peacefuljeffrey

what is this? man bashing day? not all of us are asshats deservant of you wrath! Keep saying "deservant" and you may change that! -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I voted for Silly Putty, since it's a lot of fun to make shapes with it, and it's like part-clay, part Superball -- another "other" option that is worthy. What does the package say it's made from? "Zectron"? I have mine right here, but it doesn't say on the ball. I remember they used to make a toy out of that same sticky rubber as the wall-crawlers, but it had a handle that you held, and a "hand" at the end. You flicked out the hand and the stem stretched with it. I could sling it onto a friend's desk an aisle away and yank a notebook off his desk. A current favorite is the "AIRZOOKA," which you can find at Spencer Gifts. It shoots a "ball of air" from a bucket-shaped conical barrel, using elastic and a plastic cellophane-like membrane. They're a lot of fun for fifteen bucks. I love my little laser-pointer, too. I can amuse myself for long periods with that thing. And I always loved the simple spitball shooter. In the olden days, the Bic Biro was a simple pen with a black cap on the end. You took the ink out from the front, removed the cap from the back, sucked a Tic-Tac for a few moments and it fit perfectly into the pen tube. I also flared the end of one pen and stuck the end of another inside, making what I called the "Bic Sniper Rifle." It shot those Tic-Tacs fast and hard!! Of course, use of one in a school today would probably result in a zero-tolerance expulsion with recommendation for criminal charges... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Lately in the newspaper editorials I have been reading about how part of the big problems that face the U.S. is our dependence on foreign oil. Well, columnist Ron Wiggins in his column in The Palm Beach Post suggests that "If ever there was a cause to 'throw money at,' it is the cause of energy independence for the United States." And that got me to wonder... If the U.S. is already criticized for its gluttony, AND it is already criticized for helping around the world only when it feels it will personally benefit, AND it is already constantly reminded that tiny developing foreign economies depend heavily on trade with the U.S., what would happen if one day we could thumb our noses at small, oil-rich countries because we were now using ecologically-friendly, renewable resources for energy? What would happen if the trillions of dollars spent on foreign oil suddenly dried up to a trickle, or dried up entirely? Wouldn't the rest of the world BITCH AND WHINE that we were no longer supporting the economies of these countries that produce nothing that we want, but sit on oil reserves that we currently need to purchase from them? When the bottom drops out of their economies because we one day find better sources of energy, what are they going to do? Will that be yet another reason to wage a jihad against the Great Satan, who unfairly sought to improve its own situation, as well as the ecology of the earth? I wonder... -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Wow, and I got lambasted for my comments about wanting to put computer virus makers before a firing squad!! Burning tire around the neck?! WOW!! A VERY prominent person is on record as having said that "With our tyres and our matches we will liberate South Africa". These so-called 'necklasses' were in fact a regular sight here in the 80's. A particularly horrible way to die. But then so is being hacked to pieces by a machette wielded by a drugged-up Fifth Brigade 'soldier' in Mashonnaland. I forget the exact number but the dead were counted in the thousands. It doesn't really matter to me whether Mugabe is taken out by a WMD or a .22 rimfire - he has got to go. My point was not about whether "Mugabe has got to go" -- I have believed he should be gone since the first reports of his atrocities reached our newspapers. I was commenting more on the hypocrisy of various people telling me I'm "violent" or other things because of stuff I said in a thread pertaining to computer viruses and what should be done with the perpetrators. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I don't think that's a fair characterizationof me -- and I know me. There is a big difference between being "fearful of everything" and being wary of encroachments on liberty. Some take that more seriously than others. Apparently I take it more seriously than you do, that's all. The thing is, there's a dichotomy: - If you are watching, you will catch the encroachments if they occur and you will catch nothingif they don't occur. but - If you relax your guard because you don't think any encroachments are coming, you will be fine if they don't come, but you won't stop them if they do. I think it's rather like keeping a fire extinguisher on hand. If you never have a fire, fine. Yes, you had to spend a nominal amount on the extinguisher, but no big deal. And if you do have a fire, you're gonna be real happy that you spent that money on the extinguisher, and it may save you the whole kit and kaboodle. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I see. Thank you so much for specifically NOT answering my question. Once again, "Please tell us whether you personally LIKE or DISLIKE the notion of Big Brother being invited to take care of all this stuff for us, Billvon." By that, I mean, which do you prefer -- the supposed conveniences that come from ceding parts of your privacy and self-determination to Big Brother, or the supposed primitivity and inconvenience of a more "analog" world, where you have to do for yourself? We did alright for a long time when we couldn't pay for our gas by swiping a little plastic tab near the pump, but does the fact that we now can mean that you would never want to give it up, even if it was found to be abused by the government to keep track of you even when you're not under suspicion of having committed a crime? Because that's what life is continuing to become for us with the advance of Big Brother intrusion into more and more areas. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Any time a company comes out with a system like this, or starts doing business in a certain way, that clears the path for other companies to do the same. Soon ALL companies do the same, and you have no choice about using a company that does not. This is an easy revenue builder for car rental companies. There is no reason why they would not desire to do it. I'm surprised it's not standard policy already. And when the last of the companies get on-line with it, whose cars will the objectors be able to rent? I have no idea what that means. No, I'm saying that if they offer you a "choice" between something very unpalatable to you and something they want to drive you to "choosing," that's not really a choice. If I put a ferocious lion at your front door and you must leave the house, is it fair of me to say that I left you with the "choice" of going out the front door, or is it more accurate to say that I was really forcing you to go out an alternate exit like the back door, much as you may loathe leaving by the back door? That's exactly what I'm talking about. "Use a payphone." For one thing, haven't you read that payphones are rapidly disappearing since there is no money to be made from them (or need for them) since the advent of wildly popular cellular communications? You say that my "choice" is to "use a payphone." But what about my previous choice, which was to use a cellular phone that I was perfectly happy with BEFORE it had GPS in it to track me?! They changed the technology and now my choice is either be tracked or use a payphone (until there are no payphones, that is, or they're 100 miles away from each other), but I USED to be JUST FINE and HAPPY with the old-style phone -- the choice of which they will soon have taken away. And nice to put words in my mouth, Bill. I have voiced displeasure at the Big-Brotherizing of technology like cars and phones, but please cite for me where I said anything at all about passing a law preventing new technology from being developed and put into use. It really sounds like you advocate acquiescing to all the tracking and keeping-tabs-on that is in store for us. You sound like an appeaser, like the kind of Jew who must have gone around in Nazi Germany to other Jews and said, "If we just behave like they want, hopefully they won't turn TOO abusive!" Telling everyone that they're afraid of phantom fears, and that they're being silly or paranoid. I don't mean to offend anyone via that analogy. It's just how I see Bill's kind of argument here. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

