FAIR WARNING TO LAW ENFORCEMENT !!!
Patriots
IF YOU SNEAK INTO OUR HOMES, WE WILL DEFEND OUR FAMILIES AND HOMES WITH
EXTREME PREJUDICE.
The New (USA Patriot Act)
Section 213 "Sneak-and-Peak"
(Authority for Delaying Notice of the Execution of a Warrant), also
known as the "sneak-and-peak" provision, which effectively allows police
to avoid giving prior warning when searches of personal property are
conducted.
Before the USA PATRIOT Act, the government had to obtain a warrant and
give notice to the person whose property was to be searched. With one
vote by Congress and the sweep of the president's pen, the right of
every American fully to be protected under the Fourth Amendment against
unreasonable searches and seizures was surrendered !!!
Slow Loading :
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=143236&
HIGH ALERT !!! PASS IT ON.
http://community-2.webtv.net/We_The_People_/doc1/
Sons of Liberty Militia
Tim Stine
312 S. Wyomissing Ave.
Shillington, Pa. 19607
U.N. Occupied U.S.A.
1-610-775-0497
We_The_...@webtv.net
What is a Militia ? Defenders of Liberty & Freedom, and the
Constitutional Republic. Against Tyrants ! Foreign and Domestic ! Resist
the United Nations New World Order Global Government, and it's Global
Socialism, actually a Evil Oligarchy of the Superrich. We must Declare
our Independence from the U.N. New World Order !
Or forever lose our freedom.
We_Must_Resist_World_Gov.
The_American_Revolution_Continues !!!
http://community.webtv.net/We_The_People_/SonsofLibertyMilitia
nhoop
>
>
>IF YOU SNEAK INTO OUR HOMES, WE WILL DEFEND OUR FAMILIES AND HOMES WITH
>EXTREME PREJUDICE.
What the heck is with you guys? I've been an American for a lot of years, and
NEVER - that's "N-E-V-E-R" has a law enforcement officer sneaked into my home
- or even tried to. Not once in all these years.
What are you doing that you must worry so?
Puzzled.
Nat Hooper
Oxford, Arkansas
R2D2
>>FAIR WARNING TO LAW ENFORCEMENT !!!
>>
>>
>>IF YOU SNEAK INTO OUR HOMES, WE WILL DEFEND OUR FAMILIES AND HOMES WITH
>>EXTREME PREJUDICE.
>
>What the heck is with you guys? I've been an American for a lot of years, and
>NEVER - that's "N-E-V-E-R" has a law enforcement officer sneaked into my home
>- or even tried to. Not once in all these years.
Well now with this new PATRIOT law, you may never know if they do "sneek" into
your house.
SkyNet507
During these times it is very"unwise" to be stirring emotions and pointing
fingers at"Law Enforcement".
I have yet to hear of "any" Law Enforcement agency sneaking into unsuspecting
"American" citizens homes residents in the darkness of night,to take them away
to some hidden Fema, UN or other"concentration" camp.It is this type of
paranoia, conspiracy theories, circulating around to get people so worked up.
During these times that type of behavior is completely
irresponsible.What I do know is too many "Law Enforcement Officers" who "were"
Mommy, Daddy to so many children are now dead, gone. Innocent mothers, fathers,
who had put risked their lives, countless times to protect, others will not be
coming home tonight. They will not be sitting down to Thanksgiving dinner with
their wives, family and children this year. There will be No smiling , faces
from their children at Christmas looking up at mommy and daddy "saying I love
you" This is the best Christmas Ive ever had.These were "people" with families,
ordinary people, who just happen to be Police Officers, or with other Law
Enforcement agencies. To now try and
get people who may be somewhat distrustful of Govt. actions past and present,
(including past and present acts of Law Enforcement) is too much....." If you
are not engaging in criminal activities, I dont think for a second that any
time soon, agents will be repeling from blackhawk helo's in whisper mode, armed
with Mp-5's and kicking your doors in, without a "search warrant".Noone
condones, Police misconduct.Noone condones, Law enforcements dealings with
Waco, Ruby Ridge and others.Noone condones, warrantless searches, and the
trampling of civil rights, and the Constitution. But I do not believe, that
anyone in the right frame of mind "does "condone, basically saying"Ok now it's
open season on Law Enforcement Officers."How would you feel, about Law
Enforcemt officers,If you happpened to be in the WTC on the morning of Sept
11-2001 and you were overcome by smoke, and out of the darkness a police
officer rushed in pulled you and your family out to saftey, disregarding (his
her's) own saftey and threat to their lives, and once you and your family were
safe,that same Law Enforcement Officer rushed back in to try and save other
lives only to die doing so?"- The unwarrented paranoia and blatant attempts to
push disinformation, and conspiracy theories and blurring the emotions is not a
act of a"patriot".....It is the act of confusion.Confusion, at this time is
something that this Country and "all" of it's citizens needs to avoid at all
costs.Americans and true patriots would NOT be
trying to work others up that right now,"Law Enforcement is the ENEMY..."That
is not the act of a defender or patriot. It is however the act of a"anarchist"
and a "agent of chaos".....
SecretC...@codemaster.com
>
> What are you doing that you must worry so?
>
> Puzzled.
>
> Nat Hooper
> Oxford, Arkansas
The following article from Insight Magazine states that police started
using sneak and peek immediately upon passage of the Patriot Act. Why
worry? Because it's a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. Or,
perhaps you haven't read the Constitution. You should read it some
time. Then you might not be so puzzled why so many Americans gave
their lives to protect and defend it.
-Chip
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?includefitail&storyid_3236
Insight on the News - National Issue: 12/03/01
Police State
By Kelly Patricia O'Meara
If the United States is at war against terrorism to preserve freedom,
a new coalition of conservatives and liberals is asking, why is it
doing so by wholesale abrogation of civil liberties? They cite the
Halloween-week passage of the antiterrorism bill — a new law that
carries the almost preposterously gimmicky title: "Uniting and
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" (USA PATRIOT Act). Critics both
left and right are saying it not only strips Americans of fundamental
rights but does little or nothing to secure the nation from terrorist
attacks.
Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, one of only three Republican lawmakers to buck
the House leadership and the Bush administration to vote against this
legislation, is outraged not only by what is contained in the
antiterrorism bill but also by the effort to stigmatize opponents.
Paul tells Insight, "The insult is to call this a 'patriot bill' and
suggest I'm not patriotic because I insisted upon finding out what is
in it and voting no. I thought it was undermining the Constitution, so
I didn't vote for it — and therefore I'm somehow not a patriot. That's
insulting."
Paul confirms rumors circulating in Washington that this sweeping new
law, with serious implications for each and every American, was not
made available to members of Congress for review before the vote.
"It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote — at
least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the
House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe
a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was
not available to members before the vote."
And why would that be? "This is a very bad bill," explains Paul, "and
I think the people who voted for it knew it and that's why they said,
'Well, we know it's bad, but we need it under these conditions.'"
Meanwhile, efforts to obtain copies of the new law were stonewalled
even by the committee that wrote it.
What is so bad about the new law? "Generally," says Paul, "the worst
part of this so-called antiterrorism bill is the increased ability of
the federal government to commit surveillance on all of us without
proper search warrants." He is referring to Section 213 (Authority for
Delaying Notice of the Execution of a Warrant), also known as the
"sneak-and-peek" provision, which effectively allows police to avoid
giving prior warning when searches of personal property are conducted.
Before the USA PATRIOT Act, the government had to obtain a warrant and
give notice to the person whose property was to be searched. With one
vote by Congress and the sweep of the president's pen, say critics,
the right of every American fully to be protected under the Fourth
Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures was abrogated.
The Fourth Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall
issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized."
According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is
joining with conservatives as critics of the legislation, the
rationale for the Fourth Amendment protection always has been to
provide the person targeted for search with the opportunity to "point
out irregularities in the warrant, such as the fact that the police
may be at the wrong address or that the warrant is limited to a search
of a stolen car, so the police have no authority to be looking into
dresser drawers." Likely bad scenarios involving the midnight knock at
the door are not hard to imagine.
Paul, a strict constructionist (see Picture Profile, Sept. 3), has a
pretty good idea of what Americans may anticipate. "I don't like the
sneak-and-peek provision because you have to ask yourself what happens
if the person is home, doesn't know that law enforcement is coming to
search his home, hasn't a clue as to who's coming in unannounced … and
he shoots them. This law clearly authorizes illegal search and
seizure, and anyone who thinks of this as antiterrorism needs to
consider its application to every American citizen."
The only independent in the House, Rep. Bernie Sanders from Vermont,
couldn't support the bill for similar reasons: "I took an oath to
support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and I'm
concerned that voting for this legislation fundamentally violates that
oath. And the contents of the legislation have not been subjected to
serious hearings or searching examination."
Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU and professor of law at New
York University, tells Insight, "The sneak-and-peek provision is just
one that will be challenged in the courts. We're not only talking
about the sanctity of the home, but this includes searches of offices
and other places. It is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and poses
tremendous problems with due process. By not notifying someone about a
search, they don't have the opportunity to raise a constitutional
challenge to the search."
Even before the ink on the president's signature had dried, the FBI
began to take advantage of the new search-and-seizure provisions. A
handful of companies have reported visits from federal agents
demanding private business records. C.L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho),
another of the three GOP lawmakers who found the legislation
unconstitutional, says he knew this provision would be a problem.
"Section 215 authorizes the FBI to acquire any business records
whatsoever by order of a secret U.S. court. The recipient of such a
search order is forbidden from telling any person that he has received
such a request. This is a violation of the First Amendment right to
free speech and the Fourth Amendment protection of private property."
Otter added that "some of these provisions place more power in the
hands of law enforcement than our Founding Fathers could have dreamt
and severely compromises the civil liberties of law-abiding Americans.
This bill, while crafted with good intentions, is rife with
constitutional infringements I could not support."
Like most who actually have read and analyzed the new law, Strossen
disagrees with several provisions not only because they appear to her
to be unconstitutional but also because the sweeping changes it
codifies have little or nothing to do with fighting terrorism. "There
is no connection," insists Strossen, "between the Sept. 11 attacks and
what is in this legislation. Most of the provisions relate not just to
terrorist crimes but to criminal activity generally. This happened,
too, with the 1996 antiterrorism legislation where most of the
surveillance laws have been used for drug enforcement, gambling and
prostitution."
"I like to refer to this legislation," continues Strossen, "as the
'so-called antiterrorism law,' because on its face the provisions are
written to deal with any crime, and the definition of terrorism under
the new law is so severely broad that it applies far beyond what most
people think of as terrorism." A similar propensity of governments to
slide down the slippery slope recently was reported in England by The
Guardian newspaper. Under a law passed last year by the British
Parliament, investigators can get information from Internet-service
providers about their subscribers without a warrant. Supposedly an
antiterrorist measure, the British law will be applied to minor
crimes, tax collection and public-health purposes.
Under the USA PATRIOT Act in this country, Section 802 defines
domestic terrorism as engaging in "activity that involves acts
dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the United States or
any state and appear to be intended: (i) to intimidate or coerce a
civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a
government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping."
The ACLU has posted on its Website, www.aclu.org, a comprehensive list
of the provisions and summarizes the increased powers for federal
spying. The following are a sample of some of the changes as a result
of the so-called USA PATRIOT Act. The legislation:
* minimizes judicial supervision of federal telephone and Internet
surveillance by law-enforcement authorities. * expands the ability of
the government to conduct secret searches. * gives the attorney
general and the secretary of state the power to designate domestic
groups as terrorist organizations and deport any noncitizen who
belongs to them. * grants the FBI broad access to sensitive business
records about individuals without having to show evidence of a crime.
* leads to large-scale investigations of American citizens for
"intelligence" purposes.
More specifically, Section 203 (Authority to Share Criminal
Investigative Information) allows information gathered in criminal
proceedings to be shared with intelligence agencies, including but not
limited to the CIA — in effect, say critics, creating a political
secret police. No court order is necessary for law enforcement to
provide untested information gleaned from otherwise secret grand-jury
proceedings, and the information is not limited to the person being
investigated.
Furthermore, this section allows law enforcement to share intercepted
telephone and Internet conversations with intelligence agencies. No
court order is necessary to authorize the sharing of this information,
and the CIA is not prohibited from giving this information to
foreign-intelligence operations — in effect, say critics, creating an
international political secret police.
According to Strossen, "The concern here is about the third branch of
government. One of the overarching problems that pervades so many of
these provisions is reduction of the role of judicial oversight. The
executive branch is running roughshod over both of the other branches
of government. I find it very bothersome that the government is going
to have more widespread access to e-mail and Websites and that
information can be shared with other law-enforcement and even
intelligence agencies. So, again, we're going to have the CIA in the
business of spying on Americans — something that certainly hasn't gone
on since the 1970s."
Strossen is referring to the illegal investigations of thousands of
Americans under Operation CHAOS, spying carried out by the CIA and
National Security Agency against U.S. activists and opponents of the
war in Southeast Asia.
Nor do the invasion-of-privacy provisions of the new law end with law
enforcement illegally searching homes and offices, say critics. Under
Section 216 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Modification of Authorities
Relating to Use of Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices),
investigators freely can obtain access to "dialing, routing and
signaling information." While the bill provides no definition of
"dialing, routing and signaling information," the ACLU says this means
they even would "apply law-enforcement efforts to determine what
Websites a person visits." The police need only certify the
information they are in search of is "relevant to an ongoing criminal
investigation."
This does not meet probable-cause standards — that a crime has
occurred, is occurring or will occur. Furthermore, regardless of
whether a judge believes the request is without merit, the order must
be given to the requesting law-enforcement agency, a veritable rubber
stamp and potential carte blanche for fishing exhibitions.
Additionally, under Section 216, law enforcement now will have
unbridled access to Internet communications. The contents of e-mail
messages are supposed to be separated from the e-mail addresses, which
presumably is what interests law enforcement. To conduct this process
of separation, however, Congress is relying on the FBI to separate the
content from the addresses and disregard the communications.
In other words, the presumption is that law enforcement is only
interested in who is being communicated with and not what is said,
which critics say is unlikely. Citing political implications they note
this is the same FBI that during the Clinton administration could not
adequately explain how hundreds of personal FBI files of Clinton
political opponents found their way from the FBI to the Clinton White
House.
And these are just a few of the provisions and problems. While critics
doubt it will help in the tracking of would-be terrorists, the
certainty is that homes and places of business will be searched
without prior notice. And telephone and Internet communications will
be recorded and shared among law-enforcement and intelligence
agencies, all in the name of making America safe from terrorism.
Strossen understands the desire of lawmakers to respond forcefully to
the Sept. 11 attacks but complains that this is more of the same old
same old. "Government has the tendency," she explains, "to want to
proliferate during times of crisis, and that's why we have to
constantly fight against it. It's a natural impulse and, in many ways,
I don't fault it. In some ways they're just doing their job by
aggressively seeking as much law-enforcement power as possible, but
that's why we have checks and balances in our system of government,
and that's why I'm upset that Congress just rolled and played dead on
this one."
Paul agrees: "This legislation wouldn't have made any difference in
stopping the Sept. 11 attacks," he says. "Therefore, giving up our
freedoms to get more security when they can't prove it will do so
makes no sense. I seriously believe this is a violation of our
liberties. After all, a lot of this stuff in the bill has to do with
finances, search warrants and arrests."
For the most part, continues Paul, "our rights have been eroded as
much by our courts as they have been by Congress. Whether it's
Congress being willing to give up its prerogatives on just about
everything to deliver them to an administration that develops new and
bigger agencies, or whether it's the courts, there's not enough
wariness of the slippery slope and insufficient respect and love of
liberty."
What does Paul believe the nation's Founding Fathers would think of
this law? "Our forefathers would think it's time for a revolution.
This is why they revolted in the first place." Says Paul with a laugh,
"They revolted against much more mild oppression."
Kelly Patricia O'Meara is an investigative reporter for Insight.
nhoop
>"American" citizens homes residents in the darkness of night,to take them away
>to some hidden Fema, UN or other"concentration" camp.It is this type of
>paranoia, conspiracy theories, circulating around to get people so worked up.
>During these times that type of behavior is completely
>irresponsible.
I agree.
Nat
A.J.Barlow
> time. Then you might not be so puzzled why so many Americans gave
> their lives to protect and defend it.
>
> -Chip
This hits the nail right on the head. The main problem is one that is
exemplified by some of the previous posts, namely: "If they never did it to
ME, then why should I care?"
How far does it have to go until people DO care? Will it be when someone
knocks at (or breaks down) their door because of the internet sites they've
been visiting? Or because of some email they sent? By that time it will be
too late.
The founding fathers wrote the Constitution in the aftermath of a war fought
to combat tyranny, fought by people who didn't say "why should I care."
They wrote the Constitution in order to provide a government that would be
resistant to the kinds of tyranny they had fought to overcome. They wrote
the Constitution in simple language that any reasonably literate individual
could understand; without the kinds of bizzarre interpretations to which
judges and lawyers have since subjected it.
Freedom from unwarranted search and seizure (Amendment IV), like many other
aspects of the Constitution, has been abrogated by the government under one
pretext of another, whenever it suites the needs of the moment. Once a
freedom is lost, it will never be returned. The freedoms STOLEN from us
under the guise of Homeland Security are only the latest in a recurring
pattern.
