From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Mon Mar 18 23:15:19 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Richard Langis) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:15:19 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Testing, testing, 1...2...3... Message-ID: <3C967507.5050102@sun.com> Posting a message to the plug and plug-talk lists on each different mailsystem to make sure they work. Please ignore. -Richard -- s u n m i c r o s y s t e m s ~ Richard Langis Jr. ~ richard.langis@sun.com From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Mon Mar 18 23:15:19 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Richard Langis) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:15:19 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Testing, testing, 1...2...3... Message-ID: <3C967507.5050102@sun.com> Posting a message to the plug and plug-talk lists on each different mailsystem to make sure they work. Please ignore. -Richard -- s u n m i c r o s y s t e m s ~ Richard Langis Jr. ~ richard.langis@sun.com From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Tue Mar 19 00:27:36 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Karl M. Hegbloom) Date: 18 Mar 2002 16:27:36 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] TEST TWO - To plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Message-ID: <87u1rdl7uv.fsf@juniper.intra.microsharp.com> -- mailto: (Karl M. Hegbloom) karlheg@microsharp.com Free the Software http://www.debian.org/social_contract http://www.microsharp.com phone://USA/WA/360-260-2066 From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Tue Mar 19 00:27:15 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Karl M. Hegbloom) Date: 18 Mar 2002 16:27:15 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] TEST ONE - to plug-talk@pdxlinux.org Message-ID: <87zo15l7vg.fsf@juniper.intra.microsharp.com> -- mailto: (Karl M. Hegbloom) karlheg@microsharp.com Free the Software http://www.debian.org/social_contract http://www.microsharp.com phone://USA/WA/360-260-2066 From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 20 09:31:08 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Dylan Reinhardt) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 01:31:08 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Revolution OS, Napster, and Fair Use Message-ID: <3C8FE49F00005BD5@mta07.san.yahoo.com> OK, Jeme... perhaps it would be best if we backed up a bit and re-traced our argument, as it's already branched a couple times. The primary issue (where we began) is whether *all* non-commercial copyin= g of recorded materials is covered by Fair Use. Secondarily, we touched on the arguments being presented in the Napster case: did they, in fact, argue that all non-commercial copying is Fair Us= e, or didn't they? I hope we're in agreement, at least, about what we're arguing about. :-)= Taking the easier argument first, what Napster and David Boies have said and done are relatively easy to document. In an interview given right after his win in the 9th Circut Court, Boies *did* say (as you suggested) that "this kind of noncommercial consumer co= pying is recognized as fair use under common-law theories and doctrines" (http:= //www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.10/boies.html). He attributes that opinion to the music-specific provisions of the Audio= Home Recording Act, but notes that a previous 9th Circut case interpreted= this law to mean that *all* non-commercial copying of anything was legal.= So I'll grant you both that your interpretation of Fair Use and of David Boies' opinion on the matter have backing. He then goes on, however, to present a more solid argument, that of drawing an analogy between Napster= and the VCR. It appears that it was this *second* line of reasoning that= was featured in his arguments before the 9th Circut. (http://www.theregis= ter.co.uk/content/archive/13720.html) The other points he raises, copyright abuse, the evilness of the RIAA, an= d the wrongness of the DMCA... I would guess we would probably find little= to argue about. So as for the issue of whether the Napster case supports your positon or mine, I'm not sure there's a clear winner. Clearly Boies is smart enough= to defend (attack?) on more than one front. But all that we have in the way of decisions is preliminary rulings on injunctions... the *real* case= was never heard. In the absence of a significant court ruling, I'm not sure that the Napster case or Boies' legal strategy have much relevance on the question of whether it is right to make copies of a tape. Next message: is *all* non-commercial copying covered by Fair Use? Dylan From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 20 09:37:42 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Dylan Reinhardt) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 01:37:42 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Revolution OS, Napster, and Fair Use (part 2) Message-ID: <3C8FE49F00005BDC@mta07.san.yahoo.com> OK... so the big issue: is all non-commercial copying covered under Fair Use? Reading the Fair Use section of the CFR, it is apparent that Fair Use is determined by four criteria: 1. The nature of the usage (for profit or non-profit) 2. The nature of the work (whatever that means) 3. The amount of work used (percentage copied) 4. The financial impact copying has on the value of the original These are my summations, the actual wording is here: http://www4.law.corn= ell.edu/uscode/17/107.html Deriving no commercial gain from making the copy is a clear requirement. But is that, alone, sufficient to satisfy Fair Use? You appear to belie= ve it is and I think it's clear that it isn't... so here we go. Let's take the hypothetical example of a small, independent film company that makes a stirring documentary about geek ethnography. Let's further stipulate that the film doesn't suck: geeks want to see it and a small, premium cable channel specializing in indie films wants to show it. With= me so far? What financial value does this film have? To its makers, it has a value roughly equal to the number of tickets they might sell to it plus rebroad= cast fees minus distribution costs. To the small cable channel that buys the right to broadcast it, the movie has two kinds of financial value: it may= serve as an incentive for non-subscribing geeks to become subscribers. It may also help retain existing geek customers who were about to cancel their subsciption and roll that dough into the new Star Trek Channel. Th= e theaters who book this film also have expectations of benefitting from sh= owing it. So the film has financial value to several parties, some of whom are actu= ally responsible for the film's existence. Making unlicensed copies causes ha= rm to those expectations, and thus to the real value of the film. Copies of this film are also likely to comprise 100% of the original mate= rial. If one were simply distributing 10-minute "teasers" for the film, you co= uld easily make the case that such copying actually *increases* the value of the film itself... or in any case, certainly doesn't diminish it. But di= stributing copies of a film in its entirety gives away what would otherwise be for sale. Which brings us back to test #1: the nonprofit, educational, scholarship,= or research value of making the copy. Here, things get a bit murky. It'= s clear that when a school makes a copy for classroom use, that's education= . But is "education" so broad a concept that simple *curiosity* qualifies?= I'd really like to see what's in the film, but does that automatically qualify my desire as scholarship? If I'm curious what you have stored on= your hard drive, should I just hack into your computer and make myself a copy of your work? I'm certain it would be educational. Remember, *unpu= blished* works are covered by the same standards as published ones. I would argue that watching a movie to see what's in it is the kind of ac= tivity that would normally be associated with the movie's commercial release. As such, it's tough to make the case that viewing it in a theater is comm= erce, but viewing an unauthorized copy is education. Particularly given the fa= ct, in this case, that the filmmakers are making copies of their film availab= le for sale in VHS and DVD formats (http://www.revolution-os.com/page1.html)= . Stanford has a great Fair Use resource: http://fairuse.stanford.edu I haven't read even half of it yet, but it looks to contain enough source material to take us into the wee hours. Looking forward to your next round of thoughts on all this... Dylan From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 20 10:09:13 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russell Senior) Date: 20 Mar 2002 02:09:13 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Revolution OS, Napster, and Fair Use (part 2) In-Reply-To: <3C8FE49F00005BDC@mta07.san.yahoo.com> References: <3C8FE49F00005BDC@mta07.san.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <86663ry2ie.fsf@coulee.tdb.com> >>>>> "Dylan" == Dylan Reinhardt writes: Dylan> [...] Particularly given the fact, in this case, that the Dylan> filmmakers are making copies of their film available for sale Dylan> in VHS and DVD formats (http://www.revolution-os.com/page1.html). Point of fact: according to that URL: ``REVOLUTION OS is _not_ currently available on video.'' [emphasis added] I have tried to contact these folks to see what their rental charge is. No word back yet. -- Russell Senior ``The two chiefs turned to each other. seniorr@aracnet.com Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated meant, `This is extremely unusual.' '' From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 20 12:06:09 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 04:06:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Revolution OS, Napster, and Fair Use In-Reply-To: <3C8FE49F00005BD5@mta07.san.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Dylan Reinhardt wrote: > The primary issue (where we began) is whether *all* non-commercial copying > of recorded materials is covered by Fair Use. That's your twist on the basic argument. My argument is that copyright law cannot practically and therefore does not cover non-commercial activity between individuals. > Secondarily, we touched on the arguments being presented in the > Napster case: did they, in fact, argue that all non-commercial copying > is Fair Use, or didn't they? The statement was that all non-commercial copying and sharing is legal. The Fair Use doctrine (as codified) is an exception to copyright. Non-commercial copying and sharing is outside copyright law, not an exception to it. > I hope we're in agreement, at least, about what we're arguing about. > :-) We'll see. > Taking the easier argument first, what Napster and David Boies have > said and done are relatively easy to document. > > In an interview given right after his win in the 9th Circut Court, > Boies *did* say (as you suggested) that "this kind of noncommercial > consumer copying is recognized as fair use under common-law theories > and doctrines" (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.10/boies.html). The brief made similar statements more broadly, but I can't seem to rustle that up at the moment. > He attributes that opinion to the music-specific provisions of the > Audio Home Recording Act, but notes that a previous 9th Circut case > interpreted this law to mean that *all* non-commercial copying of > anything was legal. Ayup. > So I'll grant you both that your interpretation of Fair Use and of > David Boies' opinion on the matter have backing. Good. > He then goes on, however, to present a more solid argument, that of > drawing an analogy between Napster and the VCR. It appears that it > was this *second* line of reasoning that was featured in his arguments > before the 9th Circut. > (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/13720.html) This argument was specifically addressing the issue of INJUNCTION. The purpose of this argument was to show that EVEN IF some of the activity was infringing of copyrights (which he shows is not the case), then a preliminary injunction STILL prevents people from carrying out the non-infringing activities enabled by the service. Essentially, this was Sony's argument in Sony v. Universal. Whether or not it's POSSIBLE to infringe with the device is irrelevant because there is "significant non-infringing use" of the device. > So as for the issue of whether the Napster case supports your positon > or mine, I'm not sure there's a clear winner. Um, my position (on this part of your two-part breakdown) was simply that Boies brief contained the argument that all non-commercial copying is legal (i.e. non-infringing). Surely you've seen that to be fact. > But all that we have in the way of decisions is preliminary rulings on > injunctions... the *real* case was never heard. We also have the 9th circuit's decision. > In the absence of a significant court ruling, Um... the 9th circuit's ruling cited in Boies' brief? > I'm not sure that the Napster case or Boies' legal strategy have much > relevance on the question of whether it is right to make copies of a > tape. I don't think anyone brought up the issue of "right v. wrong". We're just talking about what's legal. I can give you a laundry list of things that are legal but wrong and right but illegal. > Next message: is *all* non-commercial copying covered by Fair Use? See above. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 20 12:52:22 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 04:52:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Revolution OS, Napster, and Fair Use (part 2) In-Reply-To: <3C8FE49F00005BDC@mta07.san.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Dylan Reinhardt wrote: > OK... so the big issue: is all non-commercial copying covered under > Fair Use? Reading the Fair Use section of the CFR, it is apparent > that Fair Use is determined by four criteria: > > 1. The nature of the usage (for profit or non-profit) > 2. The nature of the work (whatever that means) The nature of the work has something to do with allowing flexibility in the case of parody and public information. > 3. The amount of work used (percentage copied) > 4. The financial impact copying has on the value of the original > > These are my summations, the actual wording is here: > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html You're confusing the codified Fair Use doctrine with common law fair use. This is what's called a "balancing test" where the interpretation of the law is done in a way that attempts to balance freedom and security, fairness and the status quo. These "tests" are used by judges to sort of quantify something that is otherwise subjective. It's kind of a sham because any one facet of the test can be deemed to overpower the others subjectively at the court's whim. > Deriving no commercial gain from making the copy is a clear > requirement. That's not how the test works. You don't have to meet four requirements... not at all. Each element is considered on its own. For example, the work of sample-based artists is itself both commercial and copyrightable without consideration of the copyright holder of the sampled work. Not-for-profit status is not a requirement, it is merely one measure of fair use. > But is that, alone, sufficient to satisfy Fair Use? You appear to > believe it is and I think it's clear that it isn't... so here we go. Non-commercial copying and sharing between individuals is always non-infringing. The 9th circuit backs me up on that much. However, I go further and say that all non-commercial copying and distribution is legal. Of course, I'm also going to be the first to say that every revision of the Copyright Act since about 1840 is unconstitutional. > Let's take the hypothetical example of a small, independent film > company that makes a stirring documentary about geek ethnography. > Let's further stipulate that the film doesn't suck: geeks want to see > it and a small, premium cable channel specializing in indie films > wants to show it. With me so far? > > What financial value does this film have? To its makers, it has a > value roughly equal to the number of tickets they might sell to it > plus rebroadcast fees minus distribution costs. To the small cable > channel that buys the right to broadcast it, the movie has two kinds > of financial value: it may serve as an incentive for non-subscribing > geeks to become subscribers. It may also help retain existing geek > customers who were about to cancel their subsciption and roll that > dough into the new Star Trek Channel. The theaters who book this film > also have expectations of benefitting from showing it. OK. I don't see the relevance of this, but fine. I would say that the value is solely the value of the film to the owners of the film and the value to the cable channel (and Sundance is a joint venture between Viacom and Vivendi/Seagrams... hardly a small anything in the corporate world) is just part of the value to the owner of the film via licensing opportunities. > So the film has financial value to several parties, some of whom are > actually responsible for the film's existence. No, the film has financial value to the owner. Others might use the film for financial gain, but the value of the film is what the owner can get for its use. > Making unlicensed copies causes harm to those expectations, and thus > to the real value of the film. I don't think you can make a statement like this out of hand. Do you have any evidence at all that non-commercial copying amongst individuals impacts the commercial value of a work? While this was always put forward by the copyright industry as common sense, the numbers that have been collected relating to this point actually DISPROVE that theory. Napster's traffic summaries combined with Soundscan CD sales data showed that the music most transfered via Napster corresponded roughly with the best selling artists of the day and sales of new works by those artists actually EXCEEDED industry expectation despite common sharing via Napster. You WANT to say that non-commercial copying and distribution between individuals impacts the value of a work, but there's no evidence supporting that. > Copies of this film are also likely to comprise 100% of the original > material. Yup. > If one were simply distributing 10-minute "teasers" for the film, you > could easily make the case that such copying actually *increases* the > value of the film itself... I think the numbers show that distributing THE WHOLE WORK increases the value of the film itself. Ever watched a movie you own on video on cable? I know I have. And in the days of audio cassette dominance, oftentimes I'd go out and buy a tape that someone had copied for me earlier. Heck, look at every commercial artist that actively supports tape trading and circulation of copies among fans. There would have been no demand for Mystery Science Theater 3000 at all if not for the circulating tapes (each with the demand in the closing credits "Keep the tapes circulating!"). Phish, The Grateful Dead... are these artists' profits DAMAGED or IMPROVED by ceaseless non-commercial trading? No one has ever successfully shown that non-commercial distribution by individuals has damaged the value of their work. > or in any case, certainly doesn't diminish it. But distributing > copies of a film in its entirety gives away what would otherwise be > for sale. Again, your claim that this damages value is unsubstantiated. > Which brings us back to test #1: the nonprofit, educational, > scholarship, or research value of making the copy. Here, things get a > bit murky. It's clear that when a school makes a copy for classroom > use, that's education. > But is "education" so broad a concept that simple *curiosity* > qualifies? Yes. > I'd really like to see what's in the film, but does that automatically > qualify my desire as scholarship? Why not? > If I'm curious what you have stored on your hard drive, should I just > hack into your computer and make myself a copy of your work? If educational use was considered a valid exception to private property, yes... but it's not. > I'm certain it would be educational. Remember, *unpublished* works > are covered by the same standards as published ones. One of the many failings of the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Berne Convention... but it's not the copyright that makes your cracking my system illegal. Let's not confuse the issues. > I would argue that watching a movie to see what's in it is the kind of > activity that would normally be associated with the movie's commercial > release. Well, that's the problem, isn't it? It is not in the public interest to prevent the spread of information and yet the law, whose purpose is to protect the public interest, does just that. The fair use doctrine is an attempt to retain public rights to simple activities like sharing information and educating one another. Here's where I'd usually go into my spiel on the TRUE INTENT of copyright (which has nothing to do with profit... and certainly doesn't cover music or entertainment), but I'll save that until you ask to hear it so as not to muddy this argument. > As such, it's tough to make the case that viewing it in a theater is > commerce, but viewing an unauthorized copy is education. Viewing in a theater is education, too... but it's commercial education. There's no dichotomy there. It can be both. > Particularly given the fact, in this case, that the filmmakers are > making copies of their film available for sale in VHS and DVD formats > (http://www.revolution-os.com/page1.html). I don't see how this matters at all. As the copyright holders, they have the exclusive right to make the work available commercially. This is the only right we, as individuals, give up in order to get the work into the public domain at the end of a limited period of time. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 20 15:46:04 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Dylan Reinhardt) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 07:46:04 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Revolution OS, Napster, and Fair Use (part 2) Message-ID: <3C8FE49F00005FEA@mta07.san.yahoo.com> > Point of fact: according to that URL: > ``REVOLUTION OS is _not_ currently available on video.'' > [emphasis added] But the next thing is says is "if you are interested in purchasing a copy= , please click on the e-mail link below and indicate whether you prefer vid= eotape or DVD." In this context, "not available on video" seems to mean "not *d= istributed* on video" as in "don't look for it at Blockbuster." If they aren't offering it for sale, why do they offer to sell copies? It's confusingly worded, that's for sure. Dylan From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 20 18:10:53 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Dylan Reinhardt) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:10:53 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Message-ID: <3C8FE49F00006307@mta07.san.yahoo.com> Jeme, I made the claim (documented it, even) that Napster's argument before the= 9th Circut was based on Sony v. Universal and didn't appear to feature th= e "all copying is OK" argument you claimed it did. Your answer was that th= is was *just* an injunction hearing, and thus the argument focused on a narr= ower set of issues. In this, I believe you are correct. Later, when refuting= my claim that the broader argument had never been fully tested in court, you cited the circut court's "ruling," saying that "the 9th circuit backs= me up." You can't have it both ways. Naptster won a hearing and lost a hearing. To my knowledge, they never fully aired their arguments in court nor obtained a full and binding opin= ion that would have any precedent-setting effect. Please provide a citation if you're aware of such a decision... until then, I think it's fair to sa= y that Napster's argument, while interesting, has no relevance. Leaving that detour behind (I hope), let's take a look at what you said was your major point: "copyright law cannot practically and therefore doe= s not cover non-commercial activity between individuals." If I'm parsing that correctly, you seem to be arguing: 1. Enforcement of copyright law is not practical when it comes to punishi= ng the actions of individuals. 2. What copying individuals do between themselves is not subject to copyr= ight law. I would be interested to see an example of where the practicality of enfo= rcement has negated a law. Indeed, most (I'd say virtually *all*) personl conduc= t laws fall into the category of "impractical to enforce." Why do we have laws against speeding, slander, fraud, or any number of other forms of conduct= ? It is highly impractical to imagine that anything but the slimmest perce= ntage of acts of speeding draw citations. Laws are laws and enforcement is ano= ther issue entirely. Frankly, I wish that the enforcability of laws *were* mo= re of a factor, but I'm having a tough time seeing where it currently figure= s in the equation at all. Which brings us to the claim that what individuals do among themselves is= not covered by copyright law. First, I'd invite you to substantiate that= claim, perhaps with some analysis of the "common law fair use" you allude= d to elsewhere. In the meantime, I have one question: If copyright law doesn't apply to individuals, who *does* it apply to? Is there some other kind of legal entity running around that I'm unaware of? You'd be hard pressed to show= that this law only applies to business, but I'd love to see you give it a try. But then I get confused when you claim that "every revision of the Copyri= ght Act since about 1840 is unconstitutional." In effect, it would seem that= you're prepared to simply disregard 160 years of legislation and jurispru= dence. Sounds a bit like wishful thinking to me. But if we're going to delve into Constitutional arguments, what do you do= with Art. I, Sec. 8: "The Congress shall have Power... promote the Progre= ss of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inv= entors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Congress is specifically empowered to pass laws that grant exclusive righ= ts for a limited time. That seems like a pretty definitive statement to me.= But the final arbiter of what is and isn't Constitutional is the Supreme Court. Let's take a look at what *they* have to say on the subject. First of all, the four tests for Fair Use *are* tests. You can see them being applied in Stewart v. Abend (1990) and elsewhere. Since we're enga= ging in scholarship here, I'll make an unauthorized copy of the relevant parag= raph from Stewart. :-) "Petitioners' unauthorized use of Woolrich's story in their film does not= constitute a noninfringing "fair use." The film does not fall into any of= the categories of fair use enumerated in 17 U.S.C. 107 (1988 ed.); e. g.,= criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. Nor does it meet any of the nonexclusive criteria that 107 requires a cou= rt to consider. First, since petitioners received $12 million from the film'= s re-release during the renewal term, their use was commercial rather than educational. Second, the nature of the copyrighted work is fictional and creative rather than factual. Third, the story was a substantial portion of the film, which expressly used its unique setting, characters, plot, and d sequence of events. Fourth, and most important, the record supports= the conclusion that re-release of the film impinged on Abend's ability to= market new versions of the story." From FindLaw: http://caselaw.lp.fin= dlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=3Dsearch&court=3DUS&case=3D/us/471/539.= html While we're on the topic of Supreme Court decisions, I'd be very curious to see what you would do with Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises. In thi= s case, the Supreme Court found that the Nation had stepped outside the bou= nds of Fair Use when they publised a 2,250-word article that made use of "at least 300 to 400 words" of an unpublished manuscript by Gerald Ford. The= Nation's story was timed to "scoop" the publication of this same manuscri= pt in Time. Time ended up not running the manuscript and a book contract fe= ll through as well. Here's the paragraph where they ran the four tests: "Taking into account the four factors enumerated in 107 as especially rel= evant in determining fair use, leads to the conclusion that the use in question= here was not fair. (i) The fact that news reporting was the general purpo= se of The Nation's use is simply one factor. While The Nation had every righ= t to be the first to publish the information, it went beyond simply reporti= ng uncopyrightable information and actively sought to exploit the headline value of its infringement, making a "news event" out of its unauthorized first publication. The fact that the publication was commercial as oppose= d to nonprofit is a separate factor tending to weigh against a finding of fair use. Fair use presupposes good faith. The Nation's unauthorized use of the undisseminated manuscript had not merely the incidental effect but= the intended purpose of supplanting the copyright holders' commercially valuable right of first publication. (ii) While there may be a greater ne= ed to disseminate works of fact than works of fiction, The Nation's taking of copyrighted expression exceeded that necessary to disseminate the fact= s and infringed the copyright holders' interests in confidentiality and cre= ative control over the first public appearance of the work. (iii) Although the verbatim quotes [471 U.S. 539, 541] in question were an insubstantial portion of the Ford manuscript, they qualitatively embodied Mr. Ford's di= stinctive expression and played a key role in the infringing article. (iv) As to th= e effect of The Nation's article on the market for the copyrighted work, Ti= me's cancellation of its projected article and its refusal to pay $12,500 were= the direct effect of the infringing publication. Once a copyright holder establishes a causal connection between the infringement and loss of reve= nue, the burden shifts to the infringer to show that the damage would have occ= urred had there been no taking of copyrighted expression. Petitioners establish= ed a prima facie case of actual damage that respondents failed to rebut. Mor= e important, to negate a claim of fair use it need only be shown that if th= e challenged use should become widespread, it would adversely affect the po= tential market for the copyrighted work. Here, The Nation's liberal use of verbat= im excerpts posed substantial potential for damage to the marketability of first serialization rights in the copyrighted work." Also from FindLaw: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=3Dsearch&court=3DU= S&case=3D/us/471/539.html If you're aware of proof of your legal theories that are more convincing,= more recent, or more relevant than what I've provided, please do share yo= ur citations. Until then, I would strongly suggest that making unauthorized copies of an entire copyrighted work is not only wrong, but illegal as well. You can make the case that authors *may* benefit from copying, but a meaningf= ul interpretation of rights would suggest that it is right *holders* who are= entitled to decide whether and how to benefit from their works. Looking forward to your next posting. Dylan From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 20 18:38:36 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russell Senior) Date: 20 Mar 2002 10:38:36 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Revolution OS, Napster, and Fair Use (part 2) In-Reply-To: <3C8FE49F00005FEA@mta07.san.yahoo.com> References: <3C8FE49F00005FEA@mta07.san.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <86ofhjulsj.fsf@coulee.tdb.com> >>>>> "Dylan" == Dylan Reinhardt writes: >> Point of fact: according to that URL: ``REVOLUTION OS is _not_ >> currently available on video.'' [emphasis added] Dylan> But the next thing is says is "if you are interested in Dylan> purchasing a copy, please click on the e-mail link below and Dylan> indicate whether you prefer videotape or DVD." In this Dylan> context, "not available on video" seems to mean "not Dylan> *distributed* on video" as in "don't look for it at Dylan> Blockbuster." Dylan> If they aren't offering it for sale, why do they offer to sell Dylan> copies? It's confusingly worded, that's for sure. The way I read that is they are _considering_ releasing it on video, but haven't yet. I'll admit that your interpretation is also possible, but that's not how I evaluated it. -- Russell Senior ``The two chiefs turned to each other. seniorr@aracnet.com Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated meant, `This is extremely unusual.' '' From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 20 22:52:48 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:52:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3C8FE49F00006307@mta07.san.