Post by thread:[OT] a definite blood.boiler Wheeeeee !

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] a definite blood.boiler Wheeeeee !'
2006\07\31@114118 by Russell McMahon

>I would like comments on why various speakers in this forum use the > term "we" to refer > to the country they live in, the sports team they favor, some > arbitrary group they belong to. [OT] tag added as otherwise we will largely not get this message. OR we all will depending how the system is actually set up, as opposed to how we are told it is. :-) We. Vicarious participation or association, justified or not. Allows us to attach ourselves to the wagon of some person/group/ideal of which we approve (or, sometimes, don't) or would like to be associated with. There will often be SOME basis for the linkage, but this is not essential. (My country, my countrymen, my geographic area, my racial group, those who think like me ...) You know what we mean. :-) Arguably associated with the herd instinct, need to belong, protection in numbers yada yada. Specifics: New Zealanders / we: There are certain mindsets which tend to be more closely correlated with our behaviours as a whole. Or not. Some such are stereotypes with no real basis and some have some relationship with reality. NZ was largely populated by pioneers, adventurers and convicts. Oz had even more of the latter :-). The pioneer period for us is "only" about 100-150 years away and the long tail still pervades. Sport is king (or one of the kings) and we 'punch above our weight' (even in boxing) in many areas. "We" are world champion sportsmen and women in areas where the big Big BIG countries are not too interested. And, on and off are also world champions in those. With under 4 million population that's not bad. So "we" like to go along for the ride and adulation and also partake in the hero worship. Why wouldn't 'we'. We have held the Americas Cup and will do so again. And the yachtsmen we race to try and regain it from are often also NZers. In Rugby (what's that) 'we' are king of the world, except when the Ozzies are. And Netball. And near the top in some classes of motocross. And ... . Why should we not say we if it takes us closer to being part of this. If you can understand why people go to superbowl or spend months of their life watching gridiron or ... then you don't really need to ask about 'we'. You already know what we mean :-). Engineers: Partially a joke. Partially a true correlation. See recent post from me (I think) re correlation between eg engineers and certain mental characteristics. These are statistical, but if they don't apply to YOU, then, what are you doing here with us, Stranger? :-). I just KNOW they do though based on your project !!! We all approve. Politics: Nigh on 50% of USA'ites (them / you) voted for the idiot in office at present. Almost 50% voted for the idiot not in office who wanted to be. Both are also heroes, God's gift to the world, saviours of mankind etc etc. Why would 'we' not want to stand vicariously in their shadow as a group, or feel the support of all those others as 'we' abuse them, depending on who they and we are. The drive to belong and associate and not stand out varies with social group. Arguably with racial group too but I suspect it's probably very largely social effects that attach to the racial groupings they happen to have developed among. eg the Japanese and Asians generally to a lesser extent overall (perhaps) are said to be more group oriented, less individual, more 'we' than eg yer Kiwi & Ocker Antipodeans (that's we from NZ and our Australian mates across the pond). I'm told, and it seems, that the Japanese greatly prefer the group to be seen as the originator and responsible party for decision and results. That said 'we' in NZ have what is termed a "tall poppy syndrome" where the one who sticks their heads up tends to be attacked and 'cut down to size'. It seems that too much individualism threatens our 'we-ness'. Maslow and his needs hierarchy probably has something of sorts to say on this, AFAWR Anyway, I'm sure we aren't telling you anything you don't already know - I'm sure Y'All already know what we mean. Russell NZer and we're proud of it.

2006\07\31@143545 by Gerhard Fiedler

Russell McMahon wrote: >> I would like comments on why various speakers in this forum use the term >> "we" to refer to the country they live in, the sports team they favor, >> some arbitrary group they belong to. > We. <-> You. One part of this is IMO that the English language doesn't provide (to my knowledge) an easy way to distinguish between "you" (singular) and "you" (plural). (This notwithstanding the Southern US idiom "y'all" -- which seems to be rarely used here and I'm not sure would be generally called "English" anyway :) So writing "you" may very easily be responded with "we" in a forum-type setting, where it is not clear what the "you" means. This may then be the intended meaning -- or not. > Politics: Nigh on 50% of USA'ites (them / you) voted for the idiot in > office at present. Almost 50% voted for the idiot not in office who > wanted to be. Actually little more than 20% of USA'ites voted for each. There is still hope :) Gerhard

'[OT] a definite blood.boiler Wheeeeee !'
2006\08\01@001105 by Russell McMahon

>> Politics: Nigh on 50% of USA'ites (them / you) voted for the idiot >> in >> office at present. Almost 50% voted for the idiot not in office who >> wanted to be. > Actually little more than 20% of USA'ites voted for each. There is > still > hope :) Corrigendum: Of the people who bothered to vote, nigh on ... R

2006\08\01@001112 by Russell McMahon

>> Anyway, I'm sure we aren't telling you anything you don't already >> know - I'm sure Y'All already know what we mean. > (plural). (This notwithstanding the Southern US idiom "y'all" -- > which > seems to be rarely used here ... Say what? :-) R

2006\08\01@030626 by Alan B. Pearce

>One part of this is IMO that the English language doesn't >provide (to my knowledge) an easy way to distinguish >between "you" (singular) and "you" (plural). My reaction is to say "yes it does", but the singular has dropped out of use. The singular for you is "thou", as used in the Bible, and the plural is "you".

2006\08\01@081159 by Gerhard Fiedler

Alan B. Pearce wrote: >> One part of this is IMO that the English language doesn't provide (to my >> knowledge) an easy way to distinguish between "you" (singular) and >> "you" (plural). > > My reaction is to say "yes it does", but the singular has dropped out of > use. > > The singular for you is "thou", as used in the Bible, and the plural is > "you". I didn't know that. While I of course have heard and read "thou" before, I had no idea that it is the singular of "you" -- and I had no idea that "you" is plural! Even though it makes sense, now that I know it. Is this general knowledge, or am I in good company? :) FWIW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou Gerhard

2006\08\01@101920 by Howard Winter

Gerhard, On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 09:07:37 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote: {Quote hidden}> Alan B. Pearce wrote: > > >> One part of this is IMO that the English language doesn't provide (to my > >> knowledge) an easy way to distinguish between "you" (singular) and > >> "you" (plural). > > > > My reaction is to say "yes it does", but the singular has dropped out of > > use. > > > > The singular for you is "thou", as used in the Bible, and the plural is > > "you". > > I didn't know that. While I of course have heard and read "thou" before, I > had no idea that it is the singular of "you" -- and I had no idea that > "you" is plural! Even though it makes sense, now that I know it. > > Is this general knowledge, or am I in good company? :) I've always thought that the second-person singular in English, German, and French (thou, du, tu) were being phased out and replaced by the plural (you, sie, vous), and that English is a bit ahead in the schedule! "Thou" is decidedly archaic, and I've been told by germans that "du" rather sounds it too. The overall effect is that the second person plural in each language *can* be used to address any number of people, including one, and I suspect that before much longer all three of the singulars will disappear except in old books, plays and films! Incidentally, addressing someone as "you" without using their name can feel rather agressive in English - a bit like pointing a finger at them. Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England

2006\08\01@105847 by Howard Winter

Alan, On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 08:06:24 +0100, Alan B. Pearce wrote: > >One part of this is IMO that the English language doesn't > >provide (to my knowledge) an easy way to distinguish > >between "you" (singular) and "you" (plural). > > My reaction is to say "yes it does", but the singular has dropped out of use. > > The singular for you is "thou", as used in the Bible, and the plural is "you". Thou art correct, sir! :-) But "nobody" uses it any more, rather like saying "five and twenty" instead of "twenty five", but when I was at school some of the older teachers did say numbers like that. I don't know when "thou" died out, but I'd guess about the middle 1800s. Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England

2006\08\01@115431 by Herbert Graf

On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 15:19 +0100, Howard Winter wrote: > I've always thought that the second-person singular in English, German, and French (thou, du, tu) were being phased out and replaced by > the plural (you, sie, vous), and that English is a bit ahead in the schedule! "Thou" is decidedly archaic, and I've been told by germans > that "du" rather sounds it too. I'm certainly no expert, but in the area of Austria my parents live in I'd say things are going the other direction, sie is falling a little in popularity, while du is more familiar, when in the company of people you know. > The overall effect is that the second person plural in each language *can* be used to address any number > of people, including one, and I suspect that before much longer all three of the singulars will disappear except in old books, plays and > films! > > Incidentally, addressing someone as "you" without using their name can feel rather agressive in English - a bit like pointing a finger at > them. Interesting, something saying "you" to me doesn't seem at all aggressive, unless you including the pointing finger with the you, then yes, it would feel aggressive to me. TTYL

2006\08\01@131836 by Gerhard Fiedler

Herbert Graf wrote: >> I've always thought that the second-person singular in English, German, >> and French (thou, du, tu) were being phased out and replaced by the >> plural (you, sie, vous), and that English is a bit ahead in the >> schedule! "Thou" is decidedly archaic, and I've been told by germans >> that "du" rather sounds it too. > > I'm certainly no expert, but in the area of Austria my parents live in > I'd say things are going the other direction, sie is falling a little in > popularity, while du is more familiar, when in the company of people you > know. Howard, I don't know which Germans told you that, but they possibly were from the north. Some of them tend to think they are what matters in terms of German language and completely forget that their particular culture may not be shared by other parts of the German language area :) "Du" is definitely very common in southern Germany, Austria and Switzerland. I don't know about other regions. When I'm there, I only use "Sie" for people I don't know at all, like addressing a cashier in a market. OTOH if that cashier looks like someone less formal, I might just use "du". We (I needed to get back on topic :) from the south tend to think that people who /don't/ use it have some kind of socialization defect :) It definitely doesn't sound archaic. >> The overall effect is that the second person plural in each language >> *can* be used to address any number of people, including one, and I >> suspect that before much longer all three of the singulars will >> disappear except in old books, plays and films! If you want to apply this to German, it doesn't work. In German, you don't use the 2nd person plural to address one person. (That used to be the formal way to address higher-ups, I think, but that's definitely archaic and I've never heard it in contemporary speech or read it in contemporary writing.) Also, the 2nd person plural is just as informal as the 2nd person singular -- almost same thing, just with the slightly softer touch that the plural provides. (It's possible to address a group informally with "ihr" (2nd person plural) that has some members that you would individually address only formally). The formal way to address a group would be the 3rd person plural ("Sie"); there's no way to distinguish the formal singular from the formal plural. Gerhard

2006\08\04@042436 by Gus S Calabrese

Remember that less than 50% of eligible voters voted and that many are not eligible. Possibly 20% or less of the population ( I am guessing here ) chose the current "glorious" leader. ( PS I do not vote because the system is "mob rule" ) AGSC On 2006-Jul 31, at 09:39hrs AM, Russell McMahon wrote: Politics: Nigh on 50% of USA'ites (them / you) voted for the idiot in office at present. Almost 50% voted for the idiot not in office who wanted to be. Both are also heroes, God's gift to the world, saviours of mankind etc etc. Why would 'we' not want to stand vicariously in their shadow as a group, or feel the support of all those others as 'we' abuse them, depending on who they and we are. Gus S Calabrese Denver, CO 720 222 1309 303 908 7716 cell Please include and do not limit yourself to "spam2006". I allow everything with "spam2006" in the subject or text to pass my spam filters.

2006\08\04@042647 by Gus S Calabrese

How about thou and thous ? On 2006-Aug 01, at 01:06hrs AM, Alan B. Pearce wrote: > One part of this is IMO that the English language doesn't > provide (to my knowledge) an easy way to distinguish > between "you" (singular) and "you" (plural). My reaction is to say "yes it does", but the singular has dropped out of use. The singular for you is "thou", as used in the Bible, and the plural is "you". -

2006\08\04@060619 by Tony Smith

> Subject: Re: [OT] a definite blood.boiler Wheeeeee ! > > Remember that less than 50% of eligible voters voted and that > many are not eligible. Possibly 20% or less of the > population ( I am guessing here ) chose the > current "glorious" leader. ( PS I do not vote because the system > is "mob rule" ) > AGSC The mob voted, you didn't, so you can't really complain! :) Tony

2006\08\04@111608 by D. Jay Newman

> Remember that less than 50% of eligible voters voted and that many > are not > eligible. Possibly 20% or less of the population ( I am guessing > here ) chose the > current "glorious" leader. ( PS I do not vote because the system > is "mob rule" ) > AGSC Hmmmm. And how many people like you did it take to get our current "glorious leader" elected? Even if your bastard doesn't win, make the other bastards work for their victory! -- D. Jay Newman ! Author of: spam_OUTjayTakeThisOuTsprucegrove.com ! _Linux Robotics: Programming Smarter Robots_ http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! "Heros aren't born, they're cornered."