Unfortunately, People get used to things. In time they cease to remember
and don't miss what they've forgotten they ever had.
ajb
Gun Totin Patriot
by "law enforcement" officers. Such little pecadilloes as violating warrant
laws, violating the fifth amendment protection against testifying against
yourself, violations of the Miranda Act, illegal search and seizure, as well
as flagrant violations of police powers (bullying, harassing, threatening).
Sure, the majority of police are honest, well-meaning, hard-working people.
But they obey the orders of their superiors, most of whom are politicians,
NOT law enforcement officers. When was the last time you heard of a police
commissioner who "worked his way up through the ranks"? I'm really not sure
it has ever happened. I do know it is extremely rare.
As far as "sneak & peek" goes, there are so many ways to make out the
average person to be a criminal that everyone is at some risk. Have you got
a couple pictures of your kids in the bathtub, naked? Better watch
out--that is child pornography. Your computer equipment and all audio/video
equipment you own can be seized without you even being at your home. And
the police don't even have to inform you that thye took anything. Ever play
a tavern gambling game and win cash? Did you claim the winnings on your
taxes? No? You're a criminal--your home and assets can be seized--without
your knowledge or consent.
It won't happen often, but it DOES happen.
My point is, we are being made so vulnerable to committing crimes, often
unaware that we have broken any laws, that we can be made the subject of
these new invasions without knowing why.
I don't THINK I am doing anything to attract the law, but I might be. I
don't keep abreast of all the grandfathered clauses in existing laws. But
if my home is invaced by police, I WILL defend it, just as I would defend it
against any other unwanted intrusion. Does this make me an anarchist? I
don't really think so, but I can understand how some might interpret my
actions as such. I would say it makes me a sovereign citizen of a free
nation--defending his home. And that, my friends, is one of the great
things about this nation. We ARE sovereign citizens, and WE have the
power--de jure, if not de facto.
GTP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you."
Gun Totin Patriot
GTP
Fre...@liberty.com
posted:
>Sure, the majority of police are honest, well-meaning, hard-working people.
>But they obey the orders of their superiors, most of whom are politicians,
>NOT law enforcement officers.
DOESN'T MATTER! They've Sworn an Oath of Allegiance and Obedience to
the Constitution. Either they KNOW and UNDERSTAND what that
Constitution says and therefore what is Required of them as their Duty
i.e. "their job", that they might FULFIL that Oath, or they're LIARS
from the beginning to Swear an Oath which THEY DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND!
The Character Flaw is Right There.
WITHOUT EXCEPTION, THOSE IGNORANT OF THE LAW ARE INCAPABLE OF
UPHOLDING IT!!!
THEY ARE INCOMPETENT AND HAVE NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER IN ANY POLITICAL
OFFICE, MUCH LESS ONE AFFORDED POLICE POWER!!!
Cary Kittrell
<On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 22:30:07 CST, "Gun Totin Patriot" <x...@abc.com>
<posted:
<
<>Sure, the majority of police are honest, well-meaning, hard-working people.
<>But they obey the orders of their superiors, most of whom are politicians,
<>NOT law enforcement officers.
<
<DOESN'T MATTER! They've Sworn an Oath of Allegiance and Obedience to
<the Constitution.
Really? When is an oath to uphold the constitution administered at,
say, the Tucson Police Department? And if you can answer that, how do
you know it?
Fre...@liberty.com
Kittrell) posted:
What do you suppose it means to be a SWORN Officer? Are you suggesting
that there are Peace (Police) Officers NOT Sworn?
If you (or ANYone else) should Ever find even one, please be sure to
let us ALL know!
Gray Shockley
> WITHOUT EXCEPTION, THOSE IGNORANT OF THE LAW ARE INCAPABLE OF
> UPHOLDING IT!!!
>
> THEY ARE INCOMPETENT AND HAVE NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER IN ANY POLITICAL
> OFFICE, MUCH LESS ONE AFFORDED POLICE POWER!!!
--------------------------------------------------------
allow me to introduce myself. my name is gray shockley. I'm an investigator
for the i.i.s. (international internet society).
it has recently come to our attention that somebody is using up all the big
letters in their posts. my investigation has revealed that this person is
you.
please be advised that when we built the internet we did not anticipate
anybody using as many big letters as you have been using. we are currently
experiencing a shortage of big letters. i'm sure you could imagine the
implications that would entail if they ever ran out.
consequently we must implore you to cease and desist from using the big
letters in the manner in which you have been using them.
furthermore, if you would like to help us with this shortage may I suggest
that you go through your computer, collect as many big letters as you can
find and email them to the i.i.s.
thank you,
gray shockley
p.s. we are also experiencing somewhat of a shortage with exclamation marks.
Cary Kittrell
In other words, you have absolutely no idea whether Tucson Police
officers specifically swear to uphold the Constitution or not.
-0-
Cary Kittrell
<On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 14:35:55 CST, ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary
<
<><>Sure, the majority of police are honest, well-meaning, hard-working people.
<><>But they obey the orders of their superiors, most of whom are politicians,
<><>NOT law enforcement officers.
<><
<><DOESN'T MATTER! They've Sworn an Oath of Allegiance and Obedience to
<><the Constitution.
<>
<>Really? When is an oath to uphold the constitution administered at,
<>say, the Tucson Police Department? And if you can answer that, how do
<>you know it?
<
<personel or department file. At least it's supposed to be there. Go
<look at some cops personel records. You'll see. They're open to the
<public by the way.
<
Whoa! Really? I could go downtown and just say "I want to see
Sargent Mendoza's personal records"? In a way that's kind of
cool -- but on the other hand, it hardly seems fair to them.
-- cary
Fre...@liberty.com
Kittrell) posted:
>In other words, you have absolutely no idea whether Tucson Police
>officers specifically swear to uphold the Constitution or not.
Let me put it another way; I know of NO INSTANCE ANYWHERE IN THE USA
where those afforded Police Powers are NOT Required to Swear an Oath
Fre...@liberty.com
Kittrell) posted:
>Whoa! Really? I could go downtown and just say "I want to see
>Sargent Mendoza's personal records"? In a way that's kind of
>cool -- but on the other hand, it hardly seems fair to them.
Why does it hardly seem fair to them? Does YOUR Employer get to see
YOUR records and those of other Employees.
Cops are Supposed to be Public Servants, NOT Masters, as Far Too Many
of them would like us to believe!
Cary Kittrell
I do not know of any instance anywhere in the USA in which police
are not required to be able to recite the works of Alleister Crowley
from memory. But this hardly demonstrates that they are.
In other words, please now show me specific instances of larval cops
being required to swear to support the Constitution before they
are allowed to practice their calling. The text of an actual
oath would be nice.
-0-
Cary Kittrell
<On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:16:51 CST, ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary
<Kittrell) posted:
<
<>Whoa! Really? I could go downtown and just say "I want to see
<>Sargent Mendoza's personal records"? In a way that's kind of
<>cool -- but on the other hand, it hardly seems fair to them.
<
<Why does it hardly seem fair to them? Does YOUR Employer get to see
<YOUR records and those of other Employees.
Well, there is that little bit about their right to be "secure in their...
papers, and effects", but perhaps you don't think the Constitution
applies to them.
In any event, if you're their employer, then so am I. How do we work
this? What if you want to fire one, but I want to give him a raise?
How do we work out who gets promoted to detective?
<
<Cops are Supposed to be Public Servants, NOT Masters, as Far Too Many
<of them would like us to believe!
<
No one of them ever tried convincing me of that. In point of fact, in
56 years I've never had even an impolite interaction with one.
Wait, I take that back. There was one instance. I was telling him
to turn down his fucking stereo. The outcome was that he turned down
his fucking stereo.
-- cary
PGISSource
>Well, there is that little bit about their right to be "secure in their...
>papers, and effects", but perhaps you don't think the Constitution
>applies to them.
indeed it does not. The fact is that under law, cops enjoy much greater privacy
protections than does the average citizen. And no, I'm referring to the
obnoxious "code of silence" among cops. I actually do mean under law. Of
course, that doesn't mean that there aren't sound reasons for their extra
privacy rights. Just that your point is actually false. And of course there's a
question over at what point do things like special rights, sovereign immunity,
and so forth create a subculture which includes an unacceptable number of
"public servants" who are not properly accountable to the public.