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Dylan Reinhardt wrote: > I made the claim (documented it, even) that Napster's argument before > the 9th Circut was based on Sony v. Universal and didn't appear to > feature the "all copying is OK" argument you claimed it did. Your > answer was that this was *just* an injunction hearing, and thus the > argument focused on a narrower set of issues. In this, I believe you > are correct. Later, when refuting my claim that the broader argument > had never been fully tested in court, you cited the circut court's > "ruling," saying that "the 9th circuit backs me up." > > You can't have it both ways. I'm not talking about the 9th circuit's ruling in the Napster case. I'm talking about the 9th Circuit's decision in the Diamond case which states that the Rio is "entirely consistent with the Act's main purpose" of allowing individuals to make digital recordings for their "private, non-commercial use." (refering, of course, the the AHRA of 1992). > Naptster won a hearing and lost a hearing. To my knowledge, they > never fully aired their arguments in court nor obtained a full and > binding opinion that would have any precedent-setting effect. Please > provide a citation if you're aware of such a decision... until then, I > think it's fair to say that Napster's argument, while interesting, has > no relevance. No relevance? My entire point is that the argument can be made and law exists to support it. There's no caselaw to PROVE either side. That is to say, the courts have definitely NOT come down and said that all copying and distribution of copyrighted works are infringement. But the courts have AT LEAST claimed that the intent of laws before the DMCA was to MAINTAIN the protection for private, non-commercial copying and distribution. > Leaving that detour behind (I hope), let's take a look at what you > said was your major point: "copyright law cannot practically and > therefore does not cover non-commercial activity between individuals." > > If I'm parsing that correctly, you seem to be arguing: > > 1. Enforcement of copyright law is not practical when it comes to > punishing the actions of individuals. > > 2. What copying individuals do between themselves is not subject to > copyright law. That's pretty close. > I would be interested to see an example of where the practicality of > enforcement has negated a law. The Communications Decency Act, for one. > Indeed, most (I'd say virtually *all*) personl conduct laws fall into > the category of "impractical to enforce." Why do we have laws against > speeding, slander, fraud, or any number of other forms of conduct? (Slander isn't illegal, it is merely grounds for a private suit seeking restitution for damages.) > It is highly impractical to imagine that anything but the slimmest > percentage of acts of speeding draw citations. Laws are laws and > enforcement is another issue entirely. Frankly, I wish that the > enforcability of laws *were* more of a factor, but I'm having a tough > time seeing where it currently figures in the equation at all. Well, read up. There are plenty of laws that don't stick around due to unenforceability. The problem is, of course, that it takes a fairly peculiar case or an independent equal protection claim to even get this aspect of a law considered by the court. > Which brings us to the claim that what individuals do among themselves > is not covered by copyright law. First, I'd invite you to > substantiate that claim, perhaps with some analysis of the "common law > fair use" you alluded to elsewhere. I'm really not up for something that complete right this minute, but I do refer you to the previously quoted bits from the 9th Circuit's decision in the Diamond case. Simply put, though, the historical interpretation of copyrights since the 1790 Statute of Anne has been an exclusive right to commercial distribution of a work. Infringement suits for non-commercial use have only existed in the past twenty-five years. > In the meantime, I have one question: If copyright law doesn't apply > to individuals, who *does* it apply to? It applies to commercial activity, be that of indivdiuals or organizations. But organizations cannot participate in non-infringing copying and distribution because work done by organizations is ALWAYS commercial or promotional and implies endorsement. > Is there some other kind of legal entity running around that I'm > unaware of? There are all kinds of non-individual legal entitities... from the publicly held corporation to the limited liability partnership to the 503C non-profit organization to the "private club". > You'd be hard pressed to show that this law only applies to business, > but I'd love to see you give it a try. It only applies to commercial activity and except in a very few clear-cut cases, an individual has plausible deniability that an action was commercial or promotional. > But then I get confused when you claim that "every revision of the > Copyright Act since about 1840 is unconstitutional." In effect, it > would seem that you're prepared to simply disregard 160 years of > legislation and jurisprudence. > Sounds a bit like wishful thinking to me. It's wishful thinking in that it's not likely that the courts are actually going to fess up and repeal the laws, but that's mostly because the Constitution has taken a back seat to "common practice" and "perceived public good" in the courts. The simple fact that the codified Fair Use doctrine in the 1976 copyright act was stated by the courts to be "an attempt to balance first amendment rights and the interests of copyright holders" shows that the uber-law of Constitutional gaurantee takes a back seat to commercial interests. > But if we're going to delve into Constitutional arguments, what do you > do with Art. I, Sec. 8: "The Congress shall have Power... promote the > Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to > Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings > and Discoveries." > > Congress is specifically empowered to pass laws that grant exclusive rights > for a limited time. That seems like a pretty definitive statement to me. OK, you've officially "asked for it", in my book. Here goes: Congress is empowered to pass laws that grant exclusive rights for a limited time... no doubt there. But what SORT of rights concerning WHAT and TO WHOM? First and foremost: Congress shall have the power to... That's how Section 8 goes about delimiting the powers of Congress. But the Bill of Rights are AMENDMENTS to the Constitution and supercede what is written before. Specifically, the Amendment I states that "Congress shall make NO LAW [emphasis mine]... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Surely law which prevents individuals from freely sharing information is a restriction of speech and press. However, commercial activity is not and has never been considered protected activity. So it's possible for Congress to make laws that restrict commercial speech and the commercial press, but not that of free individuals. But even if you reject this argument, there is the simple analysis of the words of Article I Section 8, remembering that there is no extraneous language in the Constitution. To promote the progress of Science and the Useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. So the mandate of Congress (if they choose to accept it) is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" by doing a couple of very specific things (if they choose to do anything at all). Any attempt by Congress to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by another means than what is explicitly stated here OR to grant exclusive rights to anyone but Authors and Inventors OR extend those rights beyond a limited Time is contrary to the stated intent of the Constitution. Now, let's look at the chain of respective ANDs in this clause: Science AND the Useful Arts Authors AND Inventors Writings AND Discoveries This provision is designed to allow Congress to promote SCIENCE by giving exclusive rights to AUTHORS for their WRITINGS and to promote the USEFUL ARTS by giving exclusive rights to INVENTORS for their DISCOVERIES. Those who advance Science, and therefore, are the ones Congress should encourage in order to promote science, are Authors. Authors, in this context, are scientific authors (else you're not promoting science), which, even in the most broad interpretation, doesn't include authors of fiction, musicians, painters, sculptors or dancers. Copyright is an implementation of this portion of Congress' power. Specifically, copyright exists to grant Authors exclusive Rights to Writings so long as it promotes Science. I would argue that the PURPOSE of such a law is to ensure that an author's work is not corrupted by rewriting in a way not sanctioned by the author... so that a scientific work maintains its original integrity long enough to become fixed in the public mind and historical record before being integrated into the works of others. That's how it promotes science. The Useful Arts are distinguished from the Fine Arts. There is no provision for Congress "to promote the progress of the Fine Arts". The Useful Arts include things like carpentry, manufacturing, integrated circuit design, and cooking and exclude things like dancing, painting, sculpture, music, and oration. Those who advance the Useful Arts are Inventors and they do so by making Discoveries to which Congress can grant exclusive rights for limited Times, so long as that action promotes the Useful Arts. Specifically, patent exists to grant Inventors exclusive Rights to Discoveries so long as it promotes the Useful Arts. I would argue that the PURPOSE of such a law is to grant a limited commercial monopoly over a particular device or technique to a craftsman, or useful artisan, if you will, so that the discovery is not kept secret for fear of appropriation by a competitor. Without a legal exclusive right, a craftsman might hide his methods from the world and take them with him to his grave. Hence, it promotes the useful arts as a whole to grant him exclusive rights so that the world may share in this discovery and allow future inventors to build upon the idea or learn from its failings. That's how it promotes the useful arts. Securing exclusive Rights to Writings and Discoveries to individuals or collectives OTHER THAN Authors and Inventors is not at all supported in the Constitution and any law that does this under the guise of promoting Science and the Useful Arts is unconstitutional. The Copyright Act has continually expanded its scope to include work beyond writings and outside the promotion of science and secured exclusive rights for entities other than authors and, most recently, negated the concept of "limited Times" in all but the academic sense. Copyright protection of sculpture or music is outside the scope of the power granted in Article I Section 8. Securing exclusive rights of copyright holders, beyond the original author, is outside teh scope of the power granted in Article I Section 8. > But the final arbiter of what is and isn't Constitutional is the > Supreme Court. A power the Marshall Court just decided it had for itself. Not that I'm going to dispute whether or not it was the right decision, just that the Constitution doesn't give the Supreme Court that power. > Let's take a look at what *they* have to say on the subject. > > First of all, the four tests for Fair Use *are* tests. You can see > them being applied in Stewart v. Abend (1990) and elsewhere. Since > we're engaging in scholarship here, I'll make an unauthorized copy of > the relevant paragraph from Stewart. :-) But you'll find that it is not a hard rule that all four tests be satisified to qualify as fair use. That's all I was saying. > While we're on the topic of Supreme Court decisions, I'd be very > curious to see what you would do with Harper & Row v. Nation > Enterprises. I've got all kinds of opinions on the case, but I'll just keep the portion relevant to my argument. > "Taking into account the four factors enumerated in 107 as especially > relevant in determining fair use, leads to the conclusion that the use > in question here was not fair." > If you're aware of proof of your legal theories that are more > convincing, more recent, or more relevant than what I've provided, > please do share your citations. I'm not really up for finding citations at the moment (and I'd also argue that legal citations are harder to find on this issue due to the fact that copyright holders tend to go all the way to court only when they are assured victory), but if you don't concede this little point, then I guess I could try to find a citation to support it. Consider parody, satire and political commentary. It's quite common for such work to consist of huge portions of, if not entire, copyrighted works. They are often commercial or promotional in nature. Yet, they are protected and use of copyrighted material within them is generally considered fair. If infringement is defined as NOT meeting ALL FOUR of the tests, then wouldn't the commercial nature of the satire or commentary make it automatically infringing? My argument has always been that one must not satisfy ALL of "the four factors enumerated in 107 as especially relevant in determining fair use" in order to be fair use. > Until then, I would strongly suggest that making unauthorized copies > of an entire copyrighted work is not only wrong, but illegal as well. Well, that statement is provably false in VERY SIMPLE terms. Space shifting, time shifting, and media shifting are all unauthorized copies of entire copyrighted works and there are dozens of citations that show the court's respect for their legality. And again with the right and wrong. That's a whole different bucket of spatulas. > You can make the case that authors *may* benefit from copying, but a > meaningful interpretation of rights would suggest that it is right > *holders* who are entitled to decide whether and how to benefit from > their works. Absolutely not! The copyright holders do not determine how they would like to benefit and whether or not a particular use impinges upon their ability to benefit in their chosen way. Hell no. They must PROVE DAMAGES of a commercial nature. Otherwise, every criticism of a work could be construed as damaging the "holder's" method of benefit. And I would further point you to the above argument that copyright is not a public service as a commercial benefit to authors, but is as a method of retaining integrity of content and intent of an author's work for the public record and posterity. The profit motive is too strong and leads immediately to the destruction of the individual liberties of all for the sake of the profit of the few. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 21 00:50:13 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Mark Morgan) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:50:13 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: Message-ID: <3C992E45.8050308@attbi.com> Jeme A Brelin wrote: > Consider parody, satire and political commentary. It's quite common for > such work to consist of huge portions of, if not entire, copyrighted > works. They are often commercial or promotional in nature. Yet, they are > protected and use of copyrighted material within them is generally > considered fair. > > If infringement is defined as NOT meeting ALL FOUR of the tests, then > wouldn't the commercial nature of the satire or commentary make it > automatically infringing? Here's some info from the guys who got sued by U2 (well, Island records...) and others for doing a parody. The book, "Fair Use" covers the case pretty well. http://www.negativland.com/intprop.html -Mark Lemming From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 21 00:39:31 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Alan) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:39:31 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3C992E45.8050308@attbi.com> References: <3C992E45.8050308@attbi.com> Message-ID: <200203210317.g2L3HJL03809@clueserver.org> On Wednesday 20 March 2002 16:50, Mark Morgan wrote: > Jeme A Brelin wrote: > > Consider parody, satire and political commentary. It's quite common for > > such work to consist of huge portions of, if not entire, copyrighted > > works. They are often commercial or promotional in nature. Yet, they > > are protected and use of copyrighted material within them is generally > > considered fair. > > > > If infringement is defined as NOT meeting ALL FOUR of the tests, then > > wouldn't the commercial nature of the satire or commentary make it > > automatically infringing? > > Here's some info from the guys who got sued by U2 (well, Island > records...) and others for doing a parody. The book, "Fair Use" covers > the case pretty well. > > http://www.negativland.com/intprop.html They were not the only one that sued over the album. Casey Casem also got pretty pissed off by the album. BTW, I have a copy of it. It is pretty funny. "And now, a death dedication for a dog named Snuggles..." From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 21 14:50:26 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Dylan Reinhardt) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 06:50:26 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Message-ID: <3C992CBA000005E8@mta07.san.yahoo.com> I don't have a lot of time, so I'll make this brief. Fortunately, there'= s not a lot of additional ground to cover. Legal arguments can be quite far-ranging, speculative and fanciful in nat= ure. The key to understanding the law is not in reading legal arguments or in= reading commentary, but in reading the *actual laws* and the *actual deci= sions* that interpret those laws. There's still lots of room to talk about how the law *should* be interpreted or what the law *should* be... but if you= 're making a case that you know what the law *is* then citations are in order= . The law is neither intuitive nor easily reduced to a small set of core principles. You arguments contain a lot of good reasoning, some interesting interpret= ations, and a clear familiarity with some of the more arcane detiails of American= legal and political history. What they don't contain are citations. The= technical term, I believe, for arguments made in absence of citations is "conjecture." Having said that, let's whip through some of your points: > I'm not talking about the 9th circuit's ruling in the Napster case. I'm= > talking about the 9th Circuit's decision in the Diamond case Aha. Thanks for the clarification. The Rio case is also irrelvant, in that it deals with copies made for pri= vate usage. If you want to rip a CD you bought so that you can listen to it on your MP3 player, that seems highly reasonable. Making a VHS copy of a tape that was broadcast on TV is dubious, but probably justifiable. Ma= king multiple copies of that tape and distributing them to your friends is a whole different ball of wax. > No relevance? My entire point is that the argument can be made and law > exists to support it. And that entire train of thought was irrelevant. Interesting, no doubt, but utterly lacking in legal significance. A legal argument is only rele= vant if it has won in a significant court ruling. Until then, it's just fancy= words... interesting, perhaps, but holding little or no legal value. > There's no caselaw to PROVE either side. You mean, aside from the Supreme Court rulings I cited and several others= besides? I have already demonstrated that the process of evaluating Fair Use follows the rubric I outlined, not the simple profit-or-non model you= claimed. If you're going to claim there's no proof, first address the pr= oof that's been submitted. > Slander isn't illegal You're right, it's a tort claim. Many states and regulatory agencies hav= e adopted rules that make it illegal in some circumstances, but mostly it's= a tort. > There are plenty of laws that don't stick around due to > unenforceability. Such as? > Simply put, though, the historical interpretation of copyrights since the > 1790 Statute of Anne has been an exclusive right to commercial > distribution of a work. Such a clear cut statement of opinion and yet no citations to back it up.= > Infringement suits for non-commercial use have > only existed in the past twenty-five years. More opinions without facts. Show me the cites. > except in a very few clear-cut cases, an individual has > plausible deniability that an action was commercial or promotional. Hate to break it to you, but "plausible deniability" is not a great legal= defense. In any event, it doesn't get to the real issue, which is whethe= r what you're doing is legal. As to your lengthy analysis of Article I, Section 8... yikes. You take an extremely rigid, literalist interpretation of the Article--which is fi= ne--but then proceed to interpret the First in very broad terms. If you're going= to claim that Article 8 only covers *science* writing, then have the cons= istency to note that the First covers *speech* and remains silent on the question= of entitlement to someone else's creative output. Go ahead and be a lite= ralist, but not just when it suits you. > I'm not really up for finding citations at the moment (and I'd also arg= ue > that legal citations are harder to find on this issue due to the fact that > copyright holders tend to go all the way to court only when they are > assured victory), but if you don't concede this little point, then I gu= ess > I could try to find a citation to support it. It's not a little point. The reason there are so few citations to support your position is because= you made it up. There are a lot of clever arguments that never go for a final decision... that's because a lot of those arguments are entirely sp= eculative. Real decisions are rare because real arguments are rare. > Consider parody, satire and political commentary. Totally irrelevant. We're discussing your desire to copy a documentary, not your interest in writing a satirical essay about it. Incidentally, there are limits to parody too... but we do give it tremendous legal leew= ay. > Space shifting, time shifting, and media shifting are all unauthorized copies of > entire copyrighted works and there are dozens of citations that show th= e > court's respect for their legality. Those are reasonable, but mostly untested arguments. Indeed, were they already rights, there would be no need to codify them as many activists (http://www.digitalconsumer.org/bill.html) are hoping to do. Anyway, we're not talking about that, but about *quantity* shifting, whic= h is totally different. > The profit motive is too strong and leads > immediately to the destruction of the individual liberties of all for the > sake of the profit of the few. Whatever you say, Karl. Frankly, I'm happy giving up my "right" to steal= a copy of Revolution OS if that makes it more likely that someone will ac= tually go to the trouble of *making* it and finding a way to sell me a ticket to= it. There is nothing to bicker about ownership of until someone goes to the trouble of creating it. THAT, my friend, is the purpose of exclusive= rights for a limited time... to enrich all by ensuring that those who go to the trouble of making things don't see them immediately stolen. You stand athwart more than a century of history and legal theory, my fr= iend. Your ideas may, in fact, be better. But I await proof that they reflect= the laws of the land we live in. Perhaps they should be, and maybe one day you will convince us all of the error of our ways. But until then, please realize that the law consists only of what is on the books and wha= t is written in court decisions. Fancy theories and impressive essays are not the law. I look forward to your reply, but will be unable to contribute more till Monday. Dylan From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 22 01:39:29 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:39:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3C992CBA000005E8@mta07.san.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Dylan Reinhardt wrote: > > I'm not talking about the 9th circuit's ruling in the Napster case. I'm > > talking about the 9th Circuit's decision in the Diamond case > > Aha. Thanks for the clarification. > > The Rio case is also irrelvant, in that it deals with copies made for > private usage. If you want to rip a CD you bought so that you can > listen to it on your MP3 player, that seems highly reasonable. It's called media shifting and it's always a non-infringing act. Look it up. > Making a VHS copy of a tape that was broadcast on TV is dubious, but > probably justifiable. Not AT ALL dubious. It's called time shifting and it's also a non-infringing act. Look it up. > Making multiple copies of that tape and distributing them to your > friends is a whole different ball of wax. Again, we go back to the nature of the fair use tests... I'll come to it in a moment. > > No relevance? My entire point is that the argument can be made and law > > exists to support it. > > And that entire train of thought was irrelevant. Interesting, no > doubt, but utterly lacking in legal significance. A legal argument is > only relevant if it has won in a significant court ruling. Until > then, it's just fancy words... interesting, perhaps, but holding > little or no legal value. Um, bullshit. Utter bullshit. It's called a legal theory and if it had no value, courts wouldn't listen to them and there wouldn't be so goddamn many law journals in the world. In fact, the legal theories in reviews often carry more weight than precedent or tradition. > > There's no caselaw to PROVE either side. > > You mean, aside from the Supreme Court rulings I cited and several > others besides? Right... none of the cases you cited say that ALL copies made that fail to meet ALL FOUR considerations are infringement. There is no such case because fair use considerations MUST be considered case by case. > > There are plenty of laws that don't stick around due to > > unenforceability. > > Such as? As I stated in my previous email, the Communications Decency Act. > > Simply put, though, the historical interpretation of copyrights since > > the 1790 Statute of Anne has been an exclusive right to commercial > > distribution of a work. > > Such a clear cut statement of opinion and yet no citations to back it > up. I defy you to find a case of private, non-commercial copying that has been declared infringement before 1976. > > Infringement suits for non-commercial use have only existed in the > > past twenty-five years. > > More opinions without facts. Show me the cites. Now you're asking me to prove a negative... How can I show you cites for cases that DON'T EXIST? There were no non-commercial infringment suits before 1976. What kind of cite do you want for that? > > except in a very few clear-cut cases, an individual has plausible > > deniability that an action was commercial or promotional. > > Hate to break it to you, but "plausible deniability" is not a great > legal defense. "Plausible deniability" is absolutely adequate defense for a criminal case. That's why we have the phrase "reasonable doubt". Plausible deniability begets reasonable doubt. > In any event, it doesn't get to the real issue, which is whether what > you're doing is legal. It's not whether or not it's legal, but whether or not it's illegal. The law is a list of DONTs, not CANs. > As to your lengthy analysis of Article I, Section 8... yikes. You > take an extremely rigid, literalist interpretation of the > Article--which is fine--but then proceed to interpret the First in > very broad terms. If you're going to claim that Article 8 only covers > *science* writing, then have the consistency to note that the First > covers *speech* and remains silent on the question of entitlement to > someone else's creative output. Go ahead and be a literalist, but not > just when it suits you. I think you'll find that there is a strong tradition of interpreting restrictions literally and freedoms broadly. > The reason there are so few citations to support your position is > because you made it up. I didn't make up the fact that the four important factors to a fair use claim are not four hard tests that must ALL be satisfied. I was rebutting your claim to the contrary. > Real decisions are rare because real arguments are rare. No, real decisions are rare for the reasons I stated previously. Copyright holders don't bring cases against individuals because they will lose and they get much more mileage out of fear and misdirection. > > Consider parody, satire and political commentary. > > Totally irrelevant. We're discussing your desire to copy a > documentary, not your interest in writing a satirical essay about it. > Incidentally, there are limits to parody too... but we do give it > tremendous legal leeway. No, not irrelevant! We're discussing whether or not all four parts of your test are required to be met in order for fair use to be claimed. > > Space shifting, time shifting, and media shifting are all unauthorized > > copies of entire copyrighted works and there are dozens of citations > > that show the court's respect for their legality. > > Those are reasonable, but mostly untested arguments. What? Space shifting, time shifting, and media shifting were the primary fair uses used in the Betamax case and the Diamond case. They are NOT untested. > Indeed, were they already rights, there would be no need to codify > them as many activists (http://www.digitalconsumer.org/bill.html) are > hoping to do. The activists are hoping to codify them so they can rebutt folks like you who insist on having everything pointed out to them and so that the entertainment industry cannot make liberal interpretations of restrictive legislation, carry out threats of unsustainable threats of legal action, and generally cow the population based on spurious claims of broad control. > Anyway, we're not talking about that, but about *quantity* shifting, > which is totally different. I don't think scale matters one bit. Why hasn't the RIAA brought suits after Napster? It's because legally they haven't a leg to stand on. > > The profit motive is too strong and leads immediately to the > > destruction of the individual liberties of all for the sake of the > > profit of the few. > > Whatever you say, Karl. Hegbloom? I don't get it. > Frankly, I'm happy giving up my "right" to steal a copy of Revolution > OS if that makes it more likely that someone will actually go to the > trouble of *making* it and finding a way to sell me a ticket to it. Well, you can choose language like "steal" and presuppose ownership and privatization of mere information and claim that the highest motivation to which a person can appeal for encouragement is greed and lust for power... me, I prefer to listen to folks like Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the following: "That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature?and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." > There is nothing to bicker about ownership of until someone goes to > the trouble of creating it. THAT, my friend, is the purpose of > exclusive rights for a limited time... to enrich all by ensuring that > those who go to the trouble of making things don't see them > immediately stolen. How is enrichment of the few enrichment of all? The enrichment of all only comes by ensuring that ALL have access to the new information. Markets require scarcity and scarcity of information is not a benefit to all. Information markets are enriching only of the few and a hinderance to the instruction of mankind. > You stand athwart more than a century of history and legal theory, my > friend. Oh, I stand athwart much more than that. Believe you me. > Your ideas may, in fact, be better. I wouldn't have them unless I believed they were. > But I await proof that they reflect the laws of the land we live in. How about, instead, adopting them as your ideas and working to change the law of the land we live in should that law oppose these ideas? > Perhaps they should be, and maybe one day you will convince us all of > the error of our ways. But until then, please realize that the law > consists only of what is on the books and what is written in court > decisions. Fancy theories and impressive essays are not the law. No, but they become the law. And I am willing to stand up and make my case when the time comes. I will continue to privately make and distribute copies of copyrighted works until the day that I am physically barred from doing so. And given the opportunity I will make the case that it is both my moral and legal right to do those things. I reject this notion of prior restraint based on broad and unsupportable claims of infringment by copyright holders. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 22 18:09:18 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Mike Witt) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:09:18 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] OT: ifconfig for MS Win2000 Message-ID: <3C9B734E.49ABEA69@computer-arts.net> Anything is allowed in plug.talk, right? Does anybody know if there is an ifconfig available for Microsoft Windows 2000? My problem is that I'm running DHCP to get my primary address, and this appears to prevent me from using the normal Win2000 mechanism for associating a 2nd IP address with my Ehternet interface. ifconfig.exe turns up lots of hits on google, but they all seem to be for os2. Why would I ask this to the Linux group? Well, remember the story about the man looking for his keys under the street lamp... -Mike From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 22 18:13:45 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Richard Langis) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:13:45 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] OT: ifconfig for MS Win2000 References: <3C9B734E.49ABEA69@computer-arts.net> Message-ID: <3C9B7459.4010109@sun.com> Try ipconfig instead. ipconfig /? for a list of options ipconfig /all | more to see an ifconfig-ish display of your devices. :) -R Mike Witt wrote: > Anything is allowed in plug.talk, right? > > Does anybody know if there is an ifconfig available for Microsoft > Windows 2000? My problem is that I'm running DHCP to get my primary > address, and this appears to prevent me from using the normal > Win2000 mechanism for associating a 2nd IP address with my Ehternet > interface. > > ifconfig.exe turns up lots of hits on google, but they all seem > to be for os2. > > Why would I ask this to the Linux group? Well, remember the story > about the man looking for his keys under the street lamp... > > -Mike > _______________________________________________ > PLUG-talk mailing list > PLUG-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-talk > > -- s u n m i c r o s y s t e m s ~ Richard Langis Jr. ~ richard.langis@sun.com From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 22 18:27:36 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Craighead, Scot D) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:27:36 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] OT: ifconfig for MS Win2000 Message-ID: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA661@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D1CF.3DDF3BC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Try ipconfig. -----Original Message----- From: Mike Witt [mailto:mike@computer-arts.net] Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 10:09 AM To: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Subject: [PLUG-TALK] OT: ifconfig for MS Win2000 Anything is allowed in plug.talk, right? Does anybody know if there is an ifconfig available for Microsoft Windows 2000? My problem is that I'm running DHCP to get my primary address, and this appears to prevent me from using the normal Win2000 mechanism for associating a 2nd IP address with my Ehternet interface. ifconfig.exe turns up lots of hits on google, but they all seem to be for os2. Why would I ask this to the Linux group? Well, remember the story about the man looking for his keys under the street lamp... -Mike _______________________________________________ PLUG-talk mailing list PLUG-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-talk ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D1CF.3DDF3BC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [PLUG-TALK] OT: ifconfig for MS Win2000

