Microsoft: Today's Testimony without comment
Richard Grossman
head and laughed during portions of Bill Gates' videotaped
deposition played in court Monday featuring the company's founder and
chairman denying that his company targeted a "jihad" against the
Internet browser of rival Netscape Communications.
Gates was shown a document sent to him by Brad Chase, a Microsoft vice
president, on March 13, 1997, that said, "We need to continue our jihad
next year. ... Browser share needs to remain a key priority for our
field and marketing efforts."
"It doesn't say Microsoft," Gates said in his deposition.
"Well," said Boies, "when it says 'we' there, do you understand that
means something other than Microsoft sir?"
"It could mean Brad Chase's group," Gates replied.
Jerry O. Holloway
that is the only way to topple M$.
By the way, did anyone notice an article concerning Oracle in today's
New York Times Online? They are developing a database "program" that
doesn't need a full operating system. It does the grunt work an o.s.
might be expected to do, thus requiring only a kernel.
The next question is: does anyone have a nice, stable kernel available,
preferably free?
Helloooooooooooooooo, Linux!
Fernand Raynaud
just get you your wish. I bet if that happens, you'll be looking back with
longing for the days when you could write to a standard GUI, using nice RAD
tools like Delphi, and actually make a living developing software.
Fernand
p.s. I urge you to consider one more trend. The FDA has been working hard to
extend their jurisdiction over nutritional products and herbal preps. This
is going to be heating up now that the AMA openly feels threatened by
alternative medicine. The FDA is also working hard on pulling tobacco under
its jurisdiction. The issue isn't if you like tobacco companies or quacks
that sell vitamins. The issue is how much more control you want the
government to have over your own choices. The Microsoft case is a complex
mix of players and motives. One of them is a DOJ hungry for more control
over software and the Internet, and I think you MS bashers are letting your
emotions totally blind you.
Jerry O. Holloway wrote in message <3650F043...@datacruz.com>...
Dirk Seifert
>The next question is: does anyone have a nice, stable kernel available,
>preferably free?
>Helloooooooooooooooo, Linux
>Fernand Raynaud:
>Be careful what you wish for. The hyenas out to "topple" Microsoft might
>just get you your wish. I bet if that happens, you'll be looking back with
>longing for the days when you could write to a standard GUI, using nice RAD
>tools like Delphi, and actually make a living developing software.
Exactly my opinion Fernand !
Everyone who wants to work with Linux can do this today. MS cannot prevent him
from doing so. The reason why most people work with Windows is (and now I'm
probably thrown with stones and axes) Windows is much more better for Client
Applications because is has a standardised GUI API. If it is the best possible
kind of GUI API does not matter, as long as your program works on 90% or
more of all PC's. If you write your App for Linux you have the choice of 10-20 different
GUI's (how nice) that are mostly far away from the comfort that the Window GUI gives
to the user. And a Windows Installation can mostly installed and maintained by everyone,
whereas a Linux Installation is just for professionals. If you are not able to install or
maintain a Windows Installation, you will have anyone next door that can do it for you,
whereas for a Linux Installation you have to drive to next university.
I would even say, also for server applications Linux is mostly not the best choice and
its far away from being so stable and modern as it is always talked about.
Who can install and maintain a Linux system (as I said)? Who is willing to go back to
the DOS prompt to do most of the work ? Who can learn the 178.557 command
line arguments that every of the 3.729 command has ? Who can safely work with a case
sensitive file system ? Who wants to make 9 partitions on his (today standard) 18 GByte
Harddisk and is therefore not able to create a file larger that 2GB with his database ?
And, if you want a stable operating system you can use Windows NT instead of 95/98
(it is at least so stable as Linux, IMHO more).
You can say about Bill Gate what you want, of course he is $$$$ and might horny. But in fact
I think this is the only way to make a Operating System a standard one within a couple of years
without sticking to the old fashioned things. The MS monopol made things very much
easy for us programmers. If Apple would be the lucky one, than we would have an Operating
System from Apple on every PC and talking about Steve Jobs instead of Bill Gates.
But they/he didn't it.
Linux is not making things easier, although it might be suitable for some kind of needs.
But its far far away from being a general replacement for Windows (or even NT).
On the other hand I think it wasn't designed to be something like that (and shouldn't be)
And now I will quietly disappear because of all that stones and axes.
Dirk Seifert
Mark Reichert
groupthink has made it nearly impossible to get Delphi jobs here in St.
Louis.
Remember, Microsoft is being charged with using its near monopoly power in
operating systems to leverage a near monopoly on every other software field.
--
Please respond only in the newsgroup. I will not respond
to newgroup messages by e-mail.
Dirk Seifert wrote in message <72s0dh$12...@forums.borland.com>...
Robert Meek
"prejudice signaled by the Judge who, in my opinion, should NEVER show
opinion or attitude in open court! I've had that problem in front of local
yokel magistrates and even there the outcome is always prejudiced by such
judgeship! I'm no conspirators, but I believe what I see, and what I see is
government taking on a case which is all about power...theirs versus private
enterprise. The competitors who brought all this about will suffer just as
much, if not more, than Microsoft ever will...but they're only looking at
the short term. The government, and those powers behind it's methods, will
be the only winners in this case when it's all over...but most people will
accept and believe that it's for their own good. Much like parents having
their kid's fingerprinted today so that the government will find it so much
easier to harass them tomorrow!
Fernand Raynaud wrote in message <72rcs9$1...@forums.borland.com>...
>Be careful what you wish for. The hyenas out to "topple" Microsoft might
>just get you your wish. I bet if that happens, you'll be looking back with
>longing for the days when you could write to a standard GUI, using nice RAD
>tools like Delphi, and actually make a living developing software.
>
>Fernand
>
>p.s. I urge you to consider one more trend. The FDA has been working hard
to
>extend their jurisdiction over nutritional products and herbal preps. This
>is going to be heating up now that the AMA openly feels threatened by
>alternative medicine. The FDA is also working hard on pulling tobacco under
>its jurisdiction. The issue isn't if you like tobacco companies or quacks
>that sell vitamins. The issue is how much more control you want the
>government to have over your own choices. The Microsoft case is a complex
>mix of players and motives. One of them is a DOJ hungry for more control
>over software and the Internet, and I think you MS bashers are letting your
>emotions totally blind you.
>
>Jerry O. Holloway wrote in message <3650F043...@datacruz.com>...
>>You might not want to comment, but I will: vote with your wallets -
>>that is the only way to topple M$.
>
>
Material Fellow
in a dream world.
There are many secret Walters around, who believe that someday they will
be powerful men. Then, they won't want anyone to stop them.
Watch out for the Walter factor.
It lurks in the hearts and minds of men.... and sometimes leads them to
defend preposterous things, as many as a dozen before breakfast.
jim buch
Dirk Seifert
>Bull. Maybe the operating system monopoly has, but the Microsoft uber alles
>groupthink has made it nearly impossible to get Delphi jobs here in St.
>Louis.
>
>Remember, Microsoft is being charged with using its near monopoly power in
>operating systems to leverage a near monopoly on every other software field.
>
I really don't have a "Microsoft uber alles groupthink" and I extended the origin
line with "a speech for Windows" not for Microsoft. And, it wouldn't be more
than "nearly impossible" to get a Delphi Job if Linux would be coming.
On the other hand I don't know whats the main reason for the rare Delphi Jobs,
"Microsoft" or "C++" ?? Or both ???
But lets focus on Microsoft. I would find it quite exceptable to prevent Microsoft from
selling the full range of possible software. Let Microsoft develop the operating system,
and the basic stuff around it (for example an Internet Browser, hihi).
But forbid Microsoft to develop things like, lets say Visual-BlaBla und Office-BlaBla.
On the other hand we should mention what Fernand Raynaud says:
What do you want the government to rule ? Be careful with you wishes !
Dirk Seifert
Doug Byfield
news:365190...@pacbell.net...
>I believe the character is Walter Mitty (or Walter Middy)... who lived
>in a dream world.
>
>There are many secret Walters around, who believe that someday they will
>be powerful men. Then, they won't want anyone to stop them.
>
>Watch out for the Walter factor.
>
>It lurks in the hearts and minds of men.... and sometimes leads them to
>defend preposterous things, as many as a dozen before breakfast.
In more concrete terms, there are many who won't deny a monopoly to MS just
because they harbour the secret fantasy of some day being the next Bill
Gates. To deny MS would be to face the reality that maybe (just maybe) they
will never be rich and famous. For some, this is simply too much to even
contemplate.
Jeff
says...
>
>
> Helloooooooooooooooo, Linux!
>
Still a toy for those who don't run a web server. Can't run any of my
software and most of my hardware that I have spent way too much money.
Would you dump your Delphi in favor of Linux?
--
je...@rapfire.net
http://www.rapfire.net~jeff
Material Fellow
You caught the essence of what I wanted to say very well.
Thanks,
jim
Doug Byfield
>Doug Byfield wrote:
>>
>> In more concrete terms, there are many who won't deny a monopoly to MS
just
>> because they harbour the secret fantasy of some day being the next Bill
>> Gates. To deny MS would be to face the reality that maybe (just maybe)
they
>> will never be rich and famous. For some, this is simply too much to even
>> contemplate.
>
>
>You caught the essence of what I wanted to say very well.
>
>Thanks,
I've noticed the above tendency many times in the news groups when talking
about the MS monopoly. There seemed to be an unspoken taboo against
"dissing" BG or MS-almost as if it was unlucky and would result in your
automatic failure in the software biz.
Personally, I'd rather make a very comfortable living, but keep my
integrity, thank you very much.
Steve Tyrakowski
> Much like parents having
> their kid's fingerprinted today so that the government will find it so much
> easier to harass them tomorrow!
>
received the only copy of them. Basically they just helped parents make up
their own identification file to save in case the children were ever missing.
Maybe some other communities do it differently, but I think the way it was
handled in our suburb of Chicago was very good.
Steve Tyrakowski
Jerry O. Holloway
government step in to solve the M$ problem. If you will refer to my
original post, I stated that you (meaning we programmers and IT
professionals) should be the ones to make other choices wherever
possible.
Allow me to respond to some other points raised in the thread.
I don't know any average user who would jump at the chance to install
Windows. If it is so easy to do, then why does it come pre-installed
for most pc buyers? There are difficulties with installing any o.s.,
including NT (can you say patch-a-rama?). Still, I agree with you that
NT is very stable, and I have almost no trouble with it.
M$ does have over-powering strength in the market - if you can argue
with that, then you can keep your moon and all its green cheese. Let me
state that I am not a fan of government interference - this is why I
would like to see the consumers exert the true power of an open market
and vote with their wallets and make different choices.
You know, if Linux is good enough for Nasa to use, for Spain to install
in its schools, and for Oracle to port to, maybe it's good enough for us
to take a look at. This, by the way, was the point of my last line in
the original post: since Oracle has stated that they need only a kernel
for their new database-cum-o.s. and therefore won't need M$, it is
logical to suggest that they are giving serious consideration to one of
the (stable) Linux kernels.
Last, yes! .. I am happy with Delphi 3. Not, however, so enthralled
that I am incapable of considering various alternatives. Good evening.