Mr. Wizard
Darcas
http://www.hou-metro.harris.tx.us/PDWebsite/mission.html First paragraph
under the ethics area
http://www.ci.houston.tx.us/departme/police/mission.htm First paragraph
http://www.vachiefs.org/vacp/vacp_oath.html Read it. It is the Oath of
honor in Virginia
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/departments/dhr/loyalty.pdf Look near the
bottom where you sign.
http://www.nps.navy.mil/police/public.safety/107.htm Take a look at this on
a military site. Hmmmm..
http://www.sddci.com/let/publications/LES%20form%20-%20Law%20Enforcement%20.
pdf How about this one! Look near the bottom again.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/law/GOs/conduct.pdf Here is Florida. Look near
the top.
http://www.archives.state.ut.us/referenc/xml/series/17170.html How about
UT?
http://www.atlantapd.org/core.html Atlanta City Police anyone?
http://www.duo-county.com/~lbree/ Kentucky?
OH! and http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/police/Employment/Brochure/brochure.html
Will that be enough for you?
:^)
Darren
"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:9u3tb9$1r0$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu...
Gray Shockley
wrote:
>> No one of them ever tried convincing me of that. In point of fact, in
>> 56 years I've never had even an impolite interaction with one.
--------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:04:40 -0600, Manny wrote
(in message <2c2b0u8m1ds2tjelc...@4ax.com>):
> On the otherhand it could be that you're just a shill and on the
> gubment payroll which is a more likely scenario.
--------------------------------------------------------
Well, that's certainly an acute observation!
Let's use the criteria that has become standard on UseNet for detection of
"Shills" and those "on the gubment payroll" on this "Cary Kittrell":
1. Does poster post under a name which can be verified [yes]
2. Does poster have a legitimate e-mail address which can be verified? [yes]
3. Has poster been on this ng for quite a few years? [yes]
4. Are the "regulars" on this ng familiar with this poster? [yes]
5. Are the regulars familiar with where this person was raised and where s/he
is and what s/he does? [yes]
6. Is e-mail possible with this person? [yes]
7. Does this person make outrageous or vast, sweeping statements? [no]
8. Does this person start calling names when his/her statements are responded
to, especially those to which response is made in a very friendly, open way?
[no]
--------------------------------------------------------
Naw, doesn't apply to "Cary Kittrell".
In fact, I can't think of anyone to whom your accusations could apply.
Can YOU?
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
"They imagine they're the wave of the future,
but it's only sewage flowing downhill."
- Lois McMaster Bujold
Cary Kittrell
<On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:16:51 CST, ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary
<and they won't like it one bit but they are our SERVANTS. Their
<personel records are public records and anyone should be able to view
<them. You need only give them some notice so they can get the file and
<have it ready for viewing. This does not however, include medical
<records.
<
Find anything interesting?
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
<ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
<
<>Well, there is that little bit about their right to be "secure in their...
<>papers, and effects", but perhaps you don't think the Constitution
<>applies to them.
<
<indeed it does not. The fact is that under law, cops enjoy much greater privacy
<protections than does the average citizen. And no, I'm referring to the
<obnoxious "code of silence" among cops. I actually do mean under law. Of
<course, that doesn't mean that there aren't sound reasons for their extra
<privacy rights. Just that your point is actually false.
Well, yeah. But I just wanted to watch ol' Falc sputter :-}
Cary Kittrell
<Here you go:
<http://www.hou-metro.harris.tx.us/PDWebsite/mission.html First paragraph
<under the ethics area
< http://www.ci.houston.tx.us/departme/police/mission.htm First paragraph
<
< http://www.vachiefs.org/vacp/vacp_oath.html Read it. It is the Oath of
<honor in Virginia
<
< http://www.legis.state.ga.us/departments/dhr/loyalty.pdf Look near the
<bottom where you sign.
<
< http://www.nps.navy.mil/police/public.safety/107.htm Take a look at this on
<a military site. Hmmmm..
<
<
<http://www.sddci.com/let/publications/LES%20form%20-%20Law%20Enforcement%20.
<pdf How about this one! Look near the bottom again.
<
< http://www.dep.state.fl.us/law/GOs/conduct.pdf Here is Florida. Look near
<the top.
<
<http://www.archives.state.ut.us/referenc/xml/series/17170.html How about
<UT?
<
< http://www.atlantapd.org/core.html Atlanta City Police anyone?
<
< http://www.duo-county.com/~lbree/ Kentucky?
<
<
<
<OH! and http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/police/Employment/Brochure/brochure.html
<
<Will that be enough for you?
<
<:^)
<
<Darren
<
Good job. You provided actual examples, where ol' Falc could only
come up with argumentia via incredulity. I stand educated.
As a Southerner, I was particularly struck by the Atlanta example,
which talked about the "constitution of the United States", but
the "Constitution" of Georgia!
I didn't look at any of the .pdf files; this takes some time
on my machine. Any thing I should go back and check?
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
<On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 18:02:46 CST, ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary
<Kittrell) wrote:
<
<>No one of them ever tried convincing me of that. In point of fact, in
<>56 years I've never had even an impolite interaction with one.
<
<On the otherhand it could be that you're just a shill and on the
<gubment payroll which is a more likely scenario.
<
Aw, jeez, I'm busted. You've blown my cover. I am indeed a gubment
employee, and am deeply involved in highly licit operations
which are aimed at improving our ability to snoop around the very ends
of the known universe.
Right this moment I'm writing code that will be used in grinding
and polishing a 28-foot telescope mirror. Beware of the New
Universal Order. Astronomy uber alles.
--
cary kittrell
steward mirror lab
university of arizona
Paul Hume
> are not required to be able to recite the works of Alleister Crowley
> from memory. But this hardly demonstrates that they are.
>
>
Though the world would be a better place if they were! At least Liber Oz.
PGISSource
>
>Well, yeah. But I just wanted to watch ol' Falc sputter :-}
Ah. Then go for it. I'll hold the "need for public oversight" rant for another,
more appropriate day. :-)
Mr. Wizard
Cary Kittrell
<
<On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 18:02:46 CST, ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary <Kittrell) wrote:
<
<>
<>Well, there is that little bit about their right to be "secure in their...
<>papers, and effects", but perhaps you don't think the Constitution
<>applies to them.
<
<
Fine. And you? How's the kids? And Xantippe?
<Their personel records ARE NOT their private papers. They belong to
<the public and because anyone in government works (supposed to anyway)
<for the rest of us we have the privilege of reviewing their personel
<records at anytime. It's called open government.
<
<The Fourth Amendment IS NOT applicable in this situation.
<
I'm fairly certain you're right here. I just wanted to see how
Falc would rationalize this, given his extreme literalism
on these matters.
{...}
<><
<><Cops are Supposed to be Public Servants, NOT Masters, as Far Too Many
<><of them would like us to believe!
<>
<>No one of them ever tried convincing me of that. In point of fact, in
<>56 years I've never had even an impolite interaction with one.
<
<You're a hermit then or a very good slave. More likely the latter.
You left out "poo-poo head". In point of fact, I never go into
these situations assuming that I'm going to be abused, and --
mirable dictu -- no cop has ever gotten chesty with me. Fancy
that. And I really don't take it as some kind of affront to my manhood
if I get pulled over over for speeding.
My only prolonged interaction with a cop, the stereo incident
aside, was when I was quite young, and poorly acquainted with the
efects of 151 rum. The cop made me sit in the back of his car for
a very, very long time, instead of hauling me in as by all rights he
should have. Other than that, all my experiences have been brief
and business-like.
{...}
<
<You'll find that if you ever question a cop thug's authority to do
<some act against you knowing he's wrong to begin with you'll either
<get a good beating or take a ride, whether or not you've actually
<committed any criminal offense.
<
Steve? Steve Quest, is that you? Son, where you been? We've missed
you around here.
You obviously are talking from personal experience here. Please share.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
<
<On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 09:00:08 GMT, Gray Shockley <gr...@compcomm.com>
<wrote:
<
<>>> No one of them ever tried convincing me of that. In point of fact, in
<>>> 56 years I've never had even an impolite interaction with one.
<>
<>> On the otherhand it could be that you're just a shill and on the
<>> gubment payroll which is a more likely scenario.
<>
<>
<>Let's use the criteria that has become standard on UseNet for detection of
<>"Shills" and those "on the gubment payroll" on this "Cary Kittrell":
<>
<>1. Does poster post under a name which can be verified [yes]
<>2. Does poster have a legitimate e-mail address which can be verified? [yes]
<>3. Has poster been on this ng for quite a few years? [yes]
<>4. Are the "regulars" on this ng familiar with this poster? [yes]
<>5. Are the regulars familiar with where this person was raised and where s/he
<>is and what s/he does? [yes]
<>6. Is e-mail possible with this person? [yes]
<>7. Does this person make outrageous or vast, sweeping statements? [no]
<>8. Does this person start calling names when his/her statements are responded
<>to, especially those to which response is made in a very friendly, open way?
<>[no]
<>In fact, I can't think of anyone to whom your accusations could apply.
<>Can YOU?
