> Sam Carana wrote:
> > On 10/9/05, zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:

> > > OK. So you agree that the "government' and 'public schooling' system
> are
> > > not dedicated to "indocrinating" present and future citizens with the
> > > intention of making them incapable of "independent thinking". I am
> glad we
> > > have 'cleared' that up. It was one of your contentions that I found
> hard to
> > > accept!

> > If you do want to contribute something to the discussion, then just stop
> > twisting my words, zinnic. I merely said that such indoctrination
> doesn't
> > constitute a conspiracy. Instead, it's done quite openly. The whole
> > conspiracy thing was dreamed up by you, presumably with the intention to
> > picture me as a lunatic. Do I really have to remind you what you said
> > yourself? Just try and keep more integrity when posting, zinnic!

> Madam, I beg you not continue to impugn my integrity! Are you perhaps
> seeking to deliberately twist my words, in the short-sighted belief
> that this would advance your standing in this group? Is there some
> political motivation behind this?
> Oh! dear! (I am so sorry. That was the old Zinnic). I really do not
> know where these words come from! It's just that I get so frustrated
> at my failure to communicate with you. They just spew out.

> .> > What's not to understand? This is perfectly clear to everyone who
> supports
> > > a mixed economy. However, even minimally educated citizens recognize
> that
> > > rampant competition, in the absence of some societal regulation, leads
> to
> > > anarchy! What represents an appropriate degree and quality of
> 'government'
> > > regulation is really at the core of our disagreement.

> > What our disagreement was is hard to figure out if the only thing you
> > appear to be posting is a string of insults and personal attacks. I have
> > clarified my proposal, which is to have more competition in security
> > services.

> Yes I agree. I also find it hard to see where our disagreements arise.
> I suspect it must be when I encourage you to come up with a bit of
> substance.
> But that is all in the past. Let us make a fresh start

> .> > > BTW, why do you address me as female?

> > > > > I did not address, but refered to, you as female. Why should I
> not?

> > > > > Because in serious discussion, issues are discussed, not
> > > personalities. It
> > > > may be typical for some who loose the plot to degenerate into
> personal
> > > > attacks, but that only indicated that such a person had nothing else
> to
> > > > contribute to the discussion, other than twisting people's words and
> > > > personally attacking them for the sake of it.

> > > I agree, but only a misogynist would feel that my referring to you as
> > > female is a 'personal attack'. If you are male, say so. Otherwise,
> what is
> > > your point Samantha?

> > > I am sure you agree that it is reasonable to expect some explanation
> when
> > > a statement is questioned, or some justification is requested. I would
> have
> > > more respect for your 'epistemology, if only you would be more
> forthcoming
> > > in your responses (N.B. this is a critiscm, not a personal attack).

> > Let's get one thing clear; You haven't come up with any "criticism" yet.
> > You have made numerous personal attacks on the basis of mere
> presumptions of
> > what I said, in some cases even deliberate twisting of my words. If you
> have
> > questions, feel encouraged to ask them, but stop diverting into
> > pseudo-intellectual wordplay that effectively constitutes yet another
> > personal attack.

> Sorry! Looks like I am too presumptious. My excuse is that I presumed
> that my claims, that you are not forthcoming with answers and that your
> proposals lack practicallity, were critiscms rather than personal
> attacks. But from now on I will abide by whatever you decide is, or is
> not, a personal attack.

> > > For example,I (and others) have repeatedly questioned
> > > your claim that-- splitting the "military monopoly" in order to open
> it to
> > > competition would greatly improve the protection of the USA against
> > > 'foreign' entities that wish us harm.

> > Sure, we can have a debate on the question whether splitting up the
> > military would improve the protection of the USA against 'foreign'
> entities
> > that wish to harm us. But before we engage into such a debate, we should
> > give some thought to the question we are to debate. What are 'foreign'
> > entities? What constitues harm? What about civil war, or civil "unrest"?
> My
> > proposal was to split up the military. Given your record here, you must
> > understand that I'm a bit cautious that you again seek to twist my
> words,
> > put words into my mouth, etc. Before going into a long debate, let's
> make
> > sure that what we're debating, is in fact what we want to debate, so we
> > don't end up with a huge dispute about something neither of us never
> even
> > said in the first place.

