>>>There isn't much >>>>going on is there? And Iran's delaying tactics are working. >>>>In two years, we'll see if these tactics worked as well as >>>>they did in the 1930s. >> >>> Iran didn't use delaying tactics in the 1930s. >> >>She's talking about European delaying tactics and appeasement >>of the 1930's bing replayed by Iran. I realize that sometimes >>BAH skips a few steps which makes discussions difficult for >>some folks to follow. For some of us those skipped steps are >>more necessary than for others. > > Since we had already covered the steps I skipped in this thread, > I saw no need to reiterate. My apologies. >> >>>>>> The US anti-Bushers >>>>>>seem to want European law rather than US Constituional law. >> >>>>>There is no "European Law". >> >>>>Exactly. >> >>> Blimey. IKWYABWAI variant if ever I saw one. >> >>Part of the disagreements in this thread are real legitimate >>head on crashes. Some of them are the product of a significant >>cultural mismatch which perhaps neither of the two of you >>actually grasps. > > I know that gap exists. I'm working on trying to learn their > mindset. I have discovered that the reason people who think > European-style, w.r.t. culture, cannot comprehend how our > Constitution works, is because they have been immersed in > royalty-flavored thinking. This is a massive misunderstanding you suffer from and refuse to address. > It was always the case that the > roylaty were the ones who had the responsibility of dealing > with these kinds of problems (threats to their subjects). > They equate our President with their king or queen. Really? I know no one who does that. I know people who equate your president with a prime minister or similar (which is incorrect but people still do it). I can only assume you are talking about British people here, as the rest of the European nations have even more insignificant monarchs than we do. In the UK few, if any, people think the monarch has any real power so I cant imagine why they would think the same about your President. >>The cultural difference is not related to >>national origins, but rather to workplaces and how >>communications are delivered. > > I don't think that's the cause. The cause is who inherantly > shoulders the responsibility of security, fincance, and statesmanship > decisions. We hire ours and replace them every few years. Theirs > is based on promengeniture, slightly modified. You remain firmly mired in the thirteenth century. > >> The underlying assumptions >>disclosed by participants in this thread are as diverse >>as the technique of delivering them. In one environment >>two or three keywords amount to the same amount of >>communicating as half a page of dialog means in another. >> >>In saying this I am not taking sides, merely making an >>observation. I often disagree strongly with some of the >>stuff being promoted. I often don't bother to comment >>where the things I disagree with appear to have become >>an issue of quasi-religious belief. >> >>Hope this helps. > > This (differences) is one of the things I'm studying. Since > SOP of European thought is what happened in the 1930s, my > style is to study it and then try to figure out a way to do > mess prevention. You have started from a false assumption and, as a result, are more than likely to draw incorrect conclusions. > Appeasement is a fact of life in European > politics and foreign policies. So that has to be taken as > a fact when thinking about dealing with this global danger. Haha. This would be even funnier if I didn't think you actually believed this.
From: T Wake on 4 Jan 2007 12:38 "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:enhu3t$82q$8(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <pPidnTCZGJJjhgHYnZ2dnUVZ8turnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > [....] >>does that mean you are subject to UK law? Ken Smith's comment (in its >>original context) was about American citizens. > > No, actually, it was about those subject to US law. Someone visiting the > country also gets a fair trial rather than a quick trip to the gallows if > they are accused of murder. > >> I agree with Ken's statement >>that American citizens should have the full rights under US law until >>found >>guilty. This does not mean I agree to be subject to the US constitution. > > If you come into the US, you will be subject to US laws and the > constitution will protect your rights. Good point and thank you for the clarification.
