out of competition test

[Dan Gregory]

http://www.velonews.com/article/73350
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/van-impe-tested-at-crematorium-15187

[Bill C]

On Mar 15, 5:37*pm, "Sandy" > wrote:
> Dans le message ,
> Dan Gregory > a réfléchi, et puis
> a déclaré :
>
> >http://www.velonews.com/article/73350
> >http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/van-impe-tested-at-crematorium-...
>
> Simply abominable. *It must end.
> --
> --
> Sandy
>
> " La France est un pays extraordinaire, on sème des fonctionnaires...il
> pousse des impôts "
> - Clémenceau

If they had any balls there wouldn't be anyone riding any Wada
supervised race, starting right now, until this is dealt with. Europe
has good welfare, time to collect some while taking a stand.
Bill C

[Bill C]

On Mar 15, 5:37*pm, "Sandy" > wrote:
> Dans le message ,
> Dan Gregory > a réfléchi, et puis
> a déclaré :
>
> >http://www.velonews.com/article/73350
> >http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/van-impe-tested-at-crematorium-...
>
> Simply abominable. *It must end.
> --
> --
> Sandy
>
> " La France est un pays extraordinaire, on sème des fonctionnaires...il
> pousse des impôts "
> - Clémenceau

You just know that Duped, and the SU folks are wacking off to this
report. It's their wettest dream come true.
Bill C

[Michael Baldwin]

>http://www.velonews.com/article/73350
>http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/van-impe-tested-at-crematorium-15187

Welcome to another ugly reality of drugs in sports.
In complying, Kevin Van Impe showed he was a professional athlete.
In demanding, the un-named showed he was a professional drug tester.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni[_2_]]

On Mar 15, 2:37*pm, "Sandy" > wrote:
>
> >http://www.velonews.com/article/73350
> >http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/van-impe-tested-at-crematorium-...
>
> Simply abominable. *It must end.


That's as bad or maybe even worse than the time they
barged into Lance's home even before he had time to
read that morning's Austin American-Statesman
newspaper and demand an out of season sample.

[Bill C]

On Mar 15, 6:08*pm, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> >http://www.velonews.com/article/73350
> >http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/van-impe-tested-at-crematorium-...
>
> *Welcome to another ugly reality of drugs in sports.
> * In complying, Kevin Van Impe showed he was a professional athlete.
> * In demanding, the un-named showed he was a professional drug tester.
>
> Best Regards - Mike Baldwin *

Yep, just like volunteering to be a cheap prostitute who signs up to
be degraded, abused, and used for others profit.
Gotta love those pimp's enforcers for keeping them in line.
I don't know what your familes dead, and their dignity are worth but
it's a WHOLE lot more than this. No way in hell, no how!
I won't blame the collectors, but whoever sent them to that
collection, at that time, should be held accountable, and I do mean
abused at least as badly.
Better a gutless, degraded slave than stand up for the family though,
right?
Bill C

[Michael Baldwin]

>On Mar 15, 6:08*pm, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
>http://www.velonews.com/article/73350
>http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/van-impe-tested-at-crematorium-...
>*Welcome to another ugly reality of drugs in sports. *
>In complying, Kevin Van Impe showed he was a professional
>athlete. * In demanding, the un-named showed he was a
>professional drug tester.
>Best Regards - Mike Baldwin *
>Yep, just like volunteering to be a cheap prostitute who
>signs up to be degraded, abused, and used for others
>profit.
>**Gotta love those pimp's enforcers for keeping them in line.
>I don't know what your familes dead, and their dignity
>are worth but
>it's a WHOLE lot more than this. No way in
>hell, no how! I won't blame the collectors, but whoever
>sent them to that
>collection, at that time, should be held accountable, and I
>do mean abused at least as badly.
>**Better a gutless, degraded slave than stand up for the
>family though, right?
>**Bill C


Whoa, grab a handful of double floating disks TritonRider!
This sad story is a glowing review of the inabilities of those in
charge to accomplish even the simplist chores.
You or I would certainly have a contingency policy in place to
effectively manage this very situation and still accomplish the task at
hand.
Kevin Van Impe has surely been victimized by flawed system.
Everything happens for reason. Perhaps, this ugly incident will
serve to outrage enough people to demand better.
I'm waiting for McQuaid's comments, though I'm not holding my
breath.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

[benjo maso]

"Michael Baldwin" > schreef in bericht
...
>On Mar 15, 6:08 pm, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
>http://www.velonews.com/article/73350
>http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/van-impe-tested-at-crematorium-...
> Welcome to another ugly reality of drugs in sports.
>In complying, Kevin Van Impe showed he was a professional
>athlete. In demanding, the un-named showed he was a
>professional drug tester.
>Best Regards - Mike Baldwin
>Yep, just like volunteering to be a cheap prostitute who
>signs up to be degraded, abused, and used for others
>profit.
> Gotta love those pimp's enforcers for keeping them in line.
>I don't know what your familes dead, and their dignity
>are worth but
>it's a WHOLE lot more than this. No way in
>hell, no how! I won't blame the collectors, but whoever
>sent them to that
>collection, at that time, should be held accountable, and I
>do mean abused at least as badly.
> Better a gutless, degraded slave than stand up for the
>family though, right?
> Bill C


Whoa, grab a handful of double floating disks TritonRider!
This sad story is a glowing review of the inabilities of those in
charge to accomplish even the simplist chores.
You or I would certainly have a contingency policy in place to
effectively manage this very situation and still accomplish the task at
hand.
Kevin Van Impe has surely been victimized by flawed system.
Everything happens for reason. Perhaps, this ugly incident will
serve to outrage enough people to demand better.
I'm waiting for McQuaid's comments, though I'm not holding my
breath.


I'm afraid it was not just an ugly incident. Poor Van Impe offered the
anti-doping authorities a perfect opportunity to demonstrate their power:
the showed that nobody is safe from them, not even a rider who will not ride
for several month (Van Impe is suffering from a knee injury) and just lost
his son.