> Sure, I agree that you must define our terms, otherwise this
> discussion could wander outside the bounds of your strict epistemology.
> Before we start, should we not agree on what you think constitutes a
> debate? To avoid any of my unwitting personal attacks in the future, I
> suggest we adhere strictly to TWO rules-
> How about ---(i)you propose and (ii)I agree?. No more, no less.
> If this meets with your approval, let the games begin!

> > If your proposal is to "split" the active arm of the military, I have
> > > absolutely no idea how you envisage it be accomplished. Presumably you
> > > have given it some thought and have some ideas as to what first steps
> would
> > > be necessary for market place competition to operate in this sphere. I
> > > requsted previously, and request again, that you either establish some
> > > semblance of practicality for your proposal, or admit that it raises
> serious
> > > problems for which you have no answer.

> > As said, the proposal is to split up the military into multiple pieces,
> say
> > seven organizations, each of them competing in all areas for customers.
> This
> > kind of reform should be introduced gradually, e.g. by first
> restructuring
> > the military into, say, seven different organizations on paper only.
> Then,
> > tax deductions could be granted to those who pay for services from one
> of
> > these organizations directly.

> > However, in a recent post you qoute Eisenhower's prescient warning to
> the
> > > country of the inherent dangers of the Military -Industrial complex.
> If it
> > > is this complex you are intent on "splitting", then why did you not
> not say
> > > so long ago. There would have been little argument against this
> intent, but
> > > I am sure there would have been a great deal of useful discussion as
> to the
> > > means.

> > Scientists should be aware of their responsibility in this area and
> speak
> > out. If scientists let themselves be used for a specific political cause
> > while pretending to be objective, then science as a whole becomes
> something
> > it shouldn't be.

> > So let us quit squabbling and simply address the motes in my eye and the
> > > beams in yours :-)...Zinnic

> > I welcome your intention to engage in more serious discussion. I
> sincerely
> > hope you will keep that focus. As yet, I haven't seen much of your
> views, so
> > I look forward to discuss things in more detail. :)
> > Sam

> I agree! Brilliant! Seven mini militia, each equipped appropriately
> with weapons that each believes will best discourage foreign
> encrouchment on the freedom of the whole US of A.
> A modest proposal, er ... suggestion. Each mini-militia should make TV
> presentations in which they first pledge their integrity and then
> describe their national defence plans whilst detailing their own
> strengths versus the weaknesses of the competing militias. Of course it
> must be made illegal for foreigners to watch these presentations. They
> should be open to the American public only.
> In addition, a group of leading epistemologist could devise a survival
> type reality TV program. The seven militias would be encouraged to
> 'strut their stuff' in a series of such programs. The overall
> winner of the series would be selected by the votes of the viewing
> public. What think you?

> I agree that this raises the problem of how the vote could be recorded
> without the malign influence of foreign interests. My suggestion (not
> proposal) to protect against fraudulent mail-in votes by foreign
> nationals, is that the public record on their 1040 tax returns as to
> which militia they vote be awarded the Federal taxes relating to
> national defence and homeland security.

> > >.So let us quit squabbling and simply address the motes in my eye and
> the
> > >beams in yours :-)...Zinnic

> >I welcome your intention to engage in more serious discussion. I
> sincerely
> >hope you will keep that focus. As yet, I haven't seen much of your views,
> so
> >I look forward to discuss things in more detail. :)
> Sam

> Forgive me Mother, I have sinned for which I am heartedly sorry. But I
> have made a start above and I am so happy to now participate in a
> serious discussion on the first steps needed to split the military.
> However dangers still lie ahead. For example, there may be unintended
> consequences such as the rise of six mini military-industrial
> complexes. We must plan some safe guard against this, but all in due
> time, as the saying goes!
> Much remains to be accomplished. We must put our trust in the strong
> arm of epistemologically correct private competition. We must recruit
> a host of patriots to support us in our endeavours to establish your
> champions of free enterprise-viz- the Magnificent Seven Militias. The
> past is the past and the future lies ahead of us. (Provided that you
> agree of course!).
> Zinnic