2006\08\04@144253 by James Newtons Massmind

> > current "glorious" leader. ( PS I do not vote because > the system > > is "mob rule" ) > > AGSC > > Hmmmm. And how many people like you did it take to get our > current "glorious leader" elected? > > Even if your bastard doesn't win, make the other bastards > work for their victory! I understand your point, but there is another side to this issue: Who gets elected has less to do with what happens than how the public reacts after they get elected. Think about this logically. What motivation does the president have to do what they say they will do after the election? Well, you could say that they must have good ratings to get re-elected for a second term, but the public memory is not 4 years long (sad but true) so the president can do as wants for at least 3 years, then kiss up to the public for a year and get re-elected. In the case of GW, it was 9/11 and the subsequent war. He would NEVER have been re-elected had that not occurred, because his approval rating was low even then. Now, after re-election, why on earth would the President give a damn what the people think? They ONLY way they can get in trouble is by being impeached, and that would require a LEGAL breach that is clear and provable. I'm not going to argue that point right now... In general, only during the last bit of the first term is there any pressure on the president from voters. On the other hand, when people get pissed at the presidents political party, and start voting against members of the house, then you MAY get some pressure on the president from the head of the party. And that may, or may not, be effective pressure. The only real pressure comes from people physically demonstrating, going on strike, changing their buying habits and in other ways messing with the /personal/ interests of the person or his family. In this case, reducing oil use. Bush owns an "oil and gas production" concern, the Lone Star Trust. http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2003/N00008072_2003.pdf I mean, come on! His approval rating is the lowest in US history! Does he give a damn? Obviously not. Bush made more money last year from investments in treasury notes and royalties in the oil industry than he was paid in salary as President of the United States. Cheney made more last year than the other two politicians combined, thanks largely to investments from the enormous $36-million payout he received several years ago as the former CEO of Halliburton. That's the same Houston energy services company now enjoying billion-dollar federal contracts in Iraq but also losing more than its share of employees deployed there during the recent surge of violence. http://www.pathtofreedom.com is the only answer now. --- James.

2006\08\04@150917 by Bob Axtell

James Newtons Massmind wrote: > > > http://www.pathtofreedom.com is the only answer now. > > --- > James. > > > Nice link, James. --Bob

2006\08\04@175728 by D. Jay Newman

> > Hmmmm. And how many people like you did it take to get our > > current "glorious leader" elected? > > > > Even if your bastard doesn't win, make the other bastards > > work for their victory! > > I understand your point, but there is another side to this issue: Who gets > elected has less to do with what happens than how the public reacts after > they get elected. True. However, if more people were an *active* part of the political process, things might change a bit. Yes, this starts with voting and reading the newspapters, but it also includes sending feedback (via letters) to legislators. > Think about this logically. What motivation does the president have to do > what they say they will do after the election? Well, you could say that they > must have good ratings to get re-elected for a second term, but the public > memory is not 4 years long (sad but true) so the president can do as wants > for at least 3 years, then kiss up to the public for a year and get Most of the public has a short memory. However, the groups with money and single-issue adjendas typically have longer memories. And which is more important under the US' system? And the incumbant has a *lot* of power to grant voters things that they want during this crucial period. > re-elected. In the case of GW, it was 9/11 and the subsequent war. He would > NEVER have been re-elected had that not occurred, because his approval > rating was low even then. Now, after re-election, why on earth would the In addition there are a very *strong* push from the right to get voters out to the polls without a corresponding push from the left. I will admit, however, that this election was the most well-attended I remember. > President give a damn what the people think? They ONLY way they can get in > trouble is by being impeached, and that would require a LEGAL breach that is > clear and provable. I'm not going to argue that point right now... Ayup. Well, it doesn't really require *provable*. It's not quite like the judicial branch, but essentially you're right. > In general, only during the last bit of the first term is there any pressure > on the president from voters. Ayup. > On the other hand, when people get pissed at the presidents political party, > and start voting against members of the house, then you MAY get some > pressure on the president from the head of the party. And that may, or may > not, be effective pressure. Maybe. It's at least one thing to try. > The only real pressure comes from people physically demonstrating, going on > strike, changing their buying habits and in other ways messing with the > /personal/ interests of the person or his family. Physical demonstrations take a *long* time to work and require a large portion of society to support them. Boycotts can be effective if you get enough people to toe the line. > In this case, reducing oil use. Bush owns an "oil and gas production" > concern, the Lone Star Trust. > http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2003/N00008072_2003.pdf I mean, come on! > His approval rating is the lowest in US history! Does he give a damn? > Obviously not. Ayup. > Bush made more money last year from investments in treasury notes and > royalties in the oil industry than he was paid in salary as President of the > United States. Heck, the president of Penn State gets paid more than the President of the US. The head football coach (Joe Patterno) probably gets more. I don't think that you run for President for the salary (though the retirement benefits are wonderful for them and expensive for us). > http://www.pathtofreedom.com is the only answer now. I like it. I don't think that it's the only answer, but it may be part of the solution. I think that we have to change our lifestyle before it is changed for us. > James. And I think this is getting too political for me. If I want a political argument I'll go to rec.arts.metalworking. :) -- D. Jay Newman ! Author of: .....jayKILLspam@spam@sprucegrove.com ! _Linux Robotics: Programming Smarter Robots_ http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! "Heros aren't born, they're cornered."

2006\08\04@234932 by Gus S Calabrese

Do you say that jokingly or do you believe the members of the mob should rule ? On 2006-Aug 04, at 04:06hrs AM, Tony Smith wrote: > Subject: Re: [OT] a definite blood.boiler Wheeeeee ! > > Remember that less than 50% of eligible voters voted and that > many are not eligible. Possibly 20% or less of the > population ( I am guessing here ) chose the > current "glorious" leader. ( PS I do not vote because the system > is "mob rule" ) > AGSC The mob voted, you didn't, so you can't really complain! :) Tony

2006\08\05@012157 by D. Jay Newman

> Do you say that jokingly or do you believe the members of the mob > should rule ? > > On 2006-Aug 04, at 04:06hrs AM, Tony Smith wrote: > The mob voted, you didn't, so you can't really complain! :) > > Tony I don't know about Tony, but as long as there are protections for the minority, can you think of a better long-term solution? Of course, I'm assuming an *educated* electorate which we all have the potential to become. -- D. Jay Newman ! Author of: jayKILLspamsprucegrove.com ! _Linux Robotics: Programming Smarter Robots_ http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! "Heros aren't born, they're cornered."

2006\08\05@041721 by Tony Smith

> > Subject: Re: [OT] a definite blood.boiler Wheeeeee ! > > > > The mob voted, you didn't, so you can't really complain! :) > > > > Tony > > Do you say that jokingly or do you believe the members of the > mob should rule ? Well, by definition, democracy is mob rule. The only way to stop mob rule is to out-vote the mob. By not voting, you're a non-participant. You can either abolish voting (a meritocracy, perhaps?), get political, stage a coup or sit about complaining. You could try preference voting, like Australia has (although we borrowed it from New Zealand). Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting. This gives you the chance to rank the candidates, rather than just picking one. The pleasure of putting people you don't like last on the bill... This is fun, getting the majority of votes doesn't mean you win, like in the USA, for example. Say you have 4 candidates, one gets 40%, the others 20% each. Landslide win! Well, not quite. You need 51% of the total vote, 40% doesn't cut it. These elections are great when you have a candidate who polarises the electorate, you either love 'em or hate 'em. Australia had a fabulous example recently, one Pauline Hanson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Hanson) from Oxley, hencefore known as the Oxley Moron, and her 'One Nation' party. (Disclaimer - I encountered these people on a profesional basis, and to say I disliked them is an understatement). Anyhoo, Pauline went after the redneck vote, (wogs go home, flat tax, jail poofs etc). So while a large chuck (up to 40%) of the electorate placed her first on the ballot, everyone else placed her last. She would have won in the USA, despite over 60% of the voters absolutely loathing her. She was last seen heading off into the political distance complaining 'but I got the most votes, I don't understand it'. Australia has also compulsory voting, you get fined if you don't show up. This has the added bonus where you can laugh at people who put 'I fish/shoot/play banjo and I vote' stickers on their vehicles. In the States, this is to encourage lazy fishing/shooting/banjoing people to get off their arses & vote. In Australia, it makes no difference, you need to convince the non-fish/shoot/banjo people to vote for you, and that doesn't happen much. Tony

2006\08\05@042138 by Tony Smith

> > Do you say that jokingly or do you believe the members of the mob > > should rule ? > > > > On 2006-Aug 04, at 04:06hrs AM, Tony Smith wrote: > > > The mob voted, you didn't, so you can't really complain! :) > > > > Tony > > I don't know about Tony, but as long as there are protections > for the minority, can you think of a better long-term solution? > > Of course, I'm assuming an *educated* electorate which we all > have the potential to become. > -- > D. Jay Newman ! Author of: So, as per the Underpants Gnomes: 1. Don't vote 2. Complain about outcome 3. Profit? Substitute 'Complain about outcome' with 'Get political', there's your protection for the minority. Unless you're governed by the 'One Nation' (aka 'One Notion') party I mentioned in a previous post. Tony

2006\08\05@054211 by Jinx

> You could try preference voting, like Australia has (although > we borrowed it from New Zealand) I think (most) people in NZ might agree that changing from FPP (first past the post - party with the most votes wins, no matter how small the proportion of the total vote might be) to MMP (mixed member proportional representation) has probably made little difference in recent times. The reason being that of the parties currently in coalition one, Labour, is dominant and tends to push its policies through anyway. Although it does make concessions to to its minority partner' policies to get their support. But effectively coalition partners are of like mind (or else they wouldn't be partners), and there will be deals before the election to weed out "unsuitable" candidates, so the nett result is likely similar to what would have happened under FPP if Labour had won. Minor parties may win the occassional battle for "niche policy" but the majority partner has the Treasury. And that's what they really want

2006\08\05@060448 by Gerhard Fiedler

Gus S Calabrese wrote: > ( PS I do not vote because the system is "mob rule" ) Is there any other system? It's always "the mob" that rules; either it's yours, or it's theirs... You just don't want it to be theirs. Gerhard

2006\08\05@064125 by Tony Smith

{Quote hidden}> > > You could try preference voting, like Australia has (although we > > borrowed it from New Zealand) > > I think (most) people in NZ might agree that changing from > FPP (first past the post - party with the most votes wins, no > matter how small the proportion of the total vote might be) > to MMP (mixed member proportional representation) has > probably made little difference in recent times. The reason > being that of the parties currently in coalition one, Labour, > is dominant and tends to push its policies through anyway. > Although it does make concessions to to its minority partner' > policies to get their support. But effectively coalition > partners are of like mind (or else they wouldn't be > partners), and there will be deals before the election to > weed out "unsuitable" candidates, so the nett result is > likely similar to what would have happened under FPP if > Labour had won. Minor parties may win the occassional battle > for "niche policy" but the majority partner has the Treasury. > And that's what they really want The effects of preference voting are a bit subtle, and will produce a result that the majority are happy with. The 'One Notion' ratbag party was popular enough to win a FPP (first past the post) election, but it was clear the majority did not want them. Most democratic nations tend to wind up a the two party model, a liberal party vs a conservative party. (In Australia at the moment, it hard to tell them apart). It is possible for a minor party to gain power, people will place their primary vote with one of the major parties, but everyone puts the minor party second. E.g.: 1. Major party 1 2. The Underdog party 3. Banjo reform party 4. Raving ratbag party 5. Major party 2 If neither major party gets a clear majority (say 30% each, the Underdogs get 20%, the others 10%), the count goes to preferences. Since everyone (perhaps grudgingly) put the Underdogs second, they win despite getting only 20% of the primary vote. They have no chance in a FPP vote. The major parties also offer deals to the smaller parties in exchange for their preferences. While they may never get power, they still have influence. The major parties can't discount them totally, even if it seems that way at times. I wrote a vote counting (non-political) system a while back. It's fun to watch the process, especially fun to watch someone lose to the underdogs. They always demand a recount & inspection of the papers. But but but I got 42%! Tony

