RhondaLea

Sorry, I wasn't clear. There was no light, it was a cut-through. We have a lot of four lane highways down here, and all of them have cut-throughs. People do u-turns and left turns and straight through the cut-through non-turns all the time. If one were to check each one, one would be required to stop every fifty feet. For example, the main highway from DeLand to Daytona has four lanes, regular cut-throughs and a speed limit of 65 miles per hour. It used to be that there was little traffic, so it wasn't a problem. Now, my town is booming, the roads are full, and Highway 92 is black death. And, as I said, it wasn't that he hit the truck. The old guy in the truck didn't see him and broadsided him. If every motorcycle accident were avoidable by the biker, then every motor vehicle accident would be avoidable. But sometimes it's just not possible to get out of the way. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

A guy I knew died a few years ago because a pickup truck made a left hand turn into him. He didn't hit the truck, the truck hit him broadside at a relatively high rate of speed. He had the right-of-way, not the guy in the truck. Was it avoidable? I don't know. In my mind, I can't envision a scenario that would have saved him, short of not being on the bike at all. Where I live (DeLand, which is less than 20 miles inland from Daytona), we have a lot of bike accidents. I read the accounts in the paper sometimes, and it just doesn't very often seem that the fault lies with the biker. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

Your poll has a small flaw.

Skitt's Law "Spelling or grammar flames always contain spelling or grammar errors." If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

If a guy used any of those "techniques" on me, I'd run for the hills. rl You mean if I called you for a few minutes of meaningless chit-chat and suddenly had to go without asking you out, your curiosity and desire for me wouldn't go wild? Walt Men are men. Women are women. When men start acting like women...might as well date women, y'know? The whole "sensitivity" business has not cured in any way the ill it was intended to address (verbal and emotional abuse), but it has managed to batter good and decent men who didn't need to change their behavior or thinking at all. We are turning our men into wimps. If a guy has to play teenage girl games to get a date, we're in big trouble. Other than that, Walt, I'd call you back and ask you if you have a hangover. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

If a guy used any of those "techniques" on me, I'd run for the hills. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

I don't mind stealing copyrighted material, generally, but specifically, if I do what you ask, Truffer will throw rocks at my windows. He probably won't like me much anymore either. I'm sorry. Order a copy. We all must do what we can to keep the community afloat. rl P.S. You should subscribe: www.skydivingmagazine.com. If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

You have made a mistake. There is no such thing as a "fly-by" for recreational purposes. "Fly-bys" are essential for checking the landing gear. All pilots need to have their landing gear checked frequently. It is an essential safety measure. If you love your pilots, remind them often. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

The December issue of Skydiving is out, and Bridge Day is on the front page. Well-written story, nice pictures (the Triax T-Stake posed for the cameras too), and a terrific sidebar about the NPS problem. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

You fit right in here, sweetie.

When Thor Alex got busted for those three buildings in NYC, the mayor of the city was outraged and wanted him flayed alive (as did a few base jumpers for the least high-profile of those buildings, but that's another story). He was facing three felony counts of reckless endangerment, each count carrying a prison sentence of 7 years. There was a lot of rigamarole, but in the end, the sentence imposed on him was community service. It was not because he had a good lawyer, but because the New York Post made him a front page item: "The Human Fly," thereby rendering him a folk hero. New York City loved him, and it would not have gone over well with the people to put him in jail. The Post kept track of him, and when he died, they ran a very tender and loving article about that too. It pays to have the media on your side. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

The Holocaust is a documentable part of history. Denying reality is evidence of mental illness. But that's not the point either. In the world I want to live in, all of this would be unnecessary, because if everyone just lived their lives and minded their own business, we would haven't these problems to begin with. As it is, the world is never going to be perfect, so I'm just dreaming. But we do need a better way to go than allowing Nazis to terrorize little old Jewish ladies in their homes. I'm done with this thread. I have been advised by PM that I'm not fit to debate with because I am "pissed, unstable and more than a little scary as an individual." (The stated reason is a google of my full name on usenet. I'm not sure which posts exactly, but I do know that the first few pages turns up a host of forged postings made by a known net kook.) I make note of this because it shows what happens when people fail to mind their own business and go about making pronouncements based on false information--i.e., people get hurt for no reason. But hey, we all have the right to free speech...even if it means invading another's private space to let them know how shitty we believe them to be. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