Try ipconfig.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Witt [mailto:mike@computer-arts.net= ]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 10:09 AM
To: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org
Subject: [PLUG-TALK] OT: ifconfig for MS = Win2000


Anything is allowed in plug.talk, right?

Does anybody know if there is an ifconfig available = for Microsoft
Windows 2000?  My problem is that I'm running = DHCP to get my primary
address, and this appears to prevent me from using = the normal
Win2000 mechanism for associating a 2nd IP address = with my Ehternet
interface.

ifconfig.exe turns up lots of hits on google, but = they all seem
to be for os2.

Why would I ask this to the Linux group?  Well, = remember the story
about the man looking for his keys under the street = lamp...

-Mike
_______________________________________________
PLUG-talk mailing list
PLUG-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org
http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-talk

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D1CF.3DDF3BC0-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 22 18:26:49 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Mike Witt) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:26:49 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] OT: ifconfig for MS Win2000 References: <3C9B734E.49ABEA69@computer-arts.net> Message-ID: <3C9B7769.FD3B7640@computer-arts.net> Richard Langis wrote: > > Try ipconfig instead. > > ipconfig /? for a list of options > > ipconfig /all | more to see an ifconfig-ish display of your devices. :) Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but it looks like ipconfig only lists out information. I don't see any way to actually configure the interface. Am I missing something? I do see how you can do stuff like renew your DHCP lease and so on, but I can't see where you can assign a static address to the interface (or other "ifconfig" type operations) -Mike From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 22 18:33:43 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Craighead, Scot D) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:33:43 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] OT: ifconfig for MS Win2000 Message-ID: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA662@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D1D0.18231680 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" For that try winipcfg. (I think that's it). It is a gui interface. I don't think win2K has the equivalent of ifconfig except for seeing what is already setup. -----Original Message----- From: Mike Witt [mailto:mike@computer-arts.net] Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 10:27 AM To: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Subject: Re: [PLUG-TALK] OT: ifconfig for MS Win2000 Richard Langis wrote: > > Try ipconfig instead. > > ipconfig /? for a list of options > > ipconfig /all | more to see an ifconfig-ish display of your devices. :) Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but it looks like ipconfig only lists out information. I don't see any way to actually configure the interface. Am I missing something? I do see how you can do stuff like renew your DHCP lease and so on, but I can't see where you can assign a static address to the interface (or other "ifconfig" type operations) -Mike _______________________________________________ PLUG-talk mailing list PLUG-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-talk ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D1D0.18231680 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [PLUG-TALK] OT: ifconfig for MS Win2000

For that try winipcfg.  (I think that's = it).  It is a gui interface.  I don't think win2K has the = equivalent of ifconfig except for seeing what is already = setup.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Witt [mailto:mike@computer-arts.net= ]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 10:27 AM
To: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org
Subject: Re: [PLUG-TALK] OT: ifconfig for MS = Win2000


Richard Langis wrote:
>
> Try ipconfig instead.
>
> ipconfig /?  for a list of options
>
> ipconfig /all | more to see an ifconfig-ish = display of your devices. :)

Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but it looks like = ipconfig only
lists out information. I don't see any way to = actually configure the
interface. Am I missing something?

I do see how you can do stuff like renew your DHCP = lease and so on,
but I can't see where you can assign a static = address to the
interface (or other "ifconfig" type = operations)

-Mike
_______________________________________________
PLUG-talk mailing list
PLUG-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org
http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-talk

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D1D0.18231680-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 22 18:47:03 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Richard Langis) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:47:03 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Re: Why RedHat? References: Message-ID: <3C9B7C27.7090108@sun.com> Rather than reply to the (main) list, I'll drop this over to plug-talk where a somewhat off-topic discussion can be freely realized. Also CC:ing to a list of geeks, some of whom still use RH for servers. ;) I started off using Redhat - 4.2 I think it was. I bought a boxed version of 5.0, and $2.00 CD's from linuxmall.com of 6.1, which I used up until about a year ago as my firewall/gateway OS. At the time, it was the most 'mature' distribution, and also the most recognized. I believe that most people starting out use either a) what they've heard or b) what their friends use. Probably 90% of the time, that's going to be Redhat. Anyway, about a year ago I join the PLUG list. Karl, being the rabid Debian zealot he is (and I say that in the nicest manner possible!), extolls the virtues of appetite and Debian in general. I've had some issues with wanting to install newer software on my RH6.1 box, due to dependency problems. The only way to upgrade a RH installation (at the time) was via a new ISO full distribution upgrade. My little firewall box is...rather small. No floppy OR CD-ROM. 8G HD MAX (BIOS limitation). So tearing it down, swapping the IDE cable, adding a cdrom, floppy, and power from another machine (150w-ish PS) to drive the additional peripherals is a heruclean task. Not to mention sitting there and making sure the install goes well...all with 4 kids tearing around behind me. So I get a glimpse of what Debian and apt-get can do, vicariously through Karl. I ask a simple question - can I install an old copy of Debian (2.0-ish) on my box, then apt-get dist-upgrade to the latest version without tearing down my box again? The answer is YES and so within the week I'm tearing into my box and installing Debian. I've never looked back. The only thing that I've heard is 'better' with the RH or MDK distros is that XFree86 is more up-to-date and the install is more graphically pleasing and perhaps easier. I didn't have any troubles with installing Debian, however, and I don't use X on my servers (they're in a closet with a crappy 14" VGA monitor). So, while Your Mileage May Vary, for me, and my particular situation, Debian and apt-get is the way to go. -Richard T.T.F. Creelan wrote: > I was wondering why most, or at least many, of the people who write on > this list use Red Hat. It seems like RH is considered the > standard linux distribution in other circles as well. > >>From what I saw of it a few years ago, (version 7.0) it didn't seem to > support any special features not supported by Debian. And after > using Debian's APT for a while, it's difficult for me to imagine using > an OS without it. The 'rpms' don't seem very useful; you still have to > find the program's dependencies and download/update them, it would seem. > And while I understand there is some kind of apt-like program for RH, its > use doesn't seem very prevalent. > > I've heard that RH is easier to install, but when I tried it (v7.0) it > didn't seem any easier than Debian. Perhaps it has improved in recent > versions. Also ease of installation seems like a poor reason to choose an > OS, given that this is a one-time experience, whereas installing and > updating programs on the OS is continual. > > Also, while I can see how Red Hat's tech support could be useful, none > of the RedHat users I've met have ever utilized it. > > I don't mean to provoke an argument, I'm just curious why people use Red > Hat when (from what I can see) Debian is a better distribution. > > > Tyler, linux newbie From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 22 18:48:52 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Mike Witt) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:48:52 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Re: OT: ifconfig for MS Win2000 References: <3C9B734E.49ABEA69@computer-arts.net> Message-ID: <3C9B7C94.F333F6D2@computer-arts.net> Lemme try this once more. I may not have been very clear in the way I asked it the first time. People have written code to mimic many typical *nix functions under Windows 2000. I'm curious if anyone knows if there is such a piece of code that I can get somewhere, which provides "ifconfig" functionality. If might be that I'm wrong, and ifconfig type functions (such as assigning multiple addresses to your ethernet interface) can be done with ipconfig, but I haven't figured out how to do it. Win2000 does appear to have the underlying functionality. But the button I need gets "greyed out" when I'm set up to use DHCP :-) -Mike From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 22 18:50:01 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Richard Langis) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:50:01 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] OT: ifconfig for MS Win2000 References: <3C9B734E.49ABEA69@computer-arts.net> <3C9B7769.FD3B7640@computer-arts.net> Message-ID: <3C9B7CD9.9040407@sun.com> I don't have access to a 2k machine here at the moment, but IIRC, ipconfig /release will release your IP, ipconfig /renew will renew it. If you have more than one ethernet card however, you'll have to specify that along with the command line. Perhaps ipconfig /help? Obviously having a 2k machine in front of me would greatly improve my ability to help you, but I'm at work at the moment. :-\ -R Mike Witt wrote: > Richard Langis wrote: > >>Try ipconfig instead. >> >>ipconfig /? for a list of options >> >>ipconfig /all | more to see an ifconfig-ish display of your devices. :) >> > > Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but it looks like ipconfig only > lists out information. I don't see any way to actually configure the > interface. Am I missing something? > > I do see how you can do stuff like renew your DHCP lease and so on, > but I can't see where you can assign a static address to the > interface (or other "ifconfig" type operations) > > -Mike -- s u n m i c r o s y s t e m s ~ Richard Langis Jr. ~ richard.langis@sun.com From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 22 19:14:01 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russ Johnson) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:14:01 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] OT: ifconfig for MS Win2000 In-Reply-To: <3C9B734E.49ABEA69@computer-arts.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322111226.00b420d8@127.0.0.1> When you open the network configuration setup, you should have a drop down that allows you to pick which card you are configuring. Pick the card you are wanting a static IP, and then select to specify the configuration for that interface. When you pick the other card, you can specify that it gets it's information automatically. At 10:09 AM 3/22/2002 -0800, you wrote: >Anything is allowed in plug.talk, right? > >Does anybody know if there is an ifconfig available for Microsoft >Windows 2000? My problem is that I'm running DHCP to get my primary >address, and this appears to prevent me from using the normal >Win2000 mechanism for associating a 2nd IP address with my Ehternet >interface. > >ifconfig.exe turns up lots of hits on google, but they all seem >to be for os2. > >Why would I ask this to the Linux group? Well, remember the story >about the man looking for his keys under the street lamp... > >-Mike >_______________________________________________ >PLUG-talk mailing list >PLUG-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org >http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-talk Russ Johnson Stargate Online http://www.dimstar.net telnet://telnet.dimstar.net ICQ: 3739685 42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 22 19:17:53 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russ Johnson) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:17:53 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] OT: ifconfig for MS Win2000 In-Reply-To: <3C9B734E.49ABEA69@computer-arts.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322111648.01f34c48@127.0.0.1> Ah, I miss-read it. I thought you had two NICs. Sorry. I don't see a way to do what you want with one DHCP and one static address. At 10:09 AM 3/22/2002 -0800, you wrote: >Anything is allowed in plug.talk, right? > >Does anybody know if there is an ifconfig available for Microsoft >Windows 2000? My problem is that I'm running DHCP to get my primary >address, and this appears to prevent me from using the normal >Win2000 mechanism for associating a 2nd IP address with my Ehternet >interface. Russ Johnson Stargate Online http://www.dimstar.net telnet://telnet.dimstar.net ICQ: 3739685 42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 22 19:20:42 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (John Hampton) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:20:42 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] OT: ifconfig for MS Win2000 Message-ID: <76CAC90361FD1B4EABBCDEE0B822B844014CA7@gilligan.gijoes.com> Russ said: >When you open the network configuration setup, you should have a drop = down=20 >that allows you to pick which card you are configuring. > >Pick the card you are wanting a static IP, and then select to specify = the=20 >configuration for that interface. > >When you pick the other card, you can specify that it gets it's = information=20 >automatically. I think what he is looking for is a method to do multiple IPs on the = same NIC. Kind of like eth0 and eth0:0 in Linux.. If that is so, I = don't know how (or if you even can) in Win2000. John Hampton Programmer Analyst G.I. Joe's, Inc. john.hampton@gijoes.com From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 22 19:24:10 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russell Senior) Date: 22 Mar 2002 11:24:10 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] OT: ifconfig for MS Win2000 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322111226.00b420d8@127.0.0.1> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322111226.00b420d8@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <867ko45rtx.fsf@coulee.tdb.com> >>>>> "Russ" == Russ Johnson writes: Russ> When you open the network configuration setup, you should have a Russ> drop down that allows you to pick which card you are Russ> configuring. Russ> Pick the card you are wanting a static IP, and then select to Russ> specify the configuration for that interface. Russ> When you pick the other card, you can specify that it gets it's Russ> information automatically. Uh, I think he wants to assign _TWO ADDRESSES_ to _ONE_ NIC. Apparently he _can_ do this if he doesn't use DHCP, but turning on DHCP seems to trump that capability. At least, that's how I've read his question. I have no /sbin/fscking clue what the answer to the question is. -- Russell Senior ``The two chiefs turned to each other. seniorr@aracnet.com Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated meant, `This is extremely unusual.' '' From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Sat Mar 23 20:17:28 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russ Gilman-Hunt) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 12:17:28 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] OT: ifconfig for MS Win2000 In-Reply-To: <3C9B734E.49ABEA69@computer-arts.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020323121624.00a2de90@mail.attbi.com> I believe it's a command (cmd) line interface, but do not recall the flags. Try start -> run -> cmd and at the c: prompt ipconfig or ipconfig /h -Russ At 10:09 AM 3/22/02, you wrote: >Anything is allowed in plug.talk, right? > >Does anybody know if there is an ifconfig available for Microsoft >Windows 2000? My problem is that I'm running DHCP to get my primary >address, and this appears to prevent me from using the normal >Win2000 mechanism for associating a 2nd IP address with my Ehternet >interface. > >ifconfig.exe turns up lots of hits on google, but they all seem >to be for os2. > >Why would I ask this to the Linux group? Well, remember the story >about the man looking for his keys under the street lamp... > >-Mike >_______________________________________________ >PLUG-talk mailing list >PLUG-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org >http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-talk From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Mon Mar 25 01:35:58 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Dylan Reinhardt) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 17:35:58 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Message-ID: <3C992CBA00002F4C@mta07.san.yahoo.com> This conversation shows little sign of resolving anything. As a service for those who might wonder what was accomplished, I offer the following precis: Beginning --------------------- You > "It's also fair use to spread the tape around and even make copies for people free of charge" Me > "Fair Use is not so broadly defined as all that" Middle --------------------- [ numerous irrelevant side-issues and mutual acts of gradiose rhetoric ex= cerpted ] End --------------------- Me > "I await proof that [your interpretation] reflect[s] the laws of the= land we live in" You > "How about, instead, adopting them as your ideas and working to cha= nge the law of the land we live in should that law oppose these ideas?" Conclusions (mine) --------------------- 1. We both like to argue. 2. Neither of us are lawyers. 3. You still haven't shown a single example of a court acting as though your interpretation of the law has any legal standing or objective merit.= I'll be the first to admit I don't know it all and I would happily read any substantive example of a court finding that outlines the legal releva= nce of your opinions. Until then, please forgive me if I take the reactionar= y position of suggesting that the unauthorized mass appropriation of other people's work is *highly questionable* both in terms of moral integrity and statutory legality. Dylan From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Mon Mar 25 02:20:50 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A.Henshaw) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 18:20:50 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: <3C992CBA00002F4C@mta07.san.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3C9E8982.3010501@dsl-only.net> Dylan Reinhardt wrote: > This conversation shows little sign of resolving anything. As a service > for those who might wonder what was accomplished, I offer the following > precis: With belaboring too much, I would like to take this oppurtunity to point out that this whole "issue" of law would be moot if we knew how and why we are in a mess where "case law" substitutes for LAW. Case law is NOT law and NOT constitutional, as Jeme said too - I agree with him there. But then he goes on to analyze other things to pieces, rather than stopping RIGHT THERE. It is Law that Patents protect inventions. For the little guy. Copyrights, Trademarks, I don't think the constitution mentions them. I'll have to look again ;) At any rate, the whole argument would be null if people would just wake up and look at the fundamental problem. I don't care if we're discussing "firearms" vs "arms", driving versus travelling, fishing licenses, hunting licenses, OHRV parks on state land albeit federally regulated with restrictions and OHRV stickers, or anything else you can name; If you don't know that there common law remedies for all these "problems" then you are missing the point- while you labor away trying to convine each other who's right and guess at how a court is going to "interpret" a law/reg/code/statute you might as well toss a coin. Common Law: A law is null and void for vagueness; If more than ten percent of the people disobey a law it is a bad law- Why do I mention that? Well, if a judge has to interpret a law, it is a bad law and should be null and void, and a jury can do so. Now; think about a Supreme court who have a split decision 3-2 on abortion or something: The founders are rolling over in their graves- If the "supreme" judges cannot agree it is a bad law. See? ( I encourage everyone to look up the history on the NUMBER of supreme justices and WHY it was changed from an even number to an odd number and by WHOM ) Speeding: Do more than ten percent of us disobey? Marijuana? Mp3 sharing? It looks to me like copying things that are already in the public domain and NOT patented cannot be restricted unless you have a commercial adhesion contract binding upon you; with the RIAA or whoever- UCC is what you are arguing. The question really ought to be: What venue am I in? How did I get there? Why am I in a position that I have to let a judge decide my fate? Or am I? If so, is there a way to continue to share files or VHS copies or kernel code and do it without UCC having jurisdiction over me? There is a way; but first you must recognize the PROBLEM. This make any sense to anyone so far? jH From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Mon Mar 25 07:35:37 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 23:35:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3C992CBA00002F4C@mta07.san.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, Dylan Reinhardt wrote: > This conversation shows little sign of resolving anything. As a service > for those who might wonder what was accomplished, I offer the following > precis: I'd like to say that I disagree with your choice of summary quotations. > Beginning > --------------------- > You > "It's also fair use to spread the tape around and even make copies > for people free of charge" > Me > "Fair Use is not so broadly defined as all that" This is fine enough. > End > --------------------- > Me > "I await proof that [your interpretation] reflect[s] the laws of the > land we live in" > You > "How about, instead, adopting them as your ideas and working to change > the law of the land we live in should that law oppose these ideas?" Here's where you're WAY off. You challenged me to find caselaw that supported my position. However, my position represents FREEDOM, not restriction and so caselaw is far less likely to exist. It's a bit like saying to me, "Yes, well, free speech isn't as broad as all that. I await proof that you can shout "Geeflarb carbunckle!" from your window at noon on a Sunday." Our legal system is based on restrictions, not allowances. We do not define all those things which are legal, only those which are illegal. I can't prove a negative. Instead, we reverse the challenge and try to prove the positive. Show me that it is ILLEGAL. Show me a case of non-commercial, private copying and distribution resulting in a successful infringement decision. Since such copying and distribution is so very common, it shouldn't be difficult if your theory has been upheld. > Conclusions (mine) > --------------------- > 1. We both like to argue. True enough. > 2. Neither of us are lawyers. Not yet. > 3. You still haven't shown a single example of a court acting as > though your interpretation of the law has any legal standing or > objective merit. Nor have you. You showed that the codified fair use doctrine is applied in a cumbersome and considered way, but you haven't shown that the act I endorse is illegal. It's illegal IN YOUR OPINION, but, as you said, you're not a lawyer. > I'll be the first to admit I don't know it all and I would happily > read any substantive example of a court finding that outlines the > legal relevance of your opinions. And while I'm at it, I'll find substantive court findings that hold that I have the right to look over someone's shoulder as they read on the bus or check out the magazines in the house where I'm sitting whilst the owners are away. There isn't such caselaw. Legal theories can exist that these acts are protected or restricted, but nobody's brought a suit, so how do you KNOW? You assume liberty until it is specifically restricted. And a law means nothing until it is interpreted by the courts. > Until then, please forgive me if I take the reactionary position of > suggesting that the unauthorized mass appropriation of other people's > work is *highly questionable* both in terms of moral integrity and > statutory legality. I ask for no forgiveness and make no apologies for finding reference to interpersonal communication as "appropriation" and "theft" not just morally questionable, but contrary to the obvious nature information and ideas. It is unnatural and obscene. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Mon Mar 25 08:37:24 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 00:37:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3C9E8982.3010501@dsl-only.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, J.A.Henshaw wrote: > Case law is NOT law and NOT constitutional, as Jeme said too - I agree > with him there. Well, that's not quite what I said (or at least not what I meant to write). It is simply true that the Constitution makes no provision for the interpretation of law. This is a flaw and a failing. Justice Marshall recognized that failing and, when the need for legal interpretation arose, he appropriated that authority for the courts exclusively because it's the only thing that made sense at the time. It's two hundred years later and I think you'd still be fairly hard-pressed to find a better solution. That method isn't perfect and it makes for political courts sometimes, but it's better than either executives or legislators making the rulings... especially when the issue is Constitutional. > But then he goes on to analyze other things to pieces, rather than > stopping RIGHT THERE. I had other points... philosophical, rather than legal. > It is Law that Patents protect inventions. For the little guy. Not quite. Simple patent law ensures the spread of ideas to the public by protecting the little guy's interests. The idea is that the inventor (being the only person who can legally hold a patent) is a practicing useful artist and she would not use her invention publicly for fear that a competitor would also use the idea and remove the advantage the invention brought. The public loses out because the invention is not shared. So, in order to benefit the public (and promote the progress of the useful arts, as the Constitution puts it... note that it doesn't say "to promote the livelihoods of authors and inventors"), the inventor's exclusive right to the discovery is protected for a limited time. This actually gives the inventor BETTER protection than just trying to keep their discovery a secret because they can use it openly without fear. The public benefits from the publication of the discovery with its filing at the patent office and when the limited term of exclusive rights is ended, the rights of the general public are restored (where they were temporarily suspended for a greater public good). However, modern patent law isn't so simple. The basic idea that exclusive rights are retained by inventors has been violated with the introduction of the idea of a "patent holder" independent of the inventor. The transfer of those exclusive rights followed quickly behind this concept and the whole system went to hell. Also, the introduction of "trade secret" legislation in many states further muddies the water by allowing a company some limited protection for discoveries NOT shared with the public EVER... this is also contrary to the basic intent of patent law to benefit the public and promote the progress of the useful arts. > Copyrights, Trademarks, I don't think the constitution mentions them. > I'll have to look again ;) Inasmuch as you can say what you wrote above, "It is law that patents protect inventions", it is law that copyrights protect writings. See Article I Section 8. Neither the word patent nor copyright is contained in that power, but the concepts are roughly defined (and further refined by the First Amendment, but the wealthy and powerful don't like that so much, so it doesn't get considered). The purpose of the two separate notions of copyright and patent are very similar (the promotion of science and the useful arts, respectively) and the implementation of law is very similar (the granting of exclusive rights for limited times), but the mechanism by which these similar legal structures achieve their purpose is quite different. See my previous email for a description of the mechanism by which exclusive rights to writings for authors promotes the progress of science. See the above for a description of how exclusive rights to discoveries for inventors promotes the progress of the useful arts. As for trademark, that is a completely different thing. Trademark law was something devised by the Congress and enacted under the commerce clause of the Article I section 8, rather than the copyright clause. It is my belief that the "Patent and Trademark Office" is a commingling of two very different objectives into a single hybrid monstrosity. > At any rate, the whole argument would be null if people would just > wake up and look at the fundamental problem. [followed, presumably, by "the fundamental problem] > If you don't know that there common law remedies for all these > "problems" then you are missing the point- while you labor away trying > to convine each other who's right and guess at how a court is going to > "interpret" a law/reg/code/statute you might as well toss a coin. > > Common Law: A law is null and void for vagueness; If more than ten > percent of the people disobey a law it is a bad law- Common law is recognized in nearly every state in the Union (Louisana being one quite notable exception for its reliance on Napoleanic code). A vagueness argument is accepted in pretty much every appelate court in the country. Ask Randal Schwartz about his sometime... still pending hearing, I think. I cannot attest to nor discount the 10% number, but it sounds fairly arbitrary and easily side-stepped. I think it's probably more likely that a "substantial number" sort of argument is best. This is important especially in issues relating to drugs or guns or technology where the vast majority of the population hasn't enough interest in the topic to have even considered an act that might be illegal. > Why do I mention that? Well, if a judge has to interpret a law, it is > a bad law and should be null and void, and a jury can do so. > > Now; think about a Supreme court who have a split decision 3-2 on > abortion or something: The founders are rolling over in their graves- > If the "supreme" judges cannot agree it is a bad law. See? Now, I used to have this idea about a sort of vast symbolic logic computer where each person would write their own version of a law and submit it and the machine would OR the laws all together and spit out the law that EVERYONE agreed was fair. The problem is that just a single anarchist would make the world anarchic. Now, I'm not opposed to a considered social anarchy, but I just don't think society is well-enough developed to handle such a thing... too much reliance on destructive behavior as a motivator and sin as virtue. Your argument amounts to the same thing. Put one anarchist on the Supreme Court and you'll never have another law stand. Where would you put the interpretation of law? Would you allow the public's executive agents to make the decision, thus allowing them to define criminal as be anyone who is suspected of crime? Would you have the legislators interpreting the law, thus changing their own powers at their whim? > ( I encourage everyone to look up the history on the NUMBER of supreme > justices and WHY it was changed from an even number to an odd number > and by WHOM ) Eh... the number of justices has fluxuated quite a bit... as low as 6, as many as 10. Hell, FDR wanted 15. > Speeding: Do more than ten percent of us disobey? Marijuana? Mp3 > sharing? See, there's where it gets tricky. I think the numbers are easily skewed. There's a big difference between, say, americans writ large and the active music community, for example. In one, MP3 usage (let alone sharing) might be below 10%, whereas in the other MP3 sharing might be as higher than 90%. > It looks to me like copying things that are already in the public > domain and NOT patented cannot be restricted unless you have a > commercial adhesion contract binding upon you; with the RIAA or > whoever- UCC is what you are arguing. Well, we're talking about copyrights, not patents and they're very different things... but I'll do a mental s/patent/copyright/g. I don't quite get what you mean by a "commerical adhesion contract". I can't imagine a situation where it is a benefit to the public to allow restrictions on the spread of public information. Now, maybe I missed it, but what's UCC? > The question really ought to be: > What venue am I in? How did I get there? Why am I in a position that > I have to let a judge decide my fate? Yeah, well, much of that is decided by the wealthy information-masters who claim ownership on the very thoughts we carry and expressions we share. They shop for a friendly venue (usually in the entertainment-industry dependent California or New York), sue you there and find a way to make it stand, and put your actions up in front of a judge with more consideration for the protection of their wealth and opportunity to exercise their power than the law or the public good. > Or am I? If so, is there a way to continue to share files or VHS > copies or kernel code and do it without UCC having jurisdiction over > me? > > There is a way; but first you must recognize the PROBLEM. > > This make any sense to anyone so far? It'd be nice if that sentence had a complete verb. But I don't think it would help me to understand the point of what you were saying. I got this much, "The law is a pact between the people and the public in which they participate. And while it is codified and executed by agents of that public, its interpretation and validation still resides largely in the actions of the people." But I missed anything beyond that. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Mon Mar 25 18:20:09 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Craighead, Scot D) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 10:20:09 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Message-ID: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA671@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D429.B2616700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >Case law is NOT law and NOT constitutional, as Jeme said >too - I agree with him there. I really agree with Jeff here. All laws should be in writing so they can be easily understood by all. If a judge strikes a law for being unconstitutional, it should be up to the appropriate legislature to write a new law. I dislike judges that want to legislate. How can people obey the laws if the lawyers and judges don't even understand them? >Now; think about a Supreme court who have a split decision 3-2 on abortion or something: >The founders are rolling over in their graves-If the "supreme" judges cannot agree it is a >bad law. See? I think it was 7-2. Right now the supreme court is 5-4 in favor of Row v Wade. 2 of the 5 are old and will probably retire during the Bush administration. This means the Row v Wade may be overturned in the next few years. I think all hell will break loose when that happens. Time will tell. This is why courts should not write law. Congress would never have passed a bill making abortion legal because they would not want to be accountable to the voters. Most presidents would not have signed it for the same reason. By legislating from the bench, the court made law that most Americans didn't want. At any rate, it should not be this hard to answer a simple question. Laws should be in black and white. The courts have taken power that they should not have in my opinion. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D429.B2616700 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.