2006\08\05@064139 by Tony Smith

> Subject: Re: [OT] a definite blood.boiler Wheeeeee ! > > Gus S Calabrese wrote: > > > ( PS I do not vote because the system is "mob rule" ) > > Is there any other system? It's always "the mob" that rules; > either it's yours, or it's theirs... You just don't want it > to be theirs. > > Gerhard There's always a dictatorship, then it's ME who rules. Ok, I need a mob to back me up and not stab me in the back while I'm sleeping, but I rule, Ok? Me Me ME! Tony

2006\08\05@072453 by Jinx

> The effects of preference voting are a bit subtle, and will > produce a result that the majority are happy with MMP, as in NZ, isn't preferential. An option offered when the country changed was STV, single transferrable vote, which some commentators argue would have been a far better choice than MMP http://www.elections.org.nz/study/history/history-mmp.html "The origins of electoral reform lay in the gradual breakdown of public trust and confidence in politicians, Parliament, and the simple certainties of the old two-party system" Many would agree that public distatste for politicians has scarcely changed. They still get up to the same old shenanigans and BS. I think no matter what "democratic" system you use, you'll still end up with the basically same kind of personalities in Parliament and they will endeavour to stay there by traditional means

2006\08\05@073834 by Jinx

> The 'One Notion' ratbag party was popular enough to win a FPP > (first past the post) election, but it was clear the majority did not > want them Vote spread and dilution is a definite disadvantage of FPP. A party that gets in under FPP by getting perhaps only 35% of the vote is not supported by 65% of voters. At least under a proportional or preferential system minorities have representation. However, unless they chummy up to a major party they may not have any power. On the other hand, as as happened in NZ at each election after the change, one minor party has held the balance. Two major parties have their natural allies to coalesce with but need this uncommited minor "kingmaker" party to get a majority and form the government. And it's been the same party and same drawn-out farce every time Winston, I'm looking in your direction http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10350403

2006\08\05@074146 by Howard Winter

Jinx, On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 23:24:35 +1200, Jinx wrote: >... > Many would agree that public distatste for politicians has scarcely > changed. They still get up to the same old shenanigans and BS. I > think no matter what "democratic" system you use, you'll still end > up with the basically same kind of personalities in Parliament and > they will endeavour to stay there by traditional means Indeed - whoever you vote for, politicians get in! While this is deplorable, it could have been worse: lawyers or estate agents, for example. Hang on though, Tony Blair used to be a Barrister - QED! My opinion has always been that anyone who wants to run the country should be banned from doing so... I think we suffer from too much government - I wish they'd take a couple of years off and let the rest of us get things settled down. Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England

2006\08\05@082817 by Tony Smith

> > > The effects of preference voting are a bit subtle, and will > produce a > > result that the majority are happy with > > MMP, as in NZ, isn't preferential. An option offered when the > country changed was STV, single transferrable vote, which > some commentators argue would have been a far better choice than MMP > > http://www.elections.org.nz/study/history/history-mmp.html That's rather fascinating. I always thought NZ was the first to have preferential voting. Turns out you did, but didn't quite use it, even though you were supposed to. More interesting is each party was happy with FPP. Beats dealing with the minorities, I guess. MMP doesn't really guarantee a small party a seat though. I guess if you can't get 1/120th of the vote, you might as well go home. The same party just might scrape in under STV (few primary votes, strong secondary votes). 'NZ First' is exactly the same as Australia's 'One Nation' party (wogs go home, more law and order, less tax etc). 'One Nation' is pretty much dead in Oz, maybe it's because they didn't pinch 'Bob the Builder's' catch phrase. Classic. Tony

2006\08\05@084905 by Jinx

> MMP doesn't really guarantee a small party a seat though. I guess > if you can't get 1/120th of the vote, you might as well go home Quite true. A few have not reached the 5% or got an electorate member instead and lost their deposit > 'NZ First' is exactly the same as Australia's 'One Nation' party NZ First is one party seriously on the skids. The leader, Winston "Dapper" Peters lost his electorate seat after many many years as an MP and then, like a little litigious kid, sued the winner. And lost again. Despite that, he is NZ's Foreign Minister because, holding the balance of power at the last election, he did a deal with the Labour Party. And yet he was effectively thrown out of office by his electorate. But his party got over the 5%, he was top of the list => he gets a seat in Parliament. So, try as you may, you just can't rid of some buggers

2006\08\05@085315 by Gus S Calabrese

On 2006-Aug 05, at 04:04hrs AM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote: Gus S Calabrese wrote: > ( PS I do not vote because the system is "mob rule" ) Is there any other system? It's always "the mob" that rules; either it's yours, or it's theirs... You just don't want it to be theirs. Gerhard There are other systems and they are better than democracy. Just verrry hard to implement. I do not want their mob to rule nor do I want mine to rule. I am not wise enough to make choices for others. AGSC

2006\08\05@085658 by Gus S Calabrese

I am going to push until the day I die for "the one person, one vote system". Each person gets one vote about how they are going to conduct their life. How they are going to manage their financial affairs. No one else gets a vote. Sort of a one nation per person approach. AGSC On 2006-Aug 05, at 02:21hrs AM, Tony Smith wrote: {Quote hidden}>> Do you say that jokingly or do you believe the members of the mob >> should rule ? >> >> On 2006-Aug 04, at 04:06hrs AM, Tony Smith wrote: > >> The mob voted, you didn't, so you can't really complain! :) >> >> Tony > > I don't know about Tony, but as long as there are protections > for the minority, can you think of a better long-term solution? > > Of course, I'm assuming an *educated* electorate which we all > have the potential to become. > -- > D. Jay Newman ! Author of: So, as per the Underpants Gnomes: 1. Don't vote 2. Complain about outcome 3. Profit? Substitute 'Complain about outcome' with 'Get political', there's your protection for the minority. Unless you're governed by the 'One Nation' (aka 'One Notion') party I mentioned in a previous post. Tony

2006\08\05@090451 by Gus S Calabrese

On 2006-Aug 05, at 02:16hrs AM, Tony Smith wrote: >> Subject: Re: [OT] a definite blood.boiler Wheeeeee ! >> >> The mob voted, you didn't, so you can't really complain! :) >> >> Tony > > Do you say that jokingly or do you believe the members of the > mob should rule ? Well, by definition, democracy is mob rule. The only way to stop mob rule is to out-vote the mob. ^1^ By not voting, you're a non-participant. ^2^ You can either abolish voting (a meritocracy, perhaps?), get political, stage a coup or sit about complaining ^3^. You could try preference voting, like Australia has (although we borrowed it from New Zealand). Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting. This gives you the chance to rank the candidates, rather than just picking one. The pleasure of putting people you don't like last on the bill... This is fun, getting the majority of votes doesn't mean you win, like in the USA, for example. Say you have 4 candidates, one gets 40%, the others 20% each. Landslide win! Well, not quite. You need 51% of the total vote, 40% doesn't cut it. These elections are great when you have a candidate who polarises the electorate, you either love 'em or hate 'em. Australia had a fabulous example recently, one Pauline Hanson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Hanson) from Oxley, hencefore known as the Oxley Moron, and her 'One Nation' party. (Disclaimer - I encountered these people on a profesional basis, and to say I disliked them is an understatement). Anyhoo, Pauline went after the redneck vote, (wogs go home, flat tax, jail poofs etc). So while a large chuck (up to 40%) of the electorate placed her first on the ballot, everyone else placed her last. She would have won in the USA, despite over 60% of the voters absolutely loathing her. She was last seen heading off into the political distance complaining 'but I got the most votes, I don't understand it'. Australia has also compulsory voting, you get fined if you don't show up. ^4^ This has the added bonus where you can laugh at people who put 'I fish/shoot/play banjo and I vote' stickers on their vehicles. In the States, this is to encourage lazy fishing/shooting/banjoing people to get off their arses & vote. In Australia, it makes no difference, you need to convince the non-fish/shoot/banjo people to vote for you, and that doesn't happen much. Tony ^1^ Oppose mob rule is another way. Stop them every way you can from making decisions for you or others. ^2^ Voting does not make you a participant. Simple math demonstrates that your vote is worth less than a plugged EURO. ^3^ Abolish voting for most things ( 98%) Give representatives decision making power over the remaining 2%. ^4^ So one might show up, punch a chad and wobble on home, proud to have dodged a fine. AGSC

2006\08\05@090802 by Gus S Calabrese

On 2006-Aug 04, at 23:08hrs PM, D. Jay Newman wrote: > Do you say that jokingly or do you believe the members of the mob > should rule ? > > On 2006-Aug 04, at 04:06hrs AM, Tony Smith wrote: > The mob voted, you didn't, so you can't really complain! :) > > Tony I don't know about Tony, but as long as there are protections for the minority, can you think of a better long-term solution? ^Yes I can think of better solutions. AGSC Rather than get into those, tell me where protection for minorities exist in the US for example ? AGSC^ Of course, I'm assuming an *educated* electorate which we all have the potential to become. -- D. Jay Newman ! Author of: .....jayKILLspam.....sprucegrove.com ! _Linux Robotics: Programming Smarter Robots_ http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! "Heros aren't born, they're cornered." -

2006\08\05@092006 by Bob Axtell

Gus S Calabrese wrote: > On 2006-Aug 05, at 04:04hrs AM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote: > > Gus S Calabrese wrote: > > >> ( PS I do not vote because the system is "mob rule" ) >> > > Is there any other system? It's always "the mob" that rules; either it's > yours, or it's theirs... You just don't want it to be theirs. > Rome was destroyed by mob rule. The mob simply voted themselves funds from the public chest until theren't enough gold left to pay the troops to protect the empire. This is what is happening in the USA now. The US treasury has been looted so badly that as soon as potential investors realize that "the emperor has no clothes" it will be all over. The public debt is so great here that no amount of taxation can restore a tolerable balance, and anyone with a clear head knows it will never be paid back with specie (real money, i.e. gold), only more fake (paper money). The present US system is a "Ponsi" scheme; new funds are used to assuage new investers, so that nobody notices that there is no depth. When the real war breaks out against an oil-funded nuclear Iran, Pakistan, and No Korea, there will be no funds available to fight it. Luckily, my health isn't very good, so I will be gone before I see this happen. I give us about 5-7 years here. --Bob

2006\08\05@100858 by Tony Smith

{Quote hidden}> On 2006-Aug 05, at 02:16hrs AM, Tony Smith wrote: > > >> Subject: Re: [OT] a definite blood.boiler Wheeeeee ! > >> > >> The mob voted, you didn't, so you can't really complain! :) > >> > >> Tony > > > > Do you say that jokingly or do you believe the members of the mob > > should rule ? > > > Well, by definition, democracy is mob rule. > > The only way to stop mob rule is to out-vote the mob. ^1^ By > not voting, you're a non-participant. ^2^ You can either > abolish voting (a meritocracy, perhaps?), get political, > stage a coup or sit about complaining ^3^. > > Australia has also compulsory voting, you get fined if you > don't show up. ^4^ > > This has the added bonus where you can laugh at people who > put 'I fish/shoot/play banjo and I vote' stickers on their > > Tony > > ^1^ Oppose mob rule is another way. Stop them every way you > can from making decisions for you or others. > ^2^ Voting does not make you a participant. Simple math > demonstrates that your vote is worth less than a plugged EURO. > ^3^ Abolish voting for most things ( 98%) Give representatives > decision making > power over the remaining 2%. > ^4^ So one might show up, punch a chad and wobble on home, > proud to have dodged a fine. > AGSC Say, you're not writing this from a little shack in Montana, are you? 1. How do you (or have you) oppose mob rule? By not voting and then complaining? 2. Voting is participation. Lobbying is a step up from that, getting elected even better. 3. You don't vote for many things. You vote for someone with similar views to yours, who then votes (legislates) on your behalf. 4. You don't have to worry about that. What exactly are the mob doing that you don't like? No-one likes mob rule, but unless you want be be entirely self-sufficient, you're stuck with it. Nobody is forcing you to participate in society under mob rule. And no cheating on the self-sufficiency, no trips into town to stock up on stuff you can't make yourself, that's relying on the mob. (Bonus test: how do you make a pencil?) I guess that's what 'no man is an island' means. Tony