From: T Wake on 4 Jan 2007 12:57 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:277b1$459c3442$4fe7356$31499(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > > snip > >> It may have, but the selling point given to the public was to reduce >> crime, not to increase the detection rate. >> >> As the crime rate has not stabilised over the last 15 years (it is >> increasing in inner city, high CCTV areas), this leads to questions about >> the value of solving the crimes. >> >> If people are going to give up a freedom willingly, then surely they need >> to know the _real_ reason it is has been surrended, not be told one >> reason then if that fails to appear be given alternative reasons until >> one which has actually happend pops up? >> >> Something sold as crime prevention needs to prevent crime. When it fails, >> finding a new use (in crime solving) is not something which can be >> trumpteted as a valued reason. > > Oh come on. The mainstay of politics is selling "the big lie" > and the bigger the better. Yet is does not make it "right." > "Follow the money." > > In the US we call that pork. Really? What an odd term for money you have. In the UK we call it "money." Sometimes it is called "cash" as well..... (;-)) Earlier you said sacrificing freedom for safety was acceptable - yet here it seems to be you have to assume the government are going to lie. In these circumstances, how can the electorate be expected to make a reasoned, willing, sacrifice of freedom? I agree that it should generally be taken as a given that politicians are lying to you, but the average voter can not be expected to know the technical ins and outs of each new policy. As a result people come to rely on "specialists" giving them advice - which is worse than a government as these people are not elected, are not answerable to the public and are often _selected_ by the government. I remember about 15 years ago seeing senior civil servants, police officers and government selected experts telling everyone how CCTV would reduce crime by massive amounts. There were occasional dissenting voices but the majority of expert opinion was it would work. It didn't. [*] Similar things happen the world over - the insanity which airport security has become is an example. People _seem_ to think that sacrificing freedoms automatically gives security and (for some reason) that security can not be improved without sacrificing freedoms. -- [*] Governments are aware as to how to misdirect the public trust-distrust and now use "independent" advisors to push policy. This public mistrust is self defeating as the MMR scam showed.
From: T Wake on 4 Jan 2007 13:03
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:enj0je$8qk_002(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <fbWdnV_HIsVVfwbYnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:engg2h$8qk_004(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <enbata$6p7$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>In article <enb17e$8qk_002(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>In article <en90n9$5un$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>>>In article <em3gds$8qk_001(a)s969.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>[....] >>>>>>You should care. It is the very things that have made the US a free >>>>>>country that are being lost. >>>>> >>>>>I see. You cannot list those who are denied their US Constituional >>>>>rights. Perhaps those who are being monitored under this law >>>>>are those who have no Constitutional rights? IOW, they are not >>>>>of this country but are an enemy of this country. >>>> >>>>I listed one that should matter to you. You BAH have been denied your >>>>Constitutional rights. >>> >>> No, I haven't. It is only your opinion that I have, but you are >>> wrong. >>> >>>> Bush has made the claim that he can listen to your >>>>phone calls. In your opinion, perhaps you don't deserve these rights. >>> >>> He can listen using the procedures described in the Patriot Act >>> if, and only if, I cause attraction to myself by talking about >>> procurement and disbrusement of mess-making subjects. So I don't >>> do that. I also haven't said the word bomb in an airport since >>> 1975 or so. >>> >>> Has my Constitutional rights been taken away because it is no >>> longer a prudent thing to say the word bomb when I'm going >>> through security? >>> >>> Use your noodle. >> >>But you have used it in an USENET post now, so I assume from this point >>forward all your electronic comms are monitored. > > I do not falsely believe that my posts to newsgroups can > be considered private. I was making a farcial example. > Do you believe that newsgroups is > a private communication? Nope. > Do you believe that email is > a private communication? Some of mine is. (Are you trying to say hotmail isn't private?)[*] > When you use your wireless telephone, > do you believe that conversation is a private communication? Actually yes. In the UK you need a warrant _prior_ to the intercept of mobile telephone conversations and it is illegal to monitor or otherwise "tap" them without the warrant being issued in advance. The RIPA and IOCA legislation in the UK identifies mobile (cell) phones as being something people can have an assumption to privacy over. Generally speaking a GSM phone does not propogate a signal with enough power for it to be intercepted outside the countries borders - even a small country like the UK. -- [*] for the humour challenged - that was a joke. |