Re: The Babbling of the Loon
- From: Robert Redelmeier <redelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:53:44 GMT
The Real Bev <bashley101+usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in part:
Vandalism in general is a crime, even if the punishment
is laughable. We are not required -- or even permitted --
to take on vandals ourselves; if we were, there might be fewer
living vandals. Spam/sporge is vandalism to our communication
This is very far from certain. What is defaced? What is damaged?
Some additional traffic is carried, some postings appear. If people
didn't want to carry the traffic, they are under no obligation to
do so. Ditto for the postings. Some ISPs dont [see sidethread].
USENET looks very much like free speech which is heavily protected
under the US Consistition, AFAIK all US state constitutions and
many equivalent foundational documents in other countries. Governments
are quite properly reluctant to intervene. Why are you inviting them in?
Perhaps you are annoyed by the superfluous material. Get over it.
Free speech does not mean freedom from disturbing materials.
Quite the opposite, it practically encourages offense.
system -- a public good which deserves public protection.
No, even private goods get public protection. They get most of it.
If they can stop highway construction because it threatens 100
frogs, surely SOMETHING can be done about MI5-loon and his ilk.
Two wrongs do not make a right. If stopping hwys for environmental
reasons is ultimately wrong. The people of California have decided
that biodiversity is an important element in their state and
believe they can impose restrictions on land use. I'm not sure I
can argue because many of their microclimates are indeed precarious.
Yeah, there are already way too many laws, but is it likely that
MI5-loon will sue google for violating his civil rights if google
just shuts him down? And if he does, how likely is he to prevail?
Zero and zero. Loon has no rights wrt google. The shareholders of
that corporation just decide to allow open access. They are free
to revoke it at any time. Perhaps if you wrote a polite letter
to google, they might consider doing something. You are others like
you are probably better customers than loon.
I am very uncertain what you are arguing here. Do you still
maintain the changes in the late 1960s were all a matter of
fashion devoid of substance?
Pretty much, yeah. Are we all better off than we were in
the 50s?
Again I am mystified. Are you saying there was no change
because we are not better off? [I tried to explicity disclaim
the direction of change "for better or worse"].
In general, two incomes are required to support a family now.
It depends on where. Most places on left and right coasts,
yes. Less so in flyover country. This isn't a change which
started in the 1960s? Or it's only a minor [fashion] change?
Appearance still matters way more for women than for men,
even when it's irrelevant.
I never claimed this had changed, certainly not in the 1960s.
Would you trust him to make laws for you? I wouldn't.
How about investments? How about driving? How about
educating your children? Trust has less to do with others'
honesty than their competence.
Dear me, who hurt you so? Effectiveness is a product of trust
and competence. One obviously doesn't go to an individual
like Gump for matters beyond his abilities.
Wall.St financial wizards are
intelligent, but at least some are rapacious and untrustable.
As are politicians, but we're supposed to be able to "trust"
them to do the will of the people. You think they do? HAH.
Who supposes we should trust politicians? Anyone asking for
"trust" almost always should be automatically denied it.
Trust is earned by actions, not requested or traded.
-- Robert
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Babbling of the Loon
- From: The Real Bev
- Re: The Babbling of the Loon
- References:
- Re: The Babbling of the Loon
- From: The Real Bev
- Re: The Babbling of the Loon
- From: Neil Brooks
- Re: The Babbling of the Loon
- From: The Real Bev
- Re: The Babbling of the Loon
- From: Robert Redelmeier
- Re: The Babbling of the Loon
- From: The Real Bev
- Re: The Babbling of the Loon
- From: Robert Redelmeier
- Re: The Babbling of the Loon
- From: The Real Bev
- Re: The Babbling of the Loon
- From: Robert Redelmeier
- Re: The Babbling of the Loon
- From: The Real Bev
- Re: The Babbling of the Loon
- From: Robert Redelmeier
- Re: The Babbling of the Loon
- From: The Real Bev
- Re: The Babbling of the Loon
- Prev by Date: Re: The Babbling of the Loon
- Next by Date: Re: Question about Glass, Plastic, Trivex, polycarbonate lens and safety
- Previous by thread: Re: The Babbling of the Loon
- Next by thread: Re: The Babbling of the Loon
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|