2006\08\05@130925 by Gus S Calabrese

On 2006-Aug 05, at 08:08hrs AM, Tony Smith wrote: {Quote hidden}> On 2006-Aug 05, at 02:16hrs AM, Tony Smith wrote: > >>> Subject: Re: [OT] a definite blood.boiler Wheeeeee ! >>> >>> The mob voted, you didn't, so you can't really complain! :) >>> >>> Tony >> >> Do you say that jokingly or do you believe the members of the mob >> should rule ? > > > Well, by definition, democracy is mob rule. > > The only way to stop mob rule is to out-vote the mob. ^1^ By > not voting, you're a non-participant. ^2^ You can either > abolish voting (a meritocracy, perhaps?), get political, > stage a coup or sit about complaining ^3^. > > Australia has also compulsory voting, you get fined if you > don't show up. ^4^ > > This has the added bonus where you can laugh at people who > put 'I fish/shoot/play banjo and I vote' stickers on their > > Tony > > ^1^ Oppose mob rule is another way. Stop them every way you > can from making decisions for you or others. > ^2^ Voting does not make you a participant. Simple math > demonstrates that your vote is worth less than a plugged EURO. > ^3^ Abolish voting for most things ( 98%) Give representatives > decision making > power over the remaining 2%. > ^4^ So one might show up, punch a chad and wobble on home, > proud to have dodged a fine. > AGSC Say, you're not writing this from a little shack in Montana, are you? ( Your question appears to be kind of an ad hominem ) 1. How do you (or have you) oppose mob rule? By not voting and then complaining? Hardly 2. Voting is participation. Lobbying is a step up from that, getting elected even better. ---^ Well yes you are right.... participating in mob rule ...^ ^ Lobbying, voting and holding office is either participating in group rule or a criminal oligarchy and what I mean by that sometimes the politicians ( a small group ) take it upon themselves to make secret deals and rule illegitimately. ^ 3. You don't vote for many things. You vote for someone with similar views to yours, who then votes (legislates) on your behalf. 4. You don't have to worry about that. What exactly are the mob doing that you don't like? No-one likes mob rule, but unless you want be be entirely self-sufficient, you're stuck with it. Nobody is forcing you to participate in society under mob rule. And no cheating on the self-sufficiency, no trips into town to stock up on stuff you can't make yourself, that's relying on the mob. (Bonus test: how do you make a pencil?) I guess that's what 'no man is an island' means. Tony ^ Wow Tony I was commenting on your comments until I got to " no one is forcing you to participate...." Where you live ... are taxes optional? Is attending elementary school optional? Where you live .... are imminent domain laws not in effect..... I could go on for a long time. Plus you do not read other peoples missives very carefully. I said nothing about self-sufficiency, in fact I am a 100% believer in cooperation among freely consenting buyers and sellers. I think you have jumped to massive conclusions about me that are not suggested by what I have said. I am terminating my participation in this discussion because it appears to be headed toward useless name-calling. AGSC ^

2006\08\05@131049 by Gus S Calabrese

Bob I hope you are around when it happens. We can play music on the deck as the US goes down. AGSC On 2006-Aug 05, at 07:20hrs AM, Bob Axtell wrote: Gus S Calabrese wrote: {Quote hidden}> On 2006-Aug 05, at 04:04hrs AM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote: > > Gus S Calabrese wrote: > > >> ( PS I do not vote because the system is "mob rule" ) >> > > Is there any other system? It's always "the mob" that rules; either > it's > yours, or it's theirs... You just don't want it to be theirs. > Rome was destroyed by mob rule. The mob simply voted themselves funds from the public chest until theren't enough gold left to pay the troops to protect the empire. This is what is happening in the USA now. The US treasury has been looted so badly that as soon as potential investors realize that "the emperor has no clothes" it will be all over. The public debt is so great here that no amount of taxation can restore a tolerable balance, and anyone with a clear head knows it will never be paid back with specie (real money, i.e. gold), only more fake (paper money). The present US system is a "Ponsi" scheme; new funds are used to assuage new investers, so that nobody notices that there is no depth. When the real war breaks out against an oil-funded nuclear Iran, Pakistan, and No Korea, there will be no funds available to fight it. Luckily, my health isn't very good, so I will be gone before I see this happen. I give us about 5-7 years here. --Bob

2006\08\05@131210 by Gerhard Fiedler

Gus S Calabrese wrote: > > Is there any other system? It's always "the mob" that rules; either it's > > yours, or it's theirs... You just don't want it to be theirs. > There are other systems and they are better than democracy. Like which ones? > Just verrry hard to implement. Could that be because they don't work? > I do not want their mob to rule nor do I want mine to rule. I am not wise > enough to make choices for others. It's not about choices, it's about (violent) power. /Somebody/ will use it. Either you have enough on your own (the red button in your living room?) or you have to get together with a few people to accumulate some power, so that you can keep the others from using it against you. Those few people is then a "mob" already... BTW, I don't think the weapon carrying laws have a big influence on that. Hand gun violence is so last century :) This is not about High Noon type encounters. Violence has many forms, and carrying a gun doesn't help much against most. Don't forget that you're talking from a place that's nicely secured all around by "the mob". Just look around a bit, and you see plenty examples how a mob without democracy can look like. (From another message of yours) > ^3^ Abolish voting for most things ( 98%) Give representatives decision > making power over the remaining 2%. Representatives become representatives how? Through voting? Chosen by the "wise five"? :) Gerhard

2006\08\05@133722 by Gus S Calabrese

On 2006-Aug 05, at 11:11hrs AM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote: Gus S Calabrese wrote: >> Is there any other system? It's always "the mob" that rules; >> either it's >> yours, or it's theirs... You just don't want it to be theirs. > There are other systems and they are better than democracy. Like which ones? > Just verrry hard to implement. Could that be because they don't work? Are you saying democracy works ? I say it is terribly flawed, full of lies and does not work. Of course it depends on your definition of democracy. And which governments you include as democracies. Was Germany 1940 a democracy in your opinion ? > I do not want their mob to rule nor do I want mine to rule. I am > not wise > enough to make choices for others. It's not about choices, it's about (violent) power. /Somebody/ will use it. Either you have enough on your own (the red button in your living room?) or you have to get together with a few people to accumulate some power, so that you can keep the others from using it against you. Those few people is then a "mob" already... <---- this paragraph is the belief system you base your life on ? BTW, I don't think the weapon carrying laws have a big influence on that. Hand gun violence is so last century :) This is not about High Noon type encounters. Violence has many forms, and carrying a gun doesn't help much against most. <--- Are you saying here that you have surrendered and are awaiting orders from your betters ? Don't forget that you're talking from a place that's nicely secured all around by "the mob". Just look around a bit, and you see plenty examples how a mob without democracy can look like. Hmmm I guess you refer to the middle east. I appears to me that the USA "surrounds" everyone else with their killer-good do-bees. ( Ever watch romper room ? ) (From another message of yours) > ^3^ Abolish voting for most things ( 98%) Give representatives > decision > making power over the remaining 2%. Representatives become representatives how? Through voting? Chosen by the "wise five"? :) Well yes you are right.... I will eliminate the 2% Gerhard

2006\08\05@165012 by D. Jay Newman

> Rome was destroyed by mob rule. The mob simply voted themselves funds > from the public chest > until theren't enough gold left to pay the troops to protect the empire. > This is what is happening in > the USA now. Sort of. The problem is that money is like stock: it only has value because people believe it does. When people lose faith in their government they tend to lose faith in their money. > The US treasury has been looted so badly that as soon as potential > investors realize that "the > emperor has no clothes" it will be all over. The public debt is so great > here that no amount of taxation > can restore a tolerable balance, and anyone with a clear head knows it > will never be paid back with > specie (real money, i.e. gold), only more fake (paper money). I also believe that the US has amassed too much debt. However, it is possible to change this. Though I do believe that our standard of living will drop. And why should currency be backed with gold? Can you eat gold? > The present US system is a "Ponsi" scheme; new funds are used to assuage > new investers, so that > nobody notices that there is no depth. When the real war breaks out > against an oil-funded nuclear > Iran, Pakistan, and No Korea, there will be no funds available to > fight it. All currency schemes are Ponsi schemes. > Luckily, my health isn't very good, so I will be gone before I see this > happen. I give us about 5-7 years > here. I'm sorry; I hope that your health improves. -- D. Jay Newman ! Author of: EraseMEjayspam_OUTTakeThisOuTsprucegrove.com ! _Linux Robotics: Programming Smarter Robots_ http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! "Heros aren't born, they're cornered."

2006\08\05@165409 by D. Jay Newman

> > The only way to stop mob rule is to out-vote the mob. By > > not voting, you're a non-participant. You can either > > abolish voting (a meritocracy, perhaps?), get political, > > stage a coup or sit about complaining. A meritocracy would be a wonderful idea, but who gets to decide on the merit? > > Australia has also compulsory voting, you get fined if you > > don't show up. Good for them! -- D. Jay Newman ! Author of: jayspam_OUTsprucegrove.com ! _Linux Robotics: Programming Smarter Robots_ http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! "Heros aren't born, they're cornered."

2006\08\05@170202 by D. Jay Newman

> I don't know about Tony, but as long as there are protections for > the minority, can you think of a better long-term solution? > ^Yes I can think of better solutions. AGSC Rather than get into those, > tell me where protection for minorities exist in the US for example ? > AGSC^ There are many legal protections embedded both in the US Constitution and also in law. The system isn't perfect, but it's not as bad as it seems. -- D. Jay Newman ! Author of: @spam@jayKILLspamsprucegrove.com ! _Linux Robotics: Programming Smarter Robots_ http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! "Heros aren't born, they're cornered."

2006\08\05@171317 by D. Jay Newman

> Substitute 'Complain about outcome' with 'Get political', there's your > protection for the minority. Unless you're governed by the 'One Nation' > (aka 'One Notion') party I mentioned in a previous post. I don't believe that political parties should have *any* legal standing in the US. Right now it is extremely difficult for any third party to gain power because of the entrenched power of the two main parties. -- D. Jay Newman ! Author of: KILLspamjayKILLspamsprucegrove.com ! _Linux Robotics: Programming Smarter Robots_ http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! "Heros aren't born, they're cornered."

2006\08\05@171758 by Bob Axtell

D. Jay Newman wrote: >> Rome was destroyed by mob rule. The mob simply voted themselves funds >> from the public chest >> until theren't enough gold left to pay the troops to protect the empire. >> This is what is happening in >> the USA now. >> > > Sort of. The problem is that money is like stock: it only has value > because people believe it does. > er, actually, no. Roman coins had intrinsic value of gold or silver. The VALUE can't be changed with gold or silver. > When people lose faith in their government they tend to lose faith in > their money. > agreed. {Quote hidden}> >> The US treasury has been looted so badly that as soon as potential >> investors realize that "the >> emperor has no clothes" it will be all over. The public debt is so great >> here that no amount of taxation >> can restore a tolerable balance, and anyone with a clear head knows it >> will never be paid back with >> specie (real money, i.e. gold), only more fake (paper money). >> > > I also believe that the US has amassed too much debt. However, it is > possible to change this. Though I do believe that our standard of living > will drop. > > And why should currency be backed with gold? Can you eat gold? > Sure you can. Take a look at what happened to Germany after WW I. A wheelbarrow of currency could not purchase a loaf of bread. Adolph Hitler became a hero when he returned the German Mark to the gold standard. When the German Mark became redeemable in gold, its value returned. 'course, he got the gold by force from rich Jewish families, but that's another story. {Quote hidden}> >> The present US system is a "Ponsi" scheme; new funds are used to assuage >> new investers, so that >> nobody notices that there is no depth. When the real war breaks out >> against an oil-funded nuclear >> Iran, Pakistan, and No Korea, there will be no funds available to >> fight it. >> > > All currency schemes are Ponsi schemes. > If they are not backed by specie, I agree. Specie-backed currencies rarely lose value. Look at the Swiss. > >> Luckily, my health isn't very good, so I will be gone before I see this >> happen. I give us about 5-7 years >> here. >> > > I'm sorry; I hope that your health improves. > Me, too. Bad genes.