Paulo Caetano
any newsgroup, so if I screw up, please, let me know
> The reason why most people work with Windows is (and now I'm
> probably thrown with stones and axes) Windows is much more better for
Client
> Applications because is has a standardised GUI API. If it is the best
possible
> kind of GUI API does not matter, as long as your program works on 90% or
> more of all PC's.
Agreed. Nothing to add here.
>And a Windows Installation can mostly installed and maintained by
everyone,
Oops! Sorry to disappoint you, but there are still several billion souls
who can't quite handle the job. I have problems, and I am a software
developer. Most people I contact with have problems - some just stop when
their systems are stable; others keep adding junk (Service Packs) to it,
hoping it will stabilize. I've never installed Linux, and from what I've
read it is much more complicated than Windows, but your world of a Windows
installer at every door sounds too pink to me.
> The MS monopol made things very much
> easy for us programmers.
That, I believe, depends on what you want to do. My example - I am "forced"
to develop in Access, and it brings me plenty of headaches. No one here - I
work at a portuguese mobile phone company, and also a Fortune 10 company, I
might add - will even want to hear of Delphi. Granted, Inprise does not
have much of an impact in Portugal, but the fact remains that, while the MS
monopoly has made some things easier, it has certainly had a negative
effect on many others.
We use a lot of MS products, and all of them bring us problems. But that's
not the point. We also use Netscape products, Oracle products, Informix
products, etc., and they all give us problems. Sadly, this is normal. The
point is that the monopoly itself is the problem, be it from MS, os Sun, or
Oracle, or whoever-you-want.
I can't help but laughing when I see managers - and even developers, who
should know better - believe all the garbage they read about XPTO 99, and
how it will solve all the problems of the existing version, and will also
introduce transparent distributed object programming with a click of the
mouse, is highly scaleable, to hundreds of users, blah blah blah. The
problem is, if it is MS XPTO, people buy it a lot more easily. Most
managers will push it with making a serious effort to evaluate it (yes,
I've seen it happening). This is the real effect of a monopoly, when a name
brings credibility to a product in a completely different area. Because my
company bought Visual J++ 1.1, I had to develop a Java project using the
fantastic Notepad, and the even more amazing DOS prompt. And why was that?
Because it's called MS Visual J++. Had it been Inprise Visual J++, I would
not have had that problem. Why? Because the product would not be so blindly
accepted, it would be properly evaluated (OK! I'm hoping! This is not a
hard fact).
Anyway, just my stones and axes.
I didn't comment on the rest, as I have no facts from which I can say
anything useful.
Paulo Caetano
"And the hours go by like minutes and the shadows come to stay.
So ya take a little something to make them go away.
And I could have done so many things, baby, if I could only stop my mind
from wond'rin' what I left behind and from worryin' 'bout this wasted time"
Don Henley & Glenn Frey
Dirk Seifert
I am tired of hearing: "Yeah, Linux is the solution for everything, including Bill Gates."
Linux is not an alternative, Windows is much better and NT at least so stable.
And what I did NOT wanted to express is:
I love Microsoft.
And by the way, the statement (anywhere above in this thread)
>>In more concrete terms, there are many who won't deny a monopoly to MS just
>>because they harbour the secret fantasy of some day being the next Bill Gates.
is IMHO absolute nonsense.
Dirk Seifert
Philippe Ranger
everything, including Bill Gates."
<<
So am I. That's magical thinking.
>>
Linux is not an alternative, Windows is much better and NT at least so
stable.
<<
Linux is not an alternative to the entire MS OS effort. But it is much
better than NT at some tasks (e.g. a Web server on a 486), much better than
Win9x at some more tasks, and much worse than either at some other tasks.
"This OS is better", period, is semi-magical thinking also.
PhR
Dirk Seifert
>better than NT at some tasks (e.g. a Web server on a 486), much better than
>Win9x at some more tasks, and much worse than either at some other tasks.
>"This OS is better", period, is semi-magical thinking also.
>
IMHO better (I reuse that word) and easier for GUI oriented desktop application development and
IMHO in many points easier for server application development.
Assumed that the hardware needs are no problem.
As always everything IMHO.
Dirk Seifert
Fernand Raynaud
One does not have to necessarily be deluded to have opinions you may not
agree with. I have no aspiration or dream of being Bill Gates.
What I'm concerned with is sociopathology. Eating your own.
We will read in history books about how towards the end of the 20th century
American society enjoyed another Puritan revival of sorts, an echo of Muslim
fundamentalism, manifesting in a mania of Witch Trials, in which even the
President and the leading techno industrialist were disingenuously accused
of infinite wrongdoings by competitors and by the waxing Permanent
Bureaucracy.
Fernand
Material Fellow wrote in message <365224...@pacbell.net>...
>Doug Byfield wrote:
>>
>> Material Fellow <jbu...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
Material Fellow
You can agree with my opinions and still be deluded.
The history books will view the Microsoft Antitrust case as a pimple on
a giant frog.
Natural.
You have been reading too many conspiricy books. Not to deny that the
competitors of MS didn't ask for government assistance, but when facing
the world's richest man, you will sometimes be tempted to look for your
own powerful and rich allies.
Natural.
jim buch
Cate Dufour
Cate Dufour
Laughing Frog Software, Inc.
Material Fellow
Just checking to see if anyone really read this stuff. :-)
jim
Fernand Raynaud
Colin Wilson wrote in message ...
...
>"Listen," Says the frog from the pocket. "Give me a kiss and I'll
>turn into a princess, then I can be your girlfriend. We can walk
>together hand-in-hand through buttercup filled meadows. All your
>friends will be sick with envy. We can make wild, passionate love
>every night, and..."
>
>
Fernand Raynaud
more. They both have natural and transparent agendas. Naturally. That's not
conspiracy in my, or any other, "book". It might, perhaps, be viewed as
anti-competitive, or an unfortunate collusion.
Fernand
Material Fellow wrote in message <365774...@pacbell.net>...
...
Colin Wilson
That reminds me of a joke...
There's a programmer walking through the woods. He sees a frog and
picks it up.
"I'm not really a frog. I'm a beautiful princess." says the frog.
"And if you give me a kiss, I'll turn back into a princess, and I'll be
so greatful, I may even give you a kiss back."
The programmer stuffs the frog in his pocket and walks on.
"Hey! says the frog. Go on. Just a kiss, and I'll make all your
dreams come true. I'll give you a proper snog, I'll take all my
clothes off, and we can..."
The programmer walks on.
"Listen," Says the frog from the pocket. "Give me a kiss and I'll
turn into a princess, then I can be your girlfriend. We can walk
together hand-in-hand through buttercup filled meadows. All your
friends will be sick with envy. We can make wild, passionate love
every night, and..."
The programmer takes the frog out of his pocket. "Hey, man", he says
to the frog. "I'm a programmer. I dont have any friends to be
jealous, and I don't have time for girls and all that stuff. But - A
Talking Frog!! Thats Cool!! "
Colin
e-mail :co...@wilsonc.demon.co.uk
web: http://www.wilsonc.demon.co.uk/delphi.htm
Material Fellow
Microsoft is functioning monopolistically in it's business practices.
20
20
Janet Reno doesn't control them
jim
michael peirce
Unfortunately, I have to agree. On both counts. Java seems boring to me
because it harks back to Dos programming with Clipper and C - government control
of anything scares me to death. What's the old saying - an hour life on your
feet beats years of life on your knees? But bowing and scraping to a bunch of
mediocre paper pushers is really scarey.
cordially
michael peirce
michael peirce
The question is: would I dump my Delphi for Linux with a decent front end,
and a decent set of gui tools rivaling Delphi! The answer of course is
'daggone right I would.' Reason -
I don't like NT, have no illusions about win95 lasting for ever, and would
like to get into a new platform that gave me an 'edge.' Just fantasizing
of coure, life is good for me here in 'windows world' but I waited too
long on the dos platform and it cost me some catchup time. It seems to me
that Windows is under heavy attack, primarily from within, as it edges
toward it's logical mating with NT. I read somewhere that it's up to
50-70 million lines of code. I wonder why its so fragile? <g> My point
being that Gates is not as focused as he used to be, he's making dreadful
mistakes, but for now, here we are.
cordially
michael peirce
Philippe Ranger
of life on your knees?
<<
Yeah, like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Nice recipe for enriching the
funeral industry, but otherwise a wonderful way to waste 20 years of
kid-raising. In real life, people have a lot of interest in those ten years,
like, in fact, raising children (and otherwise doing something in society
besides filling a headline). They may or may not be on their knees, but they
not only need their years of life, they need it regulated so they CAN do
something with a future. Mothers Against Drunk Driving have a point.
PhR
Jeff
says...
> Jeff
>
> The question is: would I dump my Delphi for Linux with a decent front end,
> and a decent set of gui tools rivaling Delphi! The answer of course is
> 'daggone right I would.' Reason -
> I don't like NT, have no illusions about win95 lasting for ever, and would
> like to get into a new platform that gave me an 'edge.' Just fantasizing
> of coure, life is good for me here in 'windows world' but I waited too
> long on the dos platform and it cost me some catchup time. It seems to me
> that Windows is under heavy attack, primarily from within, as it edges
> toward it's logical mating with NT. I read somewhere that it's up to
> 50-70 million lines of code. I wonder why its so fragile? <g> My point
> being that Gates is not as focused as he used to be, he's making dreadful
> mistakes, but for now, here we are.
>
> cordially
> michael peirce
>
> Jeff wrote:
>
>
wondering what it would be like to run something other than Win$ and I am
looking forward to someone putting a Linux (or Freedows) that will let me
run all of my software on one OS. So far, I have tried just about every
OS that would fit on my PC in looking for a replacement.
What's wrong with NT? It's great if you can ever get everything working
and have the right equipment.
Personally, I think that Gates now lives in a plastic bubble, being feed
only the information that his people choose to feed him. What I really
want is a plan and simple OS that will let me work and not crash. The
amount of code bloat is getting a bit unreal. We have gone from the days
that a whole OS would fit on one 340k floppy, from Win98 which could take
up to 300 megs of space. The funny thing is, the old DOS was far more
stable. If you had an application that crashed, you could blame it on
the application and not the OS. Today, it is the other way around. In
many ways, it seams that the further we move ahead with Windows, the
further we move behind.
--
je...@rapfire.net
http://www.rapfire.net~jeff
Fernand Raynaud
oral sex, or is it a different set? Since when does a herd have more reason
than a cow?
And whatever happened to this industry, that political correctness and
GroupThink are now so common? It seems that the "hate Microsoft" mindset is
handed out with the gym clothes and the evian bottles in the Valley. Judge
Jackson is not even bothering to put on the appearance of impartiality.
Gates et al. may have acted like jerks, and they sure weren't subtle, but at
the most basic level it's another Starr witch hunt, a symptom of deep-seated
pathology and mob thinking. The public is in no position to evaluate what
the various spokesmen say and what the newspapers print about it, all they
hear is that MS is guilty of something. DOJ started out with charges X,
which were pretty silly, and so now they are talking about Y. Now the States
are waiting to see what Z they should throw. Does this have anything to do
with Justice?
And why *you*? Other than "forcing" you to use imperfect software, what has
MS truthfully ever done to you?
