This is acceptable?????
Bill C
GPS tracking for athletes?
Two Swedish Olympic track and field champions, Carolina Klüft,
heptathlon, and Stefan Holm, high jump, have come out in support of
the idea of having athletes implanted with GPS chips to more easily
track their whereabouts for antidoping controls.
"I have suggested earlier that you could operate a data chip under the
skin on athletes on a certain level.
More there.
I can't believe that this is even being vaguely seriously discussed.
This isn't done to criminals, or anyone else. The criminals are given
a bracelet, by court order, and that's been contorversial. These folks
just want to shoot a tracking device into riders bodies. How about a
transmitter and miniature camera too? Maybe a small bomb so that if
they are found doing, or going anywhere not APPROVED it could just be
detonated, therefore solving the problem?
The KGB, the SD, Stasi, and others could've really learned something
on people control from cycling folks.
Have we reached the "Theater of the Absurd" yet? I'd bet Magilla and
the nutcases at Stolen Undeground are all in favor. Now it's time for
Amit to call me a chamois sniffer for objecting to this.
Anyone else get e-mails from the SU folks recently?
Bill C
amit....@gmail.com
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php
> Now it's time for
> Amit to call me a chamois sniffer for objecting to this.
dumbass,
i would call someone a chamois sniffer when they don't want to hold
the athletes accountable.
this is a stupid idea because it's just not a good way of catching
dopers - neither is in competition testing apparently.
Jim F
>
> dumbass,
>
> i would call someone a chamois sniffer when they don't want to hold
> the athletes accountable.
>
> this is a stupid idea because it's just not a good way of catching
> dopers - neither is in competition testing apparently.
1984
--
JF
"Bad will be the day for every man when he becomes absolutely contented with
the life he is living, with the thoughts he is thinking, with the deeds he
is doing, when there is not forever beating at the doors of his soul some
great desire to do something larger, which he knows that he was meant and
made to do because he is still, in spite of all, the child of God. "
- Phillip Brooks
Andre
> <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote...
The pushers could always go to the rider's house. What good is the
tracking device then? And the dog could be trained not to bark.
Andre
dusto...@mac.com
wrote:
> On Dec 28, 8:45 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> i would call someone a chamois sniffer when they don't want to hold
> the athletes accountable.
The athletes are so accountable that they have attained the highest
order of accountability, "Totally Accountable for Everything" (AKA
"Scapegoat").
Cops raiding rider hotels is "Theatre of the Absurd". IOW, we've been
there for a long, long time.
> this is a stupid idea because it's just not a good way of catching
> dopers - neither is in competition testing apparently.
Yes, they made some very stupid rules. "Stupid" because the governing
bodies can't enforce them effectively (or gracefully) in-house.
Even for drugs, you gotta look at NASCAR and wonder if greasy fried
chicken and Pabst Blue Ribbon by the case in cans isn't brain food?
(maybe it's the green beans with bacon fat?)
Watch, they're even gonna clean up the problem with the locally hired
goons doing infield security after the Casey Kahne incident.
There's an organization that knows how to sell out to corporate
sponsors. Corporate sponsors... ah, visions of Smith's Cove, Grand
Cayman. The waves lapping oh so gently, money coming in to stay for a
nice, relaxing vay-kay and going back to the real world, all refreshed
and ready to spend!
http://www.rense.com/general28/money.htm
I don't know, I read stuff like that and my sense of what's up kinda
changes with regard to throwing athletes out of their sports for
taking drugs (any drugs, including disco drugs or smoking dope).
Well, that's why they want us all to keep busy praying and hating the
homosexuals and (in the approximate words of George Will) "standing
for something"-- and so forth, right? --D-y
Michael Baldwin
>GPS tracking for athletes?
>Two Swedish Olympic track and field champions, Carolina Klüft,
heptathlon,
>and Stefan Holm, high jump, have come out in support
>of the idea of having athletes implanted with GPS chips
>to more easily track their whereabouts for antidoping controls.
..the "chip" is THE dope!...
Best Regards - Mike Baldwin
Bill C
When I had my shoulder done the surgeon plugged a line into the joint
connected to a spring loaded pump that pumped anasthetic into the
joint. I can't see any reason that one of those pumping "PotBelge"
couldn't be hooked up to feed from a bidon, or jersey pocket.
Bill C
Ryan Cousineau
<08b7eb77-c657-47ec...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Bill C <trito...@verizon.net> wrote:
I look forward to the day when cyclesport will let technology reign, and
a doctor riding in the team car will have two-way radio systems on the
rider: heart rate and other vitals coming in to him, and then he uses
the radio to dole out shots of adrenaline, pot belge, or IV Gatorade
(hey, why not?) via remote controlled pumps.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
Bill C
>
> I look forward to the day when cyclesport will let technology reign, and
> a doctor riding in the team car will have two-way radio systems on the
> rider: heart rate and other vitals coming in to him, and then he uses
> the radio to dole out shots of adrenaline, pot belge, or IV Gatorade
> (hey, why not?) via remote controlled pumps.
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau rcous...@sfu.cahttp://www.wiredcola.com/
> "My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
> Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Then Wada could morph into chasing elctronic cheats, searching cars
for jammers, and scanners, maybe even gear to take over someone elses
controls and take out the leader. Could they get their rider right to
the chemical edge, but not over it?
Think I'll stick to the retro-grouch thing though.
Bill C
Donald Munro
> I look forward to the day when cyclesport will let technology reign, and a
> doctor riding in the team car will have two-way radio systems on the
> rider: heart rate and other vitals coming in to him, and then he uses the
> radio to dole out shots of adrenaline, pot belge, or IV Gatorade (hey, why
> not?) via remote controlled pumps.
Could get interesting if the teams get their lines crossed.
Tom Kunich
news:08b7eb77-c657-47ec...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> When I had my shoulder done the surgeon plugged a line into the joint
> connected to a spring loaded pump that pumped anasthetic into the
> joint. I can't see any reason that one of those pumping "PotBelge"
> couldn't be hooked up to feed from a bidon, or jersey pocket.
I could build such a thing the size of a quarter that could be implanted
under the skin and be almost invisible. If you were to use about a half
dozen different extremely powerful steroids the dosage could be so small
that it couldn't be detected and if you did it right it would jazz up your
hormone system so much that they'd think it was a freak natural.
amit....@gmail.com
> Think I'll stick to the retro-grouch thing though.
you mean autologous blood doping ?
Bill C
wrote:
> On Dec 30, 10:23 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Think I'll stick to the retro-grouch thing though.
>
> you mean autologous blood doping ?
Nah, just beer, wine, and caffeine since I quit smoking a long time
ago. Think I'll take my caffeine in a cup though, not in the ass.
Wouldn't matter much if I did hgh, epo, 'roids, pot-belge with extra
amphetamine topping I'd still get smoked, even by my kids.
What I need to do is start lobbying for a Cross Nat's race for fat,
middle aged guys with hundred year old bodies, whose birthday is on
the 30th of a month that starts with an S, and at least soma, and
oxycodone are legal. I could top 5 in that.
If you pumped me full of Riis' 60% blood I might manage a podium
spot, but hey it's still a lot of fun.
That's the goal for this year. To do a couple of Cross races, and our
whole club TT series.
Bill C
John Forrest Tomlinson
<trito...@verizon.net> wrote:
>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/dec07/dec29news
>
>GPS tracking for athletes?
I saw that and was very disturbed. It's just wrong.
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:45:51 -0800 (PST), Bill C
>
> >http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/dec07/dec29news
>
> >GPS tracking for athletes?