2006\08\05@173743 by Bob Axtell

D. Jay Newman wrote: >> I don't know about Tony, but as long as there are protections for >> the minority, can you think of a better long-term solution? >> > > >> ^Yes I can think of better solutions. AGSC Rather than get into those, >> tell me where protection for minorities exist in the US for example ? >> AGSC^ >> > > There are many legal protections embedded both in the US Constitution > and also in law. > These protections are VERY selectively enforced. For example, the US constitution says that "Legal tender consists of gold and silver coin." But all such backing of US currency stopped years ago. When I was a teenager, I could redeem a dollar for a genuine SILVER specie dollar. Go to ANY bank and ask to redeem your dollar in gold or silver these days, and you will be arrested on your way out. If the ACLU removes "In God We Trust" off the dollar, we will lose the only protection we have left.. Who changed the Consitution's meaning since 1963? > The system isn't perfect, but it's not as bad as it seems. > I am very disappointed with the selective way the Constitution is enforced. Younger folks don't know the way it was, once, but there was a time when no law enforcement officer could break into the sanctity of a person's home without a SERIOUS court order. These days, they just fill out a 3"x5" card and start pounding away on the wrong house. The Supreme court ruled recently that anybody's house could be declared forfeit and torn down just because when the newer house is built, the community can have greater tax revenue. Yet, nobody else seems to care... so why should I? --Bob

2006\08\05@174641 by D. Jay Newman

> D. Jay Newman wrote: > >> Rome was destroyed by mob rule. The mob simply voted themselves funds > >> from the public chest > >> until theren't enough gold left to pay the troops to protect the empire. > >> This is what is happening in > >> the USA now. > >> > > > > Sort of. The problem is that money is like stock: it only has value > > because people believe it does. > > > er, actually, no. Roman coins had intrinsic value of gold or silver. The > VALUE can't be changed > with gold or silver. That's also a myth. Usually the state sets the value of gold and silver. And gold and siver have very little real value in and of themselves. {Quote hidden}> > > > And why should currency be backed with gold? Can you eat gold? > Sure you can. Take a look at what happened to Germany after WW I. A > wheelbarrow of currency > could not purchase a loaf of bread. Adolph Hitler became a hero when he > returned the German > Mark to the gold standard. When the German Mark became redeemable in > gold, its value returned. > 'course, he got the gold by force from rich Jewish families, but that's > another story. That is because the people *believed* in the value of gold, not because gold has any real value. {Quote hidden}> >> The present US system is a "Ponsi" scheme; new funds are used to assuage > >> new investers, so that > >> nobody notices that there is no depth. When the real war breaks out > >> against an oil-funded nuclear > >> Iran, Pakistan, and No Korea, there will be no funds available to > >> fight it. > > > > All currency schemes are Ponsi schemes. > > > If they are not backed by specie, I agree. Specie-backed currencies > rarely lose value. Look at the Swiss. Again, this is a belief thing, not anything real. The only advantage of backing currency with something real is that it encourages the government to not overspend. -- D. Jay Newman ! Author of: RemoveMEjayTakeThisOuTsprucegrove.com ! _Linux Robotics: Programming Smarter Robots_ http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! "Heros aren't born, they're cornered."

2006\08\05@180809 by D. Jay Newman

> D. Jay Newman wrote: > > There are many legal protections embedded both in the US Constitution > > and also in law. > > > These protections are VERY selectively enforced. For example, the US Agreed. I remember hearing somebody say that the Bill of Rights was not put in to protect the powerless, but rather to protect the rich if *they* ever became powerless. > constitution says that > "Legal tender consists of gold and silver coin." But all such backing > of US currency stopped I would have to check that out. I belive that there was an amendment that changed this. > years ago. When I was a teenager, I could redeem a dollar for a genuine > SILVER specie dollar. Yes. Of course, that was quite a while ago. :) > > The system isn't perfect, but it's not as bad as it seems. > > I am very disappointed with the selective way the Constitution is > enforced. Younger folks don't know > the way it was, once, but there was a time when no law enforcement > officer could break into the sanctity > of a person's home without a SERIOUS court order. These days, they just > fill out a 3"x5" card and start > pounding away on the wrong house. The Supreme court ruled recently that I agree. I deplore not only the loss of liberty, but also the general population that allows this to happen. > anybody's house could be > declared forfeit and torn down just because when the newer house is > built, the community can have greater > tax revenue. Yet, nobody else seems to care... so why should I? It's a bit more complicated that that, but I also agree that this ruling expanded the rights of local government way too much. -- D. Jay Newman ! Author of: spamBeGonejayspamBeGonesprucegrove.com ! _Linux Robotics: Programming Smarter Robots_ http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! "Heros aren't born, they're cornered."

2006\08\05@193626 by Bob Axtell

Incredible. D. Jay Newman wrote: {Quote hidden}>> D. Jay Newman wrote: >> >>>> Rome was destroyed by mob rule. The mob simply voted themselves funds >>>> from the public chest >>>> until theren't enough gold left to pay the troops to protect the empire. >>>> This is what is happening in >>>> the USA now. >>>> >>>> >>> Sort of. The problem is that money is like stock: it only has value >>> because people believe it does. >>> >>> >> er, actually, no. Roman coins had intrinsic value of gold or silver. The >> VALUE can't be changed >> with gold or silver. >> > > That's also a myth. Usually the state sets the value of gold and silver. > > And gold and siver have very little real value in and of themselves. > > >>> And why should currency be backed with gold? Can you eat gold? >>> > > >> Sure you can. Take a look at what happened to Germany after WW I. A >> wheelbarrow of currency >> could not purchase a loaf of bread. Adolph Hitler became a hero when he >> returned the German >> Mark to the gold standard. When the German Mark became redeemable in >> gold, its value returned. >> 'course, he got the gold by force from rich Jewish families, but that's >> another story. >> > > That is because the people *believed* in the value of gold, not because > gold has any real value. > > >>>> The present US system is a "Ponsi" scheme; new funds are used to assuage >>>> new investers, so that >>>> nobody notices that there is no depth. When the real war breaks out >>>> against an oil-funded nuclear >>>> Iran, Pakistan, and No Korea, there will be no funds available to >>>> fight it. >>>> >>> All currency schemes are Ponsi schemes. >>> >>> >> If they are not backed by specie, I agree. Specie-backed currencies >> rarely lose value. Look at the Swiss. >> > > Again, this is a belief thing, not anything real. The only advantage of > backing currency with something real is that it encourages the government > to not overspend. >

2006\08\05@232952 by Gerhard Fiedler

Gus S Calabrese wrote: > Are you saying democracy works ? I say it is terribly flawed, full of > lies and does not work. I agree. I think it's a learning process (to learn to think and feel also as a group, not only as individuals), and it may take a while. And when (or if) we have learned that, as a species, there will be other, probably better, options. But until then, you have so far failed to present any other option besides enjoying the benefits of a rather stable democracy while not participating in creating them. IMO that's one of the behaviors why it doesn't work. As I said, it'll take some time... > Of course it depends on your definition of democracy. And which > governments you include as democracies. Was Germany 1940 a democracy in > your opinion ? 1940 probably not anymore. 1932 probably still. But that's not the question. The question is not whether it can fail, the question is whether it can work if you do it right -- and how to do it right. Just tell me you have never blown a transistor. Yet you still continue to use transistors. You didn't say "oh well, that thing just blows" and never used it again -- you learned how to use it properly. And you started to realize that if used properly, it might just do something useful. {Quote hidden}>>> I do not want their mob to rule nor do I want mine to rule. I am not >>> wise enough to make choices for others. >> >> It's not about choices, it's about (violent) power. /Somebody/ will use >> it. Either you have enough on your own (the red button in your living >> room?) or you have to get together with a few people to accumulate some >> power, so that you can keep the others from using it against you. Those >> few people is then a "mob" already... > <---- this paragraph is the belief system you base your life on ? Nope. It's observation, not a belief system. Have you experience of living in a country with a weak government, much weaker than the US government? Whether I believe that it is too strong or not is not the point. But the current experience shows what correlates with too weak a government. Look around for countries with weak governments, and tell me whether you find a place that you would like (in terms of government and public administration). >> BTW, I don't think the weapon carrying laws have a big influence on >> that. Hand gun violence is so last century :) This is not about High >> Noon type encounters. Violence has many forms, and carrying a gun >> doesn't help much against most. > <--- Are you saying here that you have surrendered and are awaiting > orders from your betters ? Did I say that? Read again... :) >> Don't forget that you're talking from a place that's nicely secured all >> around by "the mob". Just look around a bit, and you see plenty >> examples how a mob without democracy can look like. > > Hmmm I guess you refer to the middle east. Wrong guess. Plenty of places outside of the Middle East with weak governments. I happen to live in one. > I appears to me that the USA "surrounds" everyone else with their > killer-good do-bees. I didn't understand this phrase. > ( Ever watch romper room ? ) And neither this one. >> (From another message of yours) >>> ^3^ Abolish voting for most things ( 98%) Give representatives >>> decision making power over the remaining 2%. >> >> Representatives become representatives how? Through voting? Chosen by >> the "wise five"? :) > > Well yes you are right.... I will eliminate the 2% Everybody doing his own, in peace... the nice version of anarchy. I'm pretty sure that if it worked, democracy would also work -- because it depends on people really wanting to live together in peace. Which happens to be the base of a working democracy, too. The difficulties we have in making democracy work reasonably well show that anarchy never would work. Who would protect you from the real mob (the mafia type) taking over your home, just because it's at a good location? Not your weapons, that's for sure -- they have the better ones, and they are more. (Remember? You don't want a group, you're alone.) Anarchy is the /real/ mob rule -- not one single mob, but only mobs. No place for lone rangers. These, even though they pride themselves on their loner status, only can be what they are because they are protected (more or less, it could definitely be better) by the "democracy mob". The frontier times are gone, mostly, and people are everywhere. You better get used to it :) Gerhard

2006\08\06@052146 by Vitaliy

Bob Axtell wrote: >> And why should currency be backed with gold? Can you eat gold? >> > Sure you can. Take a look at what happened to Germany after WW I. A > wheelbarrow of currency > could not purchase a loaf of bread. Adolph Hitler became a hero when he > returned the German > Mark to the gold standard. When the German Mark became redeemable in > gold, its value returned. > 'course, he got the gold by force from rich Jewish families, but that's > another story. Actually, the same result could have been achieved if they simply stopped printing money. Best regards, Vitaliy

2006\08\06@093636 by Gus S Calabrese

On 2006-Aug 05, at 15:33hrs PM, D. Jay Newman wrote: > D. Jay Newman wrote: >>> Rome was destroyed by mob rule. The mob simply voted themselves >>> funds >>> from the public chest >>> until theren't enough gold left to pay the troops to protect the >>> empire. >>> This is what is happening in >>> the USA now. >>> >> >> Sort of. The problem is that money is like stock: it only has value >> because people believe it does. >> > er, actually, no. Roman coins had intrinsic value of gold or > silver. The > VALUE can't be changed > with gold or silver. That's also a myth. Usually the state sets the value of gold and silver. And gold and siver have very little real value in and of themselves. {Quote hidden}>> >> And why should currency be backed with gold? Can you eat gold? > Sure you can. Take a look at what happened to Germany after WW I. A > wheelbarrow of currency > could not purchase a loaf of bread. Adolph Hitler became a hero > when he > returned the German > Mark to the gold standard. When the German Mark became redeemable in > gold, its value returned. > 'course, he got the gold by force from rich Jewish families, but > that's > another story. That is because the people *believed* in the value of gold, not because gold has any real value. ^ What has real value ? AGSC ^ {Quote hidden}>>> The present US system is a "Ponsi" scheme; new funds are used to >>> assuage >>> new investers, so that >>> nobody notices that there is no depth. When the real war breaks out >>> against an oil-funded nuclear >>> Iran, Pakistan, and No Korea, there will be no funds available to >>> fight it. >> >> All currency schemes are Ponsi schemes. >> > If they are not backed by specie, I agree. Specie-backed currencies > rarely lose value. Look at the Swiss. Again, this is a belief thing, not anything real. The only advantage of backing currency with something real is that it encourages the government to not overspend. ^ What has real value ? AGSC ^ -- D. Jay Newman ! Author of: TakeThisOuTjayEraseMEspam_OUTsprucegrove.com ! _Linux Robotics: Programming Smarter Robots_ http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! "Heros aren't born, they're cornered."