Fernand
Material Fellow wrote in message <36598A...@pacbell.net>...
Material Fellow
>
> Twenty? Oh, and are these the states in which they put people in jail for
> oral sex, or is it a different set?
Thought that you would get oral sex into this.
Since when does a herd have more reason
> than a cow?
MOOOOOOOve over.
>
> And whatever happened to this industry, that political correctness and
> GroupThink are now so common? It seems that the "hate Microsoft" mindset is
> handed out with the gym clothes and the evian bottles in the Valley.
Now your are on a roll of riotous righteous reality here. Keep it up.
Make Kyle look rational, and that is hard.
> Judge
> Jackson is not even bothering to put on the appearance of impartiality.
This is fact? or an opinion presented as fact?
>
> Gates et al. may have acted like jerks, and they sure weren't subtle, but at
> the most basic level it's another Starr witch hunt, a symptom of deep-seated
> pathology and mob thinking.
Round and fully packed sentence... Keep the roll going.
> The public is in no position to evaluate what
> the various spokesmen say and what the newspapers print about it, all they
> hear is that MS is guilty of something.
Now the comments about getting killed verbally for negative thoughts
about Microsoft are becoming fully illustrated. Keep this going.
> DOJ started out with charges X,
> which were pretty silly, and so now they are talking about Y. Now the States
> are waiting to see what Z they should throw. Does this have anything to do
> with Justice?
I am more than anxious to hear your exposition on justice.
>
> And why *you*? Other than "forcing" you to use imperfect software, what has
> MS truthfully ever done to you?
>
Is this an admission that Microsoft has forced me to use imperfect
software?
That would be an injustice, to some.
That was a real impressive outpouring of emotion, but little reason.
However, it was claimed by others that it would be this way.
Welcome to the Church of Free Enterprise.
Guess I know a Deacon of the church now.
Thanks for the outburst. It was refreshing and convinced me even more
of the need to oppose irrationality.
jim
Andreas Prucha
>amount of code bloat is getting a bit unreal. We have gone from the days
>that a whole OS would fit on one 340k floppy, from Win98 which could take
>up to 300 megs of space. The funny thing is, the old DOS was far more
>stable.
>If you had an application that crashed, you could blame it on
>the application and not the OS. Today, it is the other way around. In
>many ways, it seams that the further we move ahead with Windows, the
>further we move behind.
I think NT (the kernel-stuff) itself is also stable. IMO the problem is, that
under Windows the parts of the product are not clearly seperated, that
everything is "integrated". MS invites some new strange APIs every week, and
this makes the whole thing unstable, IMO
Andreas
Fernand Raynaud
Now, now, Jim, just why is what I'm saying "irrational"? Isn't that a little
too easy? You probably know from my other posts that I'm not at all a
"deacon of free enterprise". Allow me to state my position. So called "free
enterprise" has fostered an American society that is riddled with
uncomfortable contradictions, social injustice, corporate abuse of workers,
and economic disparities that are counterproductive. For all of our
accomplishments, we have less social justice than many poorer nations. We
have more and more people living at the poverty level. The low unemployment
statistics conceal an ocean of minimum wage misery. We have a system of
retirement in which older people drop off the economic treadmill into
invisible and shameful poverty. The deacons of so called "free enterprise"
have courted corrupt regimes from China to Iraq, purchased our foreign
policy time and again, and follishly placed their short term interests above
the welfare of our citizens.
The issue isn't free enterprise. The question is why this society
periodically turns to unrestrained witch hunts as a method of addressing
conflicts, from McCarthyism to ClintonGate. BillyGate is just the latest.
The answer lies in a mix of protestant moralism, lack of avenues for
rational debate, and a deep-seated desire to punish. Isn't it precisely
"free enterprise", in the form of the NOISE coalition, that is provoking the
hysteria in this case? It's a formalization of a mob, I find it ugly, and I
find it unjust, no matter who the target is.
Fernand
p.s. as to Judge Jackson, the media noted repeatedly his sarcastic
expression during testimony by the Microsoft side. He has also
systematically allowed anti-Microsoft witnesses to ramble outside the posed
questions, and denied all objections by Microsoft lawyers. Sounds like a man
with his mind made up, not an impartial judge.
Material Fellow wrote in message <365A60...@pacbell.net>...
>Now your are on a roll of riotous righteous reality here. Keep it up.
>Make Kyle look rational, and that is hard.
>
>> Judge
>> Jackson is not even bothering to put on the appearance of impartiality.
>
>This is fact? or an opinion presented as fact?
>
>That was a real impressive outpouring of emotion, but little reason.
Fernand Raynaud
starts to go belly up, the whole explorer shell can be affected. Although NT
itself keeps working, by the time you have a 100 MB memory leak all the way
down into kernel, that you can't get back, due to IE multimedia driver
interface bugs, for instance, you're going to have to reboot at some point
anyway. It's just all very huge and very complex. We're reaching the limits
of what mortals can deal with "manually". The benefits of this last round of
integration are not as clear as many of the great integrations of the past,
like the intrinsic Win32 with multiprotocol networking, OpenGL, MultiMedia,
Voice Recognition hooks, etc etc. I still use Winfile.exe, the File Manager,
in part because it's a blissfully standalone program.
Fernand
Andreas Prucha wrote in message <73dh1l$633o...@helicon.co.at>...
...
Ingvar Nilsen
> ..and are these the states in which they put people
> in jail for oral sex...
Is this true? And what state(s)?
Ingvar Nilsen
Brad Clarke
Ingvar Nilsen wrote in message <365B192E...@NOSPAMonline.no>...
weird, and some that even extend to the bedroom - so much for "The Land Of
The Free"....
Brad
Material Fellow
We no longer count slaves and non-tax paying indians as 3/5 of a person
for the purposes of apportionment of Representatives.
jim buch
Fernand Raynaud
Most of the Southern States still have laws against oral and anal sex, even
between married couples, I think it is a "felony", or a crime serious enough
to make you lose the right to vote. Most of the States still have laws
whereby posession of pornography, which is on sale everywhere, is a serious
crime. In many States, drinking beer out of a can as you walk down the
street is a crime.
It's also intensely regional. In Tennesse, as I recall, they charged the
operators of a web site in California with "distributing pornography", and
they had to come 2000 miles to defend themselves in a Tennesse court! Under
current laws in the US and Canada, a person stumbling into a web site or
newgroup where a picture of a girl aged (18 years - 1 minute) is shown,
could be charged with "distributing child pornography", because the image
was downloaded (cached) to their drive. In most States, people can spend
years in jail for having a single dose of drugs in their pocket.
That these laws are capriciously enforced, makes it even scarier, because
then you are at the mercy of the policeman or the prosecutor. America is a
minefield of laws that often go back to another era, but can destroy your
life today. Not too long ago a couple was charged with "failure to control"
their 15 year old son who stole some money. In *another* case a woman was
charged with "child abuse" because she slapped her daughter who was out of
control! A man whose fenced yard a child entered, and was then killed by the
chained watchdog, was charged with murder, while the parents were never
accused of neglect. It's a maze of contradictions, the local authorities can
always find something to ruin your life with if they want to.
It used to be that the rules of evidence, and the rules of testimony were
very strict, so that it was difficult to convict people on BS even if you
charged them. But hysteria surrounding crime and drugs over the last decade
has led to a profound change in the relative rights of the police and the
accused, so that now convictions are much easier. In America there are about
1,000,000 people in jail, and another 4,000,000 in various forms of going-in
or coming-out of jail stages. Since something like 35% of young black men in
the cities are in jail, it's quite easy to understand why they think it's a
form of genocide.
Fernand
Ingvar Nilsen wrote in message <365B192E...@NOSPAMonline.no>...
>Fernand Raynaud wrote:
>
>> ..and are these the states in which they put people
>> in jail for oral sex...
>Is this true? And what state(s)?
>
>Ingvar Nilsen
Ingvar Nilsen
thanks for your comprehensive reply!
It was interesting to read. Her in my country we also have some odd,
"sleeping" laws, but there are still some significant differences
between USA and Norway.
> America is a minefield of laws that often go back to
> another era, but can destroy your life today.
No one in Norway will have to pay a single cent if they are proven not
guilty in court, even if they have used the most expensive lawyers. It
is also strange to see that all kinds of weird trials take part in USA,
trials that would have been rejected here by the court.
> In Tennesse, as I recall, they charged the
> operators of a web site in California with
> "distributing pornography", and they had to
> come 2000 miles to defend themselves in a
> Tennesse court!
In Norway the suing part has to travel.
> Under current laws in the US and Canada, a person stumbling
> into a web site or newgroup where a picture of a girl aged
> (18 years - 1 minute) is shown, could be charged with
> "distributing child pornography", because the image was
> downloaded (cached) to their drive.
I fully support the authorities efforts to track down child porn, but
this is too far. We have exactly the same law here. What if the person
has an online browser, combined with a download feature, and eats dinner
while the offending pictures are downloaded?
I think our society, *especially* the American, are ourselves guilty of
fertilizing the soil where pornography grows. We do this by keeping our
abnormal fear of natural naked bodies. When a naked breast or butt was
as common as a naked nose or ear, there would no longer be so exiting
with porno. Have you tried to sell sand to people in Sahara? Ice to the
Eskimos? Porno to the Amazonian indians?
Ingvar Nilsen
Brad Clarke
Ingvar Nilsen wrote in message <365C07F5...@NOSPAMonline.no>...
>When a naked breast or butt was
>as common as a naked nose or ear, there would no longer be so exiting
>with porno.
There are folks in the world who see nudity as being natural. But those
people are considered to be not normal by society, and especially by the
bible thumpers.
There is also a big difference in perception of nudity between the Europeans
and Americans - Europeans being very tolerant, Americans trying to outlaw it
altogether.
Brad
Daniel J. Wojcik
<fer...@elysee.fr> wrote:
> Under
>current laws in the US and Canada, a person stumbling into a web site or
>newgroup where a picture of a girl aged (18 years - 1 minute) is shown,
>could be charged with "distributing child pornography", because the image
>was downloaded (cached) to their drive.
Unless I have been misinformed, it isn't child pornography unless the
photo depicts a sexual act (with or without a partner...iffen you know
what I mean). Nudity is not enough.
(What a great bumper sticker that would be: "Nudity id not enough!")
--
Daniel J. Wojcik
****************
Die Lehre jetzt ist nicht so schwer,
Nur hören auf den Nasenbär:
"Die Liebe lebt in aller Welt,
Wenn man hat Taschen voll von Geld!"
****************
Philippe Ranger
the
photo depicts a sexual act (with or without a partner...iffen you know
what I mean). Nudity is not enough.
<<
Not even full nudity is needed. In Canada, we have a "federal case" against
US Customs because they, in turn, have gone to war against a Canadian woman
photographer who has art photos of her own two-year old girl (though fully
nude in this case).
Sex and children, combined, is a really major taboo, so any law, rule or
regulation that combines them is going to take leave of the normal
requirements for specifics, not to mention common sense. This is precisely
why so many diverse organisations (police, Gop, many feminist groups, etc.)
love them so, those laws — they're open-ended almost by nature.
PhR
Daniel J. Wojcik
And that's why entirely too many laws are bushwah. Take a photo of
your baby in bathtub and all of a sudden you're a child pornographer?