>
> I saw that and was very disturbed. It's just wrong.
It's also fairly pointless. The purpose of the GPS chip
would be to make sure the dope cops could find you when
they showed up for an out of competition test. There's
already a rule that the athletes have to let the dope
cops know where they are by more conventional methods.
But as we saw from l'affaire Rasmussen, it's not clear
what the consequences of missing an out-of-competition
test are, and the different national dope-cop agencies
and national federations seem to have quite different
standards about whether they do out-of-competition tests,
where they do them, and what happens when you miss one.
This doesn't address that the real issues with OOC testing
are consistent rules and the expense.
So this "solves" the part of the problem that isn't
really a problem. Among other things, the dope cops
don't really need to know where you are right now.
They need to know where you're going to be in a day
or two, so they can actually get there to do the test.
GPS chips aren't psychic. The athletes would still
need to give the UCI or ADA their travel plans, so
they don't come to test you in Des Moines and find
you innocently hopped the plane to San Diego the
day before.
Ben
amit....@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:45:51 -0800 (PST), Bill C
>
> >http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/dec07/dec29news
>
> >GPS tracking for athletes?
>
> I saw that and was very disturbed. It's just wrong.
dumbass,
if lance were still racing he'd read that article and laugh.
Bill C
>
> >http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/dec07/dec29news
>
> >GPS tracking for athletes?
>
> I saw that and was very disturbed. It's just wrong.
The whole scene is insane. It's like a twisted parody. They are doing
and suggesting things that make the "patriot act" look like a joke,
and we aren't talking trying to save innocent lives, or stop suicidal
terrorists, we're talking bike racing.
Somewhere along the line "athlete" has ceased to mean "human" in the
insane war on doping. If it's wrong in trying to prevent mass murder,
how much more wrong is it in enetrtainment?
I never thought that I'd see the day they need to apply basic,
international human rights laws to a sport, other than maybe in
dealing with soccer hooligans.
The whole thing is sick.
Bill C
Donald Munro
>> >GPS tracking for athletes?
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> I saw that and was very disturbed. It's just wrong.
Bill C wrote:
> The whole scene is insane. It's like a twisted parody.
It's all just a little bit of history repeating itself AKA the
Torquemada complex.
Ryan Cousineau
<2380a7fe-031a-482f...@e50g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Bill C <trito...@verizon.net> wrote:
It's an art project.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
William Asher
Is Tourquemada another version of the PowerTap?
--
Bill Asher
amit....@gmail.com
dumbass,
are you really this earnest and stupid ?
the original article is someone's musing and there's isn't an actual
proposal on the table - what are you going to get fired up about
next ? swift's "a modest proposal" ?
this is a high tech spin on the current whereabouts system - the idea
of tracking chip just makes it seem more sinister and 1984ish.
if you have a problem with this then you should already have a problem
with the current whereabouts system.
amit....@gmail.com
> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
but is it art ?
Bill C
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Seems to me that Orwell, and Huxley were just extrapolating and
thinking? Were they wrong too?
I have serious problems with the current system, as you know. I'm not
sure how things will play out when it does get to the Hague, but given
Louise Arbour's general attitude and understanding of "human rights",
and taking that as representative of, especially, EU thinking, I'm
betting they've got a good shot at forcing a rethink of the system,
even as currently run.
The only thing I'm not sure about is the political will to reverse
the grandstanding that's gone on at the expense of due process, and
reasonable treatment.
Notice I didn't dispute Donald's choice of my seasonal whatever
present? The trick is to miss the windmills and get the nasties.
Sometimes it's pretty damned tough to tell which is which, and they
morph too.
Fight for basic principles, and do the best you can. That's all
anyone can do. When noone gives a shit the exploiters and scumbags
win.
Bill C
Tom Kunich
news:cee2f5fa-aa1f-4b3e...@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 31, 3:16 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> The whole scene is insane. It's like a twisted parody. They are doing
>> and suggesting things that make the "patriot act" look like a joke,
>> and we aren't talking trying to save innocent lives, or stop suicidal
>> terrorists, we're talking bike racing.
>> Somewhere along the line "athlete" has ceased to mean "human" in the
>> insane war on doping. If it's wrong in trying to prevent mass murder,
>> how much more wrong is it in enetrtainment?
>> I never thought that I'd see the day they need to apply basic,
>> international human rights laws to a sport, other than maybe in
>> dealing with soccer hooligans.
>> The whole thing is sick.
>
> proposal on the table - what are you going to get fired up about
> next ? swift's "a modest proposal" ?
Next week YOU will be recommending it to everyone.
Donald Munro
> Is Tourquemada another version of the PowerTap?
Its the next generation in power based training devices.
The main innovation are electrical contacts that attach
to the riders testicles and generate a shock equal to the
difference between the target wattage and the actual
wattage if the actual wattage is below the target wattage
(if the actual wattage is above the target wattage the
riders pleasure centers are activated).
However its doubtful whether the device will see the light
of day due to protests from the animal rights organizations
as the developers are using a gorilla riding around a
track for testing (apparently the gorilla finds the corners
particularly painful).
Donald Munro
>> > >GPS tracking for athletes?
>> and suggesting things that make the "patriot act" look like a joke, and
>> we aren't talking trying to save innocent lives, or stop suicidal
>> terrorists, we're talking bike racing.
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> It's an art project.
Apparently its religion:
<http://www.prophecybook.org/PMj.a2002.html>
(A dick with horns and a horny gripper starring in a
new religious porn blockbuster ?)
Anyway just wait until they start on DNA:
<http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2004/06/63637>
Ryan Cousineau
Donald Munro <fat-d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
When art is outlawed, only outlaws will have art. Also, I don't think
testing artists for drugs is likely to end well. Rather like the joke
about the plane crash in the graveyard.
William R. Mattil
<LOL>
Bill
SLAVE of THE STATE
wrote:
> However its doubtful whether the device will see the light
> of day due to protests from the animal rights organizations...
If animals have rights, then I hope too that they can be taxed. I
need a little help buying Robert his christmas presents.
amit....@gmail.com
> Seems to me that Orwell, and Huxley were just extrapolating and
> thinking? Were they wrong too?
> I have serious problems with the current system, as you know. I'm not
> sure how things will play out when it does get to the Hague, but given
> Louise Arbour's general attitude and understanding of "human rights",
> and taking that as representative of, especially, EU thinking, I'm
> betting they've got a good shot at forcing a rethink of the system,
> even as currently run.
dumbass,
as ben pointed out, there is a current lo-tech whereabouts system
where an athlete is supposed to report their whereabouts at all times
and if they aren't where they said they would be when the dope cops
come looking for them they can be penalized.
if this chip system comes to pass it will be because the president of
the chip company is friends with the ADA and not because it in any way
helps the ADAs catch dopers.
perhaps you think there shouldn't be out of competition tests -- which
is a defensible position, but that has nothing to do with this stupid
chip proposal which is a hi-tech red herring, just like the UCI asking
for riders' DNA. neither "innovation" can actually catch dopers the
current system can't.
Ryan Cousineau
<73674690-7bd8-4c66...@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
The license fee bill for my dog ("Terrier X" according to the invoice,
which makes it sound like some sort of evil government project to create
the Jack Russell for the New Millennium) just arrived, so yeah, animals
can be taxed.
They came for the hamsters, but I did not speak up because I was not a
hamster,
William Asher
>
> They came for the hamsters, but I did not speak up because I was not a
> hamster,
>
In Montana, they've been coming for the sheep for over a century and it
hasn't caused any real problems. Of course, they stay for the scenery.