Benjo

[Bill C]

On Mar 15, 7:44*pm, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:

>
> *Whoa, grab a handful of double floating disks TritonRider!
> * This sad story is a glowing review of the inabilities of those in
> charge to accomplish even the simplist chores.
> * *You or I would certainly have a contingency policy in place to
> effectively manage this very situation and still accomplish the task at
> hand.
> * * Kevin Van Impe has surely been victimized by flawed system. *
> * * Everything happens for reason. *Perhaps, this ugly incident will
> serve to outrage enough people to demand better.
> * * I'm waiting *for McQuaid's comments, though I'm not holding my
> breath.
>
> Best Regards - Mike Baldwin- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

We'll have to see what happens. IF, and this is a huge IF, Van Impe
went along with this to raise holy hell shortly, then he played it
right, because he DID do what he'd signed on to first. I never liked
that from the military, and it's a tenuous defense as we're finding
out, but the troops are taught to follow the order and raise hell
later, of course they aren't supposed to follow an illegal order
either, and the two are frequently taught together with no solution
being provided. You're usually screwed no matter what you do.
Probably the same here. I'm afraid they made the point they wanted
to, "We OWN you!".
Bill C
Another example why free people are libertarians, and militant.
Slaves like being governed, and nannied.

[Michael Baldwin]

Bill C shared;

>I'm afraid they made the point they wanted to, "We
>OWN you!".
>**Bill C
>**Another example why free people are libertarians, and militant.
Slaves
>like being governed, and nannied.

Bill, I am a libertarian. I'm often know to say "The reward of freedom
is responsibility." It's my way of "front loading" life. Kinda like
the ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure saying.
True, it's a shame that the current crop of cyclist are paying for the
sins of those who've gone before them. Hopefully aspiring juniors will
exercise more responsibility so that they and those who follow them will
enjoy the reward of freedom.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

[Carl Sundquist]

"Dan Gregory" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.velonews.com/article/73350
> http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/van-impe-tested-at-crematorium-15187

"The law is the law but you must take a human perspective," the Belgian news
agency quoted Anciaux as saying. "I can well understand the rider had other
things on his mind at the time of the test."

What _law_ is he referring to? Or is this a translation mix-up?

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
>,
Fabrizio Mazzoleni > wrote:

> On Mar 15, 2:37*pm, "Sandy" > wrote:
> >
> > >http://www.velonews.com/article/73350
> > >http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/van-impe-tested-at-crematorium-...
> >
> > Simply abominable. *It must end.
>
>
> That's as bad or maybe even worse than the time they
> barged into Lance's home even before he had time to
> read that morning's Austin American-Statesman
> newspaper and demand an out of season sample.

I thought the story in "Every Second Counts" talked about how they
showed up for an OOC as he was trying to pack his wife into the car as
she was going into labor. Did I mis-remember?

Also, I thought the "van Impe tested at crematorium" link was going to
end up being a spoof article about a posthumous test of Lucien.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered he was alive. And also, that the
article was serious.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni[_2_]]

On Mar 15, 10:01*pm, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:

> *Fabrizio Mazzoleni > wrote:
>
>>
> > That's as bad or maybe even worse than the time they
> > barged into Lance's home even before he had time to
> > read that morning's Austin American-Statesman
> > newspaper and demand an out of season sample.
>
> I thought the story in "Every Second Counts" talked about how they
> showed up for an OOC as he was trying to pack his wife into the car as
> she was going into labor. Did I mis-remember?
>
There was that also, I think Lance was more ****ed on the day
when they ruined his after breakfast coffee and newspaper
read.

[Donald Munro]

Sandy wrote:
> To think that they take all this, with the enormous wealth of European
> (not Swiss) law available to them to stop this idiocy. Until individuals
> and groups of them come into the light, demanding to be treated almost as
> citizens, they will not have a hand in their own destiny. They even
> accept the guilty until exonerated rules!! Perhaps they deserve what they
> get? They need some heroes.

A cyclist version of Spartacus.

[Donald Munro]

Michael Baldwin wrote:
> I'm waiting for McQuaid's comments, though I'm not holding my
> breath.

I thought it was McQuaid who was holding his breath.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 15, 2:37 pm, "Sandy" > wrote:
>
> Simply abominable. It must end.
> --

Testing must end? Inconvenient, ill-timed, or even targeted testing
is nothing to get worked up over. Especially if he's positive.

[Donald Munro]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> Also, I thought the "van Impe tested at crematorium" link was going to end
> up being a spoof article about a posthumous test of Lucien.
>
> Imagine my surprise when I discovered he was alive. And also, that the
> article was serious.

Me too. I thought Dan was on the Hebridean calendar and it was April
the 1st and WADA had a list of deceased riders to exhume and test
including Anquetil and Poulidor.

[Donald Munro]

Sandy wrote:
>> To think that they take all this, with the enormous wealth of European
>> (not Swiss) law available to them to stop this idiocy. Until
>> individuals and groups of them come into the light, demanding to be
>> treated almost as citizens, they will not have a hand in their own
>> destiny. They even accept the guilty until exonerated rules!! Perhaps
>> they deserve what they get? They need some heroes.

Donald Munro wrote:
> A cyclist version of Spartacus.

Like this perhaps:
"
An official named Collard told him once he had got changed that there
would be a drugs test. "Too late," Anquetil said. "If you can collect it
from the soapy water there, go ahead. I'm a human being, not a fountain."
Collard said he would return half an hour later; Anquetil said he would
already have left for a dinner appointment 140km away. Two days later the
Belgian cycling federation disqualified Anquetil and fined him. Anquetil
responded by calling urine tests "a threat to individual liberty" and
engaged a lawyer. The case was never heard, the Belgians backed down and
Anquetil became the winner.
"
from:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Anquetil#Anquetil-Poulidor:_the_social_significance>

I'm sure Benjo would have a better version than wikipeadia though.

[Ted van de Weteringe]

Donald Munro wrote:
> A cyclist version of Spartacus.

They already have team bikes
http://www.sparta.nl/upload/collections/5746577.jpg

[Dan Gregory]

Donald Munro wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> Also, I thought the "van Impe tested at crematorium" link was going to end
>> up being a spoof article about a posthumous test of Lucien.
>>
>> Imagine my surprise when I discovered he was alive. And also, that the
>> article was serious.
>
> Me too. I thought Dan was on the Hebridean calendar and it was April
> the 1st and WADA had a list of deceased riders to exhume and test
> including Anquetil and Poulidor.

No I was just totally stumped for words to express my horror.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 16, 3:25 am, Donald Munro > wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > Also, I thought the "van Impe tested at crematorium" link was going to end
> > up being a spoof article about a posthumous test of Lucien.
>
> > Imagine my surprise when I discovered he was alive. And also, that the
> > article was serious.
>
> Me too. I thought Dan was on the Hebridean calendar and it was April
> the 1st and WADA had a list of deceased riders to exhume and test
> including Anquetil and Poulidor.

Does that mean that the press release about CONI requesting two year
bans for those five retired guys was real too?

[Bill C]

On Mar 16, 3:18*am, wrote:
> On Mar 15, 2:37 pm, "Sandy" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Simply abominable. *It must end.
> > --
>
> Testing must end? *Inconvenient, ill-timed, or even targeted testing
> is nothing to get worked up over. *Especially if he's positive.

The ends justify the means. All sheep to the left.
Bill C

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
>,
Fabrizio Mazzoleni > wrote:

> On Mar 15, 10:01*pm, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:
>
> > *Fabrizio Mazzoleni > wrote:
> >
> >>
> > > That's as bad or maybe even worse than the time they
> > > barged into Lance's home even before he had time to
> > > read that morning's Austin American-Statesman
> > > newspaper and demand an out of season sample.
> >
> > I thought the story in "Every Second Counts" talked about how they
> > showed up for an OOC as he was trying to pack his wife into the car as
> > she was going into labor. Did I mis-remember?
> >
> There was that also, I think Lance was more ****ed on the day
> when they ruined his after breakfast coffee and newspaper
> read.

What, they tested him during the "Can't" Nike ad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huEnJUzq8EU&feature=related

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[[email protected]]

On Mar 15, 8:06 pm, "Benjo Maso" > wrote:
> "Michael Baldwin" > schreef in ...
>
>
>
> >On Mar 15, 6:08 pm, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> >http://www.velonews.com/article/73350
> >http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/van-impe-tested-at-crematorium-...
> > Welcome to another ugly reality of drugs in sports.
> >In complying, Kevin Van Impe showed he was a professional
> >athlete. In demanding, the un-named showed he was a
> >professional drug tester.
> >Best Regards - Mike Baldwin
> >Yep, just like volunteering to be a cheap prostitute who
> >signs up to be degraded, abused, and used for others
> >profit.
> > Gotta love those pimp's enforcers for keeping them in line.
> >I don't know what your familes dead, and their dignity
> >are worth but
> >it's a WHOLE lot more than this. No way in
> >hell, no how! I won't blame the collectors, but whoever
> >sent them to that
> >collection, at that time, should be held accountable, and I
> >do mean abused at least as badly.
> > Better a gutless, degraded slave than stand up for the
> >family though, right?
> > Bill C
>
> Whoa, grab a handful of double floating disks TritonRider!
> This sad story is a glowing review of the inabilities of those in
> charge to accomplish even the simplist chores.
> You or I would certainly have a contingency policy in place to
> effectively manage this very situation and still accomplish the task at
> hand.
> Kevin Van Impe has surely been victimized by flawed system.
> Everything happens for reason. Perhaps, this ugly incident will
> serve to outrage enough people to demand better.
> I'm waiting for McQuaid's comments, though I'm not holding my
> breath.
>
> I'm afraid it was not just an ugly incident.

No, it was just an ugly incident, but for you, sandy and bill it is a
convenient jumping off point to attack the entire system of doping
control.

from a fan perspective this is understandable. tighter doping
controls, suspensions exclusions and results revisions make the sport
less enjoyable to follow.

i'm not for invasive doping tests, but if the rules are written they
need to be enforced.

under the status quo riders, trainers and teams that do follow the
rules (the french perhaps?) are criticized by the press and observers
as soft, lacking depth or under-funded or unmotivated. why should the
system be designed to create opportunities for those who are cheating,
and not for those who are following the rules ?

[Donald Munro]

Donald Munro wrote:
>> A cyclist version of Spartacus.

Ted van de Weteringe wrote:
> They already have team bikes
> http://www.sparta.nl/upload/collections/5746577.jpg

Cool aero attachments - hopefully it is at least ASO legail if
not UCI legal.

[Tom Kunich]

> wrote in message
...
>
> No, it was just an ugly incident, but for you, sandy and bill it is a
> convenient jumping off point to attack the entire system of doping
> control.

I've got news for you. Even though you appear to have the education of a
short legged idiot, you needn't take blood at inconvenient times to derive
accurate results.

> from a fan perspective this is understandable. tighter doping
> controls, suspensions exclusions and results revisions make the sport
> less enjoyable to follow.

My guess is that you don't talk to people like that in person.

> i'm not for invasive doping tests, but if the rules are written they
> need to be enforced.

So the rules state that doping tests absolutely reqiure invasion. Who knew?

[Donald Munro]

Sandy wrote:
> Side note for Ryan : the last time I saw the corpse of Raymond Poulidor,
> it was walking vigorously.

Mea culpa.

It was probably just another one of Schwartz's zombie processes.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
"Sandy" > wrote:

> Dans le message de
> ,
> > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> > On Mar 15, 8:06 pm, "Benjo Maso" > wrote:
> >> "Michael Baldwin" > schreef in
> >> ...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Mar 15, 6:08 pm, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> >>> http://www.velonews.com/article/73350
> >>> http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/van-impe-tested-at-crematorium-...
> >>> Welcome to another ugly reality of drugs in sports.
> >>> In complying, Kevin Van Impe showed he was a professional
> >>> athlete. In demanding, the un-named showed he was a
> >>> professional drug tester.
> >>> Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

> > from a fan perspective this is understandable. tighter doping
> > controls, suspensions exclusions and results revisions make the sport
> > less enjoyable to follow.

> > i'm not for invasive doping tests, but if the rules are written they
> > need to be enforced.
>
> No. Rules that govern sport need to be appropriate not only for the sport,
> but they need to fall within the boundaries of broader society.
[...]
> All a rider needs to do "bad" is to get a racing license.
> So the rules and the presumptions need to be revised, and the sequence and
> rules of hearing tribunals need to be overhauled. I don't think any riders
> had much to do with writing the rules the last time.

The problem is that at one point (and possibly even today) having a Pro
license probably was presumptive evidence of doping.

Not doping they could catch, mind you.

> Side note for Ryan : the last time I saw the corpse of Raymond Poulidor, it
> was walking vigorously.

Technically, I didn't accuse Poulidor of being dead, only Lucien (and
only in my mind). But I praise the vigorous walking of Raymond Poulidor,
and hope that someday "zombie" will be a recognized Masters age grouping.

Reading his Wiki entry, it's nice to see that unlike so many champions
of cycling who seem eternally pursued by their demons, sometimes to
their death, Poulidor seems happy. You have to like a guy who called his
first autobio "Gloire sans le Maillot Jaune."

"My name has passed into the everyday language. It's my greatest
victory."

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[[email protected]]

On Mar 16, 1:09 pm, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:

> "My name has passed into the everyday language. It's my greatest
> victory."

I can't wait until I'm called dumbass.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 16, 7:16 am, Bill C > wrote:
>
> The ends justify the means. All sheep to the left.
> Bill C

Unless you're saying the dope controllers are framing
the riders how can you say this?

[Tom Kunich]

> wrote in message
...
> On Mar 16, 7:16 am, Bill C > wrote:
>>
>> The ends justify the means. All sheep to the left.
>
> Unless you're saying the dope controllers are framing
> the riders how can you say this?

Unfortunately that is the way it is beginning to look. Did you actually read
about the conditions in that French laboratory that tested the riders? Not
one report would have been accepted by most American courts and yet they
feel like they can exclude riders for a couple of years with those sordid
reports.

[Bill C]

On Mar 16, 10:08*pm, wrote:
> On Mar 16, 7:16 am, Bill C > wrote:
>
>
>
> > The ends justify the means. All sheep to the left.
> > Bill C
>
> Unless you're saying the dope controllers are framing
> the riders how can you say this?

I'm NOT saying they are framing the riders. I'm saying they need to
treat the riders with respect, and as human beings deserve to be
treated.
They could've waited a few hours, on-site, for Van Impe. They almost
need to come up with a positive in that case to justify their
behavior. I hope that TK is wrong on this one.
None of the other sports do **** this way, and their unions and
athletes wouldn't stand for it.
Time to change the system, not beat the athletes down more.
Just got a great quote today in my mailbox:

"To achieve world government,
it is necessary to remove from the minds of men,
their individualism, loyalty to family traditions,
national patriotism and religious dogmas."
-- Dr. G. Brock Chisolm
(1896-1971) Canadian World War I veteran, medical practitioner, first
Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), first head of
the World Federation of Mental Health

This is what the UCI are about. When people are fueled by the
"crusader spirit" atrocities happen. That needs to be prevented.
I'm not anti-testing, I'm pro-human being and dignity.
Bill C

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
>,
wrote:

> On Mar 16, 1:09 pm, Ryan Cousineau > wrote:
>
> > "My name has passed into the everyday language. It's my greatest
> > victory."
>
> I can't wait until I'm called dumbass.

It's earned, not begged.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill C" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm not anti-testing, I'm pro-human being and dignity.

Not to be too sharp with this Bill but that is the WADA kind of testing and
not what UCI did before that stupid contract with WADA.

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

Sandy wrote:
(snip)
> No. Rules that govern sport need to be appropriate not only for the sport,
> but they need to fall within the boundaries of broader society. The rules
> as they are written and applied make ALL riders suspects in ALL competitions
> everywhere. If, for example, you were a real, hard-core tax cheat, an
> agency that wanted to prosecute you needs to apply to a judicial authority
> to obtain permission to intrude on your private life. They would need to
> show a minimum of suspicious conduct to be allowed to open your mail, enter
> your house, etc.

Maybe in France. While the IRS is underfunded here (as is almost
anything else), anyone may be audited without cause. As for the Bush
policy of spying without judicial consent, well, you know how that is going.
We all must submit to a "blood test" every April 15th. Most other
professions requiring licenses here require some kind of documentation,
continuing education etc. We are subject to review, censure, license
suspension or revocation. Here in NY State, anyone can call the Office
of Professional Discipline anonymously and by law an investigative file
MUST be opened on all complaints.

Steve


All a rider needs to do "bad" is to get a racing license.
> So the rules and the presumptions need to be revised, and the sequence and
> rules of hearing tribunals need to be overhauled. I don't think any riders
> had much to do with writing the rules the last time.
>
> Side note for Ryan : the last time I saw the corpse of Raymond Poulidor, it
> was walking vigorously.


--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

[Donald Munro]

Sandy wrote:
> PS: I just filed a complaint against you to test the mechanism. <wink>

You can't complain just because your dentist didn't have big
breasts.

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

Sandy wrote:
> Dans le message de news:eEvDj.6434$%Y2.4069@trnddc08,
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld > a réfléchi, et puis a
> déclaré :
>> Sandy wrote:
>> (snip)
>>> No. Rules that govern sport need to be appropriate not only for the
>>> sport, but they need to fall within the boundaries of broader
>>> society. The rules as they are written and applied make ALL riders
>>> suspects in ALL competitions everywhere. If, for example, you were
>>> a real, hard-core tax cheat, an agency that wanted to prosecute you
>>> needs to apply to a judicial authority to obtain permission to
>>> intrude on your private life. They would need to show a minimum of
>>> suspicious conduct to be allowed to open your mail, enter your
>>> house, etc.
>> Maybe in France. While the IRS is underfunded here (as is almost
>> anything else), anyone may be audited without cause. As for the Bush
>> policy of spying without judicial consent, well, you know how that is
>> going. We all must submit to a "blood test" every April 15th. Most
>> other professions requiring licenses here require some kind of
>> documentation, continuing education etc. We are subject to review,
>> censure, license suspension or revocation. Here in NY State, anyone
>> can call the Office of Professional Discipline anonymously and by law an
>> investigative
>> file MUST be opened on all complaints.
>>
>> Steve
>>
> I used "intrude" to mean something more practically physical. We don't have
> different approaches to witch hunts in France, but I didn't get the April 15
> reference - I know it's tax day for you, but what else makes it a blood
> test?


You don't like my poetic imagery? Blood or money?
>
> PS: I just filed a complaint against you to test the mechanism. <wink>


That's not funny--really. There may not be a major investigation based
on an anonymous complaint, but harassment by these means is possible.

Steve
>
>


--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

Donald Munro wrote:
> Sandy wrote:
>> PS: I just filed a complaint against you to test the mechanism. <wink>
>
> You can't complain just because your dentist didn't have big
> breasts.
>
>
>

How about small breasts?

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Mar 16, 12:14*pm, "Sandy" > wrote:

> Those of us who respect the right of individuals to earn a living, to enjoy
> the presumption of having good character, not to be a permanent suspect, to
> retain a right to a private life - ...

The penumbra of smell is sourced via emanations from your butt-hole.

http://www.amazon.com/GOVERNMENT-JUDICIARY-RAOUL-BERGER/dp/0865971447/
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZS.html

[Donald Munro]

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> The penumbra of smell is sourced via emanations from your butt-hole.

Hence the term outsourcing.

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Mar 17, 5:55 am, Bill C > wrote:

> I'm saying they need to treat the riders
> with respect, and as human beings deserve to be
> treated.

To _hold_ (sustain) that view requires a bedrock principle. And a
bedrock principle is one which cannot be arrived at by rigorous
deductive method, because as a bedrock principle, it will end up being
self-referential (self-evident, axiomatic, common-sensical, ...&&...)
in the deductive domain. In a thread some time ago I critiqued your
talk of "rights," and during that you presented a fundamentally legal
positivist perspective of how rights are derived. The positivist view
denies a bedrock -- you can't get to a bedrock principle via
positivism because it denies bedrock. "The law is what The State says
it is." "Rights are what The State says they are." "Get to the back
of the bus, it is the law." Thus if you want what you say you want,
you must logically abandon the positivist approach.

Natural Law and Natural Rights do claim the bedrock social principle
of Liberty, and this principle is said to be held (sustained). Under
the penumbra of Liberty, emanates all true (social) rights. If you
want to sustain and expand respect, you really don't have another
choice in paradigms.

Some people have reservations regarding Natural Rights, as these
Rights have in the past been said to be sourced "from God." This
would present a rather thorny problem for the non-believer, if that
were the end of the story. However, and as difficult it is, I do
believe the suitability of (to humans) the social principle of
Liberty, and the Golden Rule can be arrived at by induction, including
historical evidence. That is, I believe a very good secular argument
can be advanced, and I have hinted around at that argument here in the
halls of rbr. Thus both religionists and secularists can both have a
helping of Liberty Cake. As ever, induction carries its own caveats,
but it is not as if one has any choice in bedrock matters.

Human beings, for whatever their faults, have generated The Golden
Rule. How did that happen? (I don't like the positive phrasing of
the rule -- I much prefer the negative phrasing, as it does not call
out _action_, as the positive form does. The social concept of
liberty is ironically a rule of restraint, thus the negative form is
inherently superior since it is suited to the notion of restraint, of
"not doing." It looks as though the Greeks got to my idea of the
negative form before I did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity)

> When people are fueled by the
> "crusader spirit" atrocities happen.

Fear the altruist.


"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under
robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber
baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be
satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us
without end, for they do so with the approval of their own
conscience." - C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Mar 17, 11:50*am, Donald Munro > wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > The penumbra of smell is sourced via emanations from your butt-hole.
>
> Hence the term outsourcing.

And ironic that of all the things suitable for outsourcing, no one
wants to outsource talking out one's ass. For some reason, it is
always held dear and personal, when conventional logic dictates it
ought to be the first to go. Well who ever said SchwartzSoft code is
conventional?

while 1
module.greg.talk
if petPrimateNeedAttn
return.module.greg.work
end
end

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Mar 15, 7:10*pm, (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> Bill C shared;

> >Slaves like being governed, and nannied.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they
are free." -- Goethe

> *Bill, I am a libertarian. *

Nutjob!!!!

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
>,
SLAVE of THE STATE > wrote:

> On Mar 17, 11:50*am, Donald Munro > wrote:
> > SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> >
> > > The penumbra of smell is sourced via emanations from your butt-hole.
> >
> > Hence the term outsourcing.
>
> And ironic that of all the things suitable for outsourcing, no one
> wants to outsource talking out one's ass. For some reason, it is
> always held dear and personal, when conventional logic dictates it
> ought to be the first to go. Well who ever said SchwartzSoft code is
> conventional?

Dumbass:

What do you think moving IT phone support to India was all about?

> while 1
> module.greg.talk
> if petPrimateNeedAttn
> return.module.greg.work
> end
> end

You should totally patent that.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[Howard Kveck]

In article ]>,
Ryan Cousineau > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> SLAVE of THE STATE > wrote:
>
> > On Mar 17, 11:50*am, Donald Munro > wrote:
> > > SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> > >
> > > > The penumbra of smell is sourced via emanations from your butt-hole.
> > >
> > > Hence the term outsourcing.
> >
> > And ironic that of all the things suitable for outsourcing, no one
> > wants to outsource talking out one's ass. For some reason, it is
> > always held dear and personal, when conventional logic dictates it
> > ought to be the first to go. Well who ever said SchwartzSoft code is
> > conventional?
>
> Dumbass:
>
> What do you think moving IT phone support to India was all about?

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/2355/microsoftemployeemonthhf5.jpg

(Note: that came from an Indian site)

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Bill C]

On Mar 17, 10:33*am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Bill C" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > I'm not anti-testing, I'm pro-human being and dignity.
>
> Not to be too sharp with this Bill but that is the WADA kind of testing and
> not what UCI did before that stupid contract with WADA.

Tom that's part of my problem with the UCI, as is. They did make that
agreement, they did allow things to get that screwed up. They failed
miserably in defusing the situation, which just about everyone else
has done pretty well. They attacked the riders to make themselves look
better. They didn't go after the team leaders, and doctors.
They are idiots in terms of marketing, PR, economics, etc...The tech
restrictions are moronic. They could be a huge selling point, just
homolgate anything that's used, and ban anything ridiculously unsafe
though that should be self correcting.
They've failed miserably, over the years to bring together riders,
teams, sponsors, promoters, etc...Everyone has done a better job
growing and protecting their sport, some from much worse scandal.
I just don't see anything good about the UCI as it has been, or is.
We do need something, but this aint it.
Bill C

[Bill C]

On Mar 17, 3:00*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE > wrote:

<good stuff snipped>

> "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
> victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under
> robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber
> baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be
> satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us
> without end, for they do so with the approval of their own
> conscience." - C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock

Greg you're getting way to philosophical and over analyzing my
position. It changes some too, but basically here's where I'm at.
Fundamentally in nature there are NO rights. Demanding a tornado not
kill you is useless.
If you want to say God gives fundamental rights, that's fine, but I
still dont see it.
Then there are the varying sets of ideas termed "rights" that are
enforced by various societies and governaments by law/coercion/force.
Those seem to be anything the current crop of clowns say they are and
vary wildly. We're stuck with those, just like taxes, same enforcement
too.
There's what I personally believe, which doesn't mean ****. I can
talk about them, like you can talk about taxes, but someone else has
the hammer. I have a way I believe people should be treated, and try
to do it, but have zero ability to impose them.
So we come back to the only "rights" are those granted to people, by
people with power and might, anything else is a pipe dream. Ask the
folks at Tienamin Square, or Lhasa about how much good their "rights"
did them. For that matter ask all those slaves, women, or African
Americans who weren't part of the "people created equal" here about
"rights". The tsunami victims, or folks in New Orleans could tell you
about them too.
Bill C

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Mar 18, 7:44 am, Bill C > wrote:

> Fundamentally in nature there are NO rights. Demanding
> a tornado not kill you is useless.

The topic is not now, nor has it ever been, a "state of nature,"
although you _always_ interject that. That too has been pointed out
to you on numerous occasions.

The topic is the "nature of human beings in a state of society." If
you can't get to square one -- knowing the boundaries of the study --
you'll forever derive strange conclusions, and have inconsistant
arguments. Does the mathematician muddle together Euclidian and non-
Euclidian geometry?

> If you want to say God gives fundamental rights, that's fine, but I
> still dont see it.

As a non-believer, I never do say that.

The tact is to study law as a science -- to discover how law can
conform to nature of human beings in a state of society. To conform
the law to the nature of people implies the nature of people (again,
in a state of society) must itself be studied.

What you would seem to say is the humans have no nature, thus it is
fruitless to engage the study in the first place. I guess you accept
the Hobbesian premise of a war of all against all. Why -- given that
Hobbes "state of nature" was fictional? You say "don't get too
philosophical." I'm sorry, but I see over and over again people
adhering to a psychological framing of concepts in the very frames
elucidated by thinkers long past. Language is abstraction, so
language ("frames") itself tends to bind what you can conceive of.
Use some caution -- it is your choice on whether or not to be a
monkey.

If you think law and the nature of humans cannot be studied, and
important models discovered, then you're done. Quit complaining. But
you have this annoying inconsistant streak of complaining -- saying
what you want -- and then saying "it is not what I want," and "I can't
get it anyway." If it were one or the other, then fine. But the
patent inconsistancy makes you look dopey, which I don't think you
are, and I doubt you wish to appear.

> Then there are the varying sets of ideas termed "rights" that are
> enforced by various societies and governaments by law/coercion/force.
> Those seem to be anything the current crop of clowns say they are and
> vary wildly.

I would never argue that a statute does not have the force an
authority provides it. Of course it does. That really isn't the
topic either -- what you point out is pretty much an obvious fact.

I don't, at the present, want to go into the bollixed language of
rights prevalent in contemporary frames. I've commented elsewhere.
Besides, you're still at square zero where you don't understand the
boundaries of the topic -- further commentary would be spoken yet
unheard.


> I have a way I believe people should be treated, and try
> to do it,...

You want _standards_ -- some stasis (consistancy) regarding rules of
interpersonal conduct and common-sense fairness. You want Natural
Rights.

Accept that, study it as a science, or shut up.

If you apply for a grant, I'll see what I can do.

[Bill C]

On Mar 18, 12:39*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE > wrote:
<good stuff snipped>
>
> You want _standards_ -- some stasis (consistancy) regarding rules of
> interpersonal conduct and common-sense fairness. *You want Natural
> Rights.
>
> Accept that, study it as a science, or shut up.
>
> If you apply for a grant, I'll see what I can do.

I'd apply, but I like this climbing on roofs and stuff for a living
bit. Maybe if the back goes completely, or I can figure out how to get
the Guv'mint to pay me to make cabinets and furniture I'll get back to
you.
I see your argument, and agree that as philosophy it's a great
subject with lots of great thought put into it. I really do enjoy it
as an abstract concept, but it's equivalent to speculating on your
Bhudda Nature.
I don't feel that what I'd like to see, or do see as "correct"
treatment is based on anything other than the biases created by the
culture I grew up in, and was exposed to. I don't see any cross
cultural, species wide set of behaviors. There's really nothing
concrete to declare what I think better than what someone from a
different culture, with a totally different set of values thinks. It's
all relative.
What I'd like, and what I think has value to things I touch, as a
practical application, and nothing more.
The discussion of the "concept" of natural rights is a whole other
issue, as you point out, and I would say doesn't have a whole hell of
a lot of bearing, or effect on what's happening in physical world
today, except as rhetoric.
Maybe it's my yankee, **** on the boots, mentality that's underneath
everything but I keep coming back to what you can see, smell, taste,
hear, touch, and test objectively and scientifically as what IS. That
really messes up lots of things I'd like to exist.
Philosophy informs the debate, and can even shape it, but what is,
is, and humans aren't what we'd like them to be yet.
I know my "Machiavellianism" makes you crazy, and confuses things
like this issue, and others. We need idealists, dreamers,
philosophers, etc...to set a goal, or provide a vision. That's where I
fit you in. Running with their thoughts in the dirty, nasty, practical
world has almost always been a task of assessment of what is, making
compromises, tactics, and practicality.
Both are important, rarely are they the done by the same person
though. Saying something doesn't make it so; but something being
doesn't make it right, either. We all live across different worlds to
varying degrees.
Appreciate the good stuff.
thanks
Bill C

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Mar 18, 10:17 am, Bill C > wrote:
>
>
> I see your argument, and agree that as philosophy it's a great
> subject with lots of great thought put into it. I really do enjoy it
> as an abstract concept, but it's equivalent to speculating on your
> Bhudda Nature.

Bull****. The law is real. It affects your life. A law is created
orignally by some reasoning or rationalization by a few individuals
and ripe conditions may well have provoked the law's creation. After
that, the law's viability is selected by environmental factors,
including institutional factors.

IOW, superficial whining about a given state of affairs is
pointless.

> I don't feel that what I'd like to see, or do see as "correct"
> treatment is based on anything other than the biases created by the
> culture I grew up in, and was exposed to.

Yeah, so why were those "biases" ostensibly selected by the
environment, or even simply imprinted by a tyrant? What happened?
Why? Care to study it?

> I don't see any cross
> cultural, species wide set of behaviors.

Dude, I gave you a link to the golden rule. It appears to have cross-
cultural application.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

> There's really nothing
> concrete to declare what I think better than what someone from a
> different culture, with a totally different set of values thinks. It's
> all relative.

With your approach it is guaranteed to stay that way. Your approach
is to complain and then say "I don't know if I should be complaining."

> What I'd like, and what I think has value to things I touch, as a
> practical application, and nothing more.
> The discussion of the "concept" of natural rights is a whole other
> issue, as you point out, and I would say doesn't have a whole hell of
> a lot of bearing, or effect on what's happening in physical world
> today, except as rhetoric.

A lot of the law of the land where you live has that basis, that
bedrock. It is real.

> Maybe it's my yankee, **** on the boots, mentality that's underneath
> everything but I keep coming back to what you can see, smell, taste,
> hear, touch, and test objectively and scientifically as what IS. That
> really messes up lots of things I'd like to exist.

I just got a jury summons. Real physical stuff. I get a tax bill,
that's real physical stuff.

Cut the nonsense about it being ethereal. It isn't.

> Philosophy informs the debate, and can even shape it, but what is,
> is, and humans aren't what we'd like them to be yet.

Again you demonstrate the inconsistancy. You say "what we'd like them
to be" and then say don't bother studying the _nature_ for the purpose
of accomplishing what "ought to be," because "it is all relative."
How does that exactly work, Mr. Physical?

I'll also note that it is _not_ I that has said "I hope to form humans
into 'what we'd like them to be.'" My approach is far more modest and
I'll say _practical_ than your's. I merely say discover the nature
and conform the rules of conduct around that real and demonstrable
nature rather than claiming the nature itself can be reformed.
Understand and tame the beast, rather than create a new creature. We
aren't cross-breeding bunnies and tigers.

http://www.randybarnett.com/Guide.htm
"[The] maintenance of the social order, which we have roughly
sketched, and which is consonant with human intelligence, is the
source of law." -- Hugo Grotius

> I know my "Machiavellianism" makes you crazy, and confuses things
> like this issue, and others.

Your complaining without doing, or having the slightest concern with
regard to intellectual consistancy, is the only thing I find annoying.

> We need idealists, dreamers, philosophers, etc...
> to seta goal, or provide a vision. That's where I
> fit you in.

The last thing I would say I am is a philosopher, dreamer, or
idealist. I am trying to understand myself and the world around me.
That is all.

In making my sketch of the world, I am forced to delve into multiple
topics where each topic will be offered as phd program in the
universities. And these degrees merely get candidates _started_ on a
path of even further specialization within the respective field. The
sketch appears impossible, yet that is the reality of what the student
of their own environment (the Generalist) is faced with. The sketch
will be rough. It will have errors, and possibly big ones. That is
why I always write with a pencil rather than a pen. One must play
fast and loose, and be willing to make mistakes. Circumstances allow
nothing else.

According to the Aphorism Duality Theorem:

"Stupid is as stupid doesn't." ~~Gorrest Fump

or

"Missing opportunities due to disproportionate fear of being wrong is
stupid." -- BF

> Running with their thoughts in the dirty, nasty, practical
> world has almost always been a task of assessment of what is, making
> compromises, tactics, and practicality.

Your error is in thinking I would seriously propose anything other
than rules of conduct that conform to a "practical world." You can,
however, say I am wrong, and make your argument.

You _cannot_ say that I do not believe there must be an accounting of
the real nature of humans. You _can_ argue that my actual accounting
has mistakes.

Ironically, it is you that said there is no nature to be discovered --
that it is "all relative." You boxed yourself into a corner.

> Both are important, rarely are they the done by the same person
> though. Saying something doesn't make it so; but something being
> doesn't make it right, either. We all live across different worlds to
> varying degrees.

Decentralize, Decentralize, Decentralize.

Well okay, maybe just Decentralize, Decentralize.

> Appreciate the good stuff.
> thanks
> Bill C

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Mar 19, 1:10*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE > wrote:


> We aren't cross-breeding bunnies and tigers.

If we did we could call the speciation Homobuggericus, or just
"buggers." I'll leave to Don to explain "bugger," as he is from the
uk. Somehow the dots will be connected to "gay-liberals," as they
believe humans are mere clay in their hands.

[Bill C]

On Mar 19, 4:10 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE > wrote:
> On Mar 18, 10:17 am, Bill C > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I see your argument, and agree that as philosophy it's a great
> > subject with lots of great thought put into it. I really do enjoy it
> > as an abstract concept, but it's equivalent to speculating on your
> > Bhudda Nature.
>
> Bull****. The law is real. It affects your life. A law is created
> orignally by some reasoning or rationalization by a few individuals
> and ripe conditions may well have provoked the law's creation. After
> that, the law's viability is selected by environmental factors,
> including institutional factors.
>
> IOW, superficial whining about a given state of affairs is
> pointless.
>
> > I don't feel that what I'd like to see, or do see as "correct"
> > treatment is based on anything other than the biases created by the
> > culture I grew up in, and was exposed to.
>
> Yeah, so why were those "biases" ostensibly selected by the
> environment, or even simply imprinted by a tyrant? What happened?
> Why? Care to study it?

To address this stuff. I have and generally the overriding
principles, are power, control, and wealth at the expense of just
about everyone other than the ruling elite. The philosophies have
rarely been applied for long, or over divergent groups.

>
> > I don't see any cross
> > cultural, species wide set of behaviors.
>
> Dude, I gave you a link to the golden rule. It appears to have cross-
> cultural application.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
>

As long as those folks are the same color, religion, sect, political
faction, etc...everyone else has been an enemy to be exploited for the
most part, and leadership has usually exploited it's own people almost
as robustly, in every society.

> > There's really nothing
> > concrete to declare what I think better than what someone from a
> > different culture, with a totally different set of values thinks. It's
> > all relative.
>
> With your approach it is guaranteed to stay that way. Your approach
> is to complain and then say "I don't know if I should be complaining."
>
> > What I'd like, and what I think has value to things I touch, as a
> > practical application, and nothing more.
> > The discussion of the "concept" of natural rights is a whole other
> > issue, as you point out, and I would say doesn't have a whole hell of
> > a lot of bearing, or effect on what's happening in physical world
> > today, except as rhetoric.
>
> A lot of the law of the land where you live has that basis, that
> bedrock. It is real.

Yep, in the land I happen to live in, at the moment, sort of. Laws are
largely diifferent in different cultures.

>
> > Maybe it's my yankee, **** on the boots, mentality that's underneath
> > everything but I keep coming back to what you can see, smell, taste,
> > hear, touch, and test objectively and scientifically as what IS. That
> > really messes up lots of things I'd like to exist.
>
> I just got a jury summons. Real physical stuff. I get a tax bill,
> that's real physical stuff.
>
> Cut the nonsense about it being ethereal. It isn't.
>

The application is real, and I would argue that a huge chunk of what
is law today has had very little to do with the kind of beliefs, and
research you are talking about.

> > Philosophy informs the debate, and can even shape it, but what is,
> > is, and humans aren't what we'd like them to be yet.
>
> Again you demonstrate the inconsistancy. You say "what we'd like them
> to be" and then say don't bother studying the _nature_ for the purpose
> of accomplishing what "ought to be," because "it is all relative."
> How does that exactly work, Mr. Physical?

Easy. The politician takes care of the squeaky wheel, the donor with
the most money, whoever can help them, and their frinds get ahead
first. Every thing other than getting theirs and getting re-elected is
secondary. Nature, science and politics are full of inconsistancies.
That's reality. A California judge just threw out a firearms related
lawsuit because the laws there are so convoluted and contradictory
that in his opinion it's impossible to tell what the actual law is.
That's pretty typical in almost all areas where politicians get to
propose and vote for laws.
>
> I'll also note that it is _not_ I that has said "I hope to form humans
> into 'what we'd like them to be.'" My approach is far more modest and
> I'll say _practical_ than your's. I merely say discover the nature
> and conform the rules of conduct around that real and demonstrable
> nature rather than claiming the nature itself can be reformed.
> Understand and tame the beast, rather than create a new creature. We
> aren't cross-breeding bunnies and tigers.
>
> http://www.randybarnett.com/Guide.htm
> "[The] maintenance of the social order, which we have roughly
> sketched, and which is consonant with human intelligence, is the
> source of law." -- Hugo Grotius

I disagree with what they state is the basic nature of humanity, as do
other cultures scholars, and a lot of our own. Our laws and the
philosophy underpinning them are absolutely anathema to other
cultures, their laws, and beliefs. Who's wrong?

>
> > I know my "Machiavellianism" makes you crazy, and confuses things
> > like this issue, and others.
>
> Your complaining without doing, or having the slightest concern with
> regard to intellectual consistancy, is the only thing I find annoying.

>
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds

A great person does not have to think consistently from one day to the
next. This remark comes from the essay "Self-Reliance" by Ralph Waldo
Emerson. Emerson does not explain the difference between foolish and
wise consistency.

> > We need idealists, dreamers, philosophers, etc...
> > to seta goal, or provide a vision. That's where I
> > fit you in.
>
> The last thing I would say I am is a philosopher, dreamer, or
> idealist. I am trying to understand myself and the world around me.
> That is all.
>
That's great. Me too. I haven't locked it into the Western
Philosophical model though. I'm intrigued by warrior cultures around
the globe throughout history, and the China, Japan, Korea historical
and philosophical culture and dynamic.

> In making my sketch of the world, I am forced to delve into multiple
> topics where each topic will be offered as phd program in the
> universities. And these degrees merely get candidates _started_ on a
> path of even further specialization within the respective field. The
> sketch appears impossible, yet that is the reality of what the student
> of their own environment (the Generalist) is faced with. The sketch
> will be rough. It will have errors, and possibly big ones. That is
> why I always write with a pencil rather than a pen. One must play
> fast and loose, and be willing to make mistakes. Circumstances allow
> nothing else.
>
> According to the Aphorism Duality Theorem:
>
> "Stupid is as stupid doesn't." ~~Gorrest Fump
>
> or
>
> "Missing opportunities due to disproportionate fear of being wrong is
> stupid." -- BF
>
> > Running with their thoughts in the dirty, nasty, practical
> > world has almost always been a task of assessment of what is, making
> > compromises, tactics, and practicality.
>
> Your error is in thinking I would seriously propose anything other
> than rules of conduct that conform to a "practical world." You can,
> however, say I am wrong, and make your argument.
>
I must've mis-understood a lot of what you've argued for on a lot of
points along with a huge portion of the folks here, lots of whom are
very well educated.

> You _cannot_ say that I do not believe there must be an accounting of
> the real nature of humans. You _can_ argue that my actual accounting
> has mistakes.
>
> Ironically, it is you that said there is no nature to be discovered --
> that it is "all relative." You boxed yourself into a corner.
>
> > Both are important, rarely are they the done by the same person
> > though. Saying something doesn't make it so; but something being
> > doesn't make it right, either. We all live across different worlds to
> > varying degrees.
>
> Decentralize, Decentralize, Decentralize.
>
> Well okay, maybe just Decentralize, Decentralize.
>
>
>
> > Appreciate the good stuff.
> > thanks
> > Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think you really give too much credit to the people actually
proposing and making the laws we have. I KNOW you have a whole lot
more knowledge and understanding than my State Reps for example, and
then there are those who don't give a **** about any of what's gone on
in the past they just want to know how to get what they want through a
court, and hire lawyers to find ways to twist the laws tro allow it.

I'd submit that this attitude is massively more common and prevalent
than yours, though I like yours a hell of a lot more:

"I don't give a goddamn. I'm the President
and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way. ...
Stop throwing the Constitution in my face.
It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
-- George W. Bush
(1946- ) 43rd US President, Yale Skull & Bones Society
November 2005
Source: White House cabinet meeting to discuss the
renewal of the Patriot Act, in response to GOP leaders
presenting a valid case that the Patriot Act
undermined the Constitution.
Doug Thompson, Capital Hill Blue, Dec 5, 2005


Bill C

[Donald Munro]

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> If we did we could call the speciation Homobuggericus, or just "buggers."
> I'll leave to Don to explain "bugger," as he is from the uk. Somehow the
> dots will be connected to "gay-liberals," as they believe humans are mere
> clay in their hands.

There are no homobuggers (or liberals) on Mars. In fact Mars is a red
state.

[RonSonic]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 21:12:16 +0000, Dan Gregory
> wrote:

>http://www.velonews.com/article/73350
>http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/van-impe-tested-at-crematorium-15187

I've seen sheriff's deputies exercising arrest warrants demonstrate more
consideration than that.

Anti-dopers suck.

Ron