And people like me will hack it and reverse engineer it. The the government will react by passing laws making it illegal to hack it, with stiff penalties... and require testing of the system in annual inspections... with a testing certification sticker which must be displayed on the windshield... with more penalties if the sticker is out of date... And so it goes... And then Democrats will insist on mandatory sentences for hacker-offenders who do this, which will result in room being made in prison by releasing more violent offenders, like what happens now with drug offenses (except that, for the most part, is because of Republican insistence on mandatory drug sentences, is it not?). - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

So please tell us whether you personally LIKE or DISLIKE the notion of Big Brother being invited to take care of all this stuff for us, Billvon. I myself am opposed to it. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

If this is intended to assuage fears that Big Brother has it in for us in the sense of micro-controlling an increasing number of aspects of our lives, it falls flat. Just because we are numbers to the government does not mean that we are beneath its notice and it does not want to control us. It is doing just that every day, more and more. How does your claim that the government doesn't care about controlling us square, Quade, with your view (haven't I seen you express something like it) that the current administration is taking away your rights and privacy? How can that be going on at the same time that the government is ignoring you because you're beneath its notice? The two are mutually exclusive. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The fallacy of what you are saying here is that YES, technology CAN force its way into unwilling lives. For example, do you have a choice of whether to speak with a human being when you call your credit card or cellular phone company for customer service? Often you do not. Often you have to wade through 5 to 10 minutes of automated menus before you get the option to get a service rep. It is not inconceivable that companies could mess around with adding surcharges to your bills if you don't pay them online. What if there was a 10% fee if you sent in a check instead of making an online payment to your power company? This is a way that technology can control your life. How about the cars that keep track of your speed? (Like the rental company that fined the renter.) Are you going to argue that "that's not technology controlling your life because you still have the choice not to speed"? That's sophistry. Any "choice" that produces a response based on aversion of an undesired result cannot be truly called free choice. So you could say, "Well, just don't buy a cellular phone that tracks your movement." The trouble is, what if all the phones sold do so? My only "choice" if I wanted to be untraced would be to not have a phone? That's not freedom of choice at all. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Is this going to degenerate ina "Mark of the Beast" thread? Quade, when you belittle concerns that for the moment may seem far-fetched, you begin to fall into the category of people who think we will never have intrusions on our rights to worry about. If that was a joke, it was misplaced in a thread that is about legitimate short- and long-term concerns. The only thing nearly as dangerous as someone who wants to infringe on rights and privacy is a person who implores everyone that it's silly to be vigilant for such infringements. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No? Computers can't keep track of 260,000,000 of something? Bullshit. If our cars were wired, via GPS and wireless internet, etc., to send the state DMV a little electronic beep every time we broke the speed limit, it would be nothing at all for the state DMV's computers to kick out a little present for you in the mail in the form of a traffic fine -- no summons or citation, since the computer knows you're guilty. Just a bill. Do you all remember the guy who made the news because the GPS in his RENTAL CAR told the company that he'd exceeded the speed limit? They fined him (PRIVATELY!) over $300!! Anyone who says "it can't happen here" should just be told to shut the hell up. Those are dangerous people. The kind who admonish us to sit back and not remain vigilant. The kind who say, "Aww, you're worried over nothing, they'll never pull that kind of crap!" That's a screwed up attitude that invites disaster. BTW it was Benjamin Franklin, not Thomas Jefferson, who said, "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." It's absolutely true. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Wow, and I got lambasted for my comments about wanting to put computer virus makers before a firing squad!! Burning tire around the neck?! WOW!! -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yeah, I've been pretty disgusted by the TSA's attitude toward the one thing I believe can ever truly prevent another hijacking -- armed pilots. They are clearly deliberately hobbling the program. You no doubt heard about how the pilots who want to participate have to go, at their own expense, to some remote area in New Mexico, I believe, that is 90 miles from the nearest population center. It's sickening -- as though they WANT to leave us vulnerable, just because armed defense with a gun is something they're ideologically opposed to. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yep, exactly. You and Mark said it well. I may have gone on "abrasive tirades," but that's what I was getting at. I do believe I did say it in between nasty expressions. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Oh, speaking of spooky, how about the theme music from Phantasm!? That is some scary shit! -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I distractedly watched that movie (as much as I could) and enjoyed it. I have to see it again and I will now pay attention to the soundtrack. Thanks for the tip!

Where did I mention America or American civilians even once in my post? You have an interesting way of trying to get your point across. I guess I gave the unintentional impression that I was singling you out with my rather peremptory request. It was meant in general, to America-bashers. My way of trying to get my point across tends to get more...interesting... the more heated I get about a subject. Sorry. edit: Skreamer, looking back, I saw that I simply quoted your post, felt agreement with you, but then continued on to exhort the REST of the contributors to cut the slack I requested. It was not meant to be in reply to your post. Sorry for the misunderstanding. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Awww, damn, I just watched The Dead Zone the other night (again) and now I can't think of the composer's name. His work is both amazing and ubiquitous, like Danny Elfman's. (I just looked it up -- it's Michael Kamen.)

Please state your practical definition of "bigotry" and cite some specific instances, okay? It's a pretty strong accusation, to call people bigots. I think we deserve to know who you think is a bigot, and those people deserve to defend themselves if they believe the claim is false. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You must be kidding me. Deleted because of what I've said? Check one post down from yours: I got called a "fucking idiot" in plain English. I thought that's the type of personal attack that would get a person banned or get a thread shut down. Wake up. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well, I'm not the one calling everybody "you fools"! I think it's fair to say someone is acting "thick" when he stubbornly refuses to discuss the issue in a rational way, even when that rational way is obvious. Didn't YOU see how he tried to pull a switcheroo between "carry a gun" and "operate a gun"? That IS being thick, or being deliberately obtuse. I don't think that I'm out of line to call him on that. It's been explained a number of times and still he persists in deliberately misrepresenting the terms being debated. And "sonofabitch" is a term of art, in general meaning "person." You've never heard someone call another a "lucky sonofabitch" before? Did you think they were casting an insult? -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

God DAMN you seem to be one thick sonofabitch! Why don't you see the difference between what HE wrote: "GUNS CAN [B]GO[/B] ANYWHERE I CAN AND NOT CAUSE A BIT OF DAMAGE" and what YOU wrote: "GUNS CANNOT BE [B]OPERATED[/B] ANYWHERE YOU GO AND NOT CAUSE A BIT OF DAMAGE. I have begun to believe that you are engaging in deliberate obfuscation just to piss off and/or annoy those of us who would discuss this in good faith and with rational understanding. I hope it's been rewarding for you. Do I have this right? You are implying that a school shooting is not likely to occur in a school just because one has never occurred there before? That's powerful logic, that is. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Business rules like "No guns allowed" do not carry the force of law. In order to run afoul of the law and be prosecutable, you would first have to be discovered to be in possession of a gun on the premises, and be told to leave, and have a police officer witness you refusing to leave when asked. If you are in a place of public accomodation (not a members-only club, but something like a Blockbuster Video, etc.) you cannot be said to be trespassing until you have been told to leave and have refused to do so. Again, it would be nice if you had more than a paltry familiarity of the subject you seek regulation of before you go seeking further regulation. For example, you appear to not know that gun carrying is (in most jurisdictions I've ever read about) prohibited in places where the primary business is the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises, schools, courts, police precincts, professional sporting events, school sporting events. I may have missed a few. edit: P.S. It's not "irrelevant," because most businesses, even in states with concealed carry laws, do NOT post signs prohibiting legal carry of firearms, even though they very well could. The reasoning is two-fold. First, they'd be hurting their business. Licensed gun owners/carriers take umbrage at the insinuation that their coming into a store legally armed for protection (as opposed to robbery) is dangerous to innocent people. Second, while they would be chasing away business, they would still really have no way of knowing who was coming in armed despite the prohibition -- after all, the guns would be concealed per the law! And anyway, who the hell would be obeying the rule in the first place, but people who did NOT want to come in and use their gun to commit a crime?! Anyone who DID want to come in and shoot up the place would -- DUH -- disobey the posted rule! It makes bad business sense to bar licensed gun carriers from your establishment, especially when you can't enforce the ban anyway. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"