>Case law is NOT law and NOT constitutional,  = as Jeme said
>too - I agree with him there.

I really agree with Jeff here.  All laws should = be in writing so they can be easily understood by all.  If a judge = strikes a law for being unconstitutional, it should be up to the = appropriate legislature to write a new law.  I dislike judges that = want to legislate.  How can people obey the laws if the lawyers = and judges don't even understand them?

>Now;  think about a Supreme court who have a = split decision 3-2  on abortion or something: >The founders are = rolling over in their graves-If the "supreme" judges cannot = agree it is a >bad law. See?

I think it was 7-2.  Right now the supreme court = is 5-4 in favor of Row v Wade.  2 of the 5 are old and will = probably retire during the Bush administration.  This means the = Row v Wade may be overturned in the next few years.  I think all = hell will break loose when that happens.  Time will tell.  = This is why courts should not write law.  Congress would never = have passed a bill making abortion legal because they would not want to = be accountable to the voters.  Most presidents would not have = signed it for the same reason.  By legislating from the bench, the = court made law that most Americans didn't want. 

At any rate, it should not be this hard to answer a = simple question.  Laws should be in black and white.  The = courts have taken power that they should not have in my = opinion.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D429.B2616700-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Mon Mar 25 18:31:28 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russ Johnson) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 10:31:28 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Legal vs illegal, or, the justice system in America. In-Reply-To: References: <3C992CBA00002F4C@mta07.san.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020325102110.00b5c650@127.0.0.1> I had a friend once that became a lawyer. He gave it up because our system of justice doesn't depend on who's right and who's wrong, or what's illegal vs legal. If you ever need to go to court, he will tell you, "You have no rights... Do you understand your rights as I've explained them?" He was driven out of the legal profession by the desire to maintain his principles. It all depends on who's got the most money, who can hire the most attorney's, and what the judge believes. BTW, my friend is no longer an attorney. He now lives on a farm, in Texas, an happily lives within his principles. At 11:35 PM 3/24/2002 -0800, you wrote: > > 2. Neither of us are lawyers. > >Not yet. Russ Johnson Stargate Online http://www.dimstar.net telnet://telnet.dimstar.net ICQ: 3739685 "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company." From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Mon Mar 25 19:21:53 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Richard Langis) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:21:53 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA671@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> Message-ID: <3C9F78D1.8050001@sun.com> Craighead, Scot D wrote: > Congress would > never have passed a bill making abortion legal because they would not > want to be accountable to the voters. Most presidents would not have > signed it for the same reason. By legislating from the bench, the court > made law that most Americans didn't want. Most? Speak for yourself - not for the rest of the country, thank you. -- s u n m i c r o s y s t e m s ~ Richard Langis Jr. ~ richard.langis@sun.com From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Mon Mar 25 19:42:37 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Craighead, Scot D) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:42:37 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Message-ID: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA675@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D435.37A0BA00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >Most? Speak for yourself - not for the rest of the country, thank you. I wasn't trying to push either position. I was using that as an example. What I am trying to say is if the people want a law changed, it is the legislature that should make the law, not the courts. The legislators are answerable to the people by means of the vote. Judges are appointed for life. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D435.37A0BA00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.

>Most?  Speak for yourself - not for the rest = of the country, thank you.

I wasn't trying to push either position.  I was = using that as an example.  What I am trying to say is if the = people want a law changed, it is the legislature that should make the = law, not the courts.  The legislators are answerable to the people = by means of the vote.  Judges are appointed for life.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D435.37A0BA00-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Mon Mar 25 22:50:43 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Randal L. Schwartz) Date: 25 Mar 2002 14:50:43 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Legal vs illegal, or, the justice system in America. References: <3C992CBA00002F4C@mta07.san.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >>>>> "Russ" == Russ Johnson writes: Russ> I had a friend once that became a lawyer. He gave it up because our Russ> system of justice doesn't depend on who's right and who's wrong, or Russ> what's illegal vs legal. Russ> If you ever need to go to court, he will tell you, "You have no Russ> rights... Do you understand your rights as I've explained them?" He Russ> was driven out of the legal profession by the desire to maintain his Russ> principles. Russ> It all depends on who's got the most money, who can hire the most Russ> attorney's, and what the judge believes. Hear hear. Just in case you wonder why I say that, see the info about my ongoing legal case at: http://www.lightlink.com/fors/ -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training! From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Tue Mar 26 00:02:00 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Craighead, Scot D) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 16:02:00 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Legal vs illegal, or, the justice system in Ameri ca. Message-ID: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA67A@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D459.73D08DB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >Hear hear. > >Just in case you wonder why I say that, see the info about my >ongoing legal case at: > > http://www.lightlink.com/fors/ Wow. That's terrible. I remember a couple years ago seeing the story on the local news about this and they made it out like you got caught before you had a chance to use the username/passwords. Journalism keeps sinking to new lows in this country. Why do you think the exec's at Intel were so pissed? Did they think you were attempting steal information from them or what? When I was in high school, I watched the John Delorian case and realized that justice is all about money in this country. Our justice system is extremely broken and there is no fix in sight. I really believe it is because judges are appointed for life. Once appointed, they have no accountability to anyone. They can do anything and no one can do anything about it. They are royalty. I grew up in Nevada were all judges have to be elected every few years. You would be amazed at how differently they operate there. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D459.73D08DB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [PLUG-TALK] Legal vs illegal, or, the justice system in = America.

>Hear hear.
>
>Just in case you wonder why I say that, see the = info about my
>ongoing legal case at:
>
>        http://www.lightlink.com/fors/

Wow.  That's terrible.  I remember a couple = years ago seeing the story on the local news about this and they made = it out like you got caught before you had a chance to use the = username/passwords.  Journalism keeps sinking to new lows in this = country.  Why do you think the exec's at Intel were so = pissed?  Did they think you were attempting steal information from = them or what?

When I was in high school, I watched the John = Delorian case and realized that justice is all about money in this = country.  Our justice system is extremely broken and there is no = fix in sight.  I really believe it is because judges are appointed = for life.  Once appointed, they have no accountability to = anyone.  They can do anything and no one can do anything about = it.  They are royalty.  I grew up in Nevada were all judges = have to be elected every few years.  You would be amazed at how = differently they operate there.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D459.73D08DB0-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Tue Mar 26 00:19:17 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 16:19:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA671@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Craighead, Scot D wrote: > This is why courts should not write law. Well, Roe v. Wade isn't a law, it's an interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Personally, I'd like to see the 14th Amendment replaced entirely with an amendment written in similar language to one of the first ten begins with the repeal of the 14th Amendment and that goes on to gaurantee the protection of the right to 1. be treated equally under the law with all other people in the United States and its protectorates regardless of race, color, creed, gender, sex, lifestyle, or physical condition unless duly convicted of treason or other high crime in a court of law. Convicted high criminals may have certain enumerated rights suspended during a period of sentence which shall be for a limited time. 2. make and execute decisions related to one's personal physical condition and seek and secure any assistance necessary to that execution. The first section is a broader and more comprehensive equal protection clause than the 14th Amendment currently carries and removes the much abused and maligned citizenship clause as well as the ability to permanently remove voting rights from a person for any felony. The second section codifies a gauranteed sphere of control over one's physical body. This should be obvious, but for some people isn't. Just so's y'all know, I'm not going to discuss whether or not the unborn qualify as people for the equal protection claim. Don't bring it up. Yes, it's an issue and always will be. There are arguments to be made, but they're unproductive in this forum. > Congress would never have passed a bill making abortion legal because > they would not want to be accountable to the voters. Most presidents > would not have signed it for the same reason. By legislating from the > bench, the court made law that most Americans didn't want. First and foremost, you don't need a law making something legal. Things are legal until made illegal and they can only be made illegal if they are not gauranteed by higher law. Second, no idea where you get your numbers, but what I've read indicates that MOST Americans support a freedom of choice, whether they would personally support that choice or not. I've read numbers from 65-80%. Abortion is just one of many issues that is in public debate, but not popular debate. Corporate control and election financing are two more issues with the same problem. The public believes one thing, those who debate in public believe another. BusinessWeek ran a poll that showed that 73% of Americans think corporations have too much power and control over everyday life and greater than 60% believe corporate money shouldn't be involved in elections. Why is this DEBATED by Congress? The court of public opinion is no longer in session. > At any rate, it should not be this hard to answer a simple question. > Laws should be in black and white. The courts have taken power that > they should not have in my opinion. There's really no such thing as a black & white law. Talk to Kurt Goedel. There are always terms that need to be defined or special cases that are "borderline" or clearly INTENDED, but not codified explicitly. Do you realize how absurd Amendment I would look if you had to actually write down all the things that "freedom of speech" or "the press" was intended to mean? If it just meant talking and printing, mutes could be forbidden from communication and hand-written documents could be officially banned. And every time you add a couple of things, there are a couple more that you intended, but forgot in the moment. Rightfully, there must be a body that interprets law and those interpretations must carry weight. This body must be hierarchical so that high level decisions will be consistent over time, but also able to rescind past decisions made in times of less wisdom or knowledge. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Tue Mar 26 00:29:29 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 16:29:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Legal vs illegal, or, the justice system in Ameri ca. In-Reply-To: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA67A@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Craighead, Scot D wrote: > Our justice system is extremely broken and there is no fix in sight. No doubt that things are broken and need some serious tweaking. I think the essential framework is pretty good, but we've backslid on some details of implementation and, of course, diligence. > I really believe it is because judges are appointed for life. I really believe it is because public servants are allowed to also hold private interests. Many judges were once corporate attorneys or have children in private practice. Makes for some very messy conflicts of interest. > Once appointed, they have no accountability to anyone. They can do > anything and no one can do anything about it. They are royalty. That's simply not true. Judges can be impeached. Supreme Court Justices can be impeached by the House and tried by the Senate. That's how we are supposed to execute the will of the people by proxy. > I grew up in Nevada were all judges have to be elected every few > years. You would be amazed at how differently they operate there. Do the judges actually run races that have real opposition? In my experience, election of judges works like this: Current administration picks, for one reason or another (rarely ideology, though, usually for one side of a favor or the other or to help out an old friend), someone to hold a judgeship. The old-boy network that is jurisprudence is told who the chosen one shall be. Running against the chosen one will result in legal blackballing. Since anyone hoping to run for a judgeship is very likely practicing law or involved in law, running against the delegated and losing would ultimately mean never winning another case. The appellate judges, after all, were all elected by that system and desire to protect it. Next time an election comes, note the judge positions. Rarely do they run opposed and when they do, the opposition (usually clearly the underdog) is always in a position to retire should the election bid fail. Direct election of judges doesn't solve the problem. Oh, and by the way, Nevada has one of the most corrupt governments in the Union. The power wielded there by organized crime (and the entertainment industry giants, if I need to separate the two) is supreme. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Tue Mar 26 00:36:34 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Wil Cooley) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 16:36:34 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Legal vs illegal, or, the justice system in Ameri ca. In-Reply-To: ; from jeme@brelin.net on Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 04:29:29PM -0800 References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA67A@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> Message-ID: <20020325163634.E1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> --9sSKoi6Rw660DLir Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Also Sprach Jeme A Brelin on Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 04:29:2= 9PM PST >=20 > > I grew up in Nevada were all judges have to be elected every few > > years. You would be amazed at how differently they operate there. >=20 > Do the judges actually run races that have real opposition? Yeah, they do. My friend's father is a judge in Louisiana and he ran recently and lost. (Maybe I misunderstood my parents; maybe he was running for something else.) Wil --=20 Wil Cooley wcooley@nakedape.cc Naked Ape Consulting http://nakedape.cc irc.linux.com #orlug,#pdxlug,#lnxs --9sSKoi6Rw660DLir Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8n8KSJpn3uYWUEaoRAmBOAKCK1WL6xPFuib6Z+R8rGw9/GsHB+gCgjOsW gEddtoTiedzjBFB8B4CNQpU= =PXuW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --9sSKoi6Rw660DLir-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Tue Mar 26 01:03:04 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 17:03:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Legal vs illegal, or, the justice system in Ameri ca. In-Reply-To: <20020325163634.E1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> Message-ID: On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Wil Cooley wrote: > Yeah, they do. My friend's father is a judge in Louisiana and he ran > recently and lost. (Maybe I misunderstood my parents; maybe he was > running for something else.) Louisiana is a whole nuther thing, legally speaking (napoleanic code, organized crime as a national sport, etc.), but that's interesting. Note that I did concede that people run against selected judges, they just get the shit treatment afterward. I'd be curious to hear this fellow's experience. Did he retire after the failed bid? Or was he the favorite that got edged out by an upstart from outside the system? Has he been treated differently in the courts since he lost? Anyway, I was speaking from experience (vicarious) in Oregon. But I would be surprised if it's much different elsewhere. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Tue Mar 26 01:15:21 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Craighead, Scot D) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 17:15:21 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Legal vs illegal, or, the justice system in Ameri ca. Message-ID: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA67B@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D463.B2D1CFB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >Do the judges actually run races that have real opposition? If someone runs against them, yes. Most of the time, they run unopposed. Still, if half the voters give them the thumbs down, they are out and another election is held. It gives then voters a way to remove a judge that has really angered the public. >Direct election of judges doesn't solve the problem. It seemed to me like it did. Most of the time people didn't care what judges did, but I saw a couple times when a judge did something stupid and was out after the next election. That was one of the reasons for the American Revolution. Judges from England making rulings that did not reflect what the locals wanted. >Oh, and by the way, Nevada has one of the most corrupt governments in the >Union. The power wielded there by organized crime (and the entertainment >industry giants, if I need to separate the two) is supreme. On what do you base this? ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D463.B2D1CFB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [PLUG-TALK] Legal vs illegal, or, the justice system in = Ameri ca.

>Do the judges actually run races that have real = opposition?

If someone runs against them, yes.  Most of the = time, they run unopposed.  Still, if half the voters give them the = thumbs down, they are out and another election is held.  It gives = then voters a way to remove a judge that has really angered the = public.

>Direct election of judges doesn't solve the = problem.

It seemed to me like it did.  Most of the time = people didn't care what judges did, but I saw a couple times when a = judge did something stupid and was out after the next election.  = That was one of the reasons for the American Revolution.  Judges = from England making rulings that did not reflect what the locals = wanted.

>Oh, and by the way, Nevada has one of the most = corrupt governments in the
>Union.  The power wielded there by = organized crime (and the entertainment
>industry giants, if I need to separate the two) = is supreme.

On what do you base this?