<>Gray Shockley
<
HA! Oh, that is GREAT!! Hey, Gray, am I smelling "Police Academy 7~
here, or what? Hey, I want Al Franken to play me. Think he's too
old? Actually, I don't care, just so long as I get Tea Leoni in
the end. How about you? Think we could get Shelby Foote to play
you? Yeah, yeah, I realize that he doesn't have a lot of experience
in comedic roles, but hey, man, Shelby Foote IS Gray Shockley. That's
my take, anyhow. Have your people contact my people, hear?
<
<None of what you've enumerated diminishes my statement. Is what I say
<of less value because I don't want to receive hundreds of spams a day
<in my inbox?
But I note you indeed did de-stealth your addy. Good for you.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
Naw, fire away. In fact, I'm virtually certain, in advance, that I'll
agree with you. I was just twitting the mindset that tends to see
all cops as enemies, bent (for reasons rarely given), on fucking
with your head and/or your rights. I am quite aware that there
are power-trippers who don't get weeded out, and more commonly
shortcuts are taken and then justified by the impossiblities
of the job (who would WANT to be a cop?). There most certainly
does need to be civilian oversight, and I don't have the impression
that most civilian review boards are very effective. So I bet we
will basically agree. I was aiming my jibes at the concept
that all cops are prima facie Imperial Storm Troopers, and ol' Darth can't
be far behind.
-0-
Darcas
swear to the US and the State constitution. Sometimes those will contradict
each other. Then what is a poor little officer to do?
Darren
"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:9u5e8j$n7d$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu...
> In article <nYgN7.35011$sq2.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com> "Darcas"
<remembe...@rubyridge.com> writes:
> <Here you go:
> <http://www.hou-metro.harris.tx.us/PDWebsite/mission.html First paragraph
> <under the ethics area
> < http://www.ci.houston.tx.us/departme/police/mission.htm First paragraph
> <
> < http://www.vachiefs.org/vacp/vacp_oath.html Read it. It is the Oath of
> <honor in Virginia
> <
> < http://www.legis.state.ga.us/departments/dhr/loyalty.pdf Look near the
> <bottom where you sign.
> <
> < http://www.nps.navy.mil/police/public.safety/107.htm Take a look at this
on
> <a military site. Hmmmm..
> <
> <
>
<http://www.sddci.com/let/publications/LES%20form%20-%20Law%20Enforcement%20
..
Gray Shockley
(in message <if4c0u08mn33hnbq4...@4ax.com>):
> Went to leo school together did you?
--------------------------------------------------------
Rookie -
When you point a finger at other people, you point three back to yourself.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
"Swinehood hath no remedy." - Sidney Lanier
Gray Shockley
> <You're Cary's partner aren't you? Went to leo school together did you?
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 4:41:46 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote:
> HA! Oh, that is GREAT!! Hey, Gray, am I smelling "Police Academy 7~
> here, or what? Hey, I want Al Franken to play me. Think he's too
> old? Actually, I don't care, just so long as I get Tea Leoni in
> the end. How about you? Think we could get Shelby Foote to play
> you? Yeah, yeah, I realize that he doesn't have a lot of experience
> in comedic roles, but hey, man, Shelby Foote IS Gray Shockley. That's
> my take, anyhow. Have your people contact my people, hear?
I still can't believe that whatshisface accused me of being an Officer!
hurumph! Didn't nobody ever tell that thar boy that I worked for a living?
Shelby Foote? Naw - growing up in Vicksburg - that particular armed conflict
was boring by the time I was in my teens (however the park rangers did let us
park (if we didn't get out of the cars) at a beautiful spot overlooking tha
riva).
I'd figger moe like Mel Gibson. Or Mel Brooks. One of them Mel guys.
Al Franken to play you? Naw, Jodie Foster - I'd rather look at her and she's
had astronomical experience.
What will we get to play "excite@home" though?
Poor Rookie - he may be cut off from his Internet provider tomorrow.
Put +"excite@home" +bankrupt +cease into Google.
Gray Shockley
---------------------------------
RX-320 w/70' longwire
DX-392 w/internal whip
Gray Shockley
(in message <9u5e8j$n7d$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>):
"Darcas" wites:
>>http://www.legis.state.ga.us/departments/dhr/loyalty.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------
> I didn't look at any of the .pdf files; this takes some time
> on my machine. Any thing I should go back and check?
Ta Ta!
Your pdf reading woes are (mostly) over; Google is now crawling PDF files and
when they come across them, the file is also "translated" into HTML.
So ya jus' use a reverse lookup and, Voila!, you have the document in HTML.
I chunked "Dorcas"'s Georgia pdf into Google and got this:
[PDF] GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES STATE SECURITY ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Page 1. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES STATE ... Revised
4/99 Page 2. 4. Have you ...
Simply select "View as HTML" and you've got the doc.
[I said "mostly" as, of course, if it ain't been crawled, it ain't gonna be
available.]
Gray Shockley
----------------------------
That eye-dee-ten-tee
called me an "officer"!
Gray Shockley
> You're Cary's partner aren't you? Went to leo school together did you?
Boy, I just can't believe you're calling me an "officer"!
Sheesh!
Gray Shockley
(in message <if4c0u08mn33hnbq4...@4ax.com>):
> You're Cary's partner aren't you? Went to leo school together did you?
>
> None of what you've enumerated diminishes my statement. Is what I say
> of less value because I don't want to receive hundreds of spams a day
> in my inbox?
There are experienced computer users who will be happy to teach you how to
use killfilters (easier on Eudora than DOS/Windows' little e-mail program).
> Are you not conversing with me now? I've been online
> since 1988
Ah! Apology accepted. That was the year I set up my first BBS (RBBS-PC). I
didn't realize that you are such a rookie.
> which makes no difference whatsoever relative to what I say
> and believe.
Anonymity contradicts credibility. [Plus I had a "personality conflict" with
the Ku Klux Klans for a number of years and I do tend to equate anonymity
with lower lifeforms who wear dresses and hide their faces in dunce caps.]
You reject responsibility for your statements.
You hide behind a falsie.
> My points of view are not any more or less value because
> I have or have not been online or visiting this newsgroup for x number
> of years.
Aside from your falsie, you have nothing to make one take you anymore
seriously than any other no-such-person.
> Look up the word "logic". Better yet take a course in it.
52 hours of philosophy in undergrad school (University of Mississippi). Would
you like to discuss classical logic or symbolic? Or perhaps delve into Alfred
Korzybski's General Semantics?
Cary Kittrell
<
<On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 22:52:03 -0600, Manny wrote
<
<
<> Look up the word "logic". Better yet take a course in it.
<
<52 hours of philosophy in undergrad school (University of Mississippi). Would
<you like to discuss classical logic or symbolic? Or perhaps delve into Alfred
<Korzybski's General Semantics?
Oooh, oooh, pick me, pick me!
I just read (almost) Steven Pinker's "The Language Instinct". He pretty
much trashes the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. I assume that this would
sweep away General Semantics along with it. If so, would be there
anything worth salvaging?
-- cary
Gray Shockley
(in message <9u6h1q$7a5$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>):
> Oooh, oooh, pick me, pick me!
You there - in the seventeenth row - the idiot waving his arm around!
> I just read (almost) Steven Pinker's "The Language Instinct". He pretty
> much trashes the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. I assume that this would
> sweep away General Semantics along with it. If so, would be there
> anything worth salvaging?
Ah, Chomsky smacks Boas upside the head. Maybe it really is true that
everyone who has ever lived is either a Platonist or an Aristotelian.
I'm a lot more familiar with Spohr-Whorf (and Lucy and Silverstein) than I am
with Pinker (never read any source material by him) but isn't part of
Pinker's theory that the mind is, at birth, a "tabula scribble"? If so, then
I'd have some basic and fundamental problems with him.
But I shall try and catch up on him - it would be a nice break to read
someone who is consciously fun to read.
Okay, General Semantics. The one thing that a lot of people remember about GS
is "The map is not the territory, the word is not the thing".
[However, for some reason or an udder (as we say here in the country), I
always think of the argument between Yossarian and Lieutenant Scheisskopf's
wife about the characteristics of the God in which he and she, respectively,
don't believe.]
But I don't think that General Semantics has anything to worry about from
Pinker.
This material is from Nicholas Johnson's (yes, THAT Nicholas Johnson )
cyberlaw site
<http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/cls00/GenSem01/>
[Anything in brackets "is" me typing me, not N Johnson who, I'm sure,
disavows anything I'm saying which screws up his overview.]
"General Semantics: An Overview".
--------------------------------------------------------
Anatol Rapoport: "General semantics is based upon an empirical investigation
of the way man's perception of reality is distorted by the screen of language
interposed between him and his world."
Emory Menefee: "GS teaches how we can communicate, work and negotiate with
others who have maps in their heads that are different from those in our
own."