--
Bill Asher
Howard Kveck
Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> In article
> <73674690-7bd8-4c66...@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
> SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 31 2007, 11:40 pm, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > > However its doubtful whether the device will see the light
> > > of day due to protests from the animal rights organizations...
> >
> >
> > If animals have rights, then I hope too that they can be taxed. I
> > need a little help buying Robert his christmas presents.
>
> The license fee bill for my dog ("Terrier X" according to the invoice,
> which makes it sound like some sort of evil government project to create
> the Jack Russell for the New Millennium) just arrived, so yeah, animals
> can be taxed.
I hope they don't decide to charge by the foot.
--
tanx,
Howard
Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
But I've already got a pitchfork...
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
>
> > If animals have rights, then I hope too that they can be taxed. I
> > need a little help buying Robert his christmas presents.
>
> The license fee bill for my dog ("Terrier X" according to the invoice,
> which makes it sound like some sort of evil government project to create
> the Jack Russell for the New Millennium) just arrived, so yeah, animals
> can be taxed.
"Terrier X" is the name your dog took when it
renounced its slave name.
>
> They came for the hamsters, but I did not speak up because I was not a
> hamster,
First against the wheel when the hamstervolution comes!
Ben
Bill C
wrote:
Amit my reaction had nothing to do with fighting doping, as such. The
State has little, to no place inside humans, bodies, period. This
isn't even the State.
As for the other OOC testing, that's somewhat less invasive, and IMO
a reasonable requirement. I do object to the location tracking. The
better way to do that is to have the athletes provide a contact
number, or person where they can be reached. Give them 48 hours, or 24
for that matter, to make themselves available to the testers. Missing
multiple tests should be then penalized by suspension, or whatever.
BTW this was pretty much how chunks of the military handled senior
command officers. We didn't always know where they were, but could
get 99.5% of them immediately by phone or radio, and if they were
going to be unable to be contacted normally they would have something
else set up.
There was hell to pay, for them, if we couldn't find one of them.
Bill C
SLAVE of THE STATE
Thanks for reminding me. It had slipped my mind that the sheeple love
paying taxes.
SLAVE of THE STATE
> State has little, to no place inside humans, bodies, period. This
> isn't even the State.
That is correct, it isn't the state: the riders are not coerced into
riding.
Playing pretend for a moment by assuming that professional cycling is
an open market free of the distortions of guvmint, whose rights have
been violated?
I mean, if participation in a particular open market is by consent,
then by what reasoning can a rider complain? They consented to the
rules.
Under (natural) rights doctrine, the only rights you can not waive
away by consent are inalienable rights. What inalienable right has
been consented away? If they don't want their whereabouts known, or
take dope tests, they simply do something other than race a bike. No
one is forcing them to race a bike.
(I'm talking actual (natural) rights, not goofy-ass euro-trash notions
of "rights," like a "right to work." The difference between actual
rights and powers is often exposed by the "duty-to-perform" test. If
the law/rule imposes a duty-to-perform (on others), then it is a
power, not a right. If the rule/law is a restraint on behavior,
rather than a duty-to-perform, then the rule/law _may_ be a protection
of (negative) actual rights. The "negative" comes from the fact that
it creates a rule of restraint, rather than duty-to-perform, which is
a "positive.")
William Asher
>
> Thanks for reminding me. It had slipped my mind that the sheeple love
> paying taxes.
>
It's all about the fleece.
--
Bill Asher
Tom Kunich
news:ccf8114e-5c77-4d49...@m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
While I'm half in your camp I'm also half in Bill's. I think that if they
race bicycles that they ought to submit to any tests they want to make
BEFORE, DURING OR AFTER THE RACE at the race site. I do not believe that
they ought to be able to turn up on your doorstep and demand that you be
there and also that you submit to poking and prodding while you may be about
to go on a date etc.
What this means is that they have to develop REAL tests for finding drug use
and not the phony crap they're often using today such as measuring
testosterone/epitestosterone ratios and if they don't like that switching to
a variable standard of isotope testing.
It should be remembered that the standard not only changes from continent to
continent depending upon the DIET of the athlete but also from individual to
individual for the same reasons.
The fact is that Floyd's initial tests were over the UCI standard of 4:1
which was a phony standard designed to cause more testing. The medical
community recognizes up to 6:1 as being the high side of NORMAL for 99% of
the male population.
What is even more surprising is that Floyd's initial test was only 5.6:1 and
the second test on the same sample was 11:1. This demonstrated beyond a
shadow of a doubt that there was a contaminant, probably a bacteria, in the
sample that was consuming the testosterone. Moreover the ratios were NOT
caused by higher than normal testosterone but LOWER than normal
epitestosterone in the sample. Another sign of a contaminant.
The French lab that completed the isotope tests demonstrated a level of
incompetence not just in Floyd's tests but many other tests as well.
So this entire system of dope testing needs to be completely revamped from
top to bottom.
amit....@gmail.com
> "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwh...@ti.com> wrote in
> While I'm half in your camp I'm also half in Bill's. I think that if they
> race bicycles that they ought to submit to any tests they want to make
> BEFORE, DURING OR AFTER THE RACE at the race site. I do not believe that
> they ought to be able to turn up on your doorstep and demand that you be
> there and also that you submit to poking and prodding while you may be about
> to go on a date etc.
if there's going to be a loophole there might as well not be any
testing at all because anyone who's half smart will exploit that (ask
sinkewitz).
> What this means is that they have to develop REAL tests for finding drug use
> and not the phony crap they're often using today
I agree, because it is effectively 1997. There is still no way to test
for autologous blood doping which is what fuentes riders like jaksche
were doing once EPO became detectable.
Anyone who tests positive is either stupid, reckless or poor.
Bill C
There are NO rights, natural or otherwise. Any "rights" are granted
through the sufference of fellow humans, nothing more, nothing less.
"Rights" are what the morality of the community says you are entitled
to, and some others, which you are calling "natural" rights I guess
that people have been claiming longer. BFD, try telling a tornado,
Tsunami, or pissed off Grizzly about your "rights".
After you're born, you have the right to die. Not a single damned
thing other than that is guaranteed.
The rest we fight for, and grant to each other. Any "right" you think
is more valid than any other is due to your prejudices, and priorities
as opposed to the other persons. Not any more valid other than in YOUR
view.
Just because they have other views on what constitutes rights,
doesn't make their positions any more, or less valid than yours, mine,
or anyone elses.
Pick the artificial construct that makes you happy and snuggle up to
your fantasy, because reality doesn't give a shit what any of us
think.
Bill C
SLAVE of THE STATE
You are sorta on to it, and you sorta fucked it up too. "Natural
rights" is indeed a /social phenomena/. Um, that is, it involves the
rules of conduct between "fellow humans" -- a social setting. But
given that the nature of human beings is social, "natural rights" and
"natural law" are ways of discovering and explaining the natural
character of humans as social creatures, and thus reasoning about
justifiable rules of conduct.
> BFD, try telling a tornado,
> Tsunami, or pissed off Grizzly about your "rights".
Since those are not things associated with social rules of conduct
(between humans), natural law and natural rights have nothing to say
on the matter of tornados, earthquakes, grizzlies, or global warming.
To say so is a categorical error.
Ostensibly, natural law/rights apply to the sheeple too. laughs.
> After you're born, you have the right to die. Not a single damned
> thing other than that is guaranteed.
Irrelevent. Life and death are physical facts of life -- again you
commit a categorical error. The social rule of free conduct never
contained any guarantees, so it is unclear why you even make this true
but irrelevent statement.
> The rest we fight for, and grant to each other. Any "right" you think
> is more valid than any other is due to your prejudices, and priorities
> as opposed to the other persons. Not any more valid other than in YOUR
> view.
The only view I have is mine and thus it is most valid. To the extent
I allow others the same (free action based on their views), and if
they grant me the same, then "we" as natural social creatures do
indeed generate the golden rule. If agreement is not found, the use of
force remains. Agreeing often costs less than force; the social
practicing of the golden rule is a flat empirical fact (even if
imperfectly and inconsistantly applied).
> Just because they have other views on what constitutes rights,
> doesn't make their positions any more, or less valid than yours, mine,
> or anyone elses.
My view is always more valid. I wouldn't have it any other way. If I
thought your view was better, I would drop mine, and then adopt
your's. Then the idea is mine too.
> Pick the artificial construct that makes you happy and snuggle up to
> your fantasy, because reality doesn't give a shit what any of us
> think.
You are incoherent. You're complaining about moral violations on
individual sovereignty (personal sphere of control) -- violations
regarding social rules of conduct -- and then saying "they don't
exist." Do you know what you think? I believe you are confused.
Can you answer the question? Whose rights were violated? Why?
SLAVE of THE STATE
Indeed. Very funny.
Bill C
>
> You are incoherent. You're complaining about moral violations on
> individual sovereignty (personal sphere of control) -- violations
> regarding social rules of conduct -- and then saying "they don't
> exist." Do you know what you think? I believe you are confused.
>
> Can you answer the question? Whose rights were violated? Why?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nope, I'm honest. I don't believe that there are any inherent human
impulses other than to grab power, and dominate others. That still
tosses your natural rights argument. Humans are scum, read the news.
I use "rights" in my arguments based on what the courts decide they
are, and what I think they should be. None of which are valid on their
own. I admit it's my fantasy world, you are still claiming some sort
of justification for your viewpoint.
Like I said there are no rights.
Once again the language fails because people avoid the "incorrect"
concepts.
You admit that there are NO rights, and people are scum, then we can
start to have a real conversation.
Bill C
SLAVE of THE STATE
wrote:
> On Jan 2, 4:42 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
>
> > > If animals have rights, then I hope too that they can be taxed. I
> > > need a little help buying Robert his christmas presents.
>
> > The license fee bill for my dog ("Terrier X" according to the invoice,
> > which makes it sound like some sort of evil government project to create
> > the Jack Russell for the New Millennium) just arrived, so yeah, animals
> > can be taxed.
>
> "Terrier X" is the name your dog took when it
> renounced its slave name.
Pomeranian X renounced his free name after being told he must sprint
in a 13.
> > They came for the hamsters, but I did not speak up because I was not a
> > hamster,
>
> First against the wheel when the hamstervolution comes!
Free the domestique hamsters from the uber-boss-lance-rats!
Zygotes of the world unite!
SLAVE of THE STATE
> On Jan 3, 8:32 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You are incoherent. You're complaining about moral violations on
> > individual sovereignty (personal sphere of control) -- violations
> > regarding social rules of conduct -- and then saying "they don't
> > exist." Do you know what you think? I believe you are confused.
>
> > Can you answer the question? Whose rights were violated? Why?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Nope, I'm honest. I don't believe that there are any inherent human
> impulses other than to grab power, and dominate others. That still
> tosses your natural rights argument. Humans are scum, read the news.
The 1st inherent impulse is to survive. The 2nd is to reproduce.
Sometimes they get switched and then people die of vd.
After that, you get all sorts of behavior, from selfless altruistic
behavior, to simple follow-thru on mutual agreements, to the bad
behavior you recount. But perhaps you would consider that what you
see on "the news" has its own slant.
> I use "rights" in my arguments based on what the courts decide they
> are, and what I think they should be.
Which is nonsense. What you are talking about is privileges granted to
_subjects_ by the _rulers_. Toss the language of "rights" then -- it
makes no sense. "Rights" is the language of natural law and natural
rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_positivism
None of which are valid on their
> own. I admit it's my fantasy world, you are still claiming some sort
> of justification for your viewpoint.
> Like I said there are no rights.
> Once again the language fails because people avoid the "incorrect"
> concepts.
> You admit that there are NO rights, and people are scum, then we can
> start to have a real conversation.
I wondered if you could answer the question. You can't because there
is no strand of consistant reasoning for you to grab on to. The fact
is that your framing and complaint in the thread had the earmarks of
rights. But then you say it is not so. Thus it is unclear what
exactly you are complaining about. When you ask about what is
acceptable, I take it you are talking social rules of conduct and that
someone's free choice/will had been abridged.
If _all_ the individuals are scum, then what exactly is the worry?
Who cares about the scum wars?
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. --
Orwell, Animal Farm
All scums are equal, but some scums are more equal than others.. --
Bill, RBR Scum Farm
Ryan Cousineau
<e4c2a0ad-afad-4f8d...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
"amit....@gmail.com" <amit....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 6:19 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwh...@ti.com> wrote in
>
> > While I'm half in your camp I'm also half in Bill's. I think that if they
> > race bicycles that they ought to submit to any tests they want to make
> > BEFORE, DURING OR AFTER THE RACE at the race site. I do not believe that
> > they ought to be able to turn up on your doorstep and demand that you be
> > there and also that you submit to poking and prodding while you may be about
> > to go on a date etc.
>
> if there's going to be a loophole there might as well not be any
> testing at all because anyone who's half smart will exploit that (ask
> sinkewitz).
Tom's proposal is not even a loophole. It's a friggin' gilt invitation
for riders to show up at races in a downright radioactive state.
I'm just a dumb idiot who's fat, slow, and is trying to figure out if
beer in my water bottle is UCI-legal, but even I could develop a drug
program that would pass the Tom Test every time and still leave the
cyclist in a profoundly altered state:
1) fast-clearing steroids in NFL-player doses. More for TTists and
sprinters, less for climbers. What did your liver ever do for you
anyways? Recovery sucks, now you won't have to.
1a) Testosterone. No need to worry about epitestosterone top-ups: there
won't be any OOC testing.
2) EPO until you redline.
3) maybe hgh if you feel like it, perhaps amphetamines or ephedra if
you're Jan Ullrich and have trouble making the weight.
That said, I think Tom's proposal would totally cure the cocaine problem
in pro cycling.
> > What this means is that they have to develop REAL tests for finding drug use
> > and not the phony crap they're often using today
I think you underestimate (by a lot) how much current testing regimens
are forcing dopers to be way, way more circumspect. I'm pretty sure that
there's a fair number of riders trying to do it clean, and the dirty
riders are down to recycling their own blood, and maybe some T. Well,
after Floyd, maybe not so much the T.
> I agree, because it is effectively 1997. There is still no way to test
> for autologous blood doping which is what fuentes riders like jaksche
> were doing once EPO became detectable.
In fairness, I'm pretty sure that if that's the status quo, it's still
better than 1997. Never mind that you can get to similar HCTs, it
probably takes a considerably larger amount of recklessness to kill
yourself. Moreover, I think there's some legit fears that long-term EPO
usage will suppress your natural red blood cell production. I doubt
you'd see the same effect from autologous doping.
> Anyone who tests positive is either stupid, reckless or poor.
Only the first two are options. Who has to pay for their own blood?
Bill C
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not sure what the hell you are trying to argue? I said that my
original comments, and consistant comments on "rights" are based on
what's been given to them ny the couurts and government.
There are NO other rights. Prove otherwise.
'Rights" are a collective opium dream.
From a philosophical standpoint the concept of "rights" is totally
invalid in reality. From the fantasy standpoint I can make any damn
thing I want a "right" by claiming it's one, then I've got to get
someone in one of those "guvmints" you hate to recognise and protect
it for it to have any validity.
Once again you're out in fantasy, philosophy land, and totally out of
touch with reality.
I'd love to amke up reality and have it be what happens, but it
don't.
You can shoot ads many holes as you want to dream up in my arguments,
but mine are based in the reality of day to day humanity around the
globe, yours are based on pie in the sky dreams.
Not that I don't like the dreams, it's just that when they meet
reality they fail miserably.
At least Stalin was able to take his pie in the sky dreams, and cram
them down reality's throat. Worked pretty well for Castro too. The
people don't seem real thrilled.
Bill C
Bill C
Bill C
>
> - Show quoted text -
Worse than usual spelling and typing are offerered as proof that
advanced doping is not performance enhancing for typing.
Bill C
amit....@gmail.com
> > if there's going to be a loophole there might as well not be any
> > testing at all because anyone who's half smart will exploit that (ask
> > sinkewitz).
>
> Tom's proposal is not even a loophole. It's a friggin' gilt invitation
> for riders to show up at races in a downright radioactive state.
dumbass,
there was effectively no OOC testing for top riders prior to 2007
since it was handled by the national fed and depended on funding and
the motivation by the fed to actually nail their own riders (eg.
canada, germany).
chris sheppard was tested at his home in kamloops, but any protour
rider would be too savvy to risk being in place where his fed would
test him while he was doping. ullrich perhaps the exception.
i can't think of a case until this year where a rider failed an OOC
test abroad (sinkewitz, kashechkin).
> > > What this means is that they have to develop REAL tests for finding drug use
> > > and not the phony crap they're often using today
>
> I think you underestimate (by a lot) how much current testing regimens
> are forcing dopers to be way, way more circumspect. I'm pretty sure that
> there's a fair number of riders trying to do it clean, and the dirty
> riders are down to recycling their own blood, and maybe some T. Well,
> after Floyd, maybe not so much the T.
>
> > I agree, because it is effectively 1997. There is still no way to test
> > for autologous blood doping which is what fuentes riders like jaksche
> > were doing once EPO became detectable.
>
> In fairness, I'm pretty sure that if that's the status quo, it's still
> better than 1997. Never mind that you can get to similar HCTs, it
> probably takes a considerably larger amount of recklessness to kill
> yourself. Moreover, I think there's some legit fears that long-term EPO
> usage will suppress your natural red blood cell production. I doubt
> you'd see the same effect from autologous doping.
it's 1997 in the sense that anyone who wants to can dope with no fear
of actually testing positive. wiretaps and police raids are still a
worry though.
> > Anyone who tests positive is either stupid, reckless or poor.
>
> Only the first two are options. Who has to pay for their own blood?
fuentes charges $30,000 a year.
if you're schmoebag pro making $25,000 a year, epo still seems like a
good gamble.
SLAVE of THE STATE
> On Jan 3, 9:06 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Jan 3, 5:42 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 3, 8:32 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
>
> > > > You are incoherent. You're complaining about moral violations on
> > > > individual sovereignty (personal sphere of control) -- violations
> > > > regarding social rules of conduct -- and then saying "they don't
> > > > exist." Do you know what you think? I believe you are confused.
>
> > > > Can you answer the question? Whose rights were violated? Why?
>
> original comments, and consistant comments on "rights" are based on
> what's been given to them ny the couurts and government.
> There are NO other rights. Prove otherwise.
> 'Rights" are a collective opium dream.
> From a philosophical standpoint the concept of "rights" is totally
> invalid in reality. From the fantasy standpoint I can make any damn
> thing I want a "right" by claiming it's one, then I've got to get
> someone in one of those "guvmints" you hate to recognise and protect
> it for it to have any validity.
> Once again you're out in fantasy, philosophy land, and totally out of
> touch with reality.
> I'd love to amke up reality and have it be what happens, but it
> don't.
> You can shoot ads many holes as you want to dream up in my arguments,
> but mine are based in the reality of day to day humanity around the
> globe, yours are based on pie in the sky dreams.
> Not that I don't like the dreams, it's just that when they meet
> reality they fail miserably.
> At least Stalin was able to take his pie in the sky dreams, and cram
> them down reality's throat. Worked pretty well for Castro too. The
> people don't seem real thrilled.
First you start with the moral outrage tone "this is
acceptable(?????)," with a few references to criminals, bombs, the
KGB, SD, and the Stasi thrown in just for effect. Then you reference
the rule making body and claim there are no rights. If anything
deserves five question marks, your comments do.
The moral link to rule/law making is via "natural rights."
Stunningly, you then say there are no rights and all that matters are
the _privileges the governing body grants the subjects_. And that is
covered by the doctrine of legal positivism, and decidedly not the
doctrine of natural law/rights.
If you are taking the legal positivist stand, then there (by
definition) is no moral stand or outrage for you to have. Basically
you are incoherent in mixing two doctrines that are decidedly
disimilar.
So my argument is this: you don't know what you think. When you
figure out whether or not you actually have a moral outrage at the
rules/law, and thus the abuse of rights of some group, then get back
to us and answer whose rights have been violated and why. A
positivist doesn't ask if the law is morally wrong -- they just say
"what is," how the courts can be expected to rule, and if the law's
creation was procedurally valid (on its own terms) -- thus a
positivist has no moral outrage.
You are confused. That is my argument. Thus I have no idea what you
might be getting at or what you are upset with or what you could
possibly expect to be done about it. You can't have it both ways.
Are you morally outraged at the rules and think they should be brought
in alignment with your sense or morality (and thus fairness), or not?
Can there be a conception of legal justice without a moral
foundation?
I linked the article for you. The second bullet was "[T]here is no
inherent or necessary connection between the validity conditions of
law and ethics or morality [in the doctrine of legal positivism]."
Justice Hand: "Do justice, sir, do justice."
Justice Holmes: "That is not my job. It is my job to apply the law."
Bill C
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just to keep it really simple. In nature there are NO such things as
rights, that's a human civilization concept, as are justice, and laws.
That's the absolute position, and reality. Anything else is an
artificial construct.
I know exactly what I'm saying and think. You cite Natural Law,
inalienable rights, etc...The reality is that they don't exist anymore
than the right to redistribute the wealth, health care, etc...
None of the "rights" you want, and none of those you wish to deny,
that others want, are anymore valid than any others.
The communist model is just as valid as the capitalist model.
Democracy and freedom are just as valid as fascist dictatorships, or
theocracies if the people say they are. You seem to think that some
are "Naturally", or "absolutely" more valid than others. That I
dispute.
I try to be honest and see what the reality is and deal with that, but
also what I would like to see happen, or exist which is something
else. Pipe dreams can become an effective reality, IF put into place
by humans, but they exist only as long as the humans say they do. They
are not natural, or absolute.
So it's pretty simple really. I have a set of beliefs that I think
should constitute basic rights, others have differing lists. Some of
those lists are accepted as the basic framework for civilization by
governing bodies and courts in places where we live, and ride. I
accept those as the current "reality", or "framework" we are dealing
with when questions arise in those areas.
While understanding that all of this is an artificial construct, I
also realize civilization is too, and accept the current fantasy as
the operating system for us.
I feel that Wada is violating a lot of the "rights" system put in
place in the EU, and that pisses me off.
There are supposed to be basic rules to the game, and civilization is
a game, that should be respected, or changed.
All pretty simple and straightforward. I'd doubt that Sandy,
Lafferty, Howard, or JT have any problem understanding my thinking on
this. They may disagree on points, but then I might decide their
fantasy is more consistant internally than mine and agree with them.
