Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Smoke two...
Re: Smoke two...
Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
4B2F49.07334514042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
> Many people misuse the word "mad" to mean angry.
It's not a "misuse" to use a word the way everyone uses it.
"Mad" hardly ever means "crazy" anymore. According to the
etymology dictionary, it's been a long time since "mad" has
crowded out "angry" for at least 50% of the rights to
that meaning.
> Your father never
> became "mad" due to anything you did. In fact, we might guess that
>your
> father was never "mad" at all (or that he always had been, and your
> actions didn't change anything.)
Thanks for demonstrating the technique of pretending to define
terms, while, in fact, only stressing them.
> I thought that Tom's freedom-TO and freedom-FROM were pretty clear....
Maybe, but the distinction isn't all that relevant to the
discussion. "To" and "from" are used simply because the
situation is different. In one case you want to talk about
your own action and in the other, you want to talk about
someone else's actions. If there is a difference in concept
(other than direction or object) he hasn't made that clear.
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
4B2F49.07334514042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
> Many people misuse the word "mad" to mean angry.
It's not a "misuse" to use a word the way everyone uses it.
"Mad" hardly ever means "crazy" anymore. According to the
etymology dictionary, it's been a long time since "mad" has
crowded out "angry" for at least 50% of the rights to
that meaning.
> Your father never
> became "mad" due to anything you did. In fact, we might guess that
>your
> father was never "mad" at all (or that he always had been, and your
> actions didn't change anything.)
Thanks for demonstrating the technique of pretending to define
terms, while, in fact, only stressing them.
> I thought that Tom's freedom-TO and freedom-FROM were pretty clear....
Maybe, but the distinction isn't all that relevant to the
discussion. "To" and "from" are used simply because the
situation is different. In one case you want to talk about
your own action and in the other, you want to talk about
someone else's actions. If there is a difference in concept
(other than direction or object) he hasn't made that clear.
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Re: Smoke two...
"Bart Goddard" <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote in message
news:Xns9A808AE0E3D6Fgoddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.81...
> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
> 4B2F49.07334514042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
>
>
>> Many people misuse the word "mad" to mean angry.
>
> It's not a "misuse" to use a word the way everyone uses it.
Umm..yes, it is misuse. If everyone agrees to call a horse tail a leg, the
horse still has just four legs.
Bart, your post-modernist streak is showing.
"Bart Goddard" <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote in message
news:Xns9A808AE0E3D6Fgoddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.81...
> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
> 4B2F49.07334514042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
>
>
>> Many people misuse the word "mad" to mean angry.
>
> It's not a "misuse" to use a word the way everyone uses it.
Umm..yes, it is misuse. If everyone agrees to call a horse tail a leg, the
horse still has just four legs.
Bart, your post-modernist streak is showing.
Re: Smoke two...
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in
news:RoSMj.105687$Ft5.7126@newsfe15.lga:
>
> "Bart Goddard" <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote in message
> news:Xns9A808AE0E3D6Fgoddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.81...
>> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
>> 4B2F49.07334514042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
>>
>>
>>> Many people misuse the word "mad" to mean angry.
>>
>> It's not a "misuse" to use a word the way everyone uses it.
>
> Umm..yes, it is misuse. If everyone agrees to call a horse tail a leg,
> the horse still has just four legs.
That's a pretty weak analogy. Mostly, your last sentence uses
the word "legs" with two different definitions, while supposing
that it has only one. Certainly the horse still has four oldlegs,
but if everyone has redefined the word, then no one is going
to say that the horse has four newlegs.
> Bart, your post-modernist streak is showing.
There is _nothing_ modern about me.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in
news:RoSMj.105687$Ft5.7126@newsfe15.lga:
>
> "Bart Goddard" <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote in message
> news:Xns9A808AE0E3D6Fgoddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.81...
>> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
>> 4B2F49.07334514042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
>>
>>
>>> Many people misuse the word "mad" to mean angry.
>>
>> It's not a "misuse" to use a word the way everyone uses it.
>
> Umm..yes, it is misuse. If everyone agrees to call a horse tail a leg,
> the horse still has just four legs.
That's a pretty weak analogy. Mostly, your last sentence uses
the word "legs" with two different definitions, while supposing
that it has only one. Certainly the horse still has four oldlegs,
but if everyone has redefined the word, then no one is going
to say that the horse has four newlegs.
> Bart, your post-modernist streak is showing.
There is _nothing_ modern about me.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Re: Smoke two...
"Bart Goddard" <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote in message
news:Xns9A8182331FFFEgoddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.81...
> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in
> news:RoSMj.105687$Ft5.7126@newsfe15.lga:
>
>>
>> "Bart Goddard" <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote in message
>> news:Xns9A808AE0E3D6Fgoddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.81...
>>> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
>>> 4B2F49.07334514042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
>>>
>>>
>>>> Many people misuse the word "mad" to mean angry.
>>>
>>> It's not a "misuse" to use a word the way everyone uses it.
>>
>> Umm..yes, it is misuse. If everyone agrees to call a horse tail a leg,
>> the horse still has just four legs.
>
> That's a pretty weak analogy.
Really?
> Mostly, your last sentence uses
> the word "legs" with two different definitions, while supposing
> that it has only one. Certainly the horse still has four oldlegs,
> but if everyone has redefined the word, then no one is going
> to say that the horse has four newlegs.
>
>
>> Bart, your post-modernist streak is showing.
>
> There is _nothing_ modern about me.
Noting classical, either! :~)
You're a "Thoroughly Modern Millie"!
And as I've said, I don't have the patience to translate English into
current ghettoized usage.
"Bart Goddard" <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote in message
news:Xns9A8182331FFFEgoddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.81...
> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in
> news:RoSMj.105687$Ft5.7126@newsfe15.lga:
>
>>
>> "Bart Goddard" <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote in message
>> news:Xns9A808AE0E3D6Fgoddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.81...
>>> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
>>> 4B2F49.07334514042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
>>>
>>>
>>>> Many people misuse the word "mad" to mean angry.
>>>
>>> It's not a "misuse" to use a word the way everyone uses it.
>>
>> Umm..yes, it is misuse. If everyone agrees to call a horse tail a leg,
>> the horse still has just four legs.
>
> That's a pretty weak analogy.
Really?
> Mostly, your last sentence uses
> the word "legs" with two different definitions, while supposing
> that it has only one. Certainly the horse still has four oldlegs,
> but if everyone has redefined the word, then no one is going
> to say that the horse has four newlegs.
>
>
>> Bart, your post-modernist streak is showing.
>
> There is _nothing_ modern about me.
Noting classical, either! :~)
You're a "Thoroughly Modern Millie"!
And as I've said, I don't have the patience to translate English into
current ghettoized usage.
Re: Smoke two...
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in news:k_dNj.105794$Ft5.70351
@newsfe15.lga:
> And as I've said, I don't have the patience to translate English into
> current ghettoized usage.
"Mad" as "angry" is hardly modern, and the issue is beside
the point. What you need to find patience for is translating
the mushy, intuitive definitions of "right" which are caroming
off each other, into English so that others will know what
you're talking about.
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in news:k_dNj.105794$Ft5.70351
@newsfe15.lga:
> And as I've said, I don't have the patience to translate English into
> current ghettoized usage.
"Mad" as "angry" is hardly modern, and the issue is beside
the point. What you need to find patience for is translating
the mushy, intuitive definitions of "right" which are caroming
off each other, into English so that others will know what
you're talking about.
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Re: Smoke two...
"Bart Goddard" <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote in message
news:Xns9A82543164267goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.93...
> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in news:k_dNj.105794$Ft5.70351
> @newsfe15.lga:
>
>> And as I've said, I don't have the patience to translate English into
>> current ghettoized usage.
>
> "Mad" as "angry" is hardly modern, and the issue is beside
> the point. What you need to find patience for is translating
> the mushy, intuitive definitions of "right" which are caroming
> off each other, into English so that others will know what
> you're talking about.
That's not the point and you know it, so quit spinning.
And "angry" isn't in the dictionary, right?
"Bart Goddard" <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote in message
news:Xns9A82543164267goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.93...
> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in news:k_dNj.105794$Ft5.70351
> @newsfe15.lga:
>
>> And as I've said, I don't have the patience to translate English into
>> current ghettoized usage.
>
> "Mad" as "angry" is hardly modern, and the issue is beside
> the point. What you need to find patience for is translating
> the mushy, intuitive definitions of "right" which are caroming
> off each other, into English so that others will know what
> you're talking about.
That's not the point and you know it, so quit spinning.
And "angry" isn't in the dictionary, right?
Re: Smoke two...