Neil Postman: "GS is a re-educational system whose purpose is to train people
to use language as scientists do when they are being scientific. [R]aise the
effects of the languaging process to a conscious level."
J. K. Galbraith: "We are guided by ideas that are relevant to another world;
we do many things that are unnecessary, some that are unwise, and a few that
are insane."
---------------------
increased awareness of language
impact language on human behavior
"talk into difficulties otherwise not exist"
"scientific" use of language: insane, unsane, sane
things "everybody knows" -- but not everybody, not always and seldom applied
[This is, specifically, related to Shockley's Fourth Law which states:
"Whenever you hear somewhat say, "It's only 'common sense'", you can figure
it's not. Whenever you hear someone say, "Well, everybody knows that ...",
you can figure that "everybody" refers to those who have worked in a specific
area for dozens of hours per week for a number of years."
Also related is Shockley's Fifth Law which states: "Every profession - indeed
every job - has a vocabulary associated with it that is so esoteric that one
who is not in that field can not possibly understand the language though the
words may be familiar."]
---------------------
What GS is Not
Several of the listed items are:
high order generalizations [I guess this could be equivicated to "a horse
partakes of 'horseness'" (Plato et al).]
identification [The dirty word of GS: "is". As in 2+2= (is) 4. "Is" says that
what is on one side of the equation is "the same as" what is on the other
side. but, in reality, whatever the subject is possesses much, much more than
can be expressed on the other side of the "equals" sign. This also, and of
course, goes back to Aristotle's "law of identity" which states that "A is
A". Which is, not obviously at first, total nonsense. But "A does not equal
A" as the first "A" was typed at a different "time" and occupies a different
"place" than the second "A". They're different and each has its own
"identity".]
projection [FHerbert has brainwashed me on this one: "Maya - I project my
consciousness upon the universe."]]
two-valued [This is the "limited logic" of "If not A, then B" or "If you're
not for me, you're against me. "Black and white 'logic'". E.g., "If you don't
vote for me, then you support evil" or "If you're against prayer in public
schools, you must support Osama bin Laden". Two-valued logic may not be the
best road to mental health or anything else except, perhaps, control of other
people. Another example might well be: If you work with the process of lens
grinding then you, obviously, are a follower of Baruch Spinoza. {ducking may
be authorized}]
---------------------
[And, then:]
disconnect between language and reality [<----------]
language permits "is" of identity, no dates/indexes, to-me-ness
["Indexes" can convey that Gray Shockley(2) in 1952 is not the same as Gray
Shockley(1) when he was born in 1946 and is not the same person (not exactly)
as Gray Shockley(3) - 2001.]
levels of abstracting (molecular, descriptive, label, categories)
recognition of identification, projection, two-valued orientation
[end of me botching Commissioner Johnson's slide show ]
--------------------------------------------------------
So General Semantics isn't based on any particular linguistic (origin of)
theory but is - more or less - an antidote to "unsaneness" and "insaneness"
that can prevail when the "labels" are confused with the "items".
To use the trite example: one sees a lucious steak on a menu so one eats the
menu. "The picture ain't the thang neither, dontchaknow."
It's realizing not only the levels of abstraction but the simple fact that
abstraction is taking place.
So I don't think that General Semantics really cares whether "their" is
singular or whether the brain ("mind") is "tabula rosa" or "tabula scribble"
but the care is whether one is confusing "reality" with that with which was
has been bombarded by well-meaning parents, churches, schools and the other
control units that try to manipulate folks.
So to speak.
This was - by the way - the concise version.
Now: was this nerfectly pleer?
Gray Shockley
----------------------------------------------
"what if a much of a which of a wind "
Gray Shockley
> I bought my first computer in 1984. An Atari.
1981. EuroApple ][+ w/48k RAM.
>> Anonymity contradicts credibility.
> I suppose you'd say that about the thousands of disidents in the
> former Soviet Union who screamed silently and anonymously against a
> system that allowed the likes of Stalin to occupy one of their highest
> "government" positions and kill millions of those he was charged with
> protecting? Is their credibility diminished because they chose not to
> make themselves a target for the secret police?
Oh, poor baby. I didn't realize that you're a persecuted dissident.
> I hope you asked for a refund of your tuition. Oh ... I see the
> Univeristy of Mississippi. That bastion of intelligencia. LMAO!
Yep, poor me.
--------------------------------------
<http://www.umf.olemiss.edu/newsletter5/scholars.html>
"Of the 624 public universities in the United States, only six have produced
more Rhodes Scholars than Ole Miss: the universities of Virginia, North
Carolina, Washington, Wisconsin, Montana and Texas. Ole Miss is tied with the
universities of Michigan and Oklahoma and West Virginia University for the
seventh-place spot."
--------------------------------------
<http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/pbk/>
"Phi Beta Kappa, founded at the College of William and Mary in 1776, is the
oldest undergraduate honors organization in the United States. Its mission
is to recognize academic excellence and promote education in the liberal arts
and sciences.
"For the past two hundred and twenty-five years, election to Phi Beta Kappa
has been a recognition of outstanding academic achievement. The goal of the
Phi Beta Kappa Society is to encourage humane learning - an object which
transcends the mere gaining of knowledge to encompass breadth of interest,
depth of understanding, intellectual honesty, and respect for a diversity of
informed opinion. Today, the Phi Beta Kappa Society, with about half a
million living members, is one of the nation's leading advocates for the
liberal arts and sciences at the undergraduate level.
"The University of Mississippi Chapter of Phi Beta Kappa was chartered on
April 6, 2001. It is the second of two chapters established in the state,
with the Alpha of Mississippi Chapter residing at Millsaps College. Ole Miss
is now in an elite group of only 262 colleges and universities in the nation
that shelter a chapter. In addition to recognizing outstanding
undergraduates at an annual initiation ceremony, the University of
Mississippi Chapter sponsors lectures by distinguished Phi Beta Kappa
Visiting Scholars."
--------------------------------------
While you were "laughing your ass off", I hope you didn't pull any muscles in
your neck or do any brain damage.
My goodness, my "filth filter" is going off on another message by you. My,
my, my - such filth.
You really are lower-class trash.
Gray Shockley
> One of the many things I do now for fun and money is building high end
> workstations, servers, and networks. I specialize in SMP systems to be
> exact. For the uninformed that would be multiple processors.
Well . . . . . .
There are a number of ways to use multiple processors. SMP, specifically,
refers to Symmetric Multiple-Processing. But then, of course, you knew that.
> I also own 8 domains of which I'm developing 3 at present. I've setup
> an untold number of domains over the years.
Why do I think "untold" is very, very accurate, oh anonymous feelthy one?
> All that to say that I have a feeling I know just a bit more about
> technology than you may.
Oh, I certainly agree. You know everything. You are probably one of the
greatest minds the world has ever known. Not only do you know more than I do,
you know more than anyone else does. You're close to - if not a - God. You
should - as you are so aware - be worshipped by all the peasantry; that is to
say, everyone but you.
If you didn't only hide under your rock at midnight shivering in your
cowardice, we'd know what (or whom) to worship.
But - because of your modesty - (and the fact that you'd be responsible for
talking dirty if you weren't ashamed of your identity), we can't know who our
new god is. <sigh>
> Kill filters still won't stop the e-mail from
> reaching my servers. Only deletes it after it's arrival wasting my
> bandwidth for which I pay for.
I know how it goes when one is responsible "for which I pay for". That ten or
fifteen cents a week is really rough. Especially if one has to buy lots and
lots of booze or narcotics to get up the courage to talk filthy on the
Internet.
Boy, I can't believe you called me an "officer".
But then you talk filthy anyway, trash boy/girl/thing.
Do your parole officer and court-mandated psychologist know you're using
filthy language on the Internet?
Boy, in a battle of wits, you're totally unarmed.
Fre...@liberty.com
Kittrell) posted:
>In article <3c056bc9...@news2.ripco.com> Fre...@Liberty.com writes:
><On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:16:51 CST, ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary
><Kittrell) posted:
><
><>Whoa! Really? I could go downtown and just say "I want to see
><>Sargent Mendoza's personal records"? In a way that's kind of
><>cool -- but on the other hand, it hardly seems fair to them.
><
><Why does it hardly seem fair to them? Does YOUR Employer get to see
><YOUR records and those of other Employees.
>
>Well, there is that little bit about their right to be "secure in their...
>papers, and effects", but perhaps you don't think the Constitution
>applies to them.
The records of their Public Service are Public. Nobody's asking for
their Personal records, ONLY their Personnel records, of their Public
Service.
>In any event, if you're their employer, then so am I. How do we work
>this? What if you want to fire one, but I want to give him a raise?
>How do we work out who gets promoted to detective?
An Independent Review would be a good idea.
><Cops are Supposed to be Public Servants, NOT Masters, as Far Too Many
><of them would like us to believe!