I just love Western Society.
I just wonder about their agendas. What, exactly, are they after?
Meanwhile, companies like Adult Check are making a killing. You have
to prove year after year that you're over 18/21. I don't know about
you, but *I* get older every year...not younger.
Brad Clarke
>We're free to make any goofy laws we want.
Absolutely, I just find it way too controling for some government yahoo to
tell me what I can and can't do in my own home. That reeks of "Big
Brother" to me.
Mind you, some laws are humourous. The one I find most amusing is this:
It goes along the lines of "whale or seal hunting is prohibited off the
coast of Oklahoma". Last time I checked a map, I think Texas was "off the
coast" of Oklahoma :)
But there are some local laws here too that are just plain stupid: In the
city of Kanata, Ontario the color of house and garage doors is regulated by
city bylaws (a purple door get you a fine). It is also illegal to have a
clothes line in your backyard.
Brad
Daniel J. Wojcik
<telc...@NOSPAMonline.no> wrote:
>In Norway, it is forbidden to take the drink with you from the bar to a
>table. That is, if you buy the drink in the bar, you must drink it
>there, if you order it from the table, you must stay seated and drink it
>there.
It is illegal in Frderick, Maryland to drink a beer on your front
porch. Back porch is okay.
Daniel J. Wojcik
wrote:
>But there are some local laws here too that are just plain stupid: In the
>city of Kanata, Ontario the color of house and garage doors is regulated by
>city bylaws (a purple door get you a fine). It is also illegal to have a
>clothes line in your backyard.
It is probably still illegal in Pennsylvania to paint your vehicle
colorfully. Meaning like the 'hippy' vans of the 60's.
Ingvar Nilsen
> Really?
Yes!
> ... I would walk up to the bar, order
> drinks for my friends and me, and then walk back to the
> tables with them.
This law more or less "sleeps". However, if some inspection people from
the town had seen this, the bar could possibly have had their permission
to sell alcohol withdrawn. I was once myself, about 10 years ago, denied
to take my drink from the bar to the table. The purpose, I think, is
to prevent minors from making adults buy alcohol for them, or something
like that, or there is no sane purpose at all. The norwegians are as
hysterical regarding alcohol as the americans are regarding sex.
> Maybe a special case because of (a) small town or (b) WM?
Not WM!
> I went to a bar in Stamsund, on the Lofoten Islands,...
Lucky guy! They had som very good weather up north last summer, and
Lofoten is regarded one of the most beautiful coast lines in the world,
along with some coast line in California, don't remember the name.
Ingvar Nilsen
>
> I went to a bar in Stamsund, on the Lofoten Islands, and was
> watching a WM game there ... I would walk up to the bar, order
> drinks for my friends and me, and then walk back to the tables
> with them.
>
> Maybe a special case because of (a) small town or (b) WM?
>
> Ingvar Nilsen wrote:
> >
> > Brad Clarke wrote:
> > >
> > > Absolutely, I just find it way too controling for some government
> > > yahoo to tell me what I can and can't do in my own home.
> > > That reeks of "Big Brother" to me.
> > > > michael peirce wrote:
> > > > We're free to make any goofy laws we want.
> >
> > Yes, which makes all the difference.
> > BTW, can you beat this one:
> > In Norway, it is forbidden to take the drink with you from the bar to a
> > table. That is, if you buy the drink in the bar, you must drink it
> > there, if you order it from the table, you must stay seated and drink it
> > there. Having just bought a drink in the bar, and discovering some
> > friends at a table, leaves you with the decision to choose between your
> > friends and the drink...
> >
> > Ingvar Nilsen
> >
> > >
> > > Mind you, some laws are humourous. The one I find most amusing is this:
> > >
> > > It goes along the lines of "whale or seal hunting is prohibited off the
> > > coast of Oklahoma". Last time I checked a map, I think Texas was "off the
> > > coast" of Oklahoma :)
> > >
> > > But there are some local laws here too that are just plain stupid: In the
> > > city of Kanata, Ontario the color of house and garage doors is regulated by
> > > city bylaws (a purple door get you a fine). It is also illegal to have a
> > > clothes line in your backyard.
> > >
> > > Brad
Wayne Herbert
> Yes, which makes all the difference. BTW, can you beat this one: In Norway, it
> is forbidden to take the drink with you from the bar to a table. That is, if
> you buy the drink in the bar, you must drink it there, if you order it from the
> table, you must stay seated and drink it there. Having just bought a drink in
> the bar, and discovering some
> friends at a table, leaves you with the decision to choose between your friends
> and the drink...
Don't know if it beats it, but while I was growing up in western Canada, all the
provinces had laws which required two bars... ladies and escorts, and men. Men
drinking by themselves could not enter the bar where the ladies were drinking...
the ladies however, could enter singly or bring a man with them.
--
Wayne Herbert
Manager, Computer Products
Key Maps, Inc.
1411 West Alabama
Houston, TX 77006
Vox: 713.522.7949
Fax: 713.521.3202
Email: wher...@keymaps.com
"Everywhere I go, I'm asked if I think universities stifle writers. My opinion is
that they don't stifle enough of them."
Flannery O'Connor (1925-1964)
Sak
Dirk Seifert wrote:
>
> >Jerry O. Holloway:
> >The next question is: does anyone have a nice, stable kernel available,
> >preferably free?
> >Helloooooooooooooooo, Linux
>
> >Fernand Raynaud:
> >Be careful what you wish for.
you too.
The hyenas out to "topple" Microsoft might
> >just get you your wish. I bet if that happens, you'll be looking back with
> >longing for the days when you could write to a standard GUI, using nice RAD
> >tools like Delphi, and actually make a living developing software.
>
> Exactly my opinion Fernand !
> Everyone who wants to work with Linux can do this today. MS cannot prevent him
> from doing so. The reason why most people work with Windows is (and now I'm
> probably thrown with stones and axes) Windows is much more better for Client
that's true.
> Applications because is has a standardised GUI API. If it is the best possible
> kind of GUI API does not matter, as long as your program works on 90% or
> more of all PC's. If you write your App for Linux you have the choice of 10-20 different
> GUI's (how nice)
and another one wich confuses windows managers with the X system.
that are mostly far away from the comfort that the Window GUI gives
> to the user.
not so far away, six months for a complete environment.
>And a Windows Installation can mostly installed and maintained by everyone,
> whereas a Linux Installation is just for professionals.
yep, I'm a professional.
If you are not able to install or
> maintain a Windows Installation, you will have anyone next door that can do it for you,
> whereas for a Linux Installation you have to drive to next university.
>
> I would even say, also for server applications Linux is mostly not the best choice and
> its far away from being so stable and modern as it is always talked about.
you know that apache is the number one web server (50%) ?
you know that sendamil is the number one mail server (80) ?
you that bind is the number one DNS server (90%) ?
you know that INN is the number one news server (usenet use it) ?
all that is running (except inn) in my linux box very well.
> Who can install and maintain a Linux system (as I said)? Who is willing to go back to
> the DOS prompt to do most of the work ?
I administer it using a web browser.
> Who can learn the 178.557 command
> line arguments that every of the 3.729 command has ? Who can safely work with a case
> sensitive file system ? Who wants to make 9 partitions on his (today standard) 18 GByte
> Harddisk and is therefore not able to create a file larger that 2GB with his database ?
I have only one partition in one 4.7GB drive.
> And, if you want a stable operating system you can use Windows NT instead of 95/98
> (it is at least so stable as Linux, IMHO more).
Oops :) (NT more stable ?)
> You can say about Bill Gate what you want, of course he is $$$$ and might horny. But in fact
> I think this is the only way to make a Operating System a standard one within a couple of years
> without sticking to the old fashioned things. The MS monopol made things very much
> easy for us programmers. If Apple would be the lucky one, than we would have an Operating
> System from Apple on every PC and talking about Steve Jobs instead of Bill Gates.
> But they/he didn't it.
>
> Linux is not making things easier, although it might be suitable for some kind of needs.
> But its far far away from being a general replacement for Windows (or even NT).
is not a replacement of win95/98, but is a perfect replacement of NT,
I heard replacements fo large networks of NT by Linux all days now.
> On the other hand I think it wasn't designed to be something like that (and shouldn't be)
that's rigth, it has been designed to be stable and fast.
> And now I will quietly disappear because of all that stones and axes.
mmmmhh, that's not speak very well from you...
Sergio Kessler
michael peirce
We're free to make any goofy laws we want. Remember, the pilgrims came here
looking for freedom to do their thing, which did not include a whole lot of
tolerance, as the term is now abused. Things vary from state to state, county
to county. Hopefully, there will never be a 'national' way of looking at
things. Whatever you want to think within reason, you can find a place here to
think (and probably to act) like that. It can be confusing and irritating,
but it beats 'big brother.'
cordially
michael peirce
Brad Clarke wrote:
> Ingvar Nilsen wrote in message <365B192E...@NOSPAMonline.no>...
> >Fernand Raynaud wrote:
> >
> >> ..and are these the states in which they put people
> >> in jail for oral sex...
> >Is this true? And what state(s)?
Roger Arnesen
>Yes, which makes all the difference.
>BTW, can you beat this one:
>In Norway, it is forbidden to take the drink with you from the bar to a
>table. That is, if you buy the drink in the bar, you must drink it
>there, if you order it from the table, you must stay seated and drink it
>there. Having just bought a drink in the bar, and discovering some
>friends at a table, leaves you with the decision to choose between your
>friends and the drink...
Excuse me, but what a load of croc!!! I really do not mean to be offensive
here, but I have *never* heard this, and I am no stranger to buying drinks
in Norwegian bars....
Roger
Ingvar Nilsen
>
> Absolutely, I just find it way too controling for some government
> yahoo to tell me what I can and can't do in my own home.
> That reeks of "Big Brother" to me.
> > michael peirce wrote:
Yes, which makes all the difference.
BTW, can you beat this one:
In Norway, it is forbidden to take the drink with you from the bar to a
table. That is, if you buy the drink in the bar, you must drink it
there, if you order it from the table, you must stay seated and drink it
there. Having just bought a drink in the bar, and discovering some
friends at a table, leaves you with the decision to choose between your
friends and the drink...
Ingvar Nilsen
Roger Arnesen
>This law more or less "sleeps". However, if some inspection people from
>the town had seen this, the bar could possibly have had their permission
>to sell alcohol withdrawn. I was once myself, about 10 years ago, denied
>to take my drink from the bar to the table. The purpose, I think, is
>to prevent minors from making adults buy alcohol for them, or something
>like that, or there is no sane purpose at all. The norwegians are as
>hysterical regarding alcohol as the americans are regarding sex.
Ehh... Americans are actually worse when it comes to age and drinking... 21
for beer in some? states....
And I do not believe you can serve drinks/stronger beverages in an
establishment with no age-limit on it in the US??? Some places in Norway,
you can get in, and the age check is at the bar.
Roger
aphrael
I went to a bar in Stamsund, on the Lofoten Islands, and was
watching a WM game there ... I would walk up to the bar, order
drinks for my friends and me, and then walk back to the tables
with them.
Maybe a special case because of (a) small town or (b) WM?
Wayne Herbert
> And I do not believe you can serve drinks/stronger beverages in an
> establishment with no age-limit on it in the US??? Some places in Norway,
> you can get in, and the age check is at the bar.
There are no places left im the US that do not have an age requirement if they
serve alcohol. Why? Because all the snivelling do-gooders decided that under
age drinking was such a serious problem that they went to Congress and weaseled
in a law. Since the US govt couldn't set an age limit (a state's right), what
they did was to say that any state that did not have a law making the drinking
age 21 would lose massive amounts of federal highway funds. Texas waited to
the last minute, and I believe Louisiana was the las to to cave in.
So, you can be 18 to vote, 18 to join the military, but you got to be 21 to
have a beer.
Wayne Herbert
> Excuse me, but what a load of croc!!! I really do not mean to be offensive
> here, but I have *never* heard this, and I am no stranger to buying drinks in
> Norwegian bars....
Roger, your English colloquialisms are failing you... it is 'what a load of
poop' or 'what a crock of sh*t'.
Here is one that is real. While waiting for the plane in Salt Lake City, Utah,
I go to the bar to get a drink. The bar does not serve alcohol. But, if you
will give the waitress money, she will go across the hall to the liquor store,
but a small bottle, then mix you a drink with it. What a crock! Everybody
there likes it this way... the liquor store rips you off for the booze, the bar
rips you off for the mixer.
Roger Arnesen
>> Excuse me, but what a load of croc!!! I really do not mean to be
offensive
>> here, but I have *never* heard this, and I am no stranger to buying
drinks in
>> Norwegian bars....
>
>Roger, your English colloquialisms are failing you... it is 'what a load of
>poop' or 'what a crock of sh*t'.
Well, Appropriate Correct Insultive Writing 101 was not on my courselist....
hehehehehe ;-))
>Here is one that is real. While waiting for the plane in Salt Lake City,
Utah,
>I go to the bar to get a drink. The bar does not serve alcohol. But, if
you
>will give the waitress money, she will go across the hall to the liquor
store,
>but a small bottle, then mix you a drink with it. What a crock! Everybody
>there likes it this way... the liquor store rips you off for the booze, the
bar
>rips you off for the mixer.
Oh, I can beat that one. (I think...)
Brunei : Alcohol is not allowed. Meaning you can drink and drive. Cuz how
can you have a law against drunk driving when you can't drink??
Anyway, there you pay the waitress some petty change, she will go across the
road, argue in chinese with a guy in a van, and come back with 3 Heineken.
That's personlized services... BUT : They will open up a coke can, pour it
out, open the Heineken, pour the Heineken into the coke can, and *then* you
can drink it. Amazing amount of hassle to get a beer though....
Roger
Roger Arnesen
>So, you can be 18 to vote, 18 to join the military, but you got to be 21 to
>have a beer.
Not to forget "16 to command a 5 tonn lump of steel going at 100 MPH while
listening to Metallica at max volume"
Roger
Material Fellow
>
> Brad Clarke wrote:
> >
> > Absolutely, I just find it way too controling for some government
> > yahoo to tell me what I can and can't do in my own home.
> > That reeks of "Big Brother" to me.
> > > michael peirce wrote:
> > > We're free to make any goofy laws we want.
>
> Yes, which makes all the difference.
> BTW, can you beat this one:
> In Norway, it is forbidden to take the drink with you from the bar to a
> table. That is, if you buy the drink in the bar, you must drink it
> there, if you order it from the table, you must stay seated and drink it
> there. Having just bought a drink in the bar, and discovering some
> friends at a table, leaves you with the decision to choose between your
> friends and the drink...
>
> Ingvar Nilsen
20 years ago, the State of Virginia had a law that a patron couldn't
carry his drink around. The waitress or waiter would be called to move
the drink for you.
And, they really did it.
Virginia is one of the "Fundamentalist" states ( the literal bible
believers ).
There were bible passages instructing slaves to obey their masters, not
only in the presence of the master, but in his absence. The
fundamentalists in the slave southern states took the literal
intrepretation of the word.
The Northern states argued against slavery on the grounds of the golden
rule parts of the bible.
There is often said to be a bias in silly laws for the former slave
states.
In North Carolina, it is illegal for a farmer to plow a field, with an
elephant.
Texas is in the news with the sodomy law recently.
jim
Philippe Ranger
And that's why entirely too many laws are bushwah. Take a photo of
your baby in bathtub and all of a sudden you're a child pornographer?
I just love Western Society.
I just wonder about their agendas. What, exactly, are they after?
<<
Easy. They don't know.
PhR
Philippe Ranger
In the
city of Kanata, Ontario the color of house and garage doors is regulated by
city bylaws (a purple door get you a fine). It is also illegal to have a
clothes line in your backyard.
<<
In the fair, small city of Outremont, not only do ALL exterior painting jobs
require a permit (for color) but, for instance, the City went to Appeals
Court over the exact type of division inside a window frame (swear). My
next-door neighbor recently moved away — to another suburb, that forbids
clothes lines.
PhR
Joe C. Hecht
>
> >This law more or less "sleeps". However, if some inspection people from
> >the town had seen this, the bar could possibly have had their permission
> >to sell alcohol withdrawn. I was once myself, about 10 years ago, denied
> >to take my drink from the bar to the table. The purpose, I think, is
> >to prevent minors from making adults buy alcohol for them, or something
> >like that, or there is no sane purpose at all. The norwegians are as
> >hysterical regarding alcohol as the americans are regarding sex.
>
> Ehh... Americans are actually worse when it comes to age and drinking... 21
> for beer in some? states....
>
> establishment with no age-limit on it in the US??? Some places in Norway,
> you can get in, and the age check is at the bar.
>
Generally, in restraunts that have bars, underage folks can get in.
Varies state to state, and local to local.
Here in Florida, for a bar, its 17 to get in to party, and 21 to drink.
Joe
--
Joe C. Hecht
joeh...@gte.net
(850) 689-0877 121 Louise Dr. Crestview, FL 32536
http://home1.gte.net/joehecht/index.htm
Joe C. Hecht
then it is 12.
Material Fellow
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-206-170-70-233.irvn11.pacbell.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-PBWG (Win95; U)
J. Peter Mugaas wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Nov 1998 21:50:08 -0500, "Philippe Ranger" <.> wrote:
>
> >Easy. They don't know.
> >
> I thought it was to find pornography in everything and stamp it out. Of
> course, they could even find obscene content in this message (hint: read it
> backwards for subliminal messages).
Don't forget the group from the 50's and 60's who could find
pornographic images in kid's comics and in various magazine
advertisements.
I went bonkers trying to find them.
Wasted a lot of time looking for this porn.
jim buch
Joe C. Hecht
> Here is one that is real. While waiting for the plane in Salt Lake City, Utah,
> I go to the bar to get a drink. The bar does not serve alcohol. But, if you
> will give the waitress money, she will go across the hall to the liquor store,
> but a small bottle, then mix you a drink with it. What a crock! Everybody
> there likes it this way... the liquor store rips you off for the booze, the bar
> rips you off for the mixer.
As a teenager, I visited SLC, and was routinly refused to be served
coffee,
tea, or coke as I was underaged. Once, I was refused even though my mom
was
there at the table. Mom and dad once instisted I was served wine with my
dinner. Caused quite a rucus!!!
Joe C. Hecht
>
> Roger Arnesen wrote:
> > ...but I have *never* heard this, and I am no stranger
> > to buying drinks in Norwegian bars....
> investigation. Like I said, I once experienced this myself 10 years ago,
> maybe the law has been changed. I'll come back!
What an excuse to go visit the bar :)
Perhaps the subject will turn once again to topless bars
so I can have an excuse <g>
Philippe Ranger
Sunday
or she shall risk arrest, fine, and/or jailing.
<<
Obviously, some people were setting records, and they trumpeted it...
PhR
Philippe Ranger
And that's why entirely too many laws are bushwah. Take a photo of
your baby in bathtub and all of a sudden you're a child pornographer?
I just love Western Society.
<<
Roger answering Daniel through PhR: >>
Well, I would actually say it's better to hurt 1000 adults sense of freedom
to take the pictures he chooses, than subject 1 child to this shit.
<<
You've got to be in a foul mood! What about the sense of naturalness of 4000
children? Do you want to take baths dressed, too?
PhR
Ingvar Nilsen
> ...but I have *never* heard this, and I am no stranger
> to buying drinks in Norwegian bars....
Watch this thread, this made me so interested that I'll do some
investigation. Like I said, I once experienced this myself 10 years ago,
maybe the law has been changed. I'll come back!
Ingvar Nilsen
>
> >Yes, which makes all the difference.
> >BTW, can you beat this one:
> >In Norway, it is forbidden to take the drink with you from the bar to a
> >table. That is, if you buy the drink in the bar, you must drink it
> >there, if you order it from the table, you must stay seated and drink it
> >there. Having just bought a drink in the bar, and discovering some
> >friends at a table, leaves you with the decision to choose between your
> >friends and the drink...
>
Roger Arnesen wrote:
> Excuse me, but what a load of croc!!! I really do not mean to be offensive
> here, but I have *never* heard this, and I am no stranger to buying drinks
> in Norwegian bars....
>
> Roger
Roger Arnesen
>> ...but I have *never* heard this, and I am no stranger
>> to buying drinks in Norwegian bars....
>Watch this thread, this made me so interested that I'll do some
>investigation. Like I said, I once experienced this myself 10 years ago,
>maybe the law has been changed. I'll come back!
Well, you could be right in terms of the "sleeping" law issue, because it
does make some "logic" in terms of the fact that there are bars here without
any age limit....
But I haven't heard about it.
But : When going into a place with only a beer/wine licence, and order a
beer with campari, they will not mix it for you, because that is not allowed
under their licence. (Beer+Campari=Drink), but they will give you a 1/2
liter glass of beer, with a campari shot glas floating inside. All you have
to do is push the campariglass down just enough for it to sink, thereby
causing the mixing of the drink. But you have to do it.....
Roger
J. Peter Mugaas
>Easy. They don't know.
>
I thought it was to find pornography in everything and stamp it out. Of
course, they could even find obscene content in this message (hint: read it
backwards for subliminal messages).
-- Support the anti-Spam amendment - Join at http://www.cauce.org/
J. Peter Mugaas E-Mail: oma0...@mail.wvnet.edu
http://wvnvm.wvnet.edu/~oma00215/ Finger for PGP key.
Roger Arnesen
to take the pictures he chooses, than subject 1 child to this shit.
Roger
Philippe Ranger <.> wrote in message <73ifuc$bo...@forums.borland.com>...
>Daniel: >>
>And that's why entirely too many laws are bushwah. Take a photo of
>your baby in bathtub and all of a sudden you're a child pornographer?
>I just love Western Society.
>
>I just wonder about their agendas. What, exactly, are they after?
><<
>
>Easy. They don't know.
>
> PhR
>
>
>
Joe C. Hecht
>
> Daniel: >>
> And that's why entirely too many laws are bushwah. Take a photo of
> your baby in bathtub and all of a sudden you're a child pornographer?
> I just love Western Society.
> <<
>
> <<
>
> You've got to be in a foul mood! What about the sense of naturalness of 4000
> children? Do you want to take baths dressed, too?
>
> PhR
Good point. After reading about *more* than one incident were a parent
was charged for developing baby pictures at the local photomat, Lynda
and I went through our photo album and destroyed some of those once in
a lifetime pictures of our children taking baths and wandering around
without a diaper :(
It's really sad. That is a good example of what *adults* can be
subjected
to.
There is an upscale restraunt in the Scotts Valley area that features
some peretty nice art. There is a painting of a young lady in a
nightgown,
that shows "just a bit". Its a wonderfull painting. The girl looks to
me like she is probably 13 or 14. According to my limited knowledge
of fedral law, the owner could be suject to a long prison sentance
and a stiff fine. Pitty...
And where do you draw the line?
Will this war be as effective as say... "the war on drugs"?
Ingvar Nilsen
you misunderstood what I meant with "investigation" <g>, but why not,
maybe this is the right approach!
Ingvar Nilsen
Joe C. Hecht wrote:
>
> Ingvar Nilsen wrote:
> >
> > Watch this thread, this made me so interested that I'll do
> > some investigation.
> What an excuse to go visit the bar :)
> Joe
Ingvar Nilsen
>
> ...and I went through our photo album and destroyed some of those
> wandering around without a diaper :(
>
> It's really sad.
Hard to believe from this viewpoint, but if true, then *sad*.
Ingvar Nilsen
Ingvar Nilsen
>
> Massachusetts:
> 2. Snoring is prohibited unless all bedroom windows are closed
> and securely locked.
> Florida:
> 2. A special law prohibits unmarried women from parachuting on
> Sunday or she shall risk arrest, fine, and/or jailing.
How amazing, we have the same laws here!!!
Anyhow, this is no problem, I alwas carefully close my bedroom window
shortly after I start snoring.
But, *NOT* on sundays!!
Ingvar Nilsen
> Ingvar Nilsen <telc...@NOSPAMonline.no> wrote:
>
> >>BTW, can you beat this one:
>
> How about these:
>
> Alabama:
> 1. It is illegal for a driver to be blindfolded while operating a
> vehicle.
>
> California:
> 1. Community leaders passed an ordinance that makes it illegal for
> anyone to try and stop a child from playfully jumping over puddles of
> water.
>
> Connecticut:
> 1. You can be stopped by the police for biking over 65 miles per
> hour.
> 2. You are not allowed to walk across a street on your hands.
>
> Florida:
> 1. Women may be fined for falling asleep under a hair dryer, as can
> the salon owner.
> 2. A special law prohibits unmarried women from parachuting on Sunday
> or she shall risk arrest, fine, and/or jailing.
> 3. If an elephant is left tied to a parking meter, the parking fee
> has to be paid just as it would for a vehicle.
> 4. It is illegal to sing in a public place while attired in a
> swimsuit.
> 5. Men may not be seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown.
>
> Illinois:
> 1. It is illegal for anyone to give lighted cigars to dogs, cats, and
> other domesticated animal kept as pets.
>
> Indiana:
> 1. Bathing is prohibited during the winter.
> 2. Citizens are not allowed to attend a movie house or theater nor
> ride in a public streetcar within at least four hours after eating
> garlic.
>
> Iowa:
> 1. Kisses may last for as much as, but no more than, five minutes.
>
> Kentucky:
> 1. By law, anyone who has been drinking is "sober" until he or she
> "cannot hold onto the ground."
> 2. It is illegal to transport an ice cream cone in your pocket.
>
> Louisana:
> 1. It is illegal to rob a bank and then shoot at the bank teller with
> a water pistol.
> 2. Biting someone with your natural teeth is "simple assault," while
> biting someone with your false teeth is "aggravated assault."
>
> Massachusetts:
> 1. Mourners at a wake may not eat more than three sandwiches.
> 2. Snoring is prohibited unless all bedroom windows are closed and
> securely locked.
> 3. An old ordinance declares goatees illegal unless you first pay a
> special license fee for the privilege of wearing one in public.
>
> Nebraska:
> 1. A parent can be arrested if his child cannot hold back a burp
> during a church service.
>
> New Mexico:
> 1. Females are strictly forbidden to appear unshaven in public.
>
> New York:
> 1. A fine of $25 can be levied for flirting. This old law
> specifically prohibits men from turning around on any city street and
> looking at a woman "in that way." A second conviction for a crime of
> this magnitude calls for the violating male to be forced to wear a
> "pair of horse-blinders" wherever and whenever he goes outside for a
> stroll.
>
> North Dakota:
> 1. Beer & pretzels can't be served at the same time in any bar or
> restaurant.
>
> Ohio:
> 1. Women are prohibited from wearing patent leather shoes in public.
>
> Oklahoma:
> 1. Violators can be fined, arrested or jailed for making ugly faces
> at a dog.
> 2. Females are forbidden from doing their own hair without being
> licensed by the state.
> 3. Dogs must have a permit signed by the mayor in order to congregate
> in groups of three or more on private property.
>
> Pennsylvania:
> 1. A special cleaning ordinance bans housewives from hiding dirt and
> dust under a rug in a dwelling.
> 2. No man may purchase alcohol without written consent from his wife.
>
> Texas:
> 1. A city ordinance states that a person cannot go barefoot without
> first obtaining a special five-dollar permit.
> 2. It is illegal to take more than three sips of beer at a time while
> standing.
>
> Vermont:
> 1. Lawmakers made it obligatory for everybody to take at least one
> bath each week-on Saturday night.
>
> Washington:
> 1. All lollipops are banned.
> 2. A law to reduce crime states: "It is mandatory for a motorist with
> criminal intentions to stop at the city limits and telephone the chief
> of police as he is entering the town.
>
> West Virginia:
> 1. No children may attend school with their breath smelling of "wild
> onions."
>
> Brad
Roger Arnesen
>And that's why entirely too many laws are bushwah. Take a photo of
>your baby in bathtub and all of a sudden you're a child pornographer?
>I just love Western Society.
><<
>
>Roger answering Daniel through PhR: >>
>Well, I would actually say it's better to hurt 1000 adults sense of freedom
><<
>
>You've got to be in a foul mood! What about the sense of naturalness of
4000
>children? Do you want to take baths dressed, too?
No, but then again it isn't against the law to take such a picture. That
was, as far as I read it, an extrapolated statement taken to the edge to
make a point by Daniel.
Roger
Material Fellow
>
> Philippe Ranger wrote:
> >
> > Daniel: >>
> > And that's why entirely too many laws are bushwah. Take a photo of
> > your baby in bathtub and all of a sudden you're a child pornographer?
> > I just love Western Society.
> > <<
> >
> > Roger answering Daniel through PhR: >>
> > Well, I would actually say it's better to hurt 1000 adults sense of freedom
> > <<
> >
> > You've got to be in a foul mood! What about the sense of naturalness of 4000
> > children? Do you want to take baths dressed, too?
> >
>
> Good point. After reading about *more* than one incident were a parent
> was charged for developing baby pictures at the local photomat, Lynda
> a lifetime pictures of our children taking baths and wandering around
> without a diaper :(
>
> subjected
> to.
>
> There is an upscale restraunt in the Scotts Valley area that features
> some peretty nice art. There is a painting of a young lady in a
> nightgown,
> that shows "just a bit". Its a wonderfull painting. The girl looks to
> me like she is probably 13 or 14. According to my limited knowledge
> of fedral law, the owner could be suject to a long prison sentance
> and a stiff fine. Pitty...
>
> And where do you draw the line?
Not a photograph.
Therefore, not illegal.
Could have been created from fantasy, not the participation of the child
in the act of creating the image.
This is not a defense.... just my opinion of an explanation.
jim buch
Philippe Ranger
a bit". Its a wonderfull painting. The girl looks to me like she is probably
13 or 14. According to my limited knowledge
of fedral law, the owner could be suject to a long prison sentance and a
stiff fine. Pitty...
<<
How times change! If you remember, twenty years ago the schock photographer
in fashion was David Hamilton, who did nothing else. You couldn't find a
young woman's appartment in twenty without several laminated shots on the
walls of semi-pubescent girls dreamily semi-dressing. Ok, not two in twenty.
The other two were sophisticates, and they had Leonor Fini reproductions,
same thing in oil.
>>
And where do you draw the line?
<<
You don't. You just shut up. There are many, many evils which propagate
equally if not better by being condemned than by being promoted. Especially
regarding "sex" (quotes emphasized).
PhR
Joe C. Hecht
> >children? Do you want to take baths dressed, too?
>
> was, as far as I read it, an extrapolated statement taken to the edge to
> make a point by Daniel.
>
> Roger
Tell that to the parents who have been jailed in the U.S.,
(and thier children taken away from them for) such a picture.
Child porn laws are not going to stop child porn any more
than the war on drugs is going to stop drug abuse.
It just does not work that way. Laws to not prevent
crime, but they do sometimes cause the innocent get
hurt.
Joe C. Hecht
>
> Joe C. Hecht wrote:
> >
> > Philippe Ranger wrote:
> > >
> > > Daniel: >>
> > > And that's why entirely too many laws are bushwah. Take a photo of
> > > your baby in bathtub and all of a sudden you're a child pornographer?
> > > I just love Western Society.
> > > <<
> > >
> > > Roger answering Daniel through PhR: >>
> > > Well, I would actually say it's better to hurt 1000 adults sense of freedom
> > > to take the pictures he chooses, than subject 1 child to this s**t.
> > > <<
> > >
> > > You've got to be in a foul mood! What about the sense of naturalness of 4000
> > >
> >
> > Good point. After reading about *more* than one incident were a parent
> > was charged for developing baby pictures at the local photomat, Lynda
> > and I went through our photo album and destroyed some of those once in
> > a lifetime pictures of our children taking baths and wandering around
> > without a diaper :(
> >
> > It's really sad. That is a good example of what *adults* can be
> > subjected
> > to.
> >
> > There is an upscale restraunt in the Scotts Valley area that features
> > nightgown,
> > that shows "just a bit". Its a wonderfull painting. The girl looks to
> > me like she is probably 13 or 14. According to my limited knowledge
> > of fedral law, the owner could be suject to a long prison sentance
> > and a stiff fine. Pitty...
> >
>
>
> Therefore, not illegal.
>
> Could have been created from fantasy, not the participation of the child
> in the act of creating the image.
>
> This is not a defense.... just my opinion of an explanation.
I think these laws apply to photograhs, computer images, computer
generated images, books, words written in the books that describe
or even imply any sort of underage sexual behaviour.
Joe C. Hecht
>
> >Tell that to the parents who have been jailed in the U.S.,
> >(and thier children taken away from them for) such a picture.
>
> there was other evidence in the matter. You live in a country where
> burglars are rewarded damages for injuries sustained when breaking into
> peoples homes, and you want me to believe people will get jailed for a
> bathtub-picture.
Choose to believe what you want. There are those who still believe
the holocuast never happened. Fine. I read in the news. I belive
the report was reasonably accurate.
> Still, if 10000 parents are deprived the right of taking a picture of
their
> kid in the tub, nude, that is still a smaller sacrifice than letting one
> child go through the horros referenced in the title.
I dont think the law is going to stop the problem. And if there is
a law, it should be very well defined, and should cover only
photos of an actual sex act with a minor. It should not be so
broad as to cover simple nudity.
Note that I am still against any form of censorship. It should
not be illegal to have photographs, movies, or books of *any*
kind.
Tell ya what... You apply that broad law to every church that
has pictures/paintings/stained glass of those cherrabs while
your at it.
Time to burn all the bibles. Underage sex content in there too.
Some even have pictures.
Circumsision??? hmmm... Sexual mutalation of an underaged child!!!!
Better jail the priest and all the participants!
Hope it helped that one child!!!!
> Let's assume that child porn people take nude pictures of kids. Let's say
> "normal" folks do to. Lets say the ratio is 1:10000. Fine. If we can stop
> that one, the 10.000 can feel as hurt as they want by me.
If I can stop one person like you, then 10,000 kids might go up in
a reasonably free society.
> >Child porn laws are not going to stop child porn any more
> >than the war on drugs is going to stop drug abuse.
> >It just does not work that way. Laws to not prevent
> >crime, but they do sometimes cause the innocent get
> >hurt.
>
> If you are saying that we should just abandon laws against drugs and child
> porn, you are *w-a-y* out there with the loons in my book.
Drug laws work? Where??? Prohibiton worked??? Nope... sorry...
And I will tell you somthing else equally true that you probably
wont believe either:
As long as there is someone willing to buy child porn, their
will be child porn. Period. You are not going to stop it.
Now read this:
Give me a decent law that covers *child abuse*. I'll be the
first to vote for it. That law will help protect the children
in a way that will make *both* of us happy, without having
to burn books, art, films, stained glass windows and the like.
See... I'm not that far out there, I just want a bit of reasonableness
on both sides.
Roger Arnesen
>Tell that to the parents who have been jailed in the U.S.,
>(and thier children taken away from them for) such a picture.
I assume that the pictures were an early indication about this, and that
there was other evidence in the matter. You live in a country where
burglars are rewarded damages for injuries sustained when breaking into
peoples homes, and you want me to believe people will get jailed for a
bathtub-picture.
Still, if 10000 parents are deprived the right of taking a picture of their
kid in the tub, nude, that is still a smaller sacrifice than letting one
child go through the horros referenced in the title.
Let's assume that child porn people take nude pictures of kids. Let's say
"normal" folks do to. Lets say the ratio is 1:10000. Fine. If we can stop
that one, the 10.000 can feel as hurt as they want by me.
>Child porn laws are not going to stop child porn any more
>than the war on drugs is going to stop drug abuse.
>It just does not work that way. Laws to not prevent
>crime, but they do sometimes cause the innocent get
>hurt.
If you are saying that we should just abandon laws against drugs and child
porn, you are *w-a-y* out there with the loons in my book.
Roger
Roger Arnesen
>the holocuast never happened. Fine. I read in the news. I belive
>the report was reasonably accurate.
You are getting dangerouesly close to calling me a nazi here. Uncalled for.
And every account of news you get fed by the media must be true then??
I still say that if people are put in jail for taking a nude picture of
their kid, and there is no further evidence of child abuse, then that is not
good. But I still hold that I find that hard to believe.
>Tell ya what... You apply that broad law to every church that
>has pictures/paintings/stained glass of those cherrabs while
>your at it.
>
>Time to burn all the bibles. Underage sex content in there too.
>Some even have pictures.
You're trying to make me come off as some wierdo who has a problem with what
I/you see.
That is not the case. You can paint or write about as much sex with 3-year
olds as you want.
But once people start actually *having* sex with 3-year olds, I get
disgusted. And when people take pictures of it.....
>> Let's assume that child porn people take nude pictures of kids. Let's
say
>> "normal" folks do to. Lets say the ratio is 1:10000. Fine. If we can
stop
>> that one, the 10.000 can feel as hurt as they want by me.
>
>If I can stop one person like you, then 10,000 kids might go up in
>a reasonably free society.
Fine. You work to prevent the people who wants to stop abusing children.
Hope it makes you proud.
>> If you are saying that we should just abandon laws against drugs and
child
>> porn, you are *w-a-y* out there with the loons in my book.
>
>Drug laws work? Where??? Prohibiton worked??? Nope... sorry...
>And I will tell you somthing else equally true that you probably
>wont believe either:
>
>As long as there is someone willing to buy child porn, their
>will be child porn. Period. You are not going to stop it.
So we should just give in, and let them sell their stuff at the local 7-11?
Say "OK, you win. We'll make it legal".
And comparing it to prohibition is not relevant whatsoever, and you know.
And just in case you didn't, approx 75% of the (norwegian at least) drink
alcohol to some extent. So banning something 75% of the people does is
going to be very hard.
If 75% of the population has sex with kids, I will positivly move into the
forest and become a une-bomber.
>Give me a decent law that covers *child abuse*. I'll be the
>first to vote for it. That law will help protect the children
>in a way that will make *both* of us happy, without having
>to burn books, art, films, stained glass windows and the like.
Are you saying there are no laws against child abuse in the US?
Roger
Ingvar Nilsen
all in all - very well said!!
> Child porn laws are not going to stop child porn any more
> than the war on drugs is going to stop drug abuse.
> Drug laws work? Where??? Prohibiton worked???
> Nope... sorry...
Correct! But we still *need* the laws.
Ingvar Nilsen
Joe C. Hecht wrote:
>
> Roger Arnesen wrote:
> >
> > >Tell that to the parents who have been jailed in the U.S.,
> > >(and thier children taken away from them for) such a picture.
> >
> > I assume that the pictures were an early indication about this, and that
> > there was other evidence in the matter. You live in a country where
> > burglars are rewarded damages for injuries sustained when breaking into
> > peoples homes, and you want me to believe people will get jailed for a
> > bathtub-picture.
>
> Choose to believe what you want. There are those who still believe
> the holocuast never happened. Fine. I read in the news. I belive
> the report was reasonably accurate.
>
> > Still, if 10000 parents are deprived the right of taking a picture of
> their
> > kid in the tub, nude, that is still a smaller sacrifice than letting one
> > child go through the horros referenced in the title.
>
> I dont think the law is going to stop the problem. And if there is
> a law, it should be very well defined, and should cover only
> photos of an actual sex act with a minor. It should not be so
> broad as to cover simple nudity.
>
> Note that I am still against any form of censorship. It should
> not be illegal to have photographs, movies, or books of *any*
> kind.
>
> Tell ya what... You apply that broad law to every church that
> has pictures/paintings/stained glass of those cherrabs while
> your at it.
>
> Time to burn all the bibles. Underage sex content in there too.
> Some even have pictures.
>
> Circumsision??? hmmm... Sexual mutalation of an underaged child!!!!
> Better jail the priest and all the participants!
>
> Hope it helped that one child!!!!
>
> > Let's assume that child porn people take nude pictures of kids. Let's say
> > "normal" folks do to. Lets say the ratio is 1:10000. Fine. If we can stop
> > that one, the 10.000 can feel as hurt as they want by me.
>
> If I can stop one person like you, then 10,000 kids might go up in
> a reasonably free society.
>
> > >Child porn laws are not going to stop child porn any more
> > >than the war on drugs is going to stop drug abuse.
> > >It just does not work that way. Laws to not prevent
> > >crime, but they do sometimes cause the innocent get
> > >hurt.
> >
> > If you are saying that we should just abandon laws against drugs and child
> > porn, you are *w-a-y* out there with the loons in my book.
>
> Drug laws work? Where??? Prohibiton worked??? Nope... sorry...
> And I will tell you somthing else equally true that you probably
> wont believe either:
>
> As long as there is someone willing to buy child porn, their
> will be child porn. Period. You are not going to stop it.
>
> Now read this:
>
> Give me a decent law that covers *child abuse*. I'll be the
> first to vote for it. That law will help protect the children
> in a way that will make *both* of us happy, without having
> to burn books, art, films, stained glass windows and the like.
>
Fernand Raynaud
Fernand
Philippe Ranger <.> wrote in message <73k34t$dp...@forums.borland.com>...
Fernand Raynaud
"If there is one usurer that we can protect ourselves from by ... " never
mind.
This is why most of us here ran as far as we could from you orderly people
in the Old Country, Herr Direktor. Shudder.
Fernand
Roger Arnesen wrote in message <73m13v$ev...@forums.borland.com>...
Roger Arnesen
But hey, you want to rely on the goodness in all humans, and have free sex
with 3-year olds, and take all the pictures you want, I am not sure what is
worse.
No order at all. Free For All. Great for you. But let me know, huh? And
I will give lotsa money to organisations who's goal in life it is to save
children from your sex-drive.
Because if you start calling people "Nazis" in the same context "Ordnung
must sein" and "Herr Direktor" because they take a stand against child
pronography, then you REALLY NEED some SERIOUS HELP!!!
I am not discussing this issue any further, because you TRULY disgust me.
Roger
Fernand Raynaud wrote in message <73m2cq$ev...@forums.borland.com>...
Robert Meek
matter...is that they are approached by those charged with upholding them,
and judiciated by methods and means that do not take the individual act
and/or situation into account! It may be an unfortunate truth, but a truth
none the less...that for a free and libertarian society to flourish under
it's own laws, these laws must be used as conditional evaluations...not
indictments!
Was a law broken or crime committed? The law, as written and amended
over time must be the evaluating condition used. We unfortunately, rely
upon it as a means of judgement and exercise!
A personal example: My lease says I'm allowed two parking spaces for
owned vehicles. I own two vehicles. One, though drivable and insured, ( in
case it decides to roll away on it's own and hit someone...not because it
saves me 495 a year on the insurance for my new truck! <g> ), is not tagged
or inspected. City ordinances do not allow for such vehicles to be parked
for more than thirty days on public streets...they would then be considered
abandoned! But this is private property for which I hold a lease, not being
broken in any way! I am now being threatened with it's towing because the
landlord says it's illegally parked as such! No matter his "reasons" for
pursuing such nonsense, upholding the principles of personal liberty in this
matter costs money...non-refundable money!
This will result in a judgement call when it finally gets to court, and
the judgement itself will most likely be made based not upon facts in
evidence that support either side, but upon situational and conditional
reasoning as perceived by the courts! Either way the decision goes, if I
pursue my rights, I lose! Why? Because the decision will justify my rights
or lack of, and does not even begin to approach the cause or effects
involved!
Bad laws, bad lawmaking, and mostly bad law enforcement in this country
are the leading cause of forced apathy!
Brad Clarke wrote in message <73hilg$b8...@forums.borland.com>...
>michael peirce wrote in message <365C490E...@is.custard.com>...
>
>>We're free to make any goofy laws we want.
>Absolutely, I just find it way too controling for some government yahoo to
>tell me what I can and can't do in my own home. That reeks of "Big
>Brother" to me.
>
>Mind you, some laws are humourous. The one I find most amusing is this:
>
>It goes along the lines of "whale or seal hunting is prohibited off the
>coast of Oklahoma". Last time I checked a map, I think Texas was "off the
>coast" of Oklahoma :)
>
>But there are some local laws here too that are just plain stupid: In the
>city of Kanata, Ontario the color of house and garage doors is regulated by
>city bylaws (a purple door get you a fine). It is also illegal to have a
>clothes line in your backyard.