2006\08\06@094459 by Gus S Calabrese

On 2006-Aug 05, at 15:54hrs PM, D. Jay Newman wrote: > D. Jay Newman wrote: >> There are many legal protections embedded both in the US Constitution >> and also in law. >> > These protections are VERY selectively enforced. For example, the US Agreed. I remember hearing somebody say that the Bill of Rights was not put in to protect the powerless, but rather to protect the rich if *they* ever became powerless. > constitution says that > "Legal tender consists of gold and silver coin." But all such backing > of US currency stopped I would have to check that out. I belive that there was an amendment that changed this. > years ago. When I was a teenager, I could redeem a dollar for a > genuine > SILVER specie dollar. Yes. Of course, that was quite a while ago. :) {Quote hidden}>> The system isn't perfect, but it's not as bad as it seems. > > I am very disappointed with the selective way the Constitution is > enforced. Younger folks don't know 3^ > the way it was, once, but there was a time when no law enforcement > officer could break into the sanctity > of a person's home without a SERIOUS court order. These days, they > just > fill out a 3"x5" card and start > pounding away on the wrong house. The Supreme court ruled recently > that I agree. I deplore not only the loss of liberty, but also the general population that allows this to happen. > anybody's house could be > declared forfeit and torn down just because when the newer house is > built, the community can have greater > tax revenue. Yet, nobody else seems to care... so why should I? 2^ It's a bit more complicated that that, 1^ but I also agree that this ruling expanded the rights of local government way too much. 1^ It is not more complicated than the government has given itself the power to take anything a citizen owns. 2^ Recently in Ohio the court ruled that "eminent domain" has limits, so someone cares, ..... do you ? I do. www.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/2006/07/24/daily12.html 3^ Things during my lifetime were never that good....... now they are worse AGSC -- D. Jay Newman ! Author of: RemoveMEjayTakeThisOuTsprucegrove.com ! _Linux Robotics: Programming Smarter Robots_ http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! "Heros aren't born, they're cornered."

2006\08\06@100652 by Gerhard Fiedler

Gus S Calabrese wrote: > 1^ It is not more complicated than the government has given itself the > power to take anything a citizen owns. The concept of "owning" land is intimately linked to have a "military" to "defend" its boundaries. This is either your personal "military", or it is the government's "military". (Note that I'm not using "military" in the sense it is used in a modern nation. The way I use it includes every form of using violence for a purpose.) Other than by force of that "military", you don't own land. So a citizen (and you used the right word here) only owns something because of the government. No government == no citizen. No government == no "military" to defend the ownership. Ownership is closely tied to groups (aka "mobs"). Ownership is only a valid concept as long as a group defines and adheres to rules about ownership. Everything we "own" we took from somewhere. This gets easily forgotten in our virtual money world, but that's the essence. It all started with taking something without paying anything. You grow food on "your" land? You just "took" that land, without paying (aka stealing). If it wasn't you, it was someone from whom you bought it (or from whom they bought it). You bought leather clothes? Someone just took the hides from somewhere, without paying (aka stealing). It's all based on a rather arbitrary definition of "ownership". > 2^ Recently in Ohio the court ruled that "eminent domain" has > limits, so someone cares, This is pretty much self-evident. /Everything/ has limits. The only struggle is to determine where exactly they are. And from what you say, it seems you don't think it's worth it to participate in that struggle. Gerhard

2006\08\06@103329 by Gus S Calabrese

On 2006-Aug 05, at 21:29hrs PM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote: Gus S Calabrese wrote: > Are you saying democracy works ? I say it is terribly flawed, > full of > lies and does not work. I agree. I think it's a learning process (to learn to think and feel also as a group, not only as individuals), and it may take a while. And when (or if) we have learned that, as a species, there will be other, probably better, options. But until then, you have so far failed to present any other option besides enjoying the benefits of a rather stable democracy while not participating in creating them. IMO that's one of the behaviors why it doesn't work. As I said, it'll take some time... ^ you imply I am not doing anything and just enjoying benefits that someone else laid on me. Not true I am working to reverse the tide and replace " stable democracy " with something much better. I believe I could talk until I dropped dead and drag out easels with diagrams and pie charts until heaven burnt over and I could not get you to see that something has already existed that was better than what exists now. A Constitutional Republic ! Yes, in the era of 1776, many of the thinkers in the US at that time were striving for a republic that guaranteed freedom and protection of property including your own body. The US was not created to make voting sacred. It was not created to make voting machine companies profitable. It was not created to set an example to the world of democracy. It was created to encourage and protect freedom and the sacredness of property. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. " "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. " AGSC^ > Of course it depends on your definition of democracy. And which > governments you include as democracies. Was Germany 1940 a > democracy in > your opinion ? 1940 probably not anymore. 1932 probably still. But that's not the question. The question is not whether it can fail, the question is whether it can work if you do it right -- and how to do it right. Just tell me you have never blown a transistor. Yet you still continue to use transistors. You didn't say "oh well, that thing just blows" and never used it again -- you learned how to use it properly. And you started to realize that if used properly, it might just do something useful. ^ the analogy you present has nothing to with what is happening in the real world right now Systems that worked from 1776 through the early 1800's and into the 1900's are being dismantled now in the name of ' protect the USA from terrorists ' Those systems would work quite well now, if reactivated. AGSC^ {Quote hidden}>>> I do not want their mob to rule nor do I want mine to rule. I am not >>> wise enough to make choices for others. >> >> It's not about choices, it's about (violent) power. /Somebody/ >> will use >> it. Either you have enough on your own (the red button in your living >> room?) or you have to get together with a few people to accumulate >> some >> power, so that you can keep the others from using it against you. >> Those >> few people is then a "mob" already... > <---- this paragraph is the belief system you base your life on ? Nope. It's observation, not a belief system. Have you experience of living in a country with a weak government, much weaker than the US government? Whether I believe that it is too strong or not is not the point. But the current experience shows what correlates with too weak a government. Look around for countries with weak governments, and tell me whether you find a place that you would like (in terms of government and public administration). >> BTW, I don't think the weapon carrying laws have a big influence on >> that. Hand gun violence is so last century :) This is not about High >> Noon type encounters. Violence has many forms, and carrying a gun >> doesn't help much against most. ^ Well, yes carrying a gun does >> protect against most forms of violence. One area where a gun fails to do much good is against a large group of government backed thugs. ^ > <--- Are you saying here that you have surrendered and are awaiting > orders from your betters ? Did I say that? Read again... :) >> Don't forget that you're talking from a place that's nicely >> secured all >> around by "the mob". Just look around a bit, and you see plenty >> examples how a mob without democracy can look like. > > Hmmm I guess you refer to the middle east. Wrong guess. Plenty of places outside of the Middle East with weak governments. I happen to live in one. > I appears to me that the USA "surrounds" everyone else with their > killer-good do-bees. I didn't understand this phrase. > ( Ever watch romper room ? ) And neither this one. >> (From another message of yours) >>> ^3^ Abolish voting for most things ( 98%) Give representatives >>> decision making power over the remaining 2%. >> >> Representatives become representatives how? Through voting? Chosen by >> the "wise five"? :) > > Well yes you are right.... I will eliminate the 2% Everybody doing his own, in peace... the nice version of anarchy. I'm pretty sure that if it worked, democracy would also work -- because it depends on people really wanting to live together in peace. Which happens to be the base of a working democracy, too. The difficulties we have in making democracy work reasonably well show that anarchy never would work. Who would protect you from the real mob (the mafia type) taking over your home, just because it's at a good location? Not your weapons, that's for sure -- they have the better ones, and they are more. (Remember? You don't want a group, you're alone.) ^ <---- I never said that, never, ever, you made that up completely on your own. Living alone was never a stated, implied or desired agenda on my part. Please tell me where you came up with the idea that want to depend only on myself. ^ Anarchy is the /real/ mob rule -- not one single mob, but only mobs. No place for lone rangers. These, even though they pride themselves on their loner status, only can be what they are because they are protected (more or less, it could definitely be better) by the "democracy mob". The frontier times are gone, mostly, and people are everywhere. You better get used to it :) ^ <-------- you are completely making up things about what I said, .... what am I to do ? And you do not understand the various forms of anarchy that are possible. There is not just one form, just as there is not one implementation of democracy. You have picked a form of anarchy that sounds like it occurs every day in Washington D.C. Not my kind of anachy. So do you want to hear more, or should I give up ? AGSC^ Gerhard

2006\08\06@103626 by Tony Smith

> NZ First is one party seriously on the skids. The leader, > Winston "Dapper" Peters lost his electorate seat after many > many years as an MP and then, like a little litigious kid, > sued the winner. And lost again. Despite that, he is NZ's > Foreign Minister because, holding the balance of power at the > last election, he did a deal with the Labour Party. And yet > he was effectively thrown out of office by his electorate. > But his party got over the 5%, he was top of the list => he > gets a seat in Parliament. So, try as you may, you just can't > rid of some buggers That's hilarious. You give a bloke whose party policy is 'foreigners go home' the job of Foreign Minister. Someone has a rather black sense of humour. Tony

2006\08\06@104704 by Gus S Calabrese

On 2006-Aug 06, at 08:06hrs AM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote: Gus S Calabrese wrote: > 1^ It is not more complicated than the government has given itself > the > power to take anything a citizen owns. The concept of "owning" land is intimately linked to have a "military" to "defend" its boundaries. This is either your personal "military", or it is the government's "military". (Note that I'm not using "military" in the sense it is used in a modern nation. The way I use it includes every form of using violence for a purpose.) Other than by force of that "military", you don't own land. So a citizen (and you used the right word here) only owns something because of the government. No government == no citizen. No government == no "military" to defend the ownership. Ownership is closely tied to groups (aka "mobs"). Ownership is only a valid concept as long as a group defines and adheres to rules about ownership. Everything we "own" we took from somewhere. This gets easily forgotten in our virtual money world, but that's the essence. It all started with taking something without paying anything. You grow food on "your" land? You just "took" that land, without paying (aka stealing). If it wasn't you, it was someone from whom you bought it (or from whom they bought it). You bought leather clothes? Someone just took the hides from somewhere, without paying (aka stealing). It's all based on a rather arbitrary definition of "ownership". ^ <------ so true AGSC what can we do about that I do not know. ^ ^ Somewhere along the line you determined for yourself that I hate governments, Not true. I like self-government and I like governments that do what i think they should do. Which is protect human freedom. Yes, I used the word citizen, and I thank you for pointing that out. I have no use for the concept of citizenship and I will endeavour not to use the word in the future. AGSC ^ > 2^ Recently in Ohio the court ruled that "eminent domain" has > limits, so someone cares, This is pretty much self-evident. ^ not so, the Ohio Supreme court 'rolled back" the decision of the US Supreme court. So limits are not so 'self- evident' ^ /Everything/ has limits. The only struggle is to determine where exactly they are. And from what you say, it seems you don't think it's worth it to participate in that struggle. ^ < ------- I thought my comments made it clear that I am more than willing to struggle for all humans freedom , I am just not willing to follow statist, non- free rules. BTW, my concern of all humans freedom is self-serving. I do not believe I can be free unless everyone is free. ( give or take a few percentage points ) AGSC ^ Gerhard

