Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 9 Oct 2006 12:03 On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 14:37:23 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >news:uOCdnaYSs6Z5oLfYRVnygg(a)pipex.net... >> My biggest issue with the UK government at the moment stems on the way we >> are throwing away rights and freedoms I grew up to take for granted >> (possibly part of the problem). > >I disagree--I think most Western nations view those rights as (to use a word >from one of our founding documents), inalienable--as they should. The Founders certainly didn't have our modern idea of "privacy." For the first 200 years of the Republic, it was illegal to use the US Mails for "immoral" purposes, and mail was opened, and people prosecuted for felonies, if immorality was suspected. Such "immorality" included explicit letters between a husband and his wife. I don't think that any of the Founders would think it unreasonable to snoop on international communications, or even domestic communications, looking for signs of known conspiracies to commit murder. They did list "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in that order. The current concept of privacy as a Constitutional right was cobbled up by the Supremes to justify the Roe-v-Wade thing. John
From: lucasea on 9 Oct 2006 12:06 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:b5qki29j7v7jkck7lj1d6n54dp8u9r03ms(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 11:09:53 +0200, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen" > <frithiof.jensen(a)die_spammer_die.ericsson.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:iq1ji2t66ov05f69i8oamaop8nq107jigb(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 20:29:08 GMT, Jan Panteltje >>> <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>> >Veil seeking missiles serve 2 things: >>> >1) The fear for them will keep the veils away and preserve our society. >>> >2) It will keep the veils away and preserve our society. >>> > >>> >>> Do you really think that women wearing veils is a threat to your >>> society? How fragile that sounds. >> >>In much the same way that skinheads wearing "hagen-kreutz" are - the >>wearers >>boldly avertise that they are outsiders that want a different society >>where the >>outsider-norms are the rule. >> > > Scairy, aren't they, people who have different opinions and haircuts > from yours. > > This is fascinating. Indeed. It is my observation that it is exactly this sort of xenophobia which is leading to much of the overreaction to terrorism. Bush may be fomenting it with his rhetoric of fear, but that rhetoric wouldn't work if people weren't so ready to distrust and believe evil of those who are different than them. For all I know, the terrorism itself may be partly a product of the terrorists' xenophobia. I'm not saying the threat of terrorism is non-existent, but I think it has been badly overplayed and we are badly overreacting to it. Eric Lucas
From: Ken Smith on 9 Oct 2006 12:09 In article <4529A7FE.88FB0C0B(a)earthlink.net>, Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: >> >> There is a *lot* of bad wine made in California too. When wine making >> started to look like a way to make money, everyone and their dog got into >> the business. > > > Come on Ken. Everyone knows that dogs don't know "Beans" about >grapes. ;-) LOL I know that cats can't taste sugar. Maybe it is also true of dogs. This would explain a lot about dog viniculture. It would not explain the paint stipper some wineries produce. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: John Fields on 9 Oct 2006 12:10 On 08 Oct 2006 19:48:02 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic(a)aon.at> wrote: >John Fields wrote: > >> That doesn't mean he's wrong, though. >> > > >;) He's not wrong and you are Right. Is this the tactic? --- Go back and read it again. As I recall, instead of debating a poster's claims, Eeyore was claiming the poster was insane in order to try to discredit the poster and, thus, his claims. I merely pointed out that being insane doesn't automatically preclude also being right. --- >Or other... tell me your definition to the opposite of 'wrong'! >I bet my five pence it is 'right'. --- Who will you find to bet with? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: lucasea on 9 Oct 2006 12:14
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:k9ski2he66qemvlu5cp38ltao29anhdht3(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 14:37:23 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >>news:uOCdnaYSs6Z5oLfYRVnygg(a)pipex.net... >>> My biggest issue with the UK government at the moment stems on the way >>> we >>> are throwing away rights and freedoms I grew up to take for granted >>> (possibly part of the problem). >> >>I disagree--I think most Western nations view those rights as (to use a >>word >>from one of our founding documents), inalienable--as they should. > > The Founders certainly didn't have our modern idea of "privacy." For > the first 200 years of the Republic, it was illegal to use the US > Mails for "immoral" purposes, and mail was opened, and people > prosecuted for felonies, if immorality was suspected. Such > "immorality" included explicit letters between a husband and his wife. > > I don't think that any of the Founders would think it unreasonable to > snoop on international communications, or even domestic > communications, looking for signs of known conspiracies to commit > murder. They did list "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in > that order. > > The current concept of privacy as a Constitutional right was cobbled > up by the Supremes to justify the Roe-v-Wade thing. I disagree. Privacy inheres in the 4th amendment, and for that matter, in the "pursuit of happiness" (not, by the way, a Constitutional right) and several rights in the Bill of Rights, notably the 1st Amendment. Without privacy, people cannot be free to practice the religion of their choice, to participate in the Press, to bear arms, to vote without intimidation, etc., etc. Eric Lucas |