>
>Brad
>
>
Robert Meek
case where this happened...even if it's happening didn't directly affect the
situation! For example many local ordinances governing the right to sell or
offer liquor in our firehouses here have been centered around Insurance
mandates that were issued after such cases. And again, they pre-solve a
variety of possible situations without regard to pertinent, situational
reasoning and always subjugate the individual. I was once refused a drink
at my own firehouse, by another member under this very rule...because I was
physically unable to sit or stand at the bar! No kidding! He was trying
his best to be a "good" boy, and refused me. At the next meeting it was
resolved the rule would not apply in my case, and I promptly quit the house.
Dam me if I'd let them put a fire out at my house! <g>
Ingvar Nilsen wrote in message <365C54BF...@NOSPAMonline.no>...
>Brad Clarke wrote:
>>
>> Absolutely, I just find it way too controling for some government
>> yahoo to tell me what I can and can't do in my own home.
>> That reeks of "Big Brother" to me.
>> > michael peirce wrote:
>> > We're free to make any goofy laws we want.
>
>Yes, which makes all the difference.
>BTW, can you beat this one:
>In Norway, it is forbidden to take the drink with you from the bar to a
>table. That is, if you buy the drink in the bar, you must drink it
>there, if you order it from the table, you must stay seated and drink it
>there. Having just bought a drink in the bar, and discovering some
>friends at a table, leaves you with the decision to choose between your
>friends and the drink...
>
>Ingvar Nilsen
Robert Meek
over State independence!
Wayne Herbert wrote in message <365C7F88...@keymaps.com>...
>Roger Arnesen wrote:
>
>> And I do not believe you can serve drinks/stronger beverages in an
>> establishment with no age-limit on it in the US??? Some places in
Norway,
>> you can get in, and the age check is at the bar.
>
>There are no places left im the US that do not have an age requirement if
they
>serve alcohol. Why? Because all the snivelling do-gooders decided that
under
>age drinking was such a serious problem that they went to Congress and
weaseled
>in a law. Since the US govt couldn't set an age limit (a state's right),
what
>they did was to say that any state that did not have a law making the
drinking
>age 21 would lose massive amounts of federal highway funds. Texas waited
to
>the last minute, and I believe Louisiana was the las to to cave in.
>
>So, you can be 18 to vote, 18 to join the military, but you got to be 21 to
>have a beer.
>--
>Wayne Herbert
>Manager, Computer Products
>Key Maps, Inc.
>1411 West Alabama
>Houston, TX 77006
>
>Vox: 713.522.7949
>Fax: 713.521.3202
>Email: wher...@keymaps.com
>
>"Everywhere I go, I'm asked if I think universities stifle writers. My
opinion
>is that they don't stifle enough of them."
>
>Flannery O'Connor (1925-1964)
>
>
Robert Meek
VEGAS because she was beast-feeding out daughter!
Joe C. Hecht wrote in message <365CCB...@gte.net>...
>Wayne Herbert wrote:
>> Here is one that is real. While waiting for the plane in Salt Lake City,
Utah,
>> I go to the bar to get a drink. The bar does not serve alcohol. But, if
you
>> will give the waitress money, she will go across the hall to the liquor
store,
>> but a small bottle, then mix you a drink with it. What a crock!
Everybody
>> there likes it this way... the liquor store rips you off for the booze,
the bar
>> rips you off for the mixer.
>
>As a teenager, I visited SLC, and was routinly refused to be served
>coffee,
>tea, or coke as I was underaged. Once, I was refused even though my mom
>was
>there at the table. Mom and dad once instisted I was served wine with my
>dinner. Caused quite a rucus!!!
Robert Meek
Joe C. Hecht wrote in message <365CCD...@gte.net>...
>Mississppi: Female age of censent is 17, unless she is not a virgin,
>then it is 12.
Robert Meek
Conrad Herrmann
>As a teenager, I visited SLC, and was routinly refused to be served
>coffee,
>tea, or coke as I was underaged. Once, I was refused even though my mom
>was
>there at the table.
For this, you have to understand that caffeine is a controlled substance in
the Mormon tradition. Just like alcohol.
>Mom and dad once instisted I was served wine with my
>dinner. Caused quite a rucus!!!
Had the same experience after moving back from France. This is pretty
common in the US, even in other States with less restrictive liquor laws.
Seems that people get edgy when parents exercise discretion and decide that
it's OK for their older kids to drink moderately with dinner.
-- Conrad Herrmann
Joe C. Hecht
>
> >Choose to believe what you want. There are those who still believe
> >the holocuast never happened. Fine. I read in the news. I belive
> >the report was reasonably accurate.
>
>
Hold up thar fella!!! I'm not calling anyone a nazi, and never would.
You took that in the wrong way. What I am trying to get across is that
more than one news report had been filed on this issue, from a
reasonable
source and thus, I am inclined to believe the report. If (for example)
the USA Today is not a reasonable source, then I dont know what is.
Here in Florida, we have some pretty tough drug laws in relation
to drugs getting dispensed within 1000 feet of a school. A teacher
in the elementry school here was perscribing and supplying the drug
ritilen to children. Some ended up in the hospital due to overdose.
She got caught. She recieved a 3 day suspension with pay. No criminal
charges were filed. I see it as dealing a dangerous controled substance
on school grounds. Had it been *me* giving out an asprin, I would have
been doing 25 years hard time.
Point is Roger, you are probably *not* going to believe that story, and
that is *very* sad. It is 100% true, happened this year, right here in
Crestview Florida, Antiock Elementray. I have a daughter who attends
the school. Check the papers if you wish....
The piont is that there are too many folks in this world who tend
to dismiss these "wild tales". Fact is, in Munich, there were far
too many who dismissed the wild stories of what was happping on
the outskirts of town back.
I submit that you are quick to believe the stories of the danger
of child porn, but are quick to dismiss other stories of equal danger.
>> I still say that if people are put in jail for taking a nude picture of
> their kid, and there is no further evidence of child abuse, then that is not
> good. But I still hold that I find that hard to believe.
Thats what happens when you have very broad laws. I do not consider the
the film "The Blue Lagoon" to be child porn, but some do. I do not
consider
the book "Go Ask Alice" to contin child porn, but some do.
All I am saying is: Go After the guy who is sexually abusing a *small*
child, but let's not get so carried away that we take out art, books,
films, family photo albums with it.
> >Tell ya what... You apply that broad law to every church that
> >has pictures/paintings/stained glass of those cherrabs while
> >your at it.
>
> >
> >Time to burn all the bibles. Underage sex content in there too.
> >Some even have pictures.
>
>You're trying to make me come off as some wierdo who has a problem with what
>I/you see.
No... well... yes. You *did* express the notion that making bathtub
pictures
illegal (thus making those possissing those photos suject to penalty) in
an effort to save a child. I find that a bit "out there". Certainly,
there
must be something that can be done to help protect the little ones
without
going to extremes.
>That is not the case. You can paint or write about as much sex with 3-year
>olds as you want.
No. You cannot. As it was explained to me, the federal law here covers
everything from pictures, to words, to paintings, to computer generated
*simulations*.
IMHO, it should *not* be illegal to possess:
Anything religious.
Anything that can be photographed, filmed, or videotaped.
Anything that can be drawn or written.
Anything that can be grown (as in plant material).
Any patteren of zeros and ones that is digitally recorded.
Yup folks. Those zeros and ones can be illegal, and get you
25 years in prison and a $500,000 fine!!!
Funny thing too! We are talking encrypted and compressed bit patterns.
I bet its possible to come up with a rendering alg that turns
Windows.pas into something that might fit the definition of
child porn!!! And Roger, dont even try reversing the bit patterns
if the evil image editor and then drag and drop the remains into
Corel Photopaint. I dont think you could not handle it ;)
> But once people start actually *having* sex with 3-year olds, I get
> disgusted. And when people take pictures of it.....
I agree. And I will be the *first* in line to volunteer as
executioner!!!
The folks that do that are the scum of the earth, no doubt. All I
ask is a good well written law. FWIW, I think the cut off should
be 13 years old.
FWIW, I have two daughters, ages 11 and 16. I raised the the oldest
from birth, and was her "mom" for 3.5 years. I am sensitive to the
needs of children.
> >If I can stop one person like you, then 10,000 kids might go up in
> >a reasonably free society.
> Fine. You work to prevent the people who wants to stop abusing children.
> Hope it makes you proud.
Roger.. That *was* uncalled for.
I do *not* work to prevent the people who wants to stop abusing
children.
I *demand* that you retract that statement!
For the record, I am against stupid laws that get enforced in way they
were not originally intended for. For what it is worth, I have spent
over $400,000 funding a legal battles to save children from abuse. So
dont give me that crap. I have done *my* part.
Now you retract that damn statement!!!
> >> If you are saying that we should just abandon laws against drugs and
> child
> >> porn, you are *w-a-y* out there with the loons in my book.
> >
> >Drug laws work? Where??? Prohibiton worked??? Nope... sorry...
> >And I will tell you somthing else equally true that you probably
> >wont believe either:
> >
> >As long as there is someone willing to buy child porn, their
> >will be child porn. Period. You are not going to stop it.
>
> So we should just give in, and let them sell their stuff at the local 7-11?
> Say "OK, you win. We'll make it legal".
Again, Books, art, paintings, words, bit patterens, pictures, videos
should be legal. If you can take the picture, it should be legel to
posses it.
> And comparing it to prohibition is not relevant whatsoever, and you know.
> And just in case you didn't, approx 75% of the (norwegian at least) drink
> alcohol to some extent. So banning something 75% of the people does is
> going to be very hard.
>
> If 75% of the population has sex with kids, I will positivly move into the
> forest and become a une-bomber.
I agree, but consider the effect of the law. Does it work? Is it well
written v.s. well meaning? Making something illegal to posess does
not work. Instead of spending money and waisting time writing stupid
laws, lets use the money to after the ones responsible.
> >Give me a decent law that covers *child abuse*. I'll be the
> >first to vote for it. That law will help protect the children
> >in a way that will make *both* of us happy, without having
> >to burn books, art, films, stained glass windows and the like.
>
> Are you saying there are no laws against child abuse in the US?
Yes, and those laws probably cover the folks you want to go after.
Tell me, do you want to hang the folks that are abusing the 3 year
olds and taking the pictures, some guy who simply has the picture,
or both?
Joe C. Hecht
>
> If this is an not-so-subtle way of calling me a nazi then *fu*k* *off*.
Please Roger, we are tyring to keep this forum clean for the children
who may be visiting here.
(I astricked out your profanity).
Of course, in your opinion, this word of sexual conatations may be
just fine to feed to a child.
I suppose, like many things, it is very subjective.
Joe C. Hecht
>
> Joe,
> all in all - very well said!!
>
> > Child porn laws are not going to stop child porn any more
> > than the war on drugs is going to stop drug abuse.
> > Nope... sorry...
Yes, we need *well written* laws that make sense, that will work.
Joe C. Hecht
>
> That's okay...my wife and I were thrown out of a casino restaurant in
> VEGAS because she was beast-feeding out daughter!
!!!WooHoo!!! Now thats out of hand!!!
Always wondered why male breasts are tolarated, but heaven forbid
a woman show her breast!