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D463.B2D1CFB0-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 27 04:35:25 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Alan) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 20:35:25 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Legal vs illegal, or, the justice system in Ameri ca. In-Reply-To: <20020325163634.E1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA67A@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <20020325163634.E1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> Message-ID: <200203270713.g2R7DkL15055@clueserver.org> On Monday 25 March 2002 16:36, you wrote: > Also Sprach Jeme A Brelin on Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at > 04:29:29PM PST > > > > I grew up in Nevada were all judges have to be elected every few > > > years. You would be amazed at how differently they operate there. > > > > Do the judges actually run races that have real opposition? > > Yeah, they do. My friend's father is a judge in Louisiana and he > ran recently and lost. (Maybe I misunderstood my parents; maybe > he was running for something else.) Or maybe he was running *from* a judge... (And lost.) From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 27 18:27:43 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Paul Heinlein) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:27:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Funny define Message-ID: I downloaded the rpm-4.0.4 source tarball this morning and was poking around to see what had changed since 4.0.3. Out of curiosity, I looked at the rpm.spec.in file to see how rpm would package itself. There was a funny bit in it: # XXX workaround ia64 gcc-3.1-0.18 miscompilation %ifarch ia64 make CFLAGS="-g -O0 -DIA64_SUCKS_ROCKS" files.o files.lo -C build %endif It appears that the ia64 arch has an idiosyncratic implementation of strcpy() (which has its own obscure history). You gotta love them free-form defines :-) -- Paul Heinlein From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 27 18:39:37 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Alan) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:39:37 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Funny define In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200203272118.g2RLI2L18821@clueserver.org> On Wednesday 27 March 2002 10:27, you wrote: > I downloaded the rpm-4.0.4 source tarball this morning and was poking > around to see what had changed since 4.0.3. Out of curiosity, I looked > at the rpm.spec.in file to see how rpm would package itself. There was a > funny bit in it: > > # XXX workaround ia64 gcc-3.1-0.18 miscompilation > %ifarch ia64 > make CFLAGS="-g -O0 -DIA64_SUCKS_ROCKS" files.o files.lo -C build > %endif > > It appears that the ia64 arch has an idiosyncratic implementation of > strcpy() (which has its own obscure history). You gotta love them > free-form defines :-) There are some really weird ones in GLIBC as well. http://www.gnu.org/manual/glibc-2.2.3/html_chapter/libc_2.html#SEC17 Macro: int ED The experienced user will know what is wrong. Macro: int EGREGIOUS You did what? Macro: int EIEIO Go home and have a glass of warm, dairy-fresh milk. Macro: int EGRATUITOUS This error code has no purpose. Macro: int EBADMSG From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 27 21:11:54 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A.Henshaw) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:11:54 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: Message-ID: <3CA2359A.9060601@dsl-only.net> Jeme A Brelin wrote: > On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, Dylan Reinhardt wrote: > >>This conversation shows little sign of resolving anything. As a service >>for those who might wonder what was accomplished, I offer the following >>precis: >> > > I'd like to say that I disagree with your choice of summary quotations. > > >>Beginning >>--------------------- >>You > "It's also fair use to spread the tape around and even make copies >>for people free of charge" >>Me > "Fair Use is not so broadly defined as all that" >> > > This is fine enough. > > >>End >>--------------------- >>Me > "I await proof that [your interpretation] reflect[s] the laws of the >>land we live in" >>You > "How about, instead, adopting them as your ideas and working to change >>the law of the land we live in should that law oppose these ideas?" >> > > Here's where you're WAY off. > > You challenged me to find caselaw that supported my position. However, my > position represents FREEDOM, not restriction and so caselaw is far less > likely to exist. > > It's a bit like saying to me, "Yes, well, free speech isn't as broad as > all that. I await proof that you can shout "Geeflarb carbunckle!" from > your window at noon on a Sunday." > > Our legal system is based on restrictions, not allowances. We do not > define all those things which are legal, only those which are illegal. > > I can't prove a negative. > > Instead, we reverse the challenge and try to prove the positive. Show me > that it is ILLEGAL. Show me a case of non-commercial, private copying and > distribution resulting in a successful infringement decision. Since such > copying and distribution is so very common, it shouldn't be difficult if > your theory has been upheld. > > >>Conclusions (mine) >>--------------------- >>1. We both like to argue. >> > > True enough. > > >>2. Neither of us are lawyers. >> > > Not yet. > > >>3. You still haven't shown a single example of a court acting as >>though your interpretation of the law has any legal standing or >>objective merit. >> > > Nor have you. > > You showed that the codified fair use doctrine is applied in a cumbersome > and considered way, but you haven't shown that the act I endorse is > illegal. It's illegal IN YOUR OPINION, but, as you said, you're not a > lawyer. > > >>I'll be the first to admit I don't know it all and I would happily >>read any substantive example of a court finding that outlines the >>legal relevance of your opinions. >> > > And while I'm at it, I'll find substantive court findings that hold that I > have the right to look over someone's shoulder as they read on the bus or > check out the magazines in the house where I'm sitting whilst the owners > are away. There isn't such caselaw. Legal theories can exist that these > acts are protected or restricted, but nobody's brought a suit, so how do > you KNOW? > > You assume liberty until it is specifically restricted. And a law means > nothing until it is interpreted by the courts. > A law is the law, unless a jury nullifys it. A court's job is to APPLY the law AS WRITTEN- NOT to INTERPRET the law. If it needs interpretation is should be rewritten or be null and void for vagueness. How many of us can understand the 2nd amendment? Who needs an interpreter to get the meaning of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'? There is a reason it is written in simple language - with a long history that goes back to before the signing of the Magna Charta in 1512. > >>Until then, please forgive me if I take the reactionary position of >>suggesting that the unauthorized mass appropriation of other people's >>work is *highly questionable* both in terms of moral integrity and >>statutory legality. >> > > I ask for no forgiveness and make no apologies for finding reference to > interpersonal communication as "appropriation" and "theft" not just > morally questionable, but contrary to the obvious nature information and > ideas. It is unnatural and obscene. > > J. > And you are perfect candidate for a lawyer, because you have a knack for picking apart anything and everything and writing about it in exhausting detail; serving to wear down the opposition due to snoring and eyestrain. Jeme does not believe in private property rights, therefore anything he says must be weighed against his desire for a global marxist society with no borders and no personal wealth. Even though what he desires is impossible, unjust, and unlawful under this country's laws and God's law ( do no covet thy neighbor's posessions ) - and ignores history and would be the cause of much mayhem and destruction of life and property to achieve. -- Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what they will have for lunch. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 27 21:24:25 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Craighead, Scot D) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:24:25 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Message-ID: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA694@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D5D5.C50F2920 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >A law is the law, unless a jury nullifys it. > >A court's job is to APPLY the law AS WRITTEN- > >NOT to INTERPRET the law. This is exactly what I was saying as well. Lawyers and activists want the courts to "interpret" the law so that they can bend it to fit their own purposes, such as giving a guilty person an acquittal or inacting law that no legislature that answers to voters would ever create. Again, there is no reason that laws should be hard for a layman to understand. If they are, it's to hide what they are doing. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D5D5.C50F2920 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.

>A law is the law,  unless a jury nullifys = it.
>
>A court's job is to APPLY the law AS = WRITTEN-
>
>NOT to INTERPRET the law.

This is exactly what I was saying as well.  = Lawyers and activists want the courts to "interpret" the law = so that they can bend it to fit their own purposes, such as giving a = guilty person an acquittal or inacting law that no legislature that = answers to voters would ever create.  Again, there is no reason = that laws should be hard for a layman to understand.  If they are, = it's to hide what they are doing.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D5D5.C50F2920-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 27 21:31:21 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Wil Cooley) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:31:21 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA694@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com>; from craighead.scot@vectorscm.com on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 01:24:25PM -0800 References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA694@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> Message-ID: <20020327133121.O1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> --FWibJpkbnkY6rrXF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Also Sprach Craighead, Scot D on Wed, Mar 27= , 2002 at 01:24:25PM PST > >A law is the law, unless a jury nullifys it. > > > >A court's job is to APPLY the law AS WRITTEN- > > > >NOT to INTERPRET the law. >=20 > This is exactly what I was saying as well. Lawyers and activists want the > courts to "interpret" the law so that they can bend it to fit their own > purposes, such as giving a guilty person an acquittal or inacting law that > no legislature that answers to voters would ever create. Again, there is= no > reason that laws should be hard for a layman to understand. If they are, > it's to hide what they are doing. You should have been less disingenuous and said "liberals" instead of "activists." Wil --=20 Wil Cooley wcooley@nakedape.cc Naked Ape Consulting http://nakedape.cc irc.linux.com #orlug,#pdxlug,#lnxs --FWibJpkbnkY6rrXF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8ojooJpn3uYWUEaoRAigPAJ0UAcfGBHeoHzAD2qnczwXzXUnkeQCffSD8 OowSmvoBWIwRryWbv8gdfcA= =7crF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --FWibJpkbnkY6rrXF-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 27 21:41:25 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russell Senior) Date: 27 Mar 2002 13:41:25 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA694@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA694@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> Message-ID: <868z8dn0xm.fsf@coulee.tdb.com> >>>>> "Scot" == Craighead, Scot D writes: Jeff> A law is the law, unless a jury nullifys it. Jeff> A court's job is to APPLY the law AS WRITTEN- Jeff> NOT to INTERPRET the law. Scot> This is exactly what I was saying as well. Lawyers and Scot> activists want the courts to "interpret" the law so that they [...] You two are terminally confused. Individual laws often conflict. Courts are there to figure out which one applies, or if a statute passed is illegal because it conflicts with the Constitution. If they "get it wrong", the legislature is there to write a new law to try to fix it. There is nothing surprising or difficult to understand about that. -- Russell Senior ``The two chiefs turned to each other. seniorr@aracnet.com Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated meant, `This is extremely unusual.' '' From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 27 21:56:11 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A.Henshaw) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:56:11 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: Message-ID: <3CA23FFB.6010300@dsl-only.net> Jeme A Brelin wrote: > On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, J.A.Henshaw wrote: > >>Case law is NOT law and NOT constitutional, as Jeme said too - I agree >>with him there. >> > > Well, that's not quite what I said (or at least not what I meant to > write). > > It is simply true that the Constitution makes no provision for the > interpretation of law. This is a flaw and a failing. Justice Marshall > recognized that failing and, when the need for legal interpretation arose, > he appropriated that authority for the courts exclusively because it's the > only thing that made sense at the time. > > It's two hundred years later and I think you'd still be fairly > hard-pressed to find a better solution. That method isn't perfect and it > makes for political courts sometimes, but it's better than either > executives or legislators making the rulings... especially when the issue > is Constitutional. > Stare Decisis is fine for Uniform Commercial Code; leave it out of the common law constitutional system. > Common law is recognized in nearly every state in the Union (Louisana > being one quite notable exception for its reliance on Napoleanic code). Your Louisiana reference shows that there are other venues in use in the courtrooms of Louisiana; For when one looks at the Declaration of Independence you see that to be a member of the Union you must have UNIFORM LAWS BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE STATE CONSTITUTION CANNOT CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES So, why is it that Florida can have a "must carry" law, New York can have a Sullivan Law, and Connecticut can have no gun registration law? Because they are all laws that operate in a venue outside the constitution, that's why. They do not conflict with it because they are not applicable to anyone who knows how to preserve his constitutional rights which are applicable in any state of the union! Anyone following this thread know the difference between a Township and an incorporated city??? Hint: Venue > > A vagueness argument is accepted in pretty much every appelate court in > the country. Ask Randal Schwartz about his sometime... still pending > hearing, I think. In a common law jury trial it is no matter what the "court" accepts. The court can kiss the jury's ass. >>Now; think about a Supreme court who have a split decision 3-2 on >>abortion or something: The founders are rolling over in their graves- >>If the "supreme" judges cannot agree it is a bad law. See? >> > > Now, I used to have this idea about a sort of vast symbolic logic computer > where each person would write their own version of a law and submit it and > the machine would OR the laws all together and spit out the law that > EVERYONE agreed was fair. The problem is that just a single anarchist > would make the world anarchic. Now, I'm not opposed to a considered > social anarchy, but I just don't think society is well-enough developed to > handle such a thing... too much reliance on destructive behavior as a > motivator and sin as virtue. I do not give a rat's ass Jeme, about what everyone agrees is fair. Common law and the constitution do not give a syllable to the concept of majority rule. On the contrary, it protects individuals from such madness. See: Private property. See: Freedom. They are interdependent and interlocked. You oppose both so you don't have eyes to see it, or would would be happy to burn it. > > Your argument amounts to the same thing. Put one anarchist on the Supreme > Court and you'll never have another law stand. > > Where would you put the interpretation of law? Where the founders put it: THE JURY BOX Would you allow the > public's executive agents to make the decision, thus allowing them to > define criminal as be anyone who is suspected of crime? Would you have > the legislators interpreting the law, thus changing their own powers at > their whim? > No, just you and Justice Marshall would. > >>( I encourage everyone to look up the history on the NUMBER of supreme >>justices and WHY it was changed from an even number to an odd number >>and by WHOM ) >> > > Eh... the number of justices has fluxuated quite a bit... as low as 6, as > many as 10. Hell, FDR wanted 15. > > The point was even vs odd numbers - the number itself is irrelevant, but you have a proclivity for overanalyzing the irrelevant so I expect this from you- things like punctuation and sentence structure are often 50% of your critiques even when they are of no bearing on the discussion at hand- why? >>Speeding: Do more than ten percent of us disobey? Marijuana? Mp3 >>sharing? >> > > See, there's where it gets tricky. > > I think the numbers are easily skewed. There's a big difference between, > say, americans writ large and the active music community, for > example. In one, MP3 usage (let alone sharing) might be below 10%, > whereas in the other MP3 sharing might be as higher than 90%. > This is only tricky to you because you don't recognize that nothing is illegal until it affects someone elses right to life and liberty . Speeding does neither and marijuana plants in the backyard don't affect anyone else and is not a problem until the marxist demoractic communists took over the legal system and reinstated mob rule. Add the power of television to inculcate the ignorant mob and you have a bad recipe for freedom. I guess that's probably why the courts shouldn't be interpreting things for us. Their job is to APPLY the LAW as written. Nothing more, Jeme. But again, where you have the War Flag flying behind the judge, you are guilty until proven innocent. See Title 4 of the US Code and learn it. > > Now, maybe I missed it, but what's UCC? Uniform Commercial Code. > > >>The question really ought to be: >>What venue am I in? How did I get there? Why am I in a position that >>I have to let a judge decide my fate? >> > > Yeah, well, much of that is decided by the wealthy information-masters who > claim ownership on the very thoughts we carry and expressions we share. That's why people like me claim ownership of the constitution, while people like you dance around the issue. You want the same kind of control over every other person, but you want that control to equally distributed. It is the antithesis of freedom, but you readily admit that. > > They shop for a friendly venue (usually in the entertainment-industry > dependent California or New York), sue you there and find a way to make it > stand, and put your actions up in front of a judge with more consideration > for the protection of their wealth and opportunity to exercise their power > than the law or the public good. > A good example of why Justice Marshall was wrong, don't you think? >> >>This make any sense to anyone so far? >> > > It'd be nice if that sentence had a complete verb. It's be nice if you weren't so inclined to quibble about things that are unimportant too. We all know you understand that sentence. What do you hope to achieve by being an ass? > > But I don't think it would help me to understand the point of what you > were saying. I don't think it will either. You want a controlled populace with no freedom. You are not going to ever agree with me; despite history and logic you are a crusader and as such will not consider any other viewpoint but that which furthers your goal of NO PERSONAL WEALTH, NO PRIVATE PROPERTY and therefore NO FREEDOM. > > I got this much, "The law is a pact between the people and the public in > which they participate. The law is the law. The pact is between the officers of the government and God to uphold the law of the land. (See: Oath of office) > And while it is codified and executed by agents > of that public, its interpretation and validation still resides largely in > the actions of the people." The people retain the right to nullify badly written or unconstitutional laws, yes. Without that Justice Marshalls are completely unrestrained; it is the key to liberty. The jury is our last line of defense from crooked courts and Congress. Ever heard of FIJA and FIGJA ? > > But I missed anything beyond that. > > J. > Not surprising. -- Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what they will have for lunch. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 27 21:59:44 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A.Henshaw) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:59:44 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA694@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <868z8dn0xm.fsf@coulee.tdb.com> Message-ID: <3CA240D0.2090103@dsl-only.net> Russell Senior wrote: >>>>>>"Scot" == Craighead, Scot D writes: >>>>>> > > Jeff> A law is the law, unless a jury nullifys it. > Jeff> A court's job is to APPLY the law AS WRITTEN- > Jeff> NOT to INTERPRET the law. > > Scot> This is exactly what I was saying as well. Lawyers and > Scot> activists want the courts to "interpret" the law so that they [...] > > You two are terminally confused. Individual laws often conflict. > Courts are there to figure out which one applies, or if a statute > passed is illegal because it conflicts with the Constitution. If they > "get it wrong", the legislature is there to write a new law to try to > fix it. There is nothing surprising or difficult to understand about > that. > > Russell, that is the Jury's job. You are probably confused, thinking that the way the system is, is the way it was designed to work all along. It isn't. -- Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what they will have for lunch. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 27 22:13:54 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russ Johnson) Date: 27 Mar 2002 14:13:54 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA23FFB.6010300@dsl-only.net> References: <3CA23FFB.6010300@dsl-only.net> Message-ID: <1017267235.6567.3.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> On Wed, 2002-03-27 at 13:56, J.A.Henshaw wrote: > I do not give a rat's ass Jeme, about what everyone agrees > is fair. Speaking of what's fair... How about this: In today's Oregonian, there was an article that said the Supreme Court had upheld the rights of a Public Housing Administrator to evict an entire family if any one used illegal drugs, on or off the property. No notification needed. "Civil rights activists" are up in arms because this creates a double standard. Poor people depend on public housing... Seems to me that the double standard is that only poor people can live in public housing... From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 27 22:16:14 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Craighead, Scot D) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:16:14 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Message-ID: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA696@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D5DD.0274C3E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Wil spoke thusly: >You should have been less disingenuous and said "liberals" instead of >"activists." I do apologize if I gave anyone the impression that I am not a conservative. That was not my intension. I believe that the constitution was written intensionally so that the lay person could understand it. That gives it it's power. ("We, the people...") It takes a special kind of education to read those same words and think that "is" doesn't really mean "is". ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D5DD.0274C3E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.

Wil spoke thusly:
>You should have been less disingenuous and said = "liberals" instead of
>"activists."

I do apologize if I gave anyone the impression that I = am not a conservative.  That was not my intension.  I believe = that the constitution was written intensionally so that the lay person = could understand it.  That gives it it's power.  ("We, = the people...") It takes a special kind of education to read those = same words and think that "is" doesn't really mean = "is".

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D5DD.0274C3E0-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 27 22:20:57 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russell Senior) Date: 27 Mar 2002 14:20:57 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA240D0.2090103@dsl-only.net> References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA694@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <868z8dn0xm.fsf@coulee.tdb.com> <3CA240D0.2090103@dsl-only.net> Message-ID: <86sn6llkja.fsf@coulee.tdb.com> >>>>> "J" == J A Henshaw writes: J> You are probably confused, thinking that the way the system is, is J> the way it was designed to work all along. And how, pray tell, in your considered opinion, was it "designed to work all along"? My reading of Article III is that: ``[...] the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.'' -- Russell Senior ``The two chiefs turned to each other. seniorr@aracnet.com Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated meant, `This is extremely unusual.' '' From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 27 22:25:43 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Richard Langis) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:25:43 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: <3CA23FFB.6010300@dsl-only.net> <1017267235.6567.3.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> Message-ID: <3CA246E7.6060605@sun.com> Russ Johnson wrote: > > Speaking of what's fair... How about this: > > In today's Oregonian, there was an article that said the Supreme Court > had upheld the rights of a Public Housing Administrator to evict an > entire family if any one used illegal drugs, on or off the property. No > notification needed. > > "Civil rights activists" are up in arms because this creates a double > standard. Poor people depend on public housing... > > Seems to me that the double standard is that only poor people can live > in public housing... Personally, I think this is entirely fair. If these people have enough money to buy drugs in the first place, perhaps they're spending the money they DO have in the wrong manner. That shit ain't cheap - which is why there's a market for it in the first place. If a family is *actually* poor, and not simply 'living off the system', then there shouldn't be any problems with said Administrator's complaint. -- s u n m i c r o s y s t e m s ~ Richard Langis Jr. ~ richard.langis@sun.com From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 27 22:35:18 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Wil Cooley) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:35:18 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA696@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com>; from craighead.scot@vectorscm.com on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 02:16:14PM -0800 References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA696@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> Message-ID: <20020327143517.V1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> --YPAu9GJT3m1iC0FS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Also Sprach Craighead, Scot D on Wed, Mar 27= , 2002 at 02:16:14PM PST > Wil spoke thusly: > >You should have been less disingenuous and said "liberals" instead of > >"activists." >=20 > I do apologize if I gave anyone the impression that I am not a conservati= ve. > That was not my intension. I believe that the constitution was written > intensionally so that the lay person could understand it. That gives it > it's power. ("We, the people...") It takes a special kind of education to > read those same words and think that "is" doesn't really mean "is". You never have. It also takes some special education to know that the verb "to coin" doesn't mean "to make coins," even with regard to money (sorry Jeff). If you do believe that it was written intentionally so a lay person could interpret it, how do you feel about the education required to understand a document written in 200-year-old English? How about the inability of the average lay person to not understand a fair number of the words in the Constitution, particularly the afforementioned difference caused by 200 years of language mutation? Wil --=20 Wil Cooley wcooley@nakedape.cc Naked Ape Consulting http://nakedape.cc irc.linux.com #orlug,#pdxlug,#lnxs --YPAu9GJT3m1iC0FS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8okklJpn3uYWUEaoRAu21AKCDkKixhxNQDPj3JKoBo9YB7lzRZACfc8Yh Wgw7ffg2iqLkE0epNZlmnjE= =LMRc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --YPAu9GJT3m1iC0FS-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 27 22:38:24 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Wil Cooley) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:38:24 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA246E7.6060605@sun.com>; from richard.langis@sun.com on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 02:25:43PM -0800 References: <3CA23FFB.6010300@dsl-only.net> <1017267235.6567.3.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> <3CA246E7.6060605@sun.com> Message-ID: <20020327143824.W1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> --6ysXqiu0yoUmUNJB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Also Sprach Richard Langis on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at= 02:25:43PM PST >=20 > Personally, I think this is entirely fair. If these people have enough m= oney=20 > to buy drugs in the first place, perhaps they're spending the money they = DO=20 > have in the wrong manner. That shit ain't cheap - which is why there's a= =20 > market for it in the first place. >=20 > If a family is *actually* poor, and not simply 'living off the system', t= hen=20 > there shouldn't be any problems with said Administrator's complaint. He didn't say "buy drugs"--he said "use drugs." I won't engage in personal anecdotes to describe the difference ;) Wil --=20 Wil Cooley wcooley@nakedape.cc Naked Ape Consulting http://nakedape.cc irc.linux.com #orlug,#pdxlug,#lnxs --6ysXqiu0yoUmUNJB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8okngJpn3uYWUEaoRAhPtAJ46PPPWRoov7Ecpllli8HQSSsb6EwCfXdIM hByP0LtAvCh56JIO/tkzFnQ= =yOVd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --6ysXqiu0yoUmUNJB-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 27 22:49:24 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Paul Heinlein) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:49:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA246E7.6060605@sun.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Richard Langis wrote: > Personally, I think this is entirely fair. If these people have enough > money to buy drugs in the first place, perhaps they're spending the > money they DO have in the wrong manner. That shit ain't cheap - which > is why there's a market for it in the first place. While fiscal abuse of public housing subsidies is likely a real problem, I think the larger issues in this particular debate are a) increasing the safety of the non-drug-using tenants in public housing b) decreasing the crime rate in neighborhoods surrounding public housing Public housing, like public education, should be for the support and protection of the public. I think we do the vast majority of citizens who use these institutions a terrible disservice if the rule is "it's nearly impossible to abuse the system bad enough to lose your right to it." I do believe that for anyone to lose their privilege to these institutions, the burden of proof should be on the oversight agency. Further, there ought to be a near-automatic appeals process to ensure that an administrator can't engage in capricious or illegal discrimination. Still, I think people who seriously abuse public institutions ought to run the risk of losing their right to avail themselves of those programs -- not so much for the sake of the tax-paying public who might feel cheated out of some money, but for the sake of the people who use our public institutions in good faith. -- Paul Heinlein From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 27 22:56:25 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Craighead, Scot D) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:56:25 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Message-ID: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA69A@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D5E2.9F117090 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >You never have. It also takes some special education to know >that the verb "to coin" doesn't mean "to make coins," even with >regard to money (sorry Jeff). > >If you do believe that it was written intentionally so a lay >person could interpret it, how do you feel about the education >required to understand a document written in 200-year-old English? >How about the inability of the average lay person to not understand >a fair number of the words in the Constitution, particularly the >afforementioned difference caused by 200 years of language mutation? I am a lay person and I can understand it. I read it in junior high school and felt that I pretty much understood it then. What I see on TV all the time is people in fancy suits trying to twist meanings of words to justify things they know perfectly well are wrong. The second amendment is perfectly clear, but people try to tell you it doesn't mean you have the right to own a gun. The first amendment is very clear, but just today a law was signed that says you can't run a political add 60 days before an election. This is what I am referring to. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D5E2.9F117090 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.

>You never have.  It also takes some special = education to know
>that the verb "to coin" doesn't mean = "to make coins," even with
>regard to money (sorry Jeff).
>
>If you do believe that it was written = intentionally so a lay
>person could interpret it, how do you feel about = the education
>required to understand a document written in = 200-year-old English?
>How about the inability of the average lay = person to not understand
>a fair number of the words in the Constitution, = particularly the
>afforementioned difference caused by 200 years = of language mutation?

I am a lay person and I can understand it.  I = read it in junior high school and felt that I pretty much understood it = then.  What I see on TV all the time is people in fancy suits = trying to twist meanings of words to justify things they know perfectly = well are wrong.  The second amendment is perfectly clear, but = people try to tell you it doesn't mean you have the right to own a = gun.  The first amendment is very clear, but just today a law was = signed that says you can't run a political add 60 days before an = election.  This is what I am referring to.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C1D5E2.9F117090-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 27 23:03:15 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A. Henshaw) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 15:03:15 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA694@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <868z8dn0xm.fsf@coulee.tdb.com> <3CA240D0.2090103@dsl-only.net> <86sn6llkja.fsf@coulee.tdb.com> Message-ID: <3CA24FB3.20805@jhenshaw.com> Russell Senior wrote: >>>>>>"J" == J A Henshaw writes: >>>>>> > > J> You are probably confused, thinking that the way the system is, is > J> the way it was designed to work all along. > > And how, pray tell, in your considered opinion, was it "designed to > work all along"? > > My reading of Article III is that: > > ``[...] the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as > to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations > as the Congress shall make.'' > > > And how does the above reference relate to interpreting law vs applying the law? I see no relationship. -- Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what they will have for lunch. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 27 23:10:35 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russell Senior) Date: 27 Mar 2002 15:10:35 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA24FB3.20805@jhenshaw.com> References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA694@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <868z8dn0xm.fsf@coulee.tdb.com> <3CA240D0.2090103@dsl-only.net> <86sn6llkja.fsf@coulee.tdb.com> <3CA24FB3.20805@jhenshaw.com> Message-ID: <86k7rxli8k.fsf@coulee.tdb.com> >>>>> "J" == J A Henshaw writes: J> You are probably confused, thinking that the way the system is, is J> the way it was designed to work all along. Russell> And how, pray tell, in your considered opinion, was it Russell> "designed to work all along"? Russell> My reading of Article III is that: ``[...] the Supreme Court Russell> shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, Russell> with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Russell> Congress shall make.'' J> And how does the above reference relate to interpreting law vs J> applying the law? J> I see no relationship. Answer my question, and then we can use that as a basis for further discussion. -- Russell Senior ``The two chiefs turned to each other. seniorr@aracnet.com Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated meant, `This is extremely unusual.' '' From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 27 23:16:39 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A. Henshaw) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 15:16:39 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA696@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <20020327143517.V1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> Message-ID: <3CA252D7.4060301@jhenshaw.com> Wil Cooley wrote: > Also Sprach Craighead, Scot D on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 02:16:14PM PST > >>Wil spoke thusly: >> >>>You should have been less disingenuous and said "liberals" instead of >>>"activists." >>> >>I do apologize if I gave anyone the impression that I am not a conservative. >>That was not my intension. I believe that the constitution was written >>intensionally so that the lay person could understand it. That gives it >>it's power. ("We, the people...") It takes a special kind of education to >>read those same words and think that "is" doesn't really mean "is". >> > > You never have. It also takes some special education to know > that the verb "to coin" doesn't mean "to make coins," even with > regard to money (sorry Jeff). "No State shall use anything but gold and silver coin as payment for debts' How do you expect them to follow this and yet use paper money? Do you deny that the federal reserve system is illegal and unconstitutional? That it impoverishes people while it enriches bankers? That usury is unjust and unconstitutional? They can use paper as long as it is redeemable for gold and silver coins. The paper must be backed by the commodity which has the intrinsic value. A worthless paper note that represents one dollar that the US govt owes to the private federal reserve bank is not a dollar; the banks know this full well; legal tender and lawful money are two DIFFERENT things legally. Common law states a debt can be repaid in "like kind of money". GHow would the banks like it if you paid back a home loan (note) with a note? They ask for lawful money at foreclosures because people who know the difference between those terms have used that as an example to prove a point; See "How to Avoid Foreclosure" By Admiral Laurence P. Malone, USN Ret > > If you do believe that it was written intentionally so a lay > person could interpret it, how do you feel about the education > required to understand a document written in 200-year-old English? > How about the inability of the average lay person to not understand > a fair number of the words in the Constitution, particularly the > afforementioned difference caused by 200 years of language mutation? > > Wil > The language mutation is intentional for the exact reasons you mention, you can guess how I feel about that and the dumbing down by the board of education. Oxford was a good school. The constitution is a good document. The problems are not with people being educated and literate, it is the uneducated and illiterate which needs fixing. -- Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what they will have for lunch. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 27 23:18:17 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A. Henshaw) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 15:18:17 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA696@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <20020327143517.V1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> Message-ID: <3CA25339.3040408@jhenshaw.com> Wil Cooley wrote: > Also Sprach Craighead, Scot D on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 02:16:14PM PST > >>Wil spoke thusly: >> >>>You should have been less disingenuous and said "liberals" instead of >>>"activists." >>> >>I do apologize if I gave anyone the impression that I am not a conservative. >>That was not my intension. I believe that the constitution was written >>intensionally so that the lay person could understand it. That gives it >>it's power. ("We, the people...") It takes a special kind of education to >>read those same words and think that "is" doesn't really mean "is". >> > > You never have. It also takes some special education to know > that the verb "to coin" doesn't mean "to make coins," even with > regard to money (sorry Jeff). > > If you do believe that it was written intentionally so a lay > person could interpret it, how do you feel about the education > required to understand a document written in 200-year-old English? > How about the inability of the average lay person to not understand > a fair number of the words in the Constitution, particularly the > afforementioned difference caused by 200 years of language mutation? > > Wil > Additionally, lawyers use Latin intentionally to make it so the lay person CANNOT understand it. There is no reason we should not expect lay persons to understand English. -- Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what they will have for lunch. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 27 23:21:16 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Richard Langis) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 15:21:16 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: <3CA23FFB.6010300@dsl-only.net> <1017267235.6567.3.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> <3CA246E7.6060605@sun.com> <20020327143824.W1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> Message-ID: <3CA253EC.4010002@sun.com> Wil Cooley wrote: > > He didn't say "buy drugs"--he said "use drugs." I won't engage in > personal anecdotes to describe the difference ;) > > Wil No, perhaps not, but in my frame of thinking, when one is going to 'use drugs', they first must 'buy drugs'. ;) From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 27 23:32:11 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Wil Cooley) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 15:32:11 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA252D7.4060301@jhenshaw.com>; from jeff@jhenshaw.com on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 03:16:39PM -0800 References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA696@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <20020327143517.V1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA252D7.4060301@jhenshaw.com> Message-ID: <20020327153211.Y1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> --AdjLlRqdF7kYRNze Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Also Sprach J.A. Henshaw on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 03:16:= 39PM PST >=20 > "No State shall use anything but gold and silver coin as=20 > payment for debts' This wasn't the sentence you were making a big deal of; it was "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;" in section 8. =20 > How do you expect them to follow this and yet use paper money? >=20 > Do you deny that the federal reserve system is illegal and=20 > unconstitutional? That it impoverishes people while it=20 > enriches bankers? > That usury is unjust and unconstitutional? I neither deny nor affirm your statements, since I am unprepared to argue both sides of the matter. >=20 > The language mutation is intentional for the exact reasons=20 > you mention, you can guess how I feel about that and the=20 > dumbing down by the board of education. Quatsch. The mutation of language is a matter of fact. (Although I recognize it, I do not consider it an adequate excuse for abuse of the language, but that's another matter.) I fear you live in a paranoid world of conspiracy. I suspect I would agree with you about the declining standards of teaching. > Oxford was a good school. > > The constitution is a good document. >=20 > The problems are not with people being educated and=20 > literate, it is the uneducated and illiterate which needs=20 > fixing. I'm not sure what the second clause in the latter sentence means. What's the antecedant of "it"? Wil --=20 Wil Cooley wcooley@nakedape.cc Naked Ape Consulting http://nakedape.cc irc.linux.com #orlug,#pdxlug,#lnxs --AdjLlRqdF7kYRNze Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8olZ7Jpn3uYWUEaoRAogzAKChPGlpuoQk/S+Fp8oyBUqm2EfYIwCfZGfP q6fUg+CuTPM0RCtwNsE/aJ0= =bW9U -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --AdjLlRqdF7kYRNze-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 27 23:39:44 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Wil Cooley) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 15:39:44 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA25339.3040408@jhenshaw.com>; from jeff@jhenshaw.com on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 03:18:17PM -0800 References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA696@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <20020327143517.V1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA25339.3040408@jhenshaw.com> Message-ID: <20020327153944.Z1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> --POjlveFHrWq2ZO+N Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Also Sprach J.A. Henshaw on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 03:18:= 17PM PST > Additionally, lawyers use Latin intentionally to make it so the lay > person CANNOT understand it. Really? And I was under the impression it was because most of our legal system was based on Roman systems! =20 So, if I might make some inferences based on what you say, the authors of the constitution and founders of the US did not intend for lay people to read and understand it because they used Latin? > There is no reason we should not expect lay persons to understand > English. No, but more than not often they can't. Sometimes they can understand it, but rarely can they write it. Wil --=20 Wil Cooley wcooley@nakedape.cc Naked Ape Consulting http://nakedape.cc irc.linux.com #orlug,#pdxlug,#lnxs --POjlveFHrWq2ZO+N Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8olg/Jpn3uYWUEaoRAmAjAKCPXsbmVLk93wRc3IVlfj0djxoN4gCff/b8 5kGpNtJy8KvED2ou7230Glc= =scyD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --POjlveFHrWq2ZO+N-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 27 23:43:08 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Craighead, Scot D) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 15:43:08 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Message-ID: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA69C@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> Wil spoke thusly: >I fear you live in a paranoid world of conspiracy. Why? From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 27 23:54:36 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A. Henshaw) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 15:54:36 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA696@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <20020327143517.V1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA252D7.4060301@jhenshaw.com> <20020327153211.Y1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> Message-ID: <3CA25BBC.8020601@jhenshaw.com> Wil Cooley wrote: > Also Sprach J.A. Henshaw on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 03:16:39PM PST > >>"No State shall use anything but gold and silver coin as >>payment for debts' >> > > This wasn't the sentence you were making a big deal of; it > was "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign > Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;" in > section 8. > This is part and parcel of the same argument, neither conflicts which my assertion, and I am not sure what your point is, particulary because I made no reference to Article 8 in the context of this discussion on PLUG-talk; although I of course recall our discussion in IRC - in which you seemed to be unaware of the evils of paper money. > >>How do you expect them to follow this and yet use paper money? >> >>Do you deny that the federal reserve system is illegal and >>unconstitutional? That it impoverishes people while it >>enriches bankers? >>That usury is unjust and unconstitutional? >> > > I neither deny nor affirm your statements, since I am unprepared > to argue both sides of the matter. > > >>The language mutation is intentional for the exact reasons >>you mention, you can guess how I feel about that and the >>dumbing down by the board of education. >> > > Quatsch. The mutation of language is a matter of fact. (Although I > recognize it, I do not consider it an adequate excuse for abuse > of the language, but that's another matter.) What I stated does not conflict with your statements above. They agree with your assessment I would tsay. > I fear you live in > a paranoid world of conspiracy. A conspiracy is three or more people with a common goal. I think there is more than three people who print Webster's dictionaries. It takes more than three to run a business that large, and I think that I can be safe in saying that they well know that the founders use of the word militia in the "well regulated militia" and their use of the word "regulated" in that sentence were a problem for those who oppose private firearm ownership and state militias being composed of all able-bodeied males 18 and over, rather than the corporate US National Guard. So if they leave out the 200 year old definition and subsitute a NewSpeak version, I think we can safely believe they must have had some purpose for doing so. Who else is responsible for the perceived shift in the meanings of words? Mass Media? Now, please explain the definition of the word paranoid and how you think it applies to me. Are you implying that everyone in the world is good and there is no reason to suspect that there might be some very powerful concerns that have goals in direct conflict with the constitution? Tisk tisk I expect more from you Wil than to use a charged, overused perjorative against me because I have a opinion that is not politically correct. If you are ready to research it as well as I have I think you will find yourself reaching the same conclusion, there are conspiracies in this world, Wil. Paranoid is when you see conspiracies against yourself personally, which do not exist. You are using the word very loosely and inappropriately. You are also wrong. > > I suspect I would agree with you about the declining standards > of teaching. > > >>Oxford was a good school. >> >>The constitution is a good document. >> >>The problems are not with people being educated and >>literate, it is the uneducated and illiterate which needs >>fixing. >> > > I'm not sure what the second clause in the latter sentence means. > What's the antecedant of "it"? > > Wil > -- Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what they will have for lunch. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Wed Mar 27 23:53:32 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russ Johnson) Date: 27 Mar 2002 15:53:32 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA246E7.6060605@sun.com> References: <3CA23FFB.6010300@dsl-only.net> <1017267235.6567.3.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> <3CA246E7.6060605@sun.com> Message-ID: <1017273213.6567.9.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> On Wed, 2002-03-27 at 14:25, Richard Langis wrote: > Russ Johnson wrote: > > > > > Speaking of what's fair... How about this: > > > > In today's Oregonian, there was an article that said the Supreme Court > > had upheld the rights of a Public Housing Administrator to evict an > > entire family if any one used illegal drugs, on or off the property. No > > notification needed. > > > > "Civil rights activists" are up in arms because this creates a double > > standard. Poor people depend on public housing... > > > > Seems to me that the double standard is that only poor people can live > > in public housing... > > > Personally, I think this is entirely fair. If these people have enough money > to buy drugs in the first place, perhaps they're spending the money they DO > have in the wrong manner. That shit ain't cheap - which is why there's a > market for it in the first place. That wasn't actually my point. :) I know plenty of people "living off the system" that have money for booze, cigarettes, and other vices, but have no money to buy diapers, formula and food for the kids. My point was the classic "liberal" interpretation that this is a rule that will only affect poor people. The activists citing a "double standard" after the already existing double standard. If only poor people can live in public housing, then only poor people will be affected by the rules of said housing. That's not due to the fact that people are poor. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 00:02:13 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Wil Cooley) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 16:02:13 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA69A@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com>; from craighead.scot@vectorscm.com on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 02:56:25PM -0800 References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA69A@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> Message-ID: <20020327160213.A1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> --Q4+B1pX2h4duw/kc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Also Sprach Craighead, Scot D on Wed, Mar 27= , 2002 at 02:56:25PM PST > I am a lay person and I can understand it. I read it in junior high > school and felt that I pretty much understood it then. I'm impressed. I've read it and still think there are things I don't understand. > What I see on TV all the time is people in fancy suits trying to twist > meanings of words to justify things they know perfectly well are wrong. Are you talking about Matlock? The last time I checked, most trials did not allow cameras. Or perhaps you mean CSPAN? > The second amendment is perfectly clear, but people try to tell you > it doesn't mean you have the right to own a gun. The first amendment > is very clear, but just today a law was signed that says you can't > run a political add 60 days before an election. This is what I am > referring to. Sure, but you are not considering the greater context: the preamble sets forth the goals of the constitution. What happens when exercise of rights provided for in the Bill of Rights militates against the goals outlined in the preamble? Or what about the changes in the world that have happened in the last 200 years that nullify the stated reasons for certain rights or requirements? After all, it's been a very busy couple of centuries. For example, in the 7th amendment, a figure of greater than $20 is proposed as the minimum requirement for a common law trial by jury. Do we stick with that $20 figure or do we assume $20 adjusted for inflation? It's not clear which. The $20 minimum is proposed clearly for a reason which one must hope is better than 20 being a "magical number." Wil --=20 Wil Cooley wcooley@nakedape.cc Naked Ape Consulting http://nakedape.cc irc.linux.com #orlug,#pdxlug,#lnxs --Q4+B1pX2h4duw/kc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8ol2EJpn3uYWUEaoRAh/mAKCaYliiY90D8wzdRasm0LlewV13AQCfaibD ez1qelhscd1eni9mbdAHvQg= =QVLq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Q4+B1pX2h4duw/kc-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 00:04:13 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Paul Heinlein) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 16:04:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <1017273213.6567.9.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> Message-ID: On 27 Mar 2002, Russ Johnson wrote: > > > "Civil rights activists" are up in arms because this creates a > > > double standard. Poor people depend on public housing... > > My point was the classic "liberal" interpretation that this is a rule > that will only affect poor people. The activists citing a "double > standard" after the already existing double standard. > > If only poor people can live in public housing, then only poor people > will be affected by the rules of said housing. That's not due to the > fact that people are poor. The activists may have a point -- but they'd need to show that renters in non-subsidized housing aren't subject to the same eviction rules. I haven't looked at a standard lease in a long time. Anybody know if or under what circumstances drug use can lead to an eviction from non-subsidized housing? -- Paul Heinlein From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 00:09:16 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A. Henshaw) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 16:09:16 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA69A@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <20020327160213.A1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> Message-ID: <3CA25F2C.4000508@jhenshaw.com> Wil Cooley wrote: > Also Sprach Craighead, Scot D on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 02:56:25PM PST > > >>I am a lay person and I can understand it. I read it in junior high >>school and felt that I pretty much understood it then. >> > > I'm impressed. I've read it and still think there are > things I don't understand. > > >>What I see on TV all the time is people in fancy suits trying to twist >>meanings of words to justify things they know perfectly well are wrong. >> > > Are you talking about Matlock? The last time I checked, most trials > did not allow cameras. Or perhaps you mean CSPAN? > > >>The second amendment is perfectly clear, but people try to tell you >>it doesn't mean you have the right to own a gun. The first amendment >>is very clear, but just today a law was signed that says you can't >>run a political add 60 days before an election. This is what I am >>referring to. >> > > Sure, but you are not considering the greater context: the preamble > sets forth the goals of the constitution. What happens when exercise > of rights provided for in the Bill of Rights militates against > the goals outlined in the preamble? Or what about the changes in > the world that have happened in the last 200 years that nullify > the stated reasons for certain rights or requirements? After all, > it's been a very busy couple of centuries. For example, in the 7th > amendment, a figure of greater than $20 is proposed as the minimum > requirement for a common law trial by jury. Do we stick with that > $20 figure or do we assume $20 adjusted for inflation? It's not > clear which. The $20 minimum is proposed clearly for a reason > which one must hope is better than 20 being a "magical number." > > Wil > Pretty ironic that you choose this as an example. $20.00 is actually worth a lot more than 20 federal reserve notes. If the law were applied by the courts; we wouldn't have this discussion, because $20.00 would be worth exactly $20.00 today, and would buy just as much as it did then. Like I say over and over, if you address the FUNDAMENTAL problems, the bullshit distractions evaporate. -- Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what they will have for lunch. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 00:20:10 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Craighead, Scot D) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 16:20:10 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Message-ID: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA69E@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> >I'm impressed. I've read it and still think there are >things I don't understand. I didn't say I understand every last thing, but I got most of it, as I'm sure you do. >Are you talking about Matlock? The last time I checked, most trials >did not allow cameras. Or perhaps you mean CSPAN? No. I'm talking about CNN and FOX News. >Sure, but you are not considering the greater context: the preamble >sets forth the goals of the constitution. What happens when exercise >of rights provided for in the Bill of Rights militates against >the goals outlined in the preamble? Or what about the changes in >the world that have happened in the last 200 years that nullify >the stated reasons for certain rights or requirements? After all, >it's been a very busy couple of centuries. For example, in the 7th >amendment, a figure of greater than $20 is proposed as the minimum >requirement for a common law trial by jury. Do we stick with that >$20 figure or do we assume $20 adjusted for inflation? It's not >clear which. The $20 minimum is proposed clearly for a reason >which one must hope is better than 20 being a "magical number." Here is where I really disagree with you and hope you will consider what I am saying and not just dismiss it as an arguement to rebut. Yes it has been more than 200 years and we have changed technologically. Does that mean that the constitution is out of date and no longer usable? I say no. The writers of the constitution wrote it so that it could be changed to meet with the times. It is all in black and white how it should be changed. What we have is people trying to use to courts to change it without doing what is spelled out in black and white. Why? Because they are in the minority and could never get the changes they want to the right way. I don't believe the constitution is out of date. The idea of free speech means the same thing then as it does now. Certainly, we have different ways to distribute our speech, but what has changed? Did the founding fathers understand what a firearm was? I think so. I don't think they included the second amendment for sport hunting. The ideas they wrote down still apply just as well. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 00:47:25 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Wil Cooley) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 16:47:25 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA25BBC.8020601@jhenshaw.com>; from jeff@jhenshaw.com on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 03:54:36PM -0800 References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA696@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <20020327143517.V1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA252D7.4060301@jhenshaw.com> <20020327153211.Y1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA25BBC.8020601@jhenshaw.com> Message-ID: <20020327164725.B1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> --p//XFgTqeVWI1epd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Also Sprach J.A. Henshaw on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 03:54:= 36PM PST >=20 > This is part and parcel of the same argument, neither=20 > conflicts which my assertion, and I am not sure what your=20 > point is, particulary because I made no reference to=20 > Article 8 in the context of this discussion on PLUG-talk;=20 > although I of course recall our discussion in IRC - in which=20 > you seemed to be unaware of the evils of paper money. My point is that sometimes your constitutional exegesis is based on nonsense. I was referring to our discussion on IRC. > What I stated does not conflict with your statements above. They agree > with your assessment I would tsay. You're correct; I mispoke. I mean the *natural* mutation of language is a matter of fact; you assert that the language has been mutated forcibly. > A conspiracy is three or more people with a common goal. No it's not. It's two or more people with a "plot." "Plot" implies doing bad things, or evil, if you will. =20 > I think there is more than three people who print Webster's=20 > dictionaries. And all the other English dictionaries in the world. Asserting that all the dictionaries in the world were rewritten in 1913 to overthrow the constitution is absurd. > It takes more than three to run a business that large, and=20 > I think that I can be safe in saying that they well know=20 > that the founders use of the word militia in the "well=20 > regulated militia" and their use of the word "regulated" in=20 > that sentence were a problem for those who oppose private=20 > firearm ownership and state militias being composed of all=20 > able-bodeied males 18 and over, rather than the corporate=20 > US National Guard. Never in the 2 years I studied Latin did the verb 'regulare' have a damn thing to do with "able-bodied males 18 and over." What, pray tell, does "regulated" mean then? > So if they leave out the 200 year old definition and=20 > subsitute a NewSpeak version, I think we can safely believe=20 > they must have had some purpose for doing so. >=20 > Who else is responsible for the perceived shift in the=20 > meanings of words? >=20 > Mass Media? It's not a perceived shift; it's an actual shift. I won't go into linguistics here and now, but it's a well regarded fact that it happens naturally or perhaps, "chaotically" (to use the word in the pop-math sense). If you don't believe me, read some Chaucer, then some Shakespeare, then some Maugham. Or is the existence these clearly different forms of English just part of the conspiracy too? > Now, please explain the definition of the word paranoid and how you > think it applies to me. paranoid adj : suffering from paranoia n : a person afflicted with paranoia [syn: paranoiac] Paranoia \Par`a*noi"a\, n. (Med.) A chronic form of insanity characterized by very gradual impairment of the intellect, systematized delusion, and usually by delusions of persecution or mandatory delusions producing homicidal tendency. In its mild form paranoia may consist in the well-marked crotchetiness exhibited in persons commonly called ``cranks.'' Paranoiacs usually show evidences of bodily and nervous degeneration, and many have hallucinations, esp. of sight and hearing. I admit I'm using the word loosely; I don't think you're chronically insane, but I do suspect you suffer from delusions of persecution. > Are you implying that everyone in the world is good and there is no > reason to suspect that there might be some very > powerful concerns that have goals in direct conflict with > the constitution? >=20 > Tisk tisk No, obviously I wouldn't assert that. That's a nice try at a strawman argument. But these "powerful concerns" are not the lexicographers. In order for that to happen, they would have had to have complaisance of the whole of the literate, English-speaking world and of all of competing makers of English dictionaries. Just because it says "Webster's" doesn't mean it's the same company and we aren't the only English speakers in the world. > I expect more from you Wil than to use a charged, overused=20 > perjorative against me because I have a opinion that is not=20 > politically correct. No, I use a charged, overused perjorative because you have an opinion that is absurd. It's not a matter of politically correctness; it's a matter of having opinions that are reasonable and sound. > If you are ready to research it as well as I have I think=20 > you will find yourself reaching the same conclusion, there=20 > are conspiracies in this world, Wil. I am not; my life is too short for chasing wild geese. =20 > Paranoid is when you see conspiracies against yourself=20 > personally, which do not exist. >=20 > You are using the word very loosely and inappropriately. >=20 > You are also wrong. When you see conspiracies against your government which have direct affect on you, it is a conspiracy against you. > >>The problems are not with people being educated and=20 > >>literate, it is the uneducated and illiterate which needs=20 > >>fixing. > >> > >=20 > > I'm not sure what the second clause in the latter sentence means. > > What's the antecedant of "it"? You failed or neglected to answer this question. What did you mean? Wil --=20 Wil Cooley wcooley@nakedape.cc Naked Ape Consulting http://nakedape.cc irc.linux.com #orlug,#pdxlug,#lnxs --p//XFgTqeVWI1epd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8omgcJpn3uYWUEaoRAuKsAJ9fSwNqHIQVVZNvMgR8OYxwNswpbQCfaQrz GDT+2+S1XESK5gXorzTwjUY= =kLmA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --p//XFgTqeVWI1epd-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 00:47:30 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russ Johnson) Date: 27 Mar 2002 16:47:30 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA25BBC.8020601@jhenshaw.com> References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA696@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <20020327143517.V1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA252D7.4060301@jhenshaw.com> <20020327153211.Y1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA25BBC.8020601@jhenshaw.com> Message-ID: <1017276451.2325.20.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> I'm prefacing this with the following statement: I am NOT in any way, advocating either gun control or gun ownership. I don't own a gun, and I don't intend to, but you may. It's not my call. On Wed, 2002-03-27 at 15:54, J.A. Henshaw wrote: > "well regulated militia" Let's dissect that term, shall we? "well". Assuming the adverb. Means; justly, rightly, expertly, satisfactorily, and a couple of other adverbs. "regulated". Inflected form of regulate. Regulate is "to govern or direct according to rule". "militia". The noun can mean a part of the organized armed forces, a body of citizens organized for military service or the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service. So, the long version of "well regulated militia" could be, "expertly directed, according to rules, part of the organized armed forces of the United States". Or, it could mean; "justly governed, able-bodied male citizens of the United States, declared by law as being subject to military service." In every instance, militia deals with being part of the military, either that of the states, or the country as a whole. > and their use of the word "regulated" in > that sentence were a problem for those who oppose private > firearm ownership and state militias being composed of all > able-bodeied males 18 and over, rather than the corporate > US National Guard. Corporate? How? It's run and paid for by the State government. > > So if they leave out the 200 year old definition and > subsitute a NewSpeak version, I think we can safely believe > they must have had some purpose for doing so. What is the "200 year old definition"? > Who else is responsible for the perceived shift in the > meanings of words? > > Mass Media? Yes. See "Hacker". > Paranoid is when you see conspiracies against yourself > personally, which do not exist. No, paranoid is characterized by suspiciousness, persecutory trends, or megalomania. It has nothing to do with whether they exist or not. Only that you think they do. They may not... But then again, they may. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 00:49:42 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Wil Cooley) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 16:49:42 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA253EC.4010002@sun.com>; from richard.langis@sun.com on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 03:21:16PM -0800 References: <3CA23FFB.6010300@dsl-only.net> <1017267235.6567.3.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> <3CA246E7.6060605@sun.com> <20020327143824.W1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA253EC.4010002@sun.com> Message-ID: <20020327164942.C1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> --gnQ/OOKD4CRsnGw/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Also Sprach Richard Langis on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at= 03:21:16PM PST > No, perhaps not, but in my frame of thinking, when one is going to > 'use drugs', they first must 'buy drugs'. ;) Maybe you should come over sometime :) Wil --=20 Wil Cooley wcooley@nakedape.cc Naked Ape Consulting http://nakedape.cc irc.linux.com #orlug,#pdxlug,#lnxs --gnQ/OOKD4CRsnGw/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8omimJpn3uYWUEaoRAo8NAJ4ynZgornL5mgbYmgJNSi3ZWfI3rACdFAqQ ZAbKA69huocmmky3Psmp6Bg= =4acO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --gnQ/OOKD4CRsnGw/-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 00:50:51 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russ Johnson) Date: 27 Mar 2002 16:50:51 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1017276652.2325.23.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> On Wed, 2002-03-27 at 16:04, Paul Heinlein wrote: > I haven't looked at a standard lease in a long time. Anybody know if or > under what circumstances drug use can lead to an eviction from > non-subsidized housing? In Oregon, you can be evicted "without cause" with 30 days written notice. I've also see clauses that allowed 72 hour notice to vacate if any illegal activity occured. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 01:00:44 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A. Henshaw) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:00:44 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA696@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <20020327143517.V1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA252D7.4060301@jhenshaw.com> <20020327153211.Y1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA25BBC.8020601@jhenshaw.com> <1017276451.2325.20.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> Message-ID: <3CA26B3C.3050007@jhenshaw.com> Russ Johnson wrote: > I'm prefacing this with the following statement: I am NOT in any way, > advocating either gun control or gun ownership. I don't own a gun, and I > don't intend to, but you may. It's not my call. Whose call is it, in your opinion? > > On Wed, 2002-03-27 at 15:54, J.A. Henshaw wrote: > >>"well regulated militia" >> > > Let's dissect that term, shall we? > > "well". Assuming the adverb. Means; justly, rightly, expertly, > satisfactorily, and a couple of other adverbs. > > "regulated". Inflected form of regulate. Regulate is "to govern or > direct according to rule". > > "militia". The noun can mean a part of the organized armed forces, a > body of citizens organized for military service or the whole body of > able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to > military service. > > So, the long version of "well regulated militia" could be, "expertly > directed, according to rules, part of the organized armed forces of the > United States". > > Or, it could mean; "justly governed, able-bodied male citizens of the > United States, declared by law as being subject to military service." > > In every instance, militia deals with being part of the military, either > that of the states, or the country as a whole. > > This is a well hashed argument and I won't take the time to correct you. I would however sugggest that you read the notes to the constitutional convention and then read what you wrote again. >>and their use of the word "regulated" in >>that sentence were a problem for those who oppose private >>firearm ownership and state militias being composed of all >>able-bodeied males 18 and over, rather than the corporate >>US National Guard. >> > > Corporate? How? It's run and paid for by the State government. > Also a corporation. Now what? > >>So if they leave out the 200 year old definition and >>subsitute a NewSpeak version, I think we can safely believe >>they must have had some purpose for doing so. >> > > What is the "200 year old definition"? > > >>Who else is responsible for the perceived shift in the >>meanings of words? >> >>Mass Media? >> > > Yes. See "Hacker". Now that you have taken the bait, let's talk about who controls mass media, shall we? > > >>Paranoid is when you see conspiracies against yourself >>personally, which do not exist. >> > > No, paranoid is characterized by suspiciousness, persecutory trends, or > megalomania. It has nothing to do with whether they exist or not. Only > that you think they do. They may not... But then again, they may. > > You make no sense to me. Are you saying that anyone who reads the constitution is paranoid? From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 01:09:01 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Wil Cooley) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:09:01 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA69E@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com>; from craighead.scot@vectorscm.com on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 04:20:10PM -0800 References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA69E@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> Message-ID: <20020327170901.D1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> --cV8yfgwCnzpki16T Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Also Sprach Craighead, Scot D on Wed, Mar 27= , 2002 at 04:20:10PM PST > >I'm impressed. I've read it and still think there are > >things I don't understand. >=20 > I didn't say I understand every last thing, but I got most of it, as I'm > sure you do. Sure. But on closer examination, one finds questions or points one didn't see previously. =20 > No. I'm talking about CNN and FOX News. Ew, Fox News? LOL I hope no one watches Fox for anything but laughs, maybe a little fictional drama. > Here is where I really disagree with you and hope you will consider what > I am saying and not just dismiss it as an arguement to rebut. Yes it > has been more than 200 years and we have changed technologically. > Does that mean that the constitution is out of date and no longer > usable? I say no. I agree; I don't think it's unusable and completely out of date. > The writers of the constitution wrote it so that it could be changed > to meet with the times. It is all in black and white how it should > be changed. What we have is people trying to use to courts to > change it without doing what is spelled out in black and white. Why? > Because they are in the minority and could never get the changes they > want to the right way. But the example you gave in the previous message was a law passed by the popularly-elected Congress, not the courts. More often than not, at least for cases that receive lots of attention, it seems the courts are the ones who strike down a Congressionally instituted law, based on its conflict with the constitution. > I don't believe the constitution is out of date. The idea of free > speech means the same thing then as it does now. Certainly, we > have different ways to distribute our speech, but what has changed? > Did the founding fathers understand what a firearm was? I think so. > I don't think they included the second amendment for sport hunting. > The ideas they wrote down still apply just as well. Quite a bit has changed that potentially affects free speech and the right to bear arms. With advertising and mass media, "free speech" has been used to put a good amount of "speech" in our faces. This sort of this just wasn't possible back then, or at least, it wasn't really done. Could you drop propaganda leaflets over a city from an air plane? I suppose people could have had huge billboards advertising toothpaste or a political party, but I don't recall any liturature before the turn of the 20th century where it was really prolific. And yes, the constitution allows "arms" (I won't even try to argue the nature of the "well regulated militia"). It doesn't say "small arms"; it says "arms"--"instruments or weapons of offense or defense." Does that mean you'd support private citizens owning tanks or nuclear warheads? But it wouldn't really make sense to allow private citizens to have this sort of thing. At least, I'd be much quicker to find a new homeland if that were the case. Just for the sake of argument, if not for sport hunting, what is the purpose of second amendment? Wil --=20 Wil Cooley wcooley@nakedape.cc Naked Ape Consulting http://nakedape.cc irc.linux.com #orlug,#pdxlug,#lnxs --cV8yfgwCnzpki16T Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8om0tJpn3uYWUEaoRAixUAJ9KgrTJ1CW4BZ+KQYLaeh/kLd6mjQCghWRR BUxeRdpKfhSbJkqvNhhK/ZM= =SsF7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --cV8yfgwCnzpki16T-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 01:10:12 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Wil Cooley) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:10:12 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA26B3C.3050007@jhenshaw.com>; from jeff@jhenshaw.com on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 05:00:44PM -0800 References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA696@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <20020327143517.V1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA252D7.4060301@jhenshaw.com> <20020327153211.Y1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA25BBC.8020601@jhenshaw.com> <1017276451.2325.20.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> <3CA26B3C.3050007@jhenshaw.com> Message-ID: <20020327171012.E1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> --jOtImjXIA9XXnHrK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Also Sprach J.A. Henshaw on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 05:00:= 44PM PST > Now that you have taken the bait, let's talk about who controls mass > media, shall we? It's the Jewish World Conspiracy of course! Wil --=20 Wil Cooley wcooley@nakedape.cc Naked Ape Consulting http://nakedape.cc irc.linux.com #orlug,#pdxlug,#lnxs --jOtImjXIA9XXnHrK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8om1zJpn3uYWUEaoRAjHwAJ4q13oquf5zbc8STJRC0YaZNOlgewCfU8yy VZ6Ri17h6IuFX0mWiM2neqI= =F3uk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jOtImjXIA9XXnHrK-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 01:17:35 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Wil Cooley) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:17:35 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <20020327171012.E1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv>; from wcooley@nakedape.cc on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 05:10:12PM -0800 References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA696@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <20020327143517.V1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA252D7.4060301@jhenshaw.com> <20020327153211.Y1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA25BBC.8020601@jhenshaw.com> <1017276451.2325.20.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> <3CA26B3C.3050007@jhenshaw.com> <20020327171012.E1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> Message-ID: <20020327171735.H1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> --cFq0usrlMbRL+LaE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Also Sprach Wil Cooley on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 05:10:= 12PM PST > Also Sprach J.A. Henshaw on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 05:0= 0:44PM PST >=20 > > Now that you have taken the bait, let's talk about who controls mass > > media, shall we? >=20 > It's the Jewish World Conspiracy of course! I apologize Jeff; I'm just having a hard time taking you seriously right now. Wil --=20 Wil Cooley wcooley@nakedape.cc Naked Ape Consulting http://nakedape.cc irc.linux.com #orlug,#pdxlug,#lnxs --cFq0usrlMbRL+LaE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8om8vJpn3uYWUEaoRAh+QAJ0XTEY1dUnZCD6EHRdCx8Kh6mhZKACfTbk6 MbSXPJK4rwPfcCyMRcfyciY= =A03a -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --cFq0usrlMbRL+LaE-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 01:31:40 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A.Henshaw) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:31:40 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA696@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <20020327143517.V1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA252D7.4060301@jhenshaw.com> <20020327153211.Y1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA25BBC.8020601@jhenshaw.com> <20020327164725.B1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> Message-ID: <3CA2727C.8040303@dsl-only.net> Wil Cooley wrote: > Also Sprach J.A. Henshaw on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 03:54:36PM PST > >>This is part and parcel of the same argument, neither >>conflicts which my assertion, and I am not sure what your >>point is, particulary because I made no reference to >>Article 8 in the context of this discussion on PLUG-talk; >>although I of course recall our discussion in IRC - in which >>you seemed to be unaware of the evils of paper money. >> > > My point is that sometimes your constitutional exegesis is based > on nonsense. I was referring to our discussion on IRC. > > >>What I stated does not conflict with your statements above. They agree >>with your assessment I would tsay. >> > > You're correct; I mispoke. I mean the *natural* mutation of > language is a matter of fact; you assert that the language > has been mutated forcibly. > > > >>A conspiracy is three or more people with a common goal. >> > > No it's not. It's two or more people with a "plot." "Plot" > implies doing bad things, or evil, if you will. > > Still a common goal. The point, once again, is not in the details - the point is, that the use of the word by Wil is akin to the use of it by Ted Kopppel when defining politically correct thought. >>I think there is more than three people who print Webster's >>dictionaries. >> > > And all the other English dictionaries in the world. Asserting that > all the dictionaries in the world were rewritten in 1913 to overthrow > the constitution is absurd. > Hmm, don't remember saying any such thing. So your statement above is ABSURD Let's start small though, and maybe if you get interested enough to learn the facts you might become enlightend. Who publishes ALL the textbooks used in public schools in this country, for starters? > >>It takes more than three to run a business that large, and >>I think that I can be safe in saying that they well know >>that the founders use of the word militia in the "well >>regulated militia" and their use of the word "regulated" in >>that sentence were a problem for those who oppose private >>firearm ownership and state militias being composed of all >>able-bodeied males 18 and over, rather than the corporate >>US National Guard. >> > > Never in the 2 years I studied Latin did the verb 'regulare' have > a damn thing to do with "able-bodied males 18 and over." What, > pray tell, does "regulated" mean then? > Well-trained > >>So if they leave out the 200 year old definition and >>subsitute a NewSpeak version, I think we can safely believe >>they must have had some purpose for doing so. >> >>Who else is responsible for the perceived shift in the >>meanings of words? >> >>Mass Media? >> > > It's not a perceived shift; it's an actual shift. I won't go into > linguistics here and now, but it's a well regarded fact that it > happens naturally or perhaps, "chaotically" (to use the word in > the pop-math sense). If you don't believe me, read some Chaucer, > then some Shakespeare, then some Maugham. Or is the existence these > clearly different forms of English just part of the conspiracy too? > Oh my god, another conspiracy I see that defending the constitution is still an open invitation to be called a kook, eh? Next you will say I wear a tinfoil hat and hear voices, and am waiting for the mother ship to pick me up? I have a better idea. Investigate the topic, and get back to me. > >>Now, please explain the definition of the word paranoid and how you >>think it applies to me. >> > > paranoid > adj : suffering from paranoia > n : a person afflicted with paranoia [syn: paranoiac] > > Paranoia \Par`a*noi"a\, n. (Med.) > A chronic form of insanity characterized by very gradual > impairment of the intellect, systematized delusion, and usually > by delusions of persecution or mandatory delusions producing > homicidal tendency. In its mild form paranoia may consist in the > well-marked crotchetiness exhibited in persons commonly called > ``cranks.'' Paranoiacs usually show evidences of bodily and > nervous degeneration, and many have hallucinations, esp. of > sight and hearing. > > I admit I'm using the word loosely; I don't think you're chronically > insane, but I do suspect you suffer from delusions of persecution. > > Well, Wil, when you get down to business and find out which corporations are owned by which corporations and which dummy corporations are hiding the other dummy corporations, and find that all the oil companies are owned by ONE powerful concern; you will begin to see that you are naive and ignorant of the way the world works. You can call me delusional because you cannot accept it; I can quietly think you may delusional because you refuse to see it. This is well documented stuff we are discussing, I don't make this up as I go along. England was conspiring to prevent the formation of the Union before it was formed. That is true, WIl. Let's start with the baby food and see if you can digest that, okay? Would you call that statement delusional? "England was conspiring to prevent the formation of the Union before it was formed." Giddy up! >>Are you implying that everyone in the world is good and there is no >>reason to suspect that there might be some very >> powerful concerns that have goals in direct conflict with >>the constitution? >> >>Tisk tisk >> > > No, obviously I wouldn't assert that. That's a nice try at a > strawman argument. But these "powerful concerns" are not the > lexicographers. In order for that to happen, they would have had to > have complaisance of the whole of the literate, English-speaking > world and of all of competing makers of English dictionaries. > Just because it says "Webster's" doesn't mean it's the same company > and we aren't the only English speakers in the world. > Just like saying in essence that book publishing is for all practical purposes controlled by the wealthy, does not mean I think the 13th amendment resulted from a dictionary published that year... Just as ludicrous > >>I expect more from you Wil than to use a charged, overused >>perjorative against me because I have a opinion that is not >>politically correct. >> > > No, I use a charged, overused perjorative because you have an opinion > that is absurd. It's not a matter of politically correctness; > it's a matter of having opinions that are reasonable and sound. > If I could demonstrate a shift in the lexicographers direction that was universally in conflict with the definitions used in the Black's Law dictionary published in the time of the writing of the constitution, and particulary if I could show recent changes in their direction that had a correlation to "hotbed issues" like the word militia, would that be a start? Or do you categorically deny any and all possibility of any kind of plot at any time or place - to restore the King of England's reign over the freeholders of the USA Lets let you define for me what is reasonable and sound, okay? Since I am insane and all. > >>If you are ready to research it as well as I have I think >>you will find yourself reaching the same conclusion, there >>are conspiracies in this world, Wil. >> > > I am not; my life is too short for chasing wild geese. > Mine too. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 01:34:36 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Craighead, Scot D) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:34:36 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Message-ID: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6A1@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> >Ew, Fox News? LOL I hope no one watches Fox for anything >but laughs, maybe a little fictional drama. Say what you will about FOX News, but consider this. Unlike CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS, Fox lets both the liberals and the conservative have a chance to say what they want to say. I have seen several news stories that would never have seen the light of day, if not for Fox News. One is the Condit-Levy affair. Fox was reporting it weeks before the others. I think the others wanted to just sweep it under the rug and after several weeks it became to big and they finally began to report it. >But the example you gave in the previous message was a law passed >by the popularly-elected Congress, not the courts. More often than >not, at least for cases that receive lots of attention, it seems the >courts are the ones who strike down a Congressionally instituted law, >based on its conflict with the constitution. Yes, the congress passed a bill that they knew to be unconstitutional and the president signed it. What I hope to see is the supreme court striking the law entirely and telling congress to go back to the drawing board and try again. What I will probably see is the court striking parts and leaving other parts and making rules about how laws like these should be written in the future. All of this is legislating and they have no right to do it. I hope I will be pleasantly surprised. >Just for the sake of argument, if not for sport hunting, what is >the purpose of second amendment? An excellent question. The people that wrote the constitution believed that government was something that needed to be limited as much as possible. They had just fought a long war for freedom from one government. They wanted the citizens to be able to arm themselves to over through any future government that may become oppressive and not act in the will of the people. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 01:40:19 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A.Henshaw) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:40:19 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6A1@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> Message-ID: <3CA27483.8050405@dsl-only.net> Craighead, Scot D wrote: >>Ew, Fox News? LOL I hope no one watches Fox for anything >>but laughs, maybe a little fictional drama. >> > > Say what you will about FOX News, but consider this. Unlike CNN, NBC, ABC > and CBS, Fox lets both the liberals and the conservative have a chance to > say what they want to say. I have seen several news stories that would > never have seen the light of day, if not for Fox News. One is the > Condit-Levy affair. Fox was reporting it weeks before the others. I think > the others wanted to just sweep it under the rug and after several weeks it > became to big and they finally began to report it. > > >>But the example you gave in the previous message was a law passed >>by the popularly-elected Congress, not the courts. More often than >>not, at least for cases that receive lots of attention, it seems the >>courts are the ones who strike down a Congressionally instituted law, >>based on its conflict with the constitution. >> > > Yes, the congress passed a bill that they knew to be unconstitutional and > the president signed it. What I hope to see is the supreme court striking > the law entirely and telling congress to go back to the drawing board and > try again. What I will probably see is the court striking parts and leaving > other parts and making rules about how laws like these should be written in > the future. All of this is legislating and they have no right to do it. I > hope I will be pleasantly surprised. > > >>Just for the sake of argument, if not for sport hunting, what is >>the purpose of second amendment? >> > > An excellent question. The people that wrote the constitution believed that > government was something that needed to be limited as much as possible. > They had just fought a long war for freedom from one government. They > wanted the citizens to be able to arm themselves to over through any future > government that may become oppressive and not act in the will of the people. > Yep. They were paranoid. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 01:41:19 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A.Henshaw) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:41:19 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA696@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <20020327143517.V1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA252D7.4060301@jhenshaw.com> <20020327153211.Y1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA25BBC.8020601@jhenshaw.com> <1017276451.2325.20.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> <3CA26B3C.3050007@jhenshaw.com> <20020327171012.E1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <20020327171735.H1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> Message-ID: <3CA274BF.7000605@dsl-only.net> Wil Cooley wrote: > Also Sprach Wil Cooley on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 05:10:12PM PST > >>Also Sprach J.A. Henshaw on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 05:00:44PM PST >> >> >>>Now that you have taken the bait, let's talk about who controls mass >>>media, shall we? >>> >>It's the Jewish World Conspiracy of course! >> > > I apologize Jeff; I'm just having a hard time taking you seriously > right now. > > Wil > Why, last season's supply was that good? -- Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what they will have for lunch. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 01:57:05 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A.Henshaw) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:57:05 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA69E@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <20020327170901.D1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> Message-ID: <3CA27871.8070808@dsl-only.net> Wil Cooley wrote: > Quite a bit has changed that potentially affects free speech and > the right to bear arms. You are discussing unalienable natural rights. They are not subject to legislation under our form of government. With advertising and mass media, "free > speech" has been used to put a good amount of "speech" in our faces. > This sort of this just wasn't possible back then, or at least, > it wasn't really done. Could you drop propaganda leaflets over > a city from an air plane? I suppose people could have had huge > billboards advertising toothpaste or a political party, but I don't > recall any liturature before the turn of the 20th century where it > was really prolific. > > And yes, the constitution allows "arms" (I won't even try to > argue the nature of the "well regulated militia"). The constitution does not "allow" anything. It protects natural rights. It restricts officials of the govt, by oath of office. It does not in any way restrict the people. It does not "allow" the govt to restrict unalienable rights. You may think we need to reexamine the first and second amendments but thankfully you have no legal authority to change them, nor do the courts. It doesn't say > "small arms"; it says "arms"--"instruments or weapons of offense > or defense." Does that mean you'd support private citizens owning > tanks or nuclear warheads? But it wouldn't really make sense > to allow private citizens to have this sort of thing. There you go with the "allow" angle again! If your neighbor has a tank, does it affect you? How? Tom Clancy has one parked in his front yard, an Abrams I believe. It hasn't bothered me. At least, > I'd be much quicker to find a new homeland if that were the case. > > Just for the sake of argument, if not for sport hunting, what is > the purpose of second amendment? > > Wil > -- Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what they will have for lunch. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 01:58:15 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Wil Cooley) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:58:15 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA2727C.8040303@dsl-only.net>; from jhenshaw@dsl-only.net on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 05:31:40PM -0800 References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA696@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <20020327143517.V1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA252D7.4060301@jhenshaw.com> <20020327153211.Y1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA25BBC.8020601@jhenshaw.com> <20020327164725.B1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA2727C.8040303@dsl-only.net> Message-ID: <20020327175815.J1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> --TlDjLAx2PuPdVSSH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Also Sprach J.A.Henshaw on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 05:= 31:40PM PST >=20 > Still a common goal. A "common goal" does not mean a plot or conspiracy. If so, then according to the preamble, the constitution is a conspiracy. > The point, once again, is not in the details - the point is, that > the use of the word by Wil is akin to the use of it by Ted Kopppel > when defining politically correct thought. I don't understand what you're saying here. > >>I think there is more than three people who print Webster's=20 > >>dictionaries. > >> > >=20 > > And all the other English dictionaries in the world. Asserting that > > all the dictionaries in the world were rewritten in 1913 to overthrow > > the constitution is absurd. > >=20 >=20 > Hmm, don't remember saying any such thing. So your=20 > statement above is ABSURD You didn't expressly. But it seems a necessary condition for what you say to be true. Is it not? Merriam Webster's alone cannot shift the meaning of words. Nor can the Oxford English Dictionary. > Let's start small though, and maybe if you get interested=20 > enough to learn the facts you might become enlightend. >=20 > Who publishes ALL the textbooks used in public schools in=20 > this country, for starters? Textbook publishers? A bunch of drunken Irishmen in Boston? > >=20 > > Never in the 2 years I studied Latin did the verb 'regulare' have > > a damn thing to do with "able-bodied males 18 and over." What, > > pray tell, does "regulated" mean then? > >=20 >=20 > Well-trained Wrong. "regulare" is from the noun "regula", which means "ruler (for measuring); straight stick; straight board; rule, standard, example, model, principle". Nothing about "well-trained." Or do you discount my Latin dictionary because it was published in 1966? > Oh my god, another conspiracy >=20 > I see that defending the constitution is still an open=20 > invitation to be called a kook, eh? No, but asserting that the lexicographers at Merriam Webster's are trying to trick you is. > Next you will say I wear a tinfoil hat and hear voices, and > am waiting for the mother ship to pick me up? I have to admit, I do wonder what you'll come up with next. > I have a better idea. Investigate the topic, and get back to me. Which topic? Do you want me to make photocopies of other dictionaries' definitions of the word "regulate"? >=20 > Well, Wil, when you get down to business and find out=20 > which corporations are owned by which corporations and which=20 > dummy corporations are hiding the other dummy corporations,=20 > and find that all the oil companies are owned by ONE=20 > powerful concern; you will begin to see that you are naive=20 > and ignorant of the way the world works. Hm, of course, they're all owned by the Illuminati, right? =20 > You can call me delusional because you cannot accept it; I=20 > can quietly think you may delusional because you refuse to=20 > see it. I refuse to recognize things things which have no evidence or credible basis; I don't recognize the exitence of gods for the same reasons. > This is well documented stuff we are discussing, I don't=20 > make this up as I go along. Oh, I'm sure you don't. But I've seen some real cranks, some who even operate the websites you've directed me to. > England was conspiring to prevent the formation of the Union=20 > before it was formed. >=20 > That is true, WIl. Let's start with the baby food and see=20 > if you can digest that, okay? This is not the case. England actively resisted the break off the colonies. There's nothing conspiratoral about that. They might have even done underhanded things to thwart the formation of the nation, but their motives were quite plain. > Would you call that statement delusional? "England was=20 > conspiring to prevent the formation of the Union before it=20 > was formed." >=20 > Giddy up! Not delusional; simply wildly inaccurate. >=20 > >>Are you implying that everyone in the world is good and there is no > >>reason to suspect that there might be some very > >> powerful concerns that have goals in direct conflict with > >>the constitution? > >> > >>Tisk tisk > >> > >=20 > > No, obviously I wouldn't assert that. That's a nice try at a > > strawman argument. But these "powerful concerns" are not the > > lexicographers. In order for that to happen, they would have had to > > have complaisance of the whole of the literate, English-speaking > > world and of all of competing makers of English dictionaries. > > Just because it says "Webster's" doesn't mean it's the same company > > and we aren't the only English speakers in the world. > >=20 >=20 >=20 > Just like saying in essence that book publishing is for all=20 > practical purposes controlled by the wealthy, does not mean=20 > I think the 13th amendment resulted from a dictionary=20 > published that year... >=20 > Just as ludicrous But you are asserting that our understanding of the 2nd amendment has been undermined by Merriam Webster (or is it Oxford?) > If I could demonstrate a shift in the lexicographers direction that > was universally in conflict with the definitions used in the Black's > Law dictionary published in > the time of the writing of the constitution, and > particulary if I could show recent changes in their direction that > had a correlation to "hotbed issues" like the word militia, would > that be a start? That would. I challenge you to do so. > Or do you categorically deny any and all possibility of any=20 > kind of plot at any time or place - to restore the King of=20 > England's reign over the freeholders of the USA And approximately when did this plot occur? Wil --=20 Wil Cooley wcooley@nakedape.cc Naked Ape Consulting http://nakedape.cc irc.linux.com #orlug,#pdxlug,#lnxs --TlDjLAx2PuPdVSSH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8oni2Jpn3uYWUEaoRAsJnAJ9Yv1oppszgimldenDq42Ash5hEkACeIWi5 WnQxgWx4nthWI1WhIj0jttk= =IlPA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --TlDjLAx2PuPdVSSH-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 02:07:12 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Wil Cooley) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 18:07:12 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6A1@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com>; from craighead.scot@vectorscm.com on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 05:34:36PM -0800 References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6A1@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> Message-ID: <20020327180712.K1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> --m8RPluiNA7RIyL8J Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Also Sprach Craighead, Scot D on Wed, Mar 27= , 2002 at 05:34:36PM PST > >Ew, Fox News? LOL I hope no one watches Fox for anything > >but laughs, maybe a little fictional drama. >=20 > Say what you will about FOX News, but consider this. Unlike CNN, NBC, > ABC and CBS, Fox lets both the liberals and the conservative have a > chance to say what they want to say. I have seen several news stories > that would never have seen the light of day, if not for Fox News. > One is the Condit-Levy affair. Fox was reporting it weeks before > the others. I think the others wanted to just sweep it under the rug > and after several weeks it became to big and they finally began to > report it. I suppose. Most of what I see on Fox News is stories about rescuing cats from trees or clueless reporters asking dumb questions. Maybe I'm just thinking of FOX 49. > >But the example you gave in the previous message was a law passed > >by the popularly-elected Congress, not the courts. More often than > >not, at least for cases that receive lots of attention, it seems the > >courts are the ones who strike down a Congressionally instituted law, > >based on its conflict with the constitution. >=20 > Yes, the congress passed a bill that they knew to be unconstitutional and > the president signed it. What I hope to see is the supreme court striking > the law entirely and telling congress to go back to the drawing board and > try again. What I will probably see is the court striking parts and leav= ing > other parts and making rules about how laws like these should be written = in > the future. All of this is legislating and they have no right to do it. = I > hope I will be pleasantly surprised. I see. >=20 > >Just for the sake of argument, if not for sport hunting, what is > >the purpose of second amendment? >=20 > An excellent question. The people that wrote the constitution > believed that government was something that needed to be limited as > much as possible. They had just fought a long war for freedom from > one government. They wanted the citizens to be able to arm themselves > to over through any future government that may become oppressive and > not act in the will of the people. Okay, so consider the practically of this these days. What good would half the male population carrying small arms be against the size of weapons the military has now? Not much, I think. The balance of military power has shifted considerably since WWI. Wil --=20 Wil Cooley wcooley@nakedape.cc Naked Ape Consulting http://nakedape.cc irc.linux.com #orlug,#pdxlug,#lnxs --m8RPluiNA7RIyL8J Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8onrPJpn3uYWUEaoRAjk9AJ4lABoCeospYWJ8fQLgrLHsYUQ/KQCfchsp RE+8onwUtgkRczkcyoRbzEU= =qV5J -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --m8RPluiNA7RIyL8J-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 02:30:20 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russ Johnson) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 18:30:20 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA26B3C.3050007@jhenshaw.com> References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA696@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <20020327143517.V1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA252D7.4060301@jhenshaw.com> <20020327153211.Y1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA25BBC.8020601@jhenshaw.com> <1017276451.2325.20.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020327181643.029e35d0@mail.localnet.dimstar.net> At 05:00 PM 3/27/2002 -0800, you wrote: >Russ Johnson wrote: > >>I'm prefacing this with the following statement: I am NOT in any way, >>advocating either gun control or gun ownership. I don't own a gun, and I >>don't intend to, but you may. It's not my call. > > >Whose call is it, in your opinion? Whether you own a gun or not? Yours. At least, as far as I'm concerned. The law may or may not reflect that. This is a well hashed argument and I won't take the time to correct you. >I would however sugggest that you read the notes to the constitutional >convention and then read what you wrote again. There's no correction to be made. It's my opinion. I'm entitled to it whether it's correct or not. >>>So if they leave out the 200 year old definition and subsitute a >>>NewSpeak version, I think we can safely believe they must have had some >>>purpose for doing so. >>What is the "200 year old definition"? You didn't answer this one. >>>Paranoid is when you see conspiracies against yourself >>>personally, which do not exist. >>No, paranoid is characterized by suspiciousness, persecutory trends, or >>megalomania. It has nothing to do with whether they exist or not. Only >>that you think they do. They may not... But then again, they may. > >You make no sense to me. > >Are you saying that anyone who reads the constitution is paranoid? Oh my, jumping to conclusions now, are we? :) I was simply disputing your definition of paranoid. You claimed (quoted above) that someone is paranoid only if you suspect conspiracies that don't exist. I'm claiming that whether those conspiracies exist or not is immaterial. In other words, "Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me." is a valid statement. Russ Johnson Stargate Online http://www.dimstar.net telnet://telnet.dimstar.net ICQ: 3739685 If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends? From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 02:33:50 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russ Johnson) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 18:33:50 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <20020327170901.D1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA69E@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA69E@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020327183240.00a75bf0@mail.localnet.dimstar.net> I was of the opinion that it was to prevent the people from being overrun by the government. Or, looked at the other way, to allow the people to overrun the government if the need arises. :) At 05:09 PM 3/27/2002 -0800, you wrote: >Just for the sake of argument, if not for sport hunting, what is >the purpose of second amendment? Russ Johnson Stargate Online http://www.dimstar.net telnet://telnet.dimstar.net ICQ: 3739685 I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 02:47:00 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russ Johnson) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 18:47:00 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA27483.8050405@dsl-only.net> References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6A1@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020327184646.00a75710@mail.localnet.dimstar.net> ROFLMAO! At 05:40 PM 3/27/2002 -0800, you wrote: >Yep. They were paranoid. Russ Johnson Stargate Online http://www.dimstar.net telnet://telnet.dimstar.net ICQ: 3739685 I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 02:52:49 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russ Johnson) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 18:52:49 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <20020327180712.K1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6A1@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6A1@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020327185137.00a79ad0@mail.localnet.dimstar.net> At 06:07 PM 3/27/2002 -0800, you wrote: >Okay, so consider the practically of this these days. What good >would half the male population carrying small arms be against >the size of weapons the military has now? Not much, I think. >The balance of military power has shifted considerably since WWI. Which is actually the argument that anti-gun control people use to say that Joe Public SHOULD own tanks and nuclear weapons. :P Russ Johnson Stargate Online http://www.dimstar.net telnet://telnet.dimstar.net ICQ: 3739685 I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 02:58:31 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A. Henshaw) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 18:58:31 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6A1@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20020327184646.00a75710@mail.localnet.dimstar.net> Message-ID: <3CA286D7.6010803@jhenshaw.com> Russ Johnson wrote: > ROFLMAO! > ;) From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 04:17:47 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A.Henshaw) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 20:17:47 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA696@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <20020327143517.V1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA252D7.4060301@jhenshaw.com> <20020327153211.Y1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA25BBC.8020601@jhenshaw.com> <20020327164725.B1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA2727C.8040303@dsl-only.net> <20020327175815.J1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> Message-ID: <3CA2996B.3050909@dsl-only.net> Wil Cooley wrote: > >>>Never in the 2 years I studied Latin did the verb 'regulare' have >>>a damn thing to do with "able-bodied males 18 and over." What, >>>pray tell, does "regulated" mean then? >>> >>> >>Well-trained >> > > Wrong. "regulare" is from the noun "regula", which means "ruler > (for measuring); straight stick; straight board; rule, standard, > example, model, principle". Nothing about "well-trained." Or do > you discount my Latin dictionary because it was published in 1966? > > The word in question was regulate. I assumed you had made a typo, Wil. The text of the constitution has no "regulare" and the r and the t are right next to each other. >>Oh my god, another conspiracy >> >>I see that defending the constitution is still an open >>invitation to be called a kook, eh? >> > > No, but asserting that the lexicographers at Merriam > Webster's are trying to trick you is. > > >>Next you will say I wear a tinfoil hat and hear voices, and >>am waiting for the mother ship to pick me up? >> > > I have to admit, I do wonder what you'll come up with next. > > > Hm, of course, they're all owned by the Illuminati, right? > > I refuse to recognize things things which have no evidence > or credible basis; I don't recognize the exitence of gods for > the same reasons. > > Not delusional; simply wildly inaccurate. > > And approximately when did this plot occur? > > Wil > Let's check the scorecard: Your money is replaced with debt instruments. Your courtrooms are Admiralty Law and stare decisis is now law rather than common law Your right to bear arms is under attack and is infringed with licensing schemes Your right to travel is infringed with licensing schemes Private property ownership is replaced with real estate ownership ( real estate is everything from the ground up ) Basically, all ten planks of the communist manifesto are in place, And you deny a conspiracy. Do you attribute the current state of affairs to the chaos theory? Or is it possible perhaps there was a plot somewhere and this was not the result of random chance? From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 06:11:18 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Wil Cooley) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 22:11:18 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA2868D.1010007@jhenshaw.com>; from jeff@jhenshaw.com on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 06:57:17PM -0800 References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA696@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <20020327143517.V1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA252D7.4060301@jhenshaw.com> <20020327153211.Y1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA25BBC.8020601@jhenshaw.com> <20020327164725.B1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA2727C.8040303@dsl-only.net> <20020327175815.J1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA2868D.1010007@jhenshaw.com> Message-ID: <20020327221118.L1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> --y8OL7jWO5wDKNv+B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Also Sprach J.A. Henshaw on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 06:57:= 17PM PST > Wil Cooley wrote: >=20 >=20 > > I don't understand what you're saying here. > >=20 >=20 > > Wil > >=20 Why do you not keep a public argument public? My responses go to the list. > Curtiss Poe didn't understand much of what I posted awhile=20 > back either; and he "questioned the source" because he did=20 > not understand me. I don't understand you Jeff because sometimes your writing is unintelligible. This is the section I was responding to: "The point, once again, is not in the details - the point is, that the use of the word by Wil is akin to the use of it by Ted Kopppel when defining politically correct thought." Are you asserting that I'm changing the meaning of the word "conspiracy" to fit my political ideals? The word conspiracy has meaned what I assert it means for as long as I've known it and in all the literature I've read. I challenge you to find a dictionary where it doesn't. >=20 > Others pounced on me as well; Land Patent? whats a land=20 > patent? hogwash! >=20 > Allodial title? Whats that? >=20 > I challenged them to look it up for themselves, and not one=20 > has come back saying that I was wrong. >=20 > I think you, Wil, are also suffering from the tendency to=20 > reject out of hand anything that doesn't square with your=20 > belief system. Certainly I am. I assign a higher certitude to things that I have internalized through time and exposure. That's the way humans work. If you can present me with clear evidence that something is, in fact, the case, then I will more inclined to believe you. It never becomes a closed case, of course. Even matters which I'm fairly certain of are open to question if the weight of evidence demands it. Part of the problem, Jeff, is that your arguments are all over the map. It's impossible to tell from one sentence to the next what argument you're having. You also have a tendency to disregard some statements which pose good questions. The problems with your writing and the disorganization of your arguments prejudice me against these discoveries of yours. When you present a statement which is contrary to your interlocuter's belief, the burden of proof falls on you. Usually, you'd rather just make absurd statements which are irrelevant. > You still believe the constitution allows John Maynard=20 > Keynes' employer to control our money, so I am not surprised! >=20 > You still cannot see why inflation robs you, and yet you=20 > call me delusional. I can perfectly well understand how inflation decreases the value of the money I have on hand. =20 > I tell you what, since you want to rewrite the constitution=20 > to account for Keynesian economics, and the inflation he=20 > championed; Please cite the messages where I asserted I wanted to do so. > I will be happy to trade federal reserve notes for any gold=20 > or silver coins you may have, or any U.S. treasury notes you=20 > may have, since you obviously cannot tell the difference;=20 > let someone who can appreciate the difference be the steward=20 > of any such items, okay? >=20 > I am tired of debating with someone who still cannot=20 > understand BASIC principles of the constitution like what a=20 > gold coin is and why it is proscribed; worse yet you don't=20 > seem to recognize the importance of it! Likewise, I'm tired of debating with someone who cannot argue clearly. > You don't appear to be ready to argue the meaning of the=20 > English language either today or yesterday. I'm perfectly ready to argue the meaning of words in the English language. The language itself has no meaning; only the words and constructions from those words have meaning. > Is there some new dictionary I need to read, that tells me=20 > what the current definition of lawful money is? >=20 > And if it hasn't changed, who is (actually) delusional? I don't care about the definition of lawful money. You have failed to demonstrate to me why it is important and how things could realistically be changed for the better. If you will, lay out a plan (perhaps phased in over a period of, say, 20 years) of how you would return to a system that is consitutional and what our daily life would look like at that point. I'm still awaiting your response to a fair number of questions I have asked. Which dictionary has "conspired" to change the meanings of words to its will and which words? You started out with "coin", in our discussion on IRC, and then today moved to "regulate" and "militia." When did the British crown "conspire" to "restore the King of England's reign over the freeholders of the USA" ? Wil --=20 W. Reilly Cooley wcooley@nakedape.cc Naked Ape Consulting http://nakedape.cc irc.linux.com #orlug,#lnxs When I hear a man applauded by the mob I always feel a pang of pity for him. All he has to do to be hissed is to live long enough. -- H.L. Mencken, "Minority Report" --y8OL7jWO5wDKNv+B Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8orQGJpn3uYWUEaoRAvNtAJ0UClu4UbZNVp/pERDEl/qruSDVtQCdEBxQ CLLr0ry5S3A0Pof58cHFFRY= =m75C -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --y8OL7jWO5wDKNv+B-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 06:15:54 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Wil Cooley) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 22:15:54 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA2996B.3050909@dsl-only.net>; from jhenshaw@dsl-only.net on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 08:17:47PM -0800 References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA696@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <20020327143517.V1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA252D7.4060301@jhenshaw.com> <20020327153211.Y1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA25BBC.8020601@jhenshaw.com> <20020327164725.B1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA2727C.8040303@dsl-only.net> <20020327175815.J1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA2996B.3050909@dsl-only.net> Message-ID: <20020327221554.M1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> --9rkt7tfZQigMla7f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Also Sprach J.A.Henshaw on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 08:= 17:47PM PST > The word in question was regulate. I assumed you had made a typo, Wil. > The text of the constitution has no "regulare" and the r and the t > are right next to each other. The word in question is in fact "regulate." That is why I showed you the Latin etymology; I wanted to show you that the meaning of the word's origins agrees with it's current meaning. I can show you can same for the word "militia" if it would make you happy. Oh, what the hell, here it is: "army; war; the military; military discipline." >=20 >=20 > >>Oh my god, another conspiracy > >> > >>I see that defending the constitution is still an open=20 > >>invitation to be called a kook, eh? > >> > >=20 > > No, but asserting that the lexicographers at Merriam > > Webster's are trying to trick you is. > >=20 > >=20 > >>Next you will say I wear a tinfoil hat and hear voices, and > >>am waiting for the mother ship to pick me up? > >> > >=20 > > I have to admit, I do wonder what you'll come up with next. > >=20 > >=20 > > Hm, of course, they're all owned by the Illuminati, right? > > =20 > =20 > > I refuse to recognize things things which have no evidence > > or credible basis; I don't recognize the exitence of gods for > > the same reasons. > >=20 > > Not delusional; simply wildly inaccurate. > >=20 > > And approximately when did this plot occur? > >=20 > > Wil > >=20 >=20 >=20 > Let's check the scorecard: >=20 > Your money is replaced with debt instruments. >=20 > Your courtrooms are Admiralty Law and stare decisis is now=20 > law rather than common law >=20 > Your right to bear arms is under attack and is infringed=20 > with licensing schemes >=20 > Your right to travel is infringed with licensing schemes >=20 > Private property ownership is replaced with real estate=20 > ownership ( real estate is everything from the ground up ) >=20 > Basically, all ten planks of the communist manifesto are in=20 > place, >=20 > And you deny a conspiracy. >=20 > Do you attribute the current state of affairs to the chaos=20 > theory? >=20 > Or is it possible perhaps there was a plot somewhere and=20 > this was not the result of random chance? You did not answer my question. Who has been behind this (apparently centuries old) conspiracy? The Jews? The Illuminati? Who? Wil --=20 Wil Cooley wcooley@nakedape.cc Naked Ape Consulting http://nakedape.cc irc.linux.com #orlug,#pdxlug,#lnxs --9rkt7tfZQigMla7f Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8orUZJpn3uYWUEaoRAt11AKCTmi+3sCDgpKHC/Aha0xHHVXWAEgCfb2iL 2dNzDWvY80xErtm14l2Sqmo= =8cpm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --9rkt7tfZQigMla7f-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 08:50:17 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:50:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA2359A.9060601@dsl-only.net> Message-ID: I've been busy the last couple of days, but I'm going to reply to choice few comments in this thread, particularly where I've been grossly misinterpreted or when what I consider a major point has been missed. On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, J.A.Henshaw wrote: > A court's job is to APPLY the law AS WRITTEN- > > NOT to INTERPRET the law. Application REQUIRES interpretation. The act of interpretation is part of the automatic process of reading. We take words from a page, apply various understood denotative and connotative meanings for the words, names, and idiomatic phrases, and interpret the author's intent based on our understanding of those concepts (which are not merely words on a page, but the MEANING of those words in our minds). > If it needs interpretation is should be rewritten or be null > and void for vagueness. The law can never be complete enough. It is a logical system that will ALWAYS contain more unstated assumptions. It is simply not possible to codify everything. Interpretation is required for the law to be usable. It is lawyers trying to write "airtight" law that create those monstrous, confusing, and often logically inconsistent and meaningless strings of wherefores and henceforths. Those stumbling shambles of "legalese" are the work of people trying "to leave no room for interpretation". Read Goedel, seriously. He'll tell you a thing or two about incompleteness. > How many of us can understand the 2nd amendment? Man, oh man, this was such an obvious ploy. I can't believe you guys fell for it. Jeff's tactic (used to great effect -- mostly obfuscation and frustration) is to twist every conversation back to one of the three or four topics that make him feel safe and self-righteous. > Who needs an interpreter to get the meaning of "the right to keep and > bear arms shall not be infringed'? What requires interpretation is the law passed relating to keeping and bearing arms to ensure that its enforcement is consistent with Amendment II. Personally, however, I think "infringed" is fairly ambiguous here. It's certainly not as absolute as the wording of Amendment I "Congress shall make no law...". Surely similar wording would have been used if the intent was the same. So the intent here is different. And if that's true, then what is it? The above is not a call for specific interpretations, but simply an attempt to show that interpretation is required. > Jeme does not believe in private property rights, therefore anything > he says must be weighed against his desire for a global marxist > society with no borders and no personal wealth. Ah, Jeff... even when we show it to you plainly, you fail (again and again) to see that you only understand what you already believe. You base the above strong statements on an off-list conversation we had wherein I attempted to show you that private property is not a requirement of freedom and, in many ways, hinders same. If you look back to the first few volleys in that conversation, you'll find numerous disclaimers in which I state that this is not MY view, but I understand it and can show you how the reasoning works. I never once claimed a desire for "a global marxist society with no borders and no personal wealth". In fact, I don't recall EVER discussing the issue of borders or a global society with ANYONE in PLUG. After a while, I dropped the disclaimers because I assumed they were understood. But, apparently, you believed my arguments were from my own viewpoint solely despite numerous statements to the contrary. I believe you have a (very) few political archetypes in your head and just pigeonhole people as they come along into one of your little forms. If they don't fit... even if they go and sit in another hole with a big flag reