Re: No, Chuck, please don't do that
- From: Old Tom <rascal_51@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 07:32:55 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 11, 5:45 am, Sanity <sanity-cla...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 11, 1:07 am, whistler <whistler...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 10, 11:51 pm, Chuck <livingli...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 10, 7:18 pm, hj st <hjayst...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
fast take on big talk (Post of Dec 27, 2007)
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 04:18:53 -0600
From: "scottie a." <s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: fast take on big talk
To: a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
................snip
When Rey made his offer, I piped in fast:
them to act on behalf of the 'Family', which only
serves to officialize 'Rainbow Process' from the
outset.
it's discretionary: Rights are not that way...this doesn't fix the problem.
.........snip
Descriptive conceptions can be helpful, as is "scottie a." 's
descriptive conception of how, why, and wherefore on councilairity and
consensesness
Rainbow Pfamilie of Lifting Lite
or
rAiNbOw family of man Living lightly on Mother Earth (Gaia)
/
The distinction is the ex-officio permission / authorization /
accomidation is granted de facto to the 'group' that gathers, so if
you are with (as in the general vicinity) you are "one of those" and
guilty by proximity. Yeah, it's a fraud, but if you protest you'll be
told "ignorance of the law is no excuse" and if you claim a different
name for your group the Gummint'll just tack on another bugus charge
you'll have to fight. All because High Holy Idiots think they can
barter Liberty for safety and don't care about involving others in
their doom.
No one in history has ever gotten the safety they surrendered their
Liberty for.
Peace, Sanity- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, how about some documentation to back up that statement.
"...the 'group' that gathers, so if you are with (as in the general
vicinity) you are "one of those" and
guilty by proximity."
Where's the cites? Where are the regs? or is this another statement
that's true but not accurate?
Old Tom
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: No, Chuck, please don't do that
- From: Chuck
- Re: No, Chuck, please don't do that
- From: Lookingheart
- Re: No, Chuck, please don't do that
- From: Sanity
- Re: No, Chuck, please don't do that
- From: whistler
- Re: No, Chuck, please don't do that
- References:
- USFS Conference Call in March
- From: Karin Zirk
- Re: USFS Conference Call in March
- From: Sanity
- Re: USFS Conference Call in March
- From: Chuck
- Re: USFS Conference Call in March
- From: whistler
- No, Chuck, please don't do that (was: USFS Conference Call in March)
- From: Carla
- Re: No, Chuck, please don't do that (was: USFS Conference Call in March)
- From: Sanity
- Re: No, Chuck, please don't do that (was: USFS Conference Call in March)
- From: Old Tom
- Re: No, Chuck, please don't do that
- From: Chuck
- Re: No, Chuck, please don't do that
- From: Sanity
- Re: No, Chuck, please don't do that
- From: hj st
- Re: No, Chuck, please don't do that
- From: Chuck
- Re: No, Chuck, please don't do that
- From: whistler
- Re: No, Chuck, please don't do that
- From: Sanity
- USFS Conference Call in March
- Prev by Date: Re: More about Operating Plans - some history
- Next by Date: Re: More about Operating Plans - some history
- Previous by thread: Re: No, Chuck, please don't do that
- Next by thread: Re: No, Chuck, please don't do that
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|