><
>
>
>No one of them ever tried convincing me of that.
No single one of them, perhaps. However, through various
'mouthpieces', such as the FOP and other of their Organizations, and
the Propagandist Media, there is a Constant Effort afoot to do
Precisely that.
>In point of fact, in
>56 years I've never had even an impolite interaction with one.
Depends on how you Qualify "impolite".
>Wait, I take that back. There was one instance. I was telling him
>to turn down his fucking stereo. The outcome was that he turned down
>his fucking stereo.
And was he in uniform at the time?
Fre...@liberty.com
>Let's use the criteria that has become standard on UseNet for detection of
>"Shills" and those "on the gubment payroll" on this "Cary Kittrell":
>
>1. Does poster post under a name which can be verified [yes]
I've never been interested in Tracing/Tracking it, have you?
>2. Does poster have a legitimate e-mail address which can be verified? [yes]
In other words, Spammer-Friendly.
>3. Has poster been on this ng for quite a few years? [yes]
There are a LOT of those, but even they had to start somewhere.
>4. Are the "regulars" on this ng familiar with this poster? [yes]
Comes with the quite-a-few-years territory.
>5. Are the regulars familiar with where this person was raised and where s/he
>is and what s/he does? [yes]
WHY would Anybody want to check on that?
>6. Is e-mail possible with this person? [yes]
Again, Spammer-Friendly.
>7. Does this person make outrageous or vast, sweeping statements? [no]
As Qualified According to WHOSE Standard(s)?
>8. Does this person start calling names when his/her statements are responded
>to, especially those to which response is made in a very friendly, open way?
>[no]
Politeness - now That's the Only Decent Criterion I've seen yet.
Whose Criteria are these anyway?
Fre...@liberty.com
Kittrell) posted:
>In article <3c056b2a...@news2.ripco.com> Fre...@Liberty.com writes:
><On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 07:32:32 CST, ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary
><Kittrell) posted:
><
><>In other words, you have absolutely no idea whether Tucson Police
><>officers specifically swear to uphold the Constitution or not.
><
><Let me put it another way; I know of NO INSTANCE ANYWHERE IN THE USA
><where those afforded Police Powers are NOT Required to Swear an Oath
><of Allegiance and Obedience to the Constitution.
><
>
>I do not know of any instance anywhere in the USA in which police
>are not required to be able to recite the works of Alleister Crowley
>from memory. But this hardly demonstrates that they are.
Since so many of them are Devils anyway, it's entirely possible that
they're into what Crowley was into.
>In other words, please now show me specific instances of larval cops
>being required to swear to support the Constitution before they
>are allowed to practice their calling. The text of an actual
>oath would be nice.
Here are a couple.
Chicago Police:
"I, John Doe, having been appointed to the office of police officer,
do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will
faithfully discharge the duties of the office of such to the best of
my abilities."
All Illinois State Constitutional Offices:
"I do solemnly swear (affirm) that I will support the
Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of
the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge
the duties of the office of .... to the best of my ability."
Fre...@liberty.com
<remembe...@rubyridge.com> posted:
>Actually, the .PDF files are really interesting. Some make the applicant
>swear to the US and the State constitution. Sometimes those will contradict
>each other.
How do you figure that?
Fre...@liberty.com
<remembe...@rubyridge.com> posted:
>Actually, the .PDF files are really interesting. Some make the applicant
>swear to the US and the State constitution. Sometimes those will contradict
>each other. Then what is a poor little officer to do?
An officer who doesn't know what to do is Obviously Ignorant of what
the Oaths entail and is therefore Unqualified to take them from the
beginning.
Fre...@liberty.com
Kittrell) posted:
><Their personel records ARE NOT their private papers. They belong to
><the public and because anyone in government works (supposed to anyway)
><for the rest of us we have the privilege of reviewing their personel
><records at anytime. It's called open government.
><
><The Fourth Amendment IS NOT applicable in this situation.
><
>
>I'm fairly certain you're right here. I just wanted to see how
>Falc would rationalize this, given his extreme literalism
>on these matters.
What did you have in mind?
Cary Kittrell
<On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 18:02:46 CST, ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary
<Kittrell) posted:
<
<>
<>Well, there is that little bit about their right to be "secure in their...
<>papers, and effects", but perhaps you don't think the Constitution
<>applies to them.
<
<The records of their Public Service are Public. Nobody's asking for
<their Personal records, ONLY their Personnel records, of their Public
<Service.
<
Right you are. I was just curious what you'd say there.
{...}
<
<><Cops are Supposed to be Public Servants, NOT Masters, as Far Too Many
<><of them would like us to believe!
<><
<>
<>
<>No one of them ever tried convincing me of that.
<
<No single one of them, perhaps. However, through various
<'mouthpieces', such as the FOP and other of their Organizations, and
<the Propagandist Media, there is a Constant Effort afoot to do
<Precisely that.
<
Well, since I never get anything from the FoP, they appear to be falling
short. But I do hear about cops now and then in the "Propagandist Media"
-- almost inevitably negative things. Rampart. The New Orleans
Police department. Ahmed Diallo. Abner Louima. In fact, the only
positive media coverage of police I can think of right off involved
rescue efforts at the World Trade Center. Other than that, the
"Propagandist Media" seems to focus on abuses of power.
<>In point of fact, in
<>56 years I've never had even an impolite interaction with one.
<
<Depends on how you Qualify "impolite".
<
I'm from the South. We understand "polite".
<>Wait, I take that back. There was one instance. I was telling him
<>to turn down his fucking stereo. The outcome was that he turned down
<>his fucking stereo.
<
<And was he in uniform at the time?
<
His BVDs.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
Very good. You sure told me.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
Really? If the Federal Constitution and a state constitution contain
mutually contradictory clauses, what should the candidate do? Go
with the Feds?
-0-
Cary Kittrell
<On Wed, 5 Dec 2001 10:04:48 CST, ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary
<Kittrell) wrote:
<
<>Really? If the Federal Constitution and a state constitution contain
<>mutually contradictory clauses, what should the candidate do? Go
<>with the Feds?
<>-0-
<
<
Well, actually we were just discussing the initial taking of the oath
here (hence "candidate").
<Why
<MUST he, generally speaking, violate an individuals rights?
However, if you're asking "why don't they, generally speaking,
use common sense and restraint" in routine interactions with
the rest of us, that would seem a reasonable request. And
I'll say again that I personally have never had an experience
that I felt was a violation of my individual rights. Nor,
off the top of my head, can I recall hearing any horror stories
from my friends (with one pretty bad exception, that being
in small-town Ohio some forty years ago). But I get the
impression that you feel that you, personally, _have_ had such
experiences -- so I'll ask (again): care to share?
-- cary
Gray Shockley
> Let me share this incident with you then. This happened this past
> Sunday night - Monday morning.
Yeah, you blew it and blew it badly.
And the crew knew it had just come from your address with a "false alarm".
You might not like to see it that way but that's how they - who get called
out on false alarms just as do fire departments - see it and with good
reason: people die because people call 911 with "jokes" and "gags".
Let me relate a little story with which some of us grew up:
--------------------------------------------------------
There once was a shepherd boy who was bored as he
sat on the hillside watching the village sheep. To amuse
himself he took a great breath and sang out, "Wolf!
Wolf! The Wolf is chasing the sheep!"
The villagers came running up the hill to help the boy
drive the wolf away. But when they arrived at the top of the hill, they
found no wolf. The boy laughed at the sight of their angry faces.
"Don't cry 'wolf', shepherd boy," said the villagers, "when there's no
wolf!" They went grumbling back down the hill.
Later, the boy sang out again, "Wolf! Wolf! The wolf is chasing the
sheep!" To his naughty delight, he watched the villagers run up the hill
to help him drive the wolf away.
When the villagers saw no wolf they sternly said, "Save your
frightened song for when there is really something wrong! Don't cry
'wolf' when there is NO wolf!"
But the boy just grinned and watched them go grumbling down the
hill once more.
Later, he saw a REAL wolf prowling about his flock. Alarmed, he
leaped to his feet and sang out as loudly as he could, "Wolf! Wolf!"
But the villagers thought he was trying to fool them again, and so they
didn't come.
At sunset, everyone wondered why the shepherd boy hadn't returned
to the village with their sheep. They went up the hill to find the boy.
They found him weeping.
"There really was a wolf here! The flock has scattered! I cried out,
"Wolf!" Why didn't you come?"
An old man tried to comfort the boy as they walked back to the
village.
"We'll help you look for the lost sheep in the morning," he said,
putting his arm around the youth, "Nobody believes a liar...even when
he is telling the truth!"
--------------------------------------------------------
I realize that that's not how you see the incident but that's - probably -
how the team saw it and - from experience - with good reason.