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in news:TDtNj.50011$QC.16138
@newsfe20.lga:
>
> "Bart Goddard" <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote in message
> news:Xns9A82543164267goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.93...
>> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in news:k_dNj.105794$Ft5.70351
>> @newsfe15.lga:
>>
>>> And as I've said, I don't have the patience to translate English into
>>> current ghettoized usage.
>>
>> "Mad" as "angry" is hardly modern, and the issue is beside
>> the point. What you need to find patience for is translating
>> the mushy, intuitive definitions of "right" which are caroming
>> off each other, into English so that others will know what
>> you're talking about.
>
> That's not the point and you know it, so quit spinning.
Of course it's the point. I brought up the "mad/angry" example
specifically because you don't have a decent definition of
"right", no matter how often, or how heavily you stress "right OF"
or "right TO" or "right FROM" or....
No one has said anything intelligible on this thread yet, and
it's because nobody knows what a "right" is.
> And "angry" isn't in the dictionary, right?
It's in mine.
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in news:TDtNj.50011$QC.16138
@newsfe20.lga:
>
> "Bart Goddard" <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote in message
> news:Xns9A82543164267goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.93...
>> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in news:k_dNj.105794$Ft5.70351
>> @newsfe15.lga:
>>
>>> And as I've said, I don't have the patience to translate English into
>>> current ghettoized usage.
>>
>> "Mad" as "angry" is hardly modern, and the issue is beside
>> the point. What you need to find patience for is translating
>> the mushy, intuitive definitions of "right" which are caroming
>> off each other, into English so that others will know what
>> you're talking about.
>
> That's not the point and you know it, so quit spinning.
Of course it's the point. I brought up the "mad/angry" example
specifically because you don't have a decent definition of
"right", no matter how often, or how heavily you stress "right OF"
or "right TO" or "right FROM" or....
No one has said anything intelligible on this thread yet, and
it's because nobody knows what a "right" is.
> And "angry" isn't in the dictionary, right?
It's in mine.
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Re: Smoke two...
In article <TDtNj.50011$QC.16138@newsfe20.lga>,
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:
> And "angry" isn't in the dictionary, right?
What, are you mad...?!
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
In article <TDtNj.50011$QC.16138@newsfe20.lga>,
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:
> And "angry" isn't in the dictionary, right?
What, are you mad...?!
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
Re: Smoke two...
"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in message
news:Misc-3FE236.20001316042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net ...
> In article <TDtNj.50011$QC.16138@newsfe20.lga>,
> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:
>
>> And "angry" isn't in the dictionary, right?
>
> What, are you mad...?!
Pissed!
"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in message
news:Misc-3FE236.20001316042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net ...
> In article <TDtNj.50011$QC.16138@newsfe20.lga>,
> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:
>
>> And "angry" isn't in the dictionary, right?
>
> What, are you mad...?!
Pissed!
Re: Smoke two...
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in news:DNzNj.58667$097.28222
@newsfe21.lga:
>
> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in message
> news:Misc-3FE236.20001316042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net ...
>> In article <TDtNj.50011$QC.16138@newsfe20.lga>,
>> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:
>>
>>> And "angry" isn't in the dictionary, right?
>>
>> What, are you mad...?!
>
> Pissed!
>
See?
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in news:DNzNj.58667$097.28222
@newsfe21.lga:
>
> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in message
> news:Misc-3FE236.20001316042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net ...
>> In article <TDtNj.50011$QC.16138@newsfe20.lga>,
>> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:
>>
>>> And "angry" isn't in the dictionary, right?
>>
>> What, are you mad...?!
>
> Pissed!
>
See?
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Re: Smoke two...
In article <Xns9A82EA6481595goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.92>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in news:DNzNj.58667$097.28222
> @newsfe21.lga:
>
> >
> > "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in message
> > news:Misc-3FE236.20001316042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net ...
> >> In article <TDtNj.50011$QC.16138@newsfe20.lga>,
> >> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:
> >>> And "angry" isn't in the dictionary, right?
> >> What, are you mad...?!
> > Pissed!
> See?
So, you're saying that "angry" means "drunk"...?!
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
In article <Xns9A82EA6481595goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.92>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in news:DNzNj.58667$097.28222
> @newsfe21.lga:
>
> >
> > "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in message
> > news:Misc-3FE236.20001316042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net ...
> >> In article <TDtNj.50011$QC.16138@newsfe20.lga>,
> >> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:
> >>> And "angry" isn't in the dictionary, right?
> >> What, are you mad...?!
> > Pissed!
> See?
So, you're saying that "angry" means "drunk"...?!
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
Re: Smoke two...
"Bart Goddard" <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote in message
news:Xns9A82EA6481595goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.92...
> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in news:DNzNj.58667$097.28222
> @newsfe21.lga:
>
>>
>> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in message
>> news:Misc-3FE236.20001316042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net ...
>>> In article <TDtNj.50011$QC.16138@newsfe20.lga>,
>>> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:
>>>
>>>> And "angry" isn't in the dictionary, right?
>>>
>>> What, are you mad...?!
>>
>> Pissed!
>>
>
> See?
If we start defining rights in slang, we're "screwed".
"Bart Goddard" <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote in message
news:Xns9A82EA6481595goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.92...
> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in news:DNzNj.58667$097.28222
> @newsfe21.lga:
>
>>
>> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in message
>> news:Misc-3FE236.20001316042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net ...
>>> In article <TDtNj.50011$QC.16138@newsfe20.lga>,
>>> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:
>>>
>>>> And "angry" isn't in the dictionary, right?
>>>
>>> What, are you mad...?!
>>
>> Pissed!
>>
>
> See?
If we start defining rights in slang, we're "screwed".
Re: Smoke two...
"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in message
news:Misc-3BE455.19375313042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net ...
> In article <evyMj.49725$QC.44746@newsfe20.lga>,
> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:
>
>> >> A right TO something infers that someone else must provide it; that's
>> >> privilege or favors, not a right.
>
>> > At this point, you're just re-defining words to suit your
>> > notions.
>
>> BULLSHIT!
>
> I think we can all agree on what THAT word means...
>
> Perhaps what Bart was saying (I don't speak for him, but taking a guess)
> is that your definition of "a right to <something>" is a bit too narrow,
> and misses important cases.
Probably. THing is, delineating rights leads to problems. That's why the
Founders had so much trouble with the Bill of Rights - they felt it would
lead people to believe those were the onyl rights we held. Even the 9th and
10th Amendments proved futile.
> For example (and I think this is where we
> differ regarding your "[t]he Constitution grants NOTHING. The Founders
> where quite explicit about this"), I have the right to freedom of
> speech. This is not something that anyone GIVES me -- I just have it,
> all on my own. What the constitution guarantees is that no one will
> TAKE IT AWAY from me.
>
> Hence, my right TO <something> is not *only* cases where someone else
> has to provide (as in "the right to a free lunch" or whatever), but also
> can mean that you have the right to NOT have someone else DENY you
> something that you already have (as in "the right to peaceably
> assemble", the right to not be unreasonably searched, the right to a
> speedy and fair trial, etc. (Hmmm, I suppose the right to a speedy &
> fair trial DOES require that someone else provide me with these things
> -- but it's still a valid right, I believe. It's a restriction the
> founding fathers put upon themselves, and anyone who wanted to step into
> their future shoes.)
Let's clarifiy as I think were talking about the same thing from differnt
angles: rights, IMI, are the freedom to perform a certain action in societal
context. You speak of a right to [do something]. I say that's correct, but a
right TO also infers that you have a right to some material items, such as
food, health care, financial assistance, (etc. ad infinitum).
>
>> > You'd be clearer if you'd express your notions
>> > with common usage.
>
>> "Common usage" is a lot of what got us in trouble. For example, "General
>> Welfare".
[Sorry, but I can't translate this stuff into ghettoese, or Eubonices, or
other forms of bastardized post-modern English.]
>
> Well, there's "common usage back when the words were authored" and
> "common usage, now-a-days" -- often very different things. <sigh>
>
> --
> Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
> I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which
> sends
> unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in message
news:Misc-3BE455.19375313042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net ...
> In article <evyMj.49725$QC.44746@newsfe20.lga>,
> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:
>
>> >> A right TO something infers that someone else must provide it; that's
>> >> privilege or favors, not a right.
>
>> > At this point, you're just re-defining words to suit your
>> > notions.
>
>> BULLSHIT!
>
> I think we can all agree on what THAT word means...
>
> Perhaps what Bart was saying (I don't speak for him, but taking a guess)
> is that your definition of "a right to <something>" is a bit too narrow,
> and misses important cases.
Probably. THing is, delineating rights leads to problems. That's why the
Founders had so much trouble with the Bill of Rights - they felt it would
lead people to believe those were the onyl rights we held. Even the 9th and
10th Amendments proved futile.