Whoa. Reign in a bit, please. I sincerely meant no insult. I'll try and explain. My point was (is) when you 'expand' clear and present danger to potentential damage somewhere down the line, then it becomes way too cloudy, and good people who might make unpopular comments (e.g. defending those who refused to sign McCarthy's Loyalty Oath) would be subjected to the standard no more reasonable than it pissed someone off (in the instance of my response to your opinions ...you). As too my larger point, well, boiled down to essentials, to preserve a free people ...I'm right and you're wrong. Using your example, no one in my world would be required to sign McCarthy's Loyalty Oath. It's not about "potentential" [sic] damage somewhere down the line," it's about leaving people alone to live their lives as they choose without interference, as long as they don't interfere with the lives of others. For example, you are free to think abortion is wrong, and you are free to not have an abortion or perform an abortion. You haven't the right to impose your belief on another woman's belly. What "free speech" as currently constituted seems to allow is almost constant interference by a group of like-minded people in an individual's choice. And if people want to have weird ideas, they can have all the weird ideas they want, in the privacy of their own homes. But when their ideas begin to impinge adversely on others, they need to shut up. The need to control another human being is childish and narcissistic. Most of the problems we have in the world are a direct result of the failure of some people to grow the hell up. Finally, when you brought up McCarthy, you started in the middle, not at the cause. You have to start at the cause, say no, and then there's no need for all the nonsense that follows. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

You broke it.

Ahhh, there is all the difference in the world when it comes to governmental sanctions for free expression of iteas, thoughts and opinions. I waded through the injustice of victimless vs crimes against persons and I still don't see your answer (unless you are applying the 'pisses off Rhonda Lea' doctrine). If I understand correctly from gleaning out the bits that addressed my question, you don't reject 'clear and present danger' outright but expand it's definition to the point of being usless as a protection for a free people. Absent the hurdle of imminent danger resulting from speech, you just opened the wide cargo doors for a government to crush any speech it does not like. When I hear the Klan, Aryan Nation or other hate groups spreading their disease under the First Ammendment, it makes my skin crawl, but to loosen that standard invite worse, I think. I'm not trying to be intentionally offensive, but I honestly do not understand your post. Well, I do understand the last paragraph (although not as having any connection to the rest of your post), although I disagree with your conclusion. And I also understand that you disagree that there's no difference between "advocacy" and "incitement" but to me, distinguishing the two is legal weasling. Refusing to allow the latter may prevent an impromptu riot, but allowing the former just paves the way for a more organized and potentially more dangerous chain of events.) The argument I can see against my post is not the one you've made. I'm not really sure what your argument is, because I cannot follow your premises to a specific conclusion, and certainly not to the conclusion you reached. I'm willing to discuss it, but I don't know where to start, because I don't know what it means. It may be that you're making perfect sense, but I simply don't understand. rl P.S. The crack about the "'pisses off Rhonda Lea' doctrine" pissed me off. If you want to discuss the issue, that's fine. I don't think I was personally insulting in my comments to you, and if I was, I apologize. But this was just unnecessary, and it did not relate at all to anything that I wrote. You want to debate, fine; you want to engage in sarcastic repartee, you'll have to do it with someone else. I'm just not up to it right now. Try me again next week. If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

That's the problem, isn't it. Brandeis wrote: Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, selfreliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927) And yet as as far back as 1798, the government has been passing laws that would preclude the people from writing, printing uttering or publishing "any false, scandalous and malicious writing . . . against the government . . . with intent to defame . . . or to excite the hatred of the good people of the United States" and the Supreme Court has upheld the idea that free speech is not acceptable when it pertains to the overthrow of our government. (Brandenburg nothwithtanding, there's not really that much difference between "advocacy" and "incitement." Really.) Someone said "slippery slope" earlier, and that's why David Goldberger was my hero for so many years, because it seemed to me that he upheld the former, not the latter, and I couldn't see any other way to go, without hacking away at someone's "freedom." I think what's happened, though, is that we've allowed our goverment to become a protected behemoth that would appall the founders could they only see it; yet on the other hand, we have permitted the erosion of personal freedoms, particularly the right of ordinary people to live peacefully in their own communities, making choices that affect themselves and only themselves. We punish victimless crimes, but we don't punish crime against the many because it's "protected." It's not okay to choose what we do with our own bodies, but it is okay to allow others to assault our minds. It seems to me that the standard should be "you can do whatever you want, as long as it's about you, not about someone else." Unfortunately, there are those who believe that they should be able to dictate the actions of others, and it is those people, under the cover of their "right to free speech" who do more damage and cause more harm than anyone who ever used an illegal drug, purchased the services of a prostitute, had an abortion or took some other action that affected them and only them and not a whole host of others. With all due respect to David Goldberger, I don't think the neo-Nazis should be allowed to march through Skokie. I do think that if a woman chooses to have an abortion and to donate the product of that abortion to stem cell research, it should be her right. But somehow we have reversed things so that personal freedom is not protected and the "rights" of the angry mob are paramount. I'm not going to argue the religion angle, except to say that Protestantism still permeates the thinking behind our government. The founders may have had some ideas about the separation between Church and State, but "in God we [still] trust" nevertheless. There never was a real separation because religion was part and parcel of the everyday mores of those in power at the time. That hasn't changed much. It remains the underlying assumption, or we wouldn't be in the mess we're in with the religious right. And so we allow yet another infringement on the rights of individuals to live as they would choose because they are "godless." It seems to me that the founders intended "free speech" to prevent the goverment from becoming exactly what it is today. But we continue to have the idea of "free speech" in our heads, so we use it instead as a vehicle to torture individuals for an accident of birth or a way of thinking. As far as I'm concerned, the latter is the true "clear and present danger." rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