More later, or off-line if you wish, thought all this was
kindergarten stuff though.
Bill C
amit....@gmail.com
> I feel that Wada is violating a lot of the "rights" system put in
> place in the EU, and that pisses me off.
dumbass,
what rights exactly ?
just so you're clear on this.
the WADA code is something that was created in collaboration with
sports feds in a way that they would agree to sign on - just like a
collective bargaining agreement. and just like a collective agreement
it is subject to revisions which involve negotiations between the feds
and WADA.
sports feds that joined then made the decision on behalf of their
members to comply with WADA.
the UCI under verbruggen was one of the holdouts and signed on just
before the 2004 olympics.
Bill C
wrote:
Amit I wanted to think this out for a bit so I could explain clearly
why I still have a problem with it.
We'll start with the collective bargaining part. I don't see this as
having been legitammately being collectively bargained because there
is no independent groups that represents the riders, seperately.
Teams, promoters, Feds, etc...all have their own agenda's and aren't
concerned foremost with the riders, and that's fine, but the riders
need to have independent represenatation for any agreement for it to
be vailid IMO.
The next issue is that no "agreement" is viable if it breaks the
laws, or drops protections below those guaranteed by society. We'll
see how this plays out as things continue to work through the court
system. My feeling is that some of the practices will be found to
violate labor and human rights protections. Could very well be wrong
on this one, since courts are unpredictable and political.
To sum it up I think the agreements haven't been agreed to by all the
parties because a major one hasn't been validly represented, and I
think that the Wada/UCIs collective actions have sunk below the
threshold of protections guaranteed to individuals in Europe.
Bill C
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
>
> The moral link to rule/law making is via "natural rights."
> Stunningly, you then say there are no rights and all that matters are
> the _privileges the governing body grants the subjects_. And that is
> covered by the doctrine of legal positivism, and decidedly not the
> doctrine of natural law/rights.
>
Dumbass,
Let's not get too weepy about natural rights. Everybody has
their own idea of what "natural" is. Even Stalin thought he
was the best placed to guarantee the rights of man in the
ideal society that would arise after they'd finished breaking
the eggs. Therefore, you are a COMM1E !!1!
In reality, there are a basic set of rights, which have
been conveniently enumerated. Know your rights,
all three of them:
http://londonsburning.org/lyr_combat_rock.html
The WADA Code is entirely consistent with this
formulation. Know your rights, please know your rights.
Ben
"You can't break eggs without making an omelet
-- That's what they tell the eggs."
Randall Jarrell
amit....@gmail.com
> The next issue is that no "agreement" is viable if it breaks the
> laws, or drops protections below those guaranteed by society. We'll
> see how this plays out as things continue to work through the court
> system. My feeling is that some of the practices will be found to
> violate labor and human rights protections. Could very well be wrong
> on this one, since courts are unpredictable and political.
dumbass,
the point of WADA is to make sure that a pole vaulter in china is
treated the same as a tennis player from france when it comes to
doping infractions.
but WADA or the UCI cannot protect you if you attract interest from
local law enforcement. festina, puerto, oil-for-drugs, sliced loaf,
millar-time all fall under this category.
but WADA will intervene when it perceives that the ruling of a fed is
not in line with the WADA code.
there are cases which weren't handled properly, but it wasn't because
of a failing with WADA.
for example it was the LNDD that decided to re-test the 1999 tour
samples and it was the UCI that decided to release armstrong's doping
control forms (when he asked them to). but retroactive testing is
forbidden under the WADA code, so if armstrong was sanctioned he could
have appealed on that basis.
SLAVE of THE STATE
wrote:
> On Jan 5, 5:51 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > I feel that Wada is violating a lot of the "rights" system put in
> > place in the EU, and that pisses me off.
>
> dumbass,
>
> what rights exactly ?
That is my question too.
SLAVE of THE STATE
wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2:41 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The moral link to rule/law making is via "natural rights."
> > Stunningly, you then say there are no rights and all that matters are
> > the _privileges the governing body grants the subjects_. And that is
> > covered by the doctrine of legal positivism, and decidedly not the
> > doctrine of natural law/rights.
>
> Dumbass,
>
> Let's not get too weepy about natural rights.
Fool,
I'm not. It was Bill's language, not mine, and I'm merely pointing
out that he is inconsistant (at best); I did not take a doctrinal
stand on the matter. (Hey, weren't you an english minor, or something
like that?) I can't get him to talk about what rights he thinks were
violated, since that is the "moral outrage, and human rights" tact
*he* is essentially talking.
I'm not aware of any rights violations (at a glance there does not
appear to be any), but then I don't really care too much either
because bike racing is not important, particularly the rule battles of
professionals and their governing body(s). (I care more about the
NCNCA, since its rules would actually affect me if I were ever to race
a bike again.)
I just wanted Bill to explain what rights he thinks exist and were
violated. Then he says there are no rights. Then he talks about
rights that are granted (which aren't rights, but privileges). Who
instituted the guv-body that _grants_ the "rights?" Round and round
we go.
> In reality, there are a basic set of rights, which have
> been conveniently enumerated.
You think you're kidding, and your joke has nothing to do with
anything in this thread. Anyway...
Under the US federal law, and more importantly american theory of
governance, the totality of rights are unenumerated, which is another
way of saying they are unlimited in number. Of course, it is a
standing fact that you don't like the american theory of governance.
Why do you hate the constitution, including the 9th?
9th:
/The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people./
"LET ANY ONE MAKE WHAT COLLECTION OR ENUMERATION OF RIGHTS HE PLEASES,
I WILL IMMEDIATELY MENTION TWENTY OR THIRTY MORE RIGHTS NOT CONTAINED
IN IT." -- James Iredell
---------------
"In all societies, there are many powers and rights, which cannot be
particularly enumerated. A bill of rights annexed to a constitution is
an enumeration of the powers reserved. If we attempt an enumeration,
everything that is not enumerated is presumed to be given. The
consequence is, that an imperfect enumeration would throw all implied
power into the scale of the government; and the rights of the people
would be rendered incomplete." -- James Wilson,The Pennsylvania
Convention (Nov. 28, 1787), in 2 THE DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE
RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
"[I]t would be not only useless, but dangerous, to enumerate a number
of rights which are not intended to be given up; because it would be
implying, in the strongest manner, that every right not included in
the exception might be impaired by the government without usurpation;
and it would be impossible to enumerate every one. Let any one make
what collection or enumeration of rights he pleases, I will
immediately mention twenty or thirty more rights not contained in it."
-- James Iredell, Debates in the Convention of the State of North
Carolina, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (July 29, 1788),
in 4 ELLIOT'S DEBATES,
"[W]e had no bill of rights inserted in our Constitution; for, as we
might perhaps have omitted the enumeration of some of our rights, it
might hereafter be said we had delegated to the general government a
power to take away such of our rights as we had not
enumerated . . . ." -- Charles Pinckney,Debates in the Legislature and
in Convention of the State of South Carolina, on the Adoption of the
Federal Constitution (Jan. 18, 1788)
"The committee who framed this report proceeded on the principle that
these rights belonged to the people; they conceived them to be
inherent; and all that they meant to provide against was their being
infringed by the Government... [I]f the committee were governed by
that general principle, they might have gone into a very lengthy
enumeration of rights; they might have declared that a man should
have a right to wear his hat if he pleased; that he might get up when
he pleased, and go to bed when he thought proper..." --Rep. Sedgwick,
1 ANNALS OF CONG. 759 (Joseph Gales ed., 1834) (statement of Rep.
Sedgwick, Aug. 15, 1789).
"Sedgwick's argument assumes that the 'self-evident, unalienable,'
inherent and unenumerated rights retained by the people are personal
liberty rights that are unenumerable because the human imagination is
limitless." -- Randy Barnett, THE NINTH AMENDMENT: IT MEANS WHAT IT
SAYS
I forgive you knuckleheads. You are victims of publik skoolin. It
isn't your fault. It is society's fault. lol
I'm done.
Bill C
Your quoting things PEOPLE said. The Constitution is a collective
opium dream too, enacted by force.
Are these rights you claim exist, created ouside of the sphere of
humans? Are they God given? What?
You are using shitloads of words, citing human beings writings to
justify what are supposed to be fundamental, unassailable rights that
are guaranteed to everyone. Who's guaranteeing them? Mother Nature?
What makes the folks who wrote the Constitution more reliable than
Hillary Clinton? They're all people with opinions, nothing more,
nothing less. Unless you are going to insist that some higher power
than humanity grants, and enforces rights, they are nothing more, as a
concept, than pipe dreams.
You're doing a hell of a choreographed duet with a strawman here,
because you CAN'T make an argument outside human philosophy that you
agree with for basic rights.
I believe that the riders have had their "rights" under The Charter
of Fundamental Rights of the European Union violated in many places.
That's where the game is being played out, that's where the governing
bodies are, and those are the laws they are sanctioned under.
You live in the same world as our buddy Ted K.
Gst used to it, reality is what it is, and what we have to deal with
in the real world. Theoretical philosophy is nice, but if the world
doesn't work that way then to function in it you find ways to play.
Standing on a pile of books and kicking, screaming, and whining, it's
all wrong doesn't do you or anyone else any good. Maybe it makes you
FEEL good, especially since you like to slam anyone more willing to
take a practical approach as a sellout, at best.
I'll say the same thing to you that I've said to Amit a million
times, Nothing is simple. Thinking people see, at least, a duality to
everything, at a minimum, and more likely vast, complex shades of gray
when you actually begin to consider other people's opinions and
research.
You seem to think that having a complex view, and some points that
conflict within it is wrong. I say it's only wrong once you know it
all, and are a true believer.
Everything has differing fundamental frameworks you have to work
within, at different levels, deiling with the same problem.
For what seems to be one simple problem you can end up dealing with,
family, neighbors, town, county, State, and Federal governments and
their inherent requirements and challenges, many of which may very
well conflict with each other, and what you want to do.
Then when you start throwing in competeing rights, privileges,
protections, and philosophies it really gets interesting.
You just choose to deny the applicability of lots of those, but still
pay your taxes. Reality does intrude despite your bitching.
Most people, whether they agree or not, take the playing field for
what it is, and find the easiest route through it to get something
done.
I get to deal with this all the time as a contractor. There are a
million hoops to jump through, lots of which are in gray areas in law,
and society. Pitching a hissy fit and screaming at them doesn't make
things happen. What does is finding out the best way to deal with each
person, or group, and making the best deal for everyone involved. If
they are breaking the law then you report it, but most have a huge
area to play in without actually violating any laws.
What I'd like things to be is one thing. What they are is another.
What they are as an absolute is something else again.
I'm not surprised you reject those concepts as a working framework.
Compared to me and the windmills you are on another planet.
Bill C
Bill C
Tom Kunich
news:rcousine-5BB085.18234003012008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
>
> I'm just a dumb idiot who's fat, slow, and is trying to figure out if
> beer in my water bottle is UCI-legal, but even I could develop a drug
> program that would pass the Tom Test every time and still leave the
> cyclist in a profoundly altered state:
>
> 1) fast-clearing steroids in NFL-player doses. More for TTists and
> sprinters, less for climbers. What did your liver ever do for you
> anyways? Recovery sucks, now you won't have to.
Exactly what do you think that steroids do?
> 1a) Testosterone. No need to worry about epitestosterone top-ups: there
> won't be any OOC testing.
Do you suppose that they could take a measurement of total testosterone per
rider each race and chart them? Do you suppose that there's already a good
profile of that? After all, they've only been able to identify and follow
total testosterone in the blood for over 50 years and all that.
> 2) EPO until you redline.
EPO is detectable, remember? Oh, you think that they could use EPO BEFORE
the races. Wait a minute - they're allowed only 50% red blood cell count.
Don't you understand that the idea was to use EPO to boost the usual (though
not "normal" as such) DROP in hematocrit during a maxed out 3-week tour?
> 3) maybe hgh if you feel like it, perhaps amphetamines or ephedra if
> you're Jan Ullrich and have trouble making the weight.
Psst - they still can't measure hGH.
Carl Sundquist
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:13o335m...@corp.supernews.com...
> Psst - they still can't measure hGH.
In the wake of baseball's Mitchell Report, an ESPN reporter claimed there is
a designer steroid "out there" that currently can only be discovered by
biopsy.
Michael Press
<a56446f4-4c1e-4974...@f3g2000hsg.google
groups.com>,
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2:41 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
> >
> > The moral link to rule/law making is via "natural rights."
> > Stunningly, you then say there are no rights and all that matters are
> > the privileges the governing body grants the subjects . And that is
> > covered by the doctrine of legal positivism, and decidedly not the
> > doctrine of natural law/rights.
> >
>
> Dumbass,
>
> Let's not get too weepy about natural rights. Everybody has
> their own idea of what "natural" is. Even Stalin thought he
> was the best placed to guarantee the rights of man in the
> ideal society that would arise after they'd finished breaking
> the eggs. Therefore, you are a COMM1E !!1!
>
> In reality, there are a basic set of rights, which have
> been conveniently enumerated. Know your rights,
> all three of them:
>
> http://londonsburning.org/lyr combat rock.html
>
> The WADA Code is entirely consistent with this
> formulation. Know your rights, please know your rights.
Human rights come out of the barrel of a gun.
-- Chairman Mao
--
Michael Press
Bill C
> In article
> <a56446f4-4c1e-4974-89ec-ed4812e17...@f3g2000hsg.google
> groups.com>,
> "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
>
>
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 2:41 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
>
> > > The moral link to rule/law making is via "natural rights."
> > > Stunningly, you then say there are no rights and all that matters are
> > > the privileges the governing body grants the subjects . And that is
> > > covered by the doctrine of legal positivism, and decidedly not the
> > > doctrine of natural law/rights.
>
> > Dumbass,
>
> > Let's not get too weepy about natural rights. Everybody has
> > their own idea of what "natural" is. Even Stalin thought he
> > was the best placed to guarantee the rights of man in the
> > ideal society that would arise after they'd finished breaking
> > the eggs. Therefore, you are a COMM1E !!1!
>
> > In reality, there are a basic set of rights, which have
> > been conveniently enumerated. Know your rights,
> > all three of them:
>
>
> > The WADA Code is entirely consistent with this
> > formulation. Know your rights, please know your rights.
>
> Human rights come out of the barrel of a gun.
> -- Chairman Mao
>
> --
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yep, that's one he's right on. He understood that coercion, and force
stand behind everything.
Bill C
Fred Fredburger
>
> Do you suppose that they could take a measurement of total testosterone
> per rider each race and chart them? Do you suppose that there's already
> a good profile of that? After all, they've only been able to identify
> and follow total testosterone in the blood for over 50 years and all that.
I suppose they COULD do that but I'd bet they don't. It's too
methodical. The current enforcement regime seems too much like a bunch
of grandstanding Keystone Cops to do anything that sensible.
SLAVE of THE STATE
> On Jan 7, 1:36 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Human rights come out of the barrel of a gun.
> > -- Chairman Mao
> Yep, that's one he's right on. He understood that coercion, and force
> stand behind everything.
Second Amendment - Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.
Yeah, so when I get my two guns, I'll "coerce" a robber (by force)
into not stealing my property and harming my person and family.
Green is red.
"War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength."
--- George Orwell, "1984"
Whose rights were violated? What rights? Why?
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> On Jan 6, 9:02 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
>
> > In reality, there are a basic set of rights, which have
> > been conveniently enumerated.
>
> You think you're kidding, and your joke has nothing to do with
> anything in this thread. Anyway...
>
> Under the US federal law, and more importantly american theory of
> governance, the totality of rights are unenumerated, which is another
> way of saying they are unlimited in number. Of course, it is a
> standing fact that you don't like the american theory of governance.
> Why do you hate the constitution, including the 9th?
>
> 9th:
> /The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
> construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people./
>
> "LET ANY ONE MAKE WHAT COLLECTION OR ENUMERATION OF RIGHTS HE PLEASES,
> I WILL IMMEDIATELY MENTION TWENTY OR THIRTY MORE RIGHTS NOT CONTAINED
> IN IT." -- James Iredell
Luftmensch,
I don't dislike the american theory of governance.
I think I have a different interpretation of it than
you do. Now back to the rights question: in _principle_
I agree with you about (the lack of) enumeration.
Practice is another story. I do think it's funny
that you who are constantly upset about the injustice
of taxation are seemingly sanguine about the
availability of unenumerated rights.
Remember when Robert Bork said "The right to privacy
is not written in the Constitution"? The average judge
now has some views not hugely different from Bork's then.
(Bork _now_ is yet another story, as he has gone completely
round the bend - which suggests either that he became
bitter after being Borked, or that the people who Borked
him were right on the money first time round.)
That is all.
Ben
Ted van de Weteringe
> I don't dislike the american theory of governance.
Commie. Capitalist. Or whatever, but it must be bad!
Donald Munro
>> I don't dislike the american theory of governance.
Ted van de Weteringe wrote:
> Commie. Capitalist. Or whatever, but it must be bad!
Don't worry, you can't walk anywhere without tripping
over an agent of change.
SLAVE of THE STATE
wrote:
> On Jan 6, 4:40 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 6, 9:02 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> > wrote:
>
> > > In reality, there are a basic set of rights, which have
> > > been conveniently enumerated.
>
> > You think you're kidding, and your joke has nothing to do with
> > anything in this thread. Anyway...
>
> > Under the US federal law, and more importantly american theory of
> > governance, the totality of rights are unenumerated, which is another
> > way of saying they are unlimited in number. Of course, it is a
> > standing fact that you don't like the american theory of governance.
> > Why do you hate the constitution, including the 9th?
>
> > 9th:
> > /The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
> > construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people./
>
> > "LET ANY ONE MAKE WHAT COLLECTION OR ENUMERATION OF RIGHTS HE PLEASES,
> > I WILL IMMEDIATELY MENTION TWENTY OR THIRTY MORE RIGHTS NOT CONTAINED
> > IN IT." -- James Iredell
>
> Luftmensch,
>
> I don't dislike the american theory of governance.
> I think I have a different interpretation of it than
> you do.
Right, it is a matter of opinion. Like Bill's apparent opinion (in
agreeing with Mao) that coercion equals defense.
"We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." -- George Orwell
> Now back to the rights question: in _principle_
> I agree with you about (the lack of) enumeration.
Some are enumerated. The Ninth was supposed to take care of rest.
> Practice is another story. I do think it's funny
> that you who are constantly upset about the injustice
> of taxation are seemingly sanguine about the
> availability of unenumerated rights.
Umm, hello. I'm the first one saying they aren't available, not
because they are not a matter of law (or even "nature"), but because
the government won't obey its own laws. And the irony is that Bill
says there aren't any such rights, and that only the law of the
government can "make them," but right there in black and white is the
government's law that makes them "true" /on Bill's own terms/.
I don't tell people where to place their cares and moral outrage, but
it is curious he is upset for a few pro bike riders in Europe, but 300
million are offended daily right here in North America.
> Remember when Robert Bork said "The right to privacy
> is not written in the Constitution"? The average judge
> now has some views not hugely different from Bork's then.
Good god. I am the one saying judges often have their heads up their
ass and have a good share of responsibility for "constitutional
drift." Now you are informing me of what I have been telling you.
Is there something like a "right to privacy?" It would have to be a /
construction/, if so. I don't know about that, but I do know I have a
right to wear my hat in my house, because it is specific and not
general. Perhaps the court did construct a "right to privacy" out of
specifics. I would have to read the case to really get past the one-
liner, but I can certainly see how the reasoning and language might
lead that way.
The point was never to "create rights" as a grant to the people. They
did not have to be "created," whatever they were, as they existed
before the formation of the government. (First came the people and
the states, and *then* came the federal government, tyrant Lincoln
notwithstanding.) The only purpose of stating or "discovering" rights
was to explicitly restrain an enumerated power government. That is,
in the various checks that are supposed to be done to discover if the
government had the power to do something (remember "necessary and
proper(?)"), one of the checks was to see if the proposed law violated
any rights. So the only reason "rights" were to be discovered by the
court was as an incidental and an acid test for constitutionality of
the law. The point was never to discover rights as an end, it was
only a means test for the law. And yes, that doctrine is another that
has been turned on its head, as the Supreme Court decided that the
laws that are passed have the /presumption of constitutionality/.
(Ever wonder why one of Barnett's books is conversely called /The
Presumption of Liberty/?) Originally the government was supposed to
have to prove its case. Now it is those who believe their rights
deprived have to prove their rights. It is upside down, and yes you
can thank the judges.
> (Bork _now_ is yet another story, as he has gone completely
> round the bend - which suggests either that he became
> bitter after being Borked, or that the people who Borked
> him were right on the money first time round.)
Bork said the Ninth was an ink blot, which is the say a Supreme Court
nominee had no fucking clue regarding how the Ninth was supposed to be
used and applied to the law. However, and as bad as that is, it isn't
why Bork got borked.
I wish you and Bill could get a clue. I wanted to know what rights
were violated, and you dumbasses can't fucking say. Don't you think
it is a little ironic that the person (me) who probably has more
idealistic support for natural rights than anyone is not assuming some
right (regarding the thread's topic) exists, and the guy (Bill) who is
complaining about "rights violations," says no rights exist, but has
the moral outrage of a "rights advocate," and can't say what the right
that was violated is.
Coercion is defense
Force is compliance
Green is red
What makes Madison's green any less red than Hillary's?
Isn't all language just a matter of opinion?
Why can't 2=3?
"War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength"
--- George Orwell, /1984/
SLAVE of THE STATE
SLAVE of THE STATE
> >> I don't dislike the american theory of governance.
>
> Ted van de Weteringe wrote:
>
> > Commie. Capitalist. Or whatever, but it must be bad!
Commiedom was illegal at the founding. But it is a commie nation now,
thanks in part to the judges. I imagine Don pronounces that "Joo-
djez."
> Don't worry, you can't walk anywhere without tripping
> over an agent of change.
No f-ing shit. It is sickening. All those retard presidential
candidates can say (Ron Paul excepted) is they are for CHANGE. And we
know what that CHANGE is: bigger government, more taxes, more wars,
and more of all the really good stuff for FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SHIT OR GET OFF THE POT!!!!!!!!!!!!
lol