> For example (and I think this is where we
> differ regarding your "[t]he Constitution grants NOTHING. The Founders
> where quite explicit about this"), I have the right to freedom of
> speech. This is not something that anyone GIVES me -- I just have it,
> all on my own. What the constitution guarantees is that no one will
> TAKE IT AWAY from me.
>
> Hence, my right TO <something> is not *only* cases where someone else
> has to provide (as in "the right to a free lunch" or whatever), but also
> can mean that you have the right to NOT have someone else DENY you
> something that you already have (as in "the right to peaceably
> assemble", the right to not be unreasonably searched, the right to a
> speedy and fair trial, etc. (Hmmm, I suppose the right to a speedy &
> fair trial DOES require that someone else provide me with these things
> -- but it's still a valid right, I believe. It's a restriction the
> founding fathers put upon themselves, and anyone who wanted to step into
> their future shoes.)
Let's clarifiy as I think were talking about the same thing from differnt
angles: rights, IMI, are the freedom to perform a certain action in societal
context. You speak of a right to [do something]. I say that's correct, but a
right TO also infers that you have a right to some material items, such as
food, health care, financial assistance, (etc. ad infinitum).
>
>> > You'd be clearer if you'd express your notions
>> > with common usage.
>
>> "Common usage" is a lot of what got us in trouble. For example, "General
>> Welfare".
[Sorry, but I can't translate this stuff into ghettoese, or Eubonices, or
other forms of bastardized post-modern English.]
>
> Well, there's "common usage back when the words were authored" and
> "common usage, now-a-days" -- often very different things. <sigh>
>
> --
> Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
> I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which
> sends
> unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
Re: Smoke two...
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in message
news:PmSMj.105685$Ft5.5348@newsfe15.lga...
>
> THing is, delineating rights leads to problems. That's why the Founders
> had so much trouble with the Bill of Rights - they felt it would lead
> people to believe those were the onyl rights we held. Even the 9th and
> 10th Amendments proved futile.
That also works in reverse: not listing rights may lead to the assumption
that they either do not exist, or that they are for the government to
define.
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in message
news:PmSMj.105685$Ft5.5348@newsfe15.lga...
>
> THing is, delineating rights leads to problems. That's why the Founders
> had so much trouble with the Bill of Rights - they felt it would lead
> people to believe those were the onyl rights we held. Even the 9th and
> 10th Amendments proved futile.
That also works in reverse: not listing rights may lead to the assumption
that they either do not exist, or that they are for the government to
define.
Re: Smoke two...
In article <PmSMj.105685$Ft5.5348@newsfe15.lga>,
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:
> You speak of a right to [do something]. I say that's correct, but a
> right TO also infers that you have a right to some material items, such as
> food, health care, financial assistance, (etc. ad infinitum).
"Implies"... ;)
Except it doesn't. That's just "sense of entitlement."
We have a right to buggery, but not a right to free food or health care.
Actually, we *DO* have the right to free food or health care -- under
exactly the same terms to which we have a right to buggery. That is, if
you can find an consenting adult to give you the think you seek without
you taking it from them against their will, then you guys have the right
to make that exchange.
For example:
Citizen: Mind if I fuck you in the ass?
MikeZ: Sure, go right ahead!
Citizen: Actually, would you mind giving me a hamburger, instead?
MikeZ: Bugger off, you tease!
See, this citizen is out of luck.
Misc "it's too bad more people aren't more charitable..." ;)
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
In article <PmSMj.105685$Ft5.5348@newsfe15.lga>,
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:
> You speak of a right to [do something]. I say that's correct, but a
> right TO also infers that you have a right to some material items, such as
> food, health care, financial assistance, (etc. ad infinitum).
"Implies"... ;)
Except it doesn't. That's just "sense of entitlement."
We have a right to buggery, but not a right to free food or health care.
Actually, we *DO* have the right to free food or health care -- under
exactly the same terms to which we have a right to buggery. That is, if
you can find an consenting adult to give you the think you seek without
you taking it from them against their will, then you guys have the right
to make that exchange.
For example:
Citizen: Mind if I fuck you in the ass?
MikeZ: Sure, go right ahead!
Citizen: Actually, would you mind giving me a hamburger, instead?
MikeZ: Bugger off, you tease!
See, this citizen is out of luck.
Misc "it's too bad more people aren't more charitable..." ;)
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