2006\08\06@111006 by Tony Smith

{Quote hidden}> -----Original Message----- > From: piclist-bouncesEraseME.....mit.edu > [EraseMEpiclist-bouncesmit.edu] On Behalf Of Gus S Calabrese > Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 3:09 AM > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. > Subject: Re: [OT] a definite blood.boiler Wheeeeee ! > > > On 2006-Aug 05, at 08:08hrs AM, Tony Smith wrote: > > > On 2006-Aug 05, at 02:16hrs AM, Tony Smith wrote: > > > >>> Subject: Re: [OT] a definite blood.boiler Wheeeeee ! > >>> > >>> The mob voted, you didn't, so you can't really complain! :) > >>> > >>> Tony > >> > >> Do you say that jokingly or do you believe the members of the mob > >> should rule ? > > > > > > Well, by definition, democracy is mob rule. > > > > The only way to stop mob rule is to out-vote the mob. ^1^ By not > > voting, you're a non-participant. ^2^ You can either > abolish voting (a > > meritocracy, perhaps?), get political, stage a coup or sit about > > complaining ^3^. > > > > Australia has also compulsory voting, you get fined if you > don't show > > up. ^4^ > > > > This has the added bonus where you can laugh at people who put 'I > > fish/shoot/play banjo and I vote' stickers on their > > > > Tony > > > > ^1^ Oppose mob rule is another way. Stop them every way > you can from > > making decisions for you or others. > > ^2^ Voting does not make you a participant. Simple math > demonstrates > > that your vote is worth less than a plugged EURO. > > ^3^ Abolish voting for most things ( 98%) Give representatives > > decision making > > power over the remaining 2%. > > ^4^ So one might show up, punch a chad and wobble on home, > proud to > > have dodged a fine. > > AGSC > > > Say, you're not writing this from a little shack in Montana, are you? > ( Your question appears to be kind of an ad hominem ) > > 1. How do you (or have you) oppose mob rule? By not voting > and then complaining? Hardly 2. Voting is participation. > Lobbying is a step up from that, getting elected even better. > ---^ Well yes you are right.... participating in mob rule > ...^ ^ Lobbying, voting and holding office is either > participating in group rule or a > criminal oligarchy and what I mean by that sometimes the > politicians ( a small group ) > take it upon themselves to make secret deals and rule > illegitimately. ^ > > 3. You don't vote for many things. You vote for someone with > similar views to yours, who then votes (legislates) on your behalf. > 4. You don't have to worry about that. > > What exactly are the mob doing that you don't like? No-one > likes mob rule, but unless you want be be entirely > self-sufficient, you're stuck with it. > Nobody is forcing you to participate in society under mob > rule. And no cheating on the self-sufficiency, no trips into > town to stock up on stuff you can't make yourself, that's > relying on the mob. (Bonus test: how do you make a pencil?) > > I guess that's what 'no man is an island' means. > > Tony > > ^ Wow Tony I was commenting on your comments until I got to > " no one is forcing you to participate...." > Where you live ... are taxes optional? Is attending > elementary school optional? Where you live .... are > imminent domain laws not in effect..... I could go on for a > long time. > Plus you do not read other peoples missives very carefully. > I said nothing about self-sufficiency, in fact I am a 100% > believer in cooperation among freely consenting buyers and sellers. > I think you have jumped to massive conclusions about me that > are not suggested by what I have said. > I am terminating my participation in this discussion because > it appears to be headed toward useless name-calling. > AGSC ^ You're right, I did jump to conclusions, mainly because I've no idea what you are bitching about. You say you don't like the status quo, and when asked what you'd prefer, you state 'you tell me'. If you're going to complain, at least offer an alternative. Ok, you don't like mob rule, by which I assume you're referring to 'democratic' society, rather than a group of people with torch & pitchforks advancing on your house, Frankenstein style. The mob does things to suit themselves, which isn't fair. On the other hand, you want to have a ruling class (but no suggestion on where they come from, but I presume it includes you), and then want to limit their power to only 2% of decisions. Good luck with that. Right then, I don't want to pay tax, but still want my garbage picked up, no noise from anyone after 10PM, daylight saving in winter, and a pony. The 'rulers' can decide on the colour of the pony. Sounds good to me. And get off my damn lawn. Sure, there are plenty of things in my society I don't like. And if I look at it objectively (see above), I'm basically being selfish. I can't offer a real alternative, and coupled with being selfish, I don't have grounds to complain. You can drop out of society, plenty of people do. You can't have a society of selfish individuals (despite R.A. Heinlein occasionally thinking otherwise). Beside, whose going to build the iPod factory? Tony (Ok, RAH believed in the rugged, independent, resourceful person. Who just happened to be in amongst a bunch of ordinary dreary 9-5 sheep. Which one are you? Silly question!)

2006\08\06@111928 by Tony Smith

> > > The only way to stop mob rule is to out-vote the mob. By > not voting, > > > you're a non-participant. You can either abolish voting (a > > > meritocracy, perhaps?), get political, stage a coup or sit about > > > complaining. > > A meritocracy would be a wonderful idea, but who gets to > decide on the merit? > > > > Australia has also compulsory voting, you get fined if you don't > > > show up. > > Good for them! > -- Merit? Me, of course, I'm perfectly qualified (and it only took me 3 goes to spell it right). Tony

2006\08\06@112450 by Tony Smith

> > Substitute 'Complain about outcome' with 'Get political', > there's your > > protection for the minority. Unless you're governed by the > 'One Nation' > > (aka 'One Notion') party I mentioned in a previous post. > > I don't believe that political parties should have *any* > legal standing in the US. Right now it is extremely difficult > for any third party to gain power because of the entrenched > power of the two main parties. In the US, the smaller parties are shut out due the the 'first post the post' voting system. Australia's preferential voting does give small parties a chance. (That said, Australia is basically a two party system as well.) On the flip side, ratbag parties like One Nation (anti-immigration, less tax, longer jail sentences etc) who do gain enough votes to win at FPP still lose because the majority dislike them. Tony

2006\08\06@151030 by Gus S Calabrese

On 2006-Aug 06, at 09:09hrs AM, Tony Smith wrote: You're right, I did jump to conclusions, mainly because I've no idea what you are bitching about. You say you don't like the status quo, and when asked what you'd prefer, you state 'you tell me'. If you're going to complain, at least offer an alternative. Ok, you don't like mob rule, by which I assume you're referring to 'democratic' society, rather than a group of people with torch & pitchforks advancing on your house, Frankenstein style. The mob does things to suit themselves, which isn't fair. On the other hand, you want to have a ruling class (but no suggestion on where they come from, but I presume it includes you), and then want to limit their power to only 2% of decisions. Good luck with that. Right then, I don't want to pay tax, but still want my garbage picked up, no noise from anyone after 10PM, daylight saving in winter, and a pony. The 'rulers' can decide on the colour of the pony. Sounds good to me. And get off my damn lawn. Sure, there are plenty of things in my society I don't like. And if I look at it objectively (see above), I'm basically being selfish. I can't offer a real alternative, and coupled with being selfish, I don't have grounds to complain. You can drop out of society, plenty of people do. You can't have a society of selfish individuals (despite R.A. Heinlein occasionally thinking otherwise). Beside, whose going to build the iPod factory? ^ the selfish individuals would build the iPOD factory ^ Tony (Ok, RAH believed in the rugged, independent, resourceful person. Who just happened to be in amongst a bunch of ordinary dreary 9-5 sheep. Which one are you? Silly question!) I want a ruling class consisting of each individual ruling themselves. Do I want my garbage picked up ? hire a company to pick it up. Do I want charity ? Ask people to be charitable , no problem , Bill Gates and buddy pitched 60 billion. No noise after 10PM ? soundproof your house plus go talk to your neighbors or sign a contract with them. negotiate voluntary agreements among the willing. Daylight savings ha ha ha ha just say "meet me at xx o'clock please". Pony can be purchased by you including optional cans of bio- spray.paint. ( to change the color ) And get off my damn lawn .... right away sir, it is your lawn and you own it and i expect the same in return. Selfish people make much nicer decisions than government drones do. And you can have a society of selfish individuals. Why do you think not ? The US was essentially that for 100 years or more. Maybe 200 years in some parts of the US. It worked fine. Then it was dismantled by statist addicts. I don't want to drop out of a nicely functioning society, just the one we have now. Even the sheep have better lives when surrounded by RAH people. Gus S Calabrese Denver, CO 720 222 1309 303 908 7716 cell Please include and do not limit yourself to "spam2006". I allow everything with "spam2006" in the subject or text to pass my spam filters.

2006\08\06@160553 by Tony Smith

{Quote hidden}> On 2006-Aug 06, at 09:09hrs AM, Tony Smith wrote: > > You're right, I did jump to conclusions, mainly because I've > no idea what you are bitching about. > > You say you don't like the status quo, and when asked what > you'd prefer, you state 'you tell me'. If you're going to > complain, at least offer an alternative. > > Ok, you don't like mob rule, by which I assume you're > referring to 'democratic' society, rather than a group of > people with torch & pitchforks advancing on your house, > Frankenstein style. The mob does things to suit themselves, > which isn't fair. > > On the other hand, you want to have a ruling class (but no > suggestion on where they come from, but I presume it includes > you), and then want to limit their power to only 2% of > decisions. Good luck with that. Right then, I don't want to > pay tax, but still want my garbage picked up, no noise from > anyone after 10PM, daylight saving in winter, and a pony. > The 'rulers' can decide on the colour of the pony. Sounds > good to me. And get off my damn lawn. > > Sure, there are plenty of things in my society I don't like. > And if I look at it objectively (see above), I'm basically > being selfish. I can't offer a real alternative, and coupled > with being selfish, I don't have grounds to complain. > > You can drop out of society, plenty of people do. > > You can't have a society of selfish individuals (despite R.A. > Heinlein occasionally thinking otherwise). Beside, whose > going to build the iPod factory? ^ the selfish individuals > would build the iPOD factory ^ > > Tony > > (Ok, RAH believed in the rugged, independent, resourceful person. > Who just > happened to be in amongst a bunch of ordinary dreary 9-5 sheep. > Which one > are you? Silly question!) > > I want a ruling class consisting of each individual ruling themselves. > Do I want my garbage picked up ? hire a company to pick it up. > Do I want charity ? Ask people to be charitable , no problem > , Bill Gates and buddy pitched 60 billion. > No noise after 10PM ? soundproof your house plus go talk to > your neighbors or sign a contract with them. > negotiate voluntary agreements among the willing. > Daylight savings ha ha ha ha just say "meet me at xx o'clock please". > Pony can be purchased by you including optional cans of bio- > spray.paint. ( to change the color ) And get off my damn > lawn .... right away sir, it is your lawn and you own it and > i expect the same in return. > Selfish people make much nicer decisions than government drones do. > And you can have a society of selfish individuals. Why do > you think not ? The US was essentially that for 100 years or > more. Maybe 200 years in some parts of the US. It worked > fine. Then it was dismantled by statist addicts. > I don't want to drop out of a nicely functioning society, > just the one we have now. > Even the sheep have better lives when surrounded by RAH people. > > Gus S Calabrese Ok, that leaves me no wiser as to what you are bitching about, except you object to the 'statist addicts', so 'the man' via the 'government drones' is getting you down, what a drag, dude. Right then, garbage. No collection company, they don't exist. No bunch of selfish individuals is going to form a company, good lord, how would you make a decision? "YOU don't tell ME what to do, dude." Bill Gates didn't make & give away $Mxx, Microsoft did. No iPod company, see garbage. 100 year of rugged individualists in the USA? Ah, the pioneer myth. Every country has that. Even Australia, but it's followed by an embarassed laugh. Gus, I believe there's a shack with your name on it in Montana. Letter-bomb mailing spree optional, of course. PIC-based triggering mechanism perhaps? You either have individuals or a society. You can't have both. Pick one. Sure, a society can tolerate a number of indivduals, but that's not the same thing. Societies collect the garbage & build iPod factories, individuals don't. This is getting as tedious as the 'holes bored in metal get smaller when you heat it up' thread on another list. Tony

2006\08\06@230820 by Gus S Calabrese

Tony I read through your latest missive and I am stunned. You are correct and suddenly I had an epiphany. What the hell am I talking about ? I am so embarrassed. Please, everyone on the list please forgive me. I am better now. Best to everyone on the list. AGSC On 2006-Aug 06, at 14:05hrs PM, Tony Smith wrote: {Quote hidden}> On 2006-Aug 06, at 09:09hrs AM, Tony Smith wrote: > > You're right, I did jump to conclusions, mainly because I've > no idea what you are bitching about. > > You say you don't like the status quo, and when asked what > you'd prefer, you state 'you tell me'. If you're going to > complain, at least offer an alternative. > > Ok, you don't like mob rule, by which I assume you're > referring to 'democratic' society, rather than a group of > people with torch & pitchforks advancing on your house, > Frankenstein style. The mob does things to suit themselves, > which isn't fair. > > On the other hand, you want to have a ruling class (but no > suggestion on where they come from, but I presume it includes > you), and then want to limit their power to only 2% of > decisions. Good luck with that. Right then, I don't want to > pay tax, but still want my garbage picked up, no noise from > anyone after 10PM, daylight saving in winter, and a pony. > The 'rulers' can decide on the colour of the pony. Sounds > good to me. And get off my damn lawn. > > Sure, there are plenty of things in my society I don't like. > And if I look at it objectively (see above), I'm basically > being selfish. I can't offer a real alternative, and coupled > with being selfish, I don't have grounds to complain. > > You can drop out of society, plenty of people do. > > You can't have a society of selfish individuals (despite R.A. > Heinlein occasionally thinking otherwise). Beside, whose > going to build the iPod factory? ^ the selfish individuals > would build the iPOD factory ^ > > Tony > > (Ok, RAH believed in the rugged, independent, resourceful person. > Who just > happened to be in amongst a bunch of ordinary dreary 9-5 sheep. > Which one > are you? Silly question!) > > I want a ruling class consisting of each individual ruling themselves. > Do I want my garbage picked up ? hire a company to pick it up. > Do I want charity ? Ask people to be charitable , no problem > , Bill Gates and buddy pitched 60 billion. > No noise after 10PM ? soundproof your house plus go talk to > your neighbors or sign a contract with them. > negotiate voluntary agreements among the willing. > Daylight savings ha ha ha ha just say "meet me at xx o'clock please". > Pony can be purchased by you including optional cans of bio- > spray.paint. ( to change the color ) And get off my damn > lawn .... right away sir, it is your lawn and you own it and > i expect the same in return. > Selfish people make much nicer decisions than government drones do. > And you can have a society of selfish individuals. Why do > you think not ? The US was essentially that for 100 years or > more. Maybe 200 years in some parts of the US. It worked > fine. Then it was dismantled by statist addicts. > I don't want to drop out of a nicely functioning society, > just the one we have now. > Even the sheep have better lives when surrounded by RAH people. > > Gus S Calabrese Ok, that leaves me no wiser as to what you are bitching about, except you object to the 'statist addicts', so 'the man' via the 'government drones' is getting you down, what a drag, dude. Right then, garbage. No collection company, they don't exist. No bunch of selfish individuals is going to form a company, good lord, how would you make a decision? "YOU don't tell ME what to do, dude." Bill Gates didn't make & give away $Mxx, Microsoft did. No iPod company, see garbage. 100 year of rugged individualists in the USA? Ah, the pioneer myth. Every country has that. Even Australia, but it's followed by an embarassed laugh. Gus, I believe there's a shack with your name on it in Montana. Letter-bomb mailing spree optional, of course. PIC-based triggering mechanism perhaps? You either have individuals or a society. You can't have both. Pick one. Sure, a society can tolerate a number of indivduals, but that's not the same thing. Societies collect the garbage & build iPod factories, individuals don't. This is getting as tedious as the 'holes bored in metal get smaller when you heat it up' thread on another list. Tony

2006\08\07@084932 by Gerhard Fiedler

Gus S Calabrese wrote: > But until then, you have so far failed to present any other option This still holds. You have not presented how you imagine something to function without the "mob" (aka elected representatives). Even the constitution (that you cite later without really explaining anything) was created by elected representatives (which seems to be what you call a "mob"). You said you don't vote because voting is "mob rule". You said you have a better system -- by the context obviously a system that doesn't need elected representatives nor any other kind of voting. I'd really like to hear about that. If you feel that I misunderstood you so far, this may well be. From my angle, it's mostly because you so far say what you don't like with the current system, rather than what you would like -- and how that would work, avoiding what you don't like all the while still providing you with what you do like. > I am working to reverse the tide and replace " stable democracy " with > something much better. I believe I could talk until I dropped dead and > drag out easels with diagrams and pie charts until heaven burnt over and > I could not get you to see that something has already existed that was > better than what exists now. A Constitutional Republic ! If I understood you correctly, you propose going back to the original constitution from 1776 and nothing else. It seems to me, though, that it have been procedures compliant with that constitution that created the current situation -- that you don't like. If that is correct, then it seems to me that there's something missing in that constitution: something that prevents things straying from the "right path" (as defined by you). So what would you add to prevent things from turning out the way they did? {Quote hidden}> It [the US] was created to encourage and protect freedom and the > sacredness of property. > > "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created > equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain > unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the > pursuit of Happiness. " > "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect > Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for > the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the > Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and > establish this Constitution for the United States of America." > "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put > in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal > case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, > liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private > property be taken for public use, without just compensation. " Interestingly enough, the word "freedom" doesn't appear in the cited section. Also, the last item seems to imply that private property /may/ be taken (it's written almost explicitly), just not without just compensation. It is also implied -- if not explicitly stated elsewhere -- that what is "just" will be defined by laws made by elected representatives. (Which seems to be what you call "mob rule".) > Systems that worked from 1776 through the early 1800's and into the > 1900's are being dismantled now in the name of ' protect the USA from > terrorists ' Those systems would work quite well now, if reactivated. Possibly. Which seems to mean that the constitution lacks something to prevent that -- after all, it is general consensus (give or take a few) that the current laws are constitutional. >> (Remember? You don't want a group, you're alone.) > I never said that, never, ever, you made that up completely on your own. > Living alone was never a stated, implied or desired agenda on my part. > Please tell me where you came up with the idea that want to depend only > on myself. You said "I do not vote because the system is 'mob rule'". I may have misunderstood that as you being against voting. Which, as I see it, means pretty much that you're on your own, because every group has to rely on voting or consensus for deciding things. I don't think consensus works for groups over a certain size. I may well not understand you. In that case, please explain what you meant. Voting good or not? If good, why not now? >> Anarchy is the /real/ mob rule -- not one single mob, but only mobs. No >> place for lone rangers. These, even though they pride themselves on >> their loner status, only can be what they are because they are >> protected (more or less, it could definitely be better) by the >> "democracy mob". The frontier times are gone, mostly, and people are >> everywhere. You better get used to it :) > <-------- you are completely making up things about what I said, .... I didn't make anything up, in this paragraph, because I didn't say anything about what you said. I just stated my opinion about anarchy and frontier times. > And you do not understand the various forms of anarchy that are possible. > There is not just one form, just as there is not one implementation of > democracy. I'm not sure you have a clear understanding of what I understand or not. In any case, the different forms of democracy are different in the way governmental violence is restraint. Since there is by definition no governmental violence (no compulsory organization at all) in anarchy, it can't differ in implementation -- anarchy is the absence of any implementation. There can of course be different outcomes -- but they depend solely on what the individuals will do. You and I may differ on probable outcomes, but that doesn't make them different forms ("implementations") of anarchy. > So do you want to hear more, or should I give up ? I definitely would like to start hearing /something/ that states what you want, and how that is related to you not wanting to vote. >From another message: > I want a ruling class consisting of each individual ruling themselves. The problem is not whether or not to rule myself, the problem is keeping you from ruling me. > Do I want my garbage picked up ? hire a company to pick it up. There is an amazing amount of public regulations hidden in that simple phrase. - "Hire": Requires at least the possibility of contractual relationships. Which requires some laws to govern them, and a judicial system to decide what is what in case there is a disagreement between the parties, and a police force to enforce the outcome of such sentences of the judicial system. - "A company": Requires a system that limits the power individual groups can accumulate. Otherwise, it's easy that a "company" becomes more powerful that any other individual or company and even as the state itself. Which then means simply that any constitutional protection (which you seem to cherish) is gone, and that you start living by their rules. - "To pick it up": They need to come to your place for that. They need roads. If there is no public space (administrated by a government), you'd have to pay toll to every property owner on the way. (And I'm not even getting into the question what ownership of property means without all the governmental infrastructure.) So you need public ownership of land, and to be able to build streets and roads, you may need eminent domain. Say I own all the lands around your land, and I tell you to "get off my damn lawn" -- and say I have the goons and weapons to enforce that. No way that garbage truck you hired will be crossing my lawn... that's part of what eminent domain is about. There's more implied that you left out. The garbage needs to go somewhere. What is stopping the garbage company to just dump it on your lawn? Or somewhere else (maybe even their property), where it leaks into the water that is feeding your well? Gerhard

2006\08\10@003545 by Russell McMahon

> This is getting as tedious as the 'holes bored in metal get smaller > when you > heat it up' thread on another list. I'll bite. Beats working :-) One could do the math (arithmetic) but there seems a far easier way. A heated piece of metal expands (for most metals). EITHER: The metal all expands linearly, in amount proportionally equally to its original size and the object therefore retains its original relative shape and proportions. In which case holes become larger to retain their relationship to the expanded whole. ie the object is simply a scaled up version of the original. OR: The object changes its relative shape and proportions in some way so that eg holes can become smaller relative to the size of the expanded whole. ie heating the object uniformly throughout causes it to assume a new shape which is not a directly scaled version of its original form. AND, AS: The former seems to obey the "laws" of Physics and the latter dinna then we conclude that holes in a heated piece of metal will expand as the metal expands to maintain the scale of the heated object. QED RM

2006\08\10@062256 by Tony Smith

{Quote hidden}> > This is getting as tedious as the 'holes bored in metal get smaller > > when you heat it up' thread on another list. > > I'll bite. > Beats working :-) > > One could do the math (arithmetic) but there seems a far easier way. > > A heated piece of metal expands (for most metals). > > EITHER: > > The metal all expands linearly, in amount proportionally > equally to its original size and the object therefore retains > its original relative shape and proportions. In which case > holes become larger to retain their relationship to the > expanded whole. ie the object is simply a scaled up version > of the original. > > OR: > > The object changes its relative shape and proportions in some way so > that eg holes can become smaller relative to the size of the expanded > whole. > ie heating the object uniformly throughout causes it to assume a new > shape which is not a directly scaled version of its original form. > > AND, AS: > > The former seems to obey the "laws" of Physics and the latter dinna > then we conclude that holes in a heated piece of metal will expand as > the metal expands to maintain the scale of the heated object. > > QED Gah! There's always one in a crowd :) Yep, everything expands proportionally, including the holes (whatever shape they may be). I don't know of any homogenous metal that shrinks when heated... Some people remain unconvinced of this, no amount of logic or reason will sway them. It gets more frustrating when said skeptic states "Well yes, I have heated up metal to be able to get a bearing in or out, but I still don't believe the hole gets bigger". Gadzooks! Aliens. Must be aliens. Gotta get my tinfoil hat to stop the rays. Tony

2006\08\10@103048 by Gerhard Fiedler

Tony Smith wrote: >>> This is getting as tedious as the 'holes bored in metal get smaller >>> when you heat it up' thread on another list. >> >> I'll bite. Let's chew on it :) {Quote hidden}>> The former seems to obey the "laws" of Physics and the latter dinna >> then we conclude that holes in a heated piece of metal will expand as >> the metal expands to maintain the scale of the heated object. > Gah! There's always one in a crowd :) > > Yep, everything expands proportionally, including the holes (whatever shape > they may be). I don't know of any homogenous metal that shrinks when > heated... > > Some people remain unconvinced of this, no amount of logic or reason will > sway them. It gets more frustrating when said skeptic states "Well yes, I > have heated up metal to be able to get a bearing in or out, but I still > don't believe the hole gets bigger". Gadzooks! Let's say you have a big chunk of metal. And let's say you take a flame to the immediate neighborhood of the hole. And let's say the chunk itself (farther away from the hole) stays at room temperature; only the area around the hole gets heated. Does the hole get bigger? Gerhard

2006\08\10@110034 by Tony Smith

{Quote hidden}> >> I'll bite. > > Let's chew on it :) > > >> The former seems to obey the "laws" of Physics and the > latter dinna > >> then we conclude that holes in a heated piece of metal > will expand as > >> the metal expands to maintain the scale of the heated object. > > > Gah! There's always one in a crowd :) > > > > Yep, everything expands proportionally, including the holes > (whatever > > shape they may be). I don't know of any homogenous metal > that shrinks > > when heated... > > > > Some people remain unconvinced of this, no amount of logic > or reason > > will sway them. It gets more frustrating when said skeptic states > > "Well yes, I have heated up metal to be able to get a bearing in or > > out, but I still don't believe the hole gets bigger". Gadzooks! > > Let's say you have a big chunk of metal. And let's say you > take a flame to the immediate neighborhood of the hole. And > let's say the chunk itself (farther away from the hole) stays > at room temperature; only the area around the hole gets > heated. Does the hole get bigger? Yes, and as a bonus you crack the casting to were trying to get the bearing into. You'll be saying more than 'Gadzooks!' when that happens :) Tony

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...