You might want to think about what those police and those paramedics see when
they're usually called out together: they scrape brains off the pavement and
try to pull peole out of burning vehicles and they try to save people's
lives.
YOU let her get away from YOU and - according to you - one of the police even
helped you look for her.
And YOU criticize them!
YOU let her get away. YOU blew it. And when they got there, there was no one
there.
I was "lucky" enough to have worked on male max in a mental hospital for a
semester before I ever ran into an attempted suicide. But - even though
you've probably figured this out: if the person is wearing pants, get them
down to the person's feet; if it's a female wearing pantyhose, get them down
to her feet. Use your belt to either strap the arms to the side of the body
or wrap around the hands.
And - just like in lifesaving (swimming) - if it's necessary, knock the
person out with your fist (jaw preferably, back of head second) - stay away
from the face)).
But that future. As for what happened: learn from your mistakes and don't
blame the police and paras for your failure to do your part.
Gray Shockley
------------------------
Vicksburg, MS USA
Cary Kittrell
<On Wed, 5 Dec 2001 17:10:05 CST, ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary
<Kittrell) wrote:
<
<>However, if you're asking "why don't they, generally speaking,
<>use common sense and restraint" in routine interactions with
<>the rest of us, that would seem a reasonable request. And
<>I'll say again that I personally have never had an experience
<>that I felt was a violation of my individual rights.
<
<Sunday night - Monday morning.
<
<herself in my bathroom on Sunday about 10:30pm.
<
<I got the door unlocked but not before I got to her she downed a
<handful of diet pills. I grabbed her and took her with me to the phone
<where I called for paramedics. In hindsight I should have dragged her
<ass to my car and taken her to the hospital myself.
<
<She broke loose before they got to my home. The police also responded
<and one of them and I searched the grounds for her. We didn't find
<her. The woman's husband and I searched for another 2 hours without
<finding her.
<
<About 3:30am I heard some scratching on my front door. It was my
<friend. She had collapsed at the front door. Apparently had been
<hiding near my home. I called 911 (won't do it again) for paramedics.
<A fire truck came but no paramedics. The sorry bastards wouldn't even
<get out of the fucking truck. I kept calling for them to help me.
<Finally I had to go up to the truck and yell telling them my friend
<had collapsed and was having trouble. I asked where the paramedics
<were. They told me that they weren't coming because the previous call
<was a false call. Needless to say I could have choked the bastards.
<
<I went back to my home and the police arrived. They asked for my name
<which I gave them. Told them what had happened. What she took. Gave
<them the bottle. They asked for a SSN which I don't have. I don't
<participate in the SS program. I gave them my phone number. Shit they
<knew where I lived.
<
<Of the two cops, one was black (seemed to be a decent guy) and the
<other was a fat white male. The fat white male ordered me out of my
<own home, demanded that I produce some sort of identification or he
<was going to arrest me. He then snatched (violently) my billfold from
<my hand as I was trying to get a driver license.
<
<Now I ask you, is this right? Is this constitutional behavior?
<
<There is NO LAW that requires anyone to show a cop ID. Period. At
<least not in this and adjacent states.
<
<If it weren't for my friend who was lying on my kitchen floor close to
<death I would not have left my home. That fat bastard was out of line.
<
<And by the way, I was as polite as any man could have been.
<
I don't know if there is actually anything unconstitutional about
his actions -- but if your complaint is about the arrogance of
power, I'm with you several hundred percent in this case.
I'd complain to the chief, then I'd file a formal complaint, and
then I'd write a letter to the editor or two. You weren't speeding
and drunk, or acting suspiciously and then giving the cops a hard
time when they tried to question you, or running away at the sight
of them -- in cases like those, I have a fair amount of sympathy
with cops who feel like they have to get the upper hand early on --
but here you were just desperately trying to help your friend, and
the one cop was acting as if you were a trouble maker.
Oddly enough, I've been in a similar situation within the last
few weeks. It's an intereseting story, but one I don't feel
free to discuss in all its detail on the net (it's someone
else's story to tell, not mine), but suffice it to say that
I was alerted that someone I knew slightly was threatening
suicide. I took it VERY seriously, and called 911. In my
case, the cops were there within minutes, arranged for an
ambulance, and got him to the hospital. I stayed on
the phone wioth him until they got there, but had no personal interaction
with them until the next day, when I obtained the name of one
of the deputies involved, and got her help in locating the
current whereabouts of my acquaintance, so I could go check up on him.
So my experience was totally positive -- but if I had had yours instead,
I'd likely end up feeling pretty much the way you're feeling right now.
-- cary
(incidentally, my guy's fine now. I trust yours is as well)
nhoop
>get out of the fucking truck. I kept calling for them to help me.
A guy who deliberately poisons a "friend" is calling the paramedics "Sorry
bastards"???
HAW!
nhoop
wrote:
>I bet you like to suck cock too don't you?
takes one to know one. :)
Who Cares?
"Manny" <myemailR...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:nbau0ug1cpmola542...@4ax.com...
> >
> >Yeah, you blew it and blew it badly.
>
Oh, no! Not another alias from Kurt Lochner?!
Stewart Millen
"Gray Shockley" <gr...@compcomm.com> wrote in message
news:01HW.B82C86810...@news-central.giganews.com...
Wow! I was looking over MAM, and I saw these posts--
which had escaped me previously. Not being well versed
very well either in all of Stephen Pinker's theories or GS, just
from this post I'd vote for GS, based on what I know
from anthropology.
That's because, as (the recently deceased) Marvin Harris
wrote, we don't need any stinkin' (new) altered states of
mind--we labor under one imposed upon us by our culture.
Our culture constructs all sorts of explanations why things
are (and should be) the way they are, and sometimes
this includes explanations why old women should be burned
at the stake and why poor children should sleep in the streets.
And it seems to me that language's power to make the
abstract concrete and "real", to make words into "things"
and to place "the the screen of language" between us the
world, plays right along with this.
I figure maybe I should start reading! Thanks to both
of you guys.
Stewart
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
iQCVAwUBPBaFNjSyh6XxoDgRAQEEuAQAiau4efXacWWnI5bwl3us2ZHwePNnHZgI
bbojjlxxUhnL50t2g1Fox41OnkfYFa6Azwek7i6PJ/mQm8TeBoSZ9SxKaSCqsq6l
Y0wN+LXE5fsJ5M470l9g7ElIj2In2mNeVxX/U6XJd404NzSJEtNLS7mdD7PRj1MW
QVitmUn70jQ=
=Zaq2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Gray Shockley
I see you've discovered that it was simply a matter of me following my orders
and following through with my anointed and appointed duties as defined by the
Congress and my linguistic superiors.
In my own defense, I shall throw myself on the mercy of the OED (2nd edition)
as well as a hardcover edition of _Science and Sanity_.
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------
Who'll follow the General anywhere.
Stewart Millen
"Gray Shockley" <gr...@compcomm.com> wrote in message
news:01HW.B83C1F920...@news-central.giganews.com...
Gray, you keep on a' talkin' like that, and Manny's going
to start accusing you of being a police officer again.
Stewart
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
iQCVAwUBPBdmdDSyh6XxoDgRAQEldgQAoJEfxQ4sj0mcYIlaWceMp6uH5Mdbb/NT
LgiVT7mz9T8jjabZlLYdypwCV8ra7TjOOKciATby4MiXQNMHlXEzCo8ADQnqGQwY
om+BSQy8cOIIiwiJ31+T15Nsa4j04uyH+u1gKDU8KJkwh7XRbe43KGOojQJ/fQMx
hMyWFCjOPXw=
=8qsl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Gray Shockley
(in message <9v7opq$dkgrb$1...@ID-116415.news.dfncis.de>):
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> "Gray Shockley" <gr...@compcomm.com> wrote in message
> news:01HW.B83C1F920...@news-central.giganews.com...
>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 10:14:58 -0600, Stewart Millen wrote:
>>
>> I see you've discovered that it was simply a matter of me
>> following my orders and following through with my anointed
>> and appointed duties as defined by the Congress and my
>> linguistic superiors.
>>
>> In my own defense, I shall throw myself on the mercy of the
>> OED (2nd edition) as well as a hardcover edition of _Science
>> and Sanity_.
>>
>>
>> Gray Shockley
>> -------------------------------------------
>> Who'll follow the General anywhere.
>
> Gray, you keep on a' talkin' like that, and Manny's going
> to start accusing you of being a police officer again.
>
> Stewart
--------------------------------------------------------
Well, it's certainly no insult to be mistaken for a member of a police force
but that lamebrain kept calling me an /officer/!
Gray
--------------------------
Gray Shockley
Entropy Maintenance Technician
Tao Chemical Company
--------------------------
gr...@compcomm.com
http://www.compcomm.com/
Vicksburg, Mississippi US