Black licorice, darjeeling tea with stevia and milk, bread, butter. But not all at once. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

During my unemployment, I had many great experiences and did a good bit of training. Not an option in jail. I was unemployable and mostly unemployed for three years for whistleblowing. During that period, my own daughter was in jail for 5 months. I visited her twice a week (the limit) and talked to her every day, sometimes twice a day. In jail, you can't go anywhere because you're locked up. Unemployed, you can't go anywhere because you can't afford to drive. And so on. I won't argue this beyond the point we've gone. Just realize that there are degrees of bad in both situations, and that there are times when not being able to get a job can potentially be worse than being locked up. How are things worse than in the past? Like say during Vietnam when the police were beating the crap out of those protesting the war? I much prefer the way war protest is handled in this decade, even though I mostly disagree with their message. And I much prefer that the wackos are visible than hiding out fermenting. If they weren't around, people would forget the Holocaust sooner. It's not about are they right in their convictions - dogma can't be the determinant of whether or not someone should be allowed to speak out. While we're all pretty confident the holocaust deniers are full of shit, what if we were wrong? More a concern for an issue that isn't in the 99.99% confirmed. Let's say global warming is a 80% likely truth. If the deniers got their way and we ignore the problem, a billion people (or more?) could die. Isn't that enough reason to make it illegal to deny that global warming exists? Answer - no fucking way. You've gone from denial of a documented historical incident to the denial of a disputed scientific theory. I don't know how to argue your analogy. As to war protest, if protestors today were to use the tactics of SDS and other such groups, the outcome would be the same. Or don't you remember that not all the Vietnam area protestors were hippies and yippies? I don't think allowing wackos to speak is what keeps the memory of the Holocaust alive. And keeping wackos isolated from each other prevents many a bizarre conspiracy. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

Indeed you do.

The laws in Austria once permitted the extermination of Jews, Gypsies, Mentally Ill, etc. Who are we to say that that is not okay... Someone said it, either you believe in free speech or you don't. Apparently, these countries don't. That's their problem, but we don't have to think it's okay, that's our prerogative. We have a lot of high ideals. When we start to live up to our own standards of behavior, maybe we can justify our need to dictate how others live. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

Fine. Then here's my next question: Who in the hell are we to say what the laws of Austria should be? rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

No. But they should be concerned if the wrench breaks during use, flies up and takes out an eye. That would be one basis for a product liability lawsuit. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

I was born in 1958. Blacks were never equal under the law, because there was always some other law somewhere to undermine the rights they supposedly had. And as far as having a right to free speech, well...if no one is taking steps to see that the law is enforced, what good is it? We're drifting here. And getting back to the point, there was no free speech for women, children and people of color at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted and passed. The culture of the time took it for granted that such rights were reserved only to a few--i.e., white men--and regardless of what the words said, the actual practice was different, because the mindset was different. I maintain that the founders would be boggled at what we allow. rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

I got it; but after years of taking it at face value, I no longer agree with it. If people can't exercise self-control, then they need to be gagged. Which reminds me...if we all have the right to free speech, where does the idea of a "gag order" fit in? rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

They were? Then what was that law that was passed back when I was a small child and why was it needed? rl If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb