Court authorized wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise wrote (in ) about 'Court authorized wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:

Some people have anomalous smell sense. I don't suppose it smells like vomit to her.

I can't stand the smell of 'Imperial Leather' soap (affectionately known as 'Old Army Boots'. To me, it smells much worse!

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bob Monsen wrote (in ) about 'Court authorized wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:

But by doing that, they are reacting, not LEADING. This is ALL WRONG. The party managements have been taken over by statisticians (psephologists, already!) geeks and wimps. Think about the most successful politicians throughout history, good and bad. Did they have any truck with polling, focus groups and interviews?

One of the most 'successful', for sufficiently immoral definitions of 'successful', was Adolf. He didn't have millions of oil money, influential friends, etc. He saw a country on its knees and brought it to a world power, within a knife-edge of world dominance to an extent that not even the US has (yet?) achieved.

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin wrote (in ) about 'Court authorized wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:

Add theatres, Christmas, long hair and coloured clothes, and you can be the New Cromwell.

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin wrote (in ) about 'Court authorized wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:

In principle, yes; education is the best way. But the interference with personal freedom in these cases is just about warranted.

Why stop there? ban driving a car, eating too much fat food, doing too little exercise

If I was making millions on drugs I'd make sure to spend some on politicians to make sure it was was never legalized because that would totally ruin the profit. ;)

The massive amount of illegal money has the potential to corrupt pretty much everything.

so designed fat food that taste too good is bad too? If someone wants to ruin or kill themself there not much you can do about it.

-Lasse

"John Larkin" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

It would be nice to have a graph a bit more recent, but okay:

You don't know what you are talking about.

Look at the last chart on bottom of this page:

And how does that reason with this:

...you figure it out.

From Mr. "Are we having fun yet" I would expect a bit more acceptance of common ingredients of life such as "cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, television, hydrogenated shortenings, and possibly pornography".

I think that's about as near to the heart as one can get! The only reason they're pissed at us is that their women aren't stupid.

Ah, so you disagreee with "doctor assisted suicide".

If you can't protect yourself, blame the left-leaning weenies.

Seems to have worked with Dan Blather. Given the ratings tank of the major news outlets, I'm somewhat encouraged.

Moons ago we had a technican who liked smoking that crappy cherry pipe tobacco. It stunk like *hell*, so one day we cut rubber bands into slivers and mixed pencil shavings into his pouch. He lit up, and didn't notice. When confronted with the truth he gave up smoking. ;-)

in the

========================================

Where are the enemies? You have to locate them first. They are fewer than the elusive so called weapons of mass destruction.

"John Larkin" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

I was seeing you again for a couple of weeks, you probably changed your reply-to address. I read less than 5% of the postings here, occasionally reading postings that draw my attention for whatever reason.

But you missed the argument in the provided links that allowing soft drug like marihuana etc reduces the usage of the more dangerous stuff like heroine and what have you. Instead you present a smoke screen about p*rn. As if I care that you hire & fire p*rn addicts. Hopeless.

Smile when you say that, pardner ;-)

...Jim Thompson

-- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | |

So, f'ing what. Big deal. So *some* have a problem. That's life. You shouldn't prevent all from something just because a few have a few issues. As I have said, life itself is *absolutely* the most harmful situation that can ever be achieved. If we prevent all births there would be zero suffering in this world.

How any one can deliberately allow a new born into this world that will undergo so much pain as in, first vaccinations, love break-ups, having their parents die, having dad buy them an edsal, rather then a porche, and knowing that they will, in time, cease to exist themselves.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

I suspect you suspect wrong.

What do you actually mean by "social harm"? Why should other peoples feelings be more important then my own?

Hint, evolution is a numbers game. Hint: there is no moral reason why, as Spock would say "the interests of the many, outweigh the few". Its just the automatic result of:

"That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most."

Leave it out mate. Just what bloody harm to you think comes from p*rn, like a strained wrist?

Television...get real...explain exactly what you mean by "harm". Its all waffle.

As I have said before, cigarettes are a positive boon to the rest of us that don't smoke. Its £15B in tax revenue at an increase in health costs of only £1.5B per year. It also has massive savings in Social Security cost as smokers die much younger. Less people means more for the rest of us. The world population has doubled to 6.5B since 1970, there is a limit as to what the earth can support, if people want to voluntary self sacrifice their own lives for the greater good, I am all for it.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

And I knew that was coming...Its a completely bogus argument.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bob Monsen wrote (in ) about 'Court authorized wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Mon, 2 May 2005:

....but he was administering a poison. Good job none of the crew had a medical condition under which that poison is particularly fatal. DON'T try this at home (or away), kiddies!

...

I disagree here, but not with your premise - only your explanation. I agree with you that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is bogus - it's juat one of the platitudes that the power-trippers use to subjugate you. The only reason it works in practice is that "the many" outnumber "the few" and can gang up on them and take what they want by force.

It doesn't matter how big a lynch mob you put together - if theft, murder, mayhem, and so on are "wrong" for one to commit, then they're "wrong" for a crowd to commit as well.

Cheers! Rich

It's not bogus in San Francisco. Drug abuse is a serious burden on public medical resources already. We keep the drinking water clean and the rats out of the restaurants in the cause of public health; so why not restrict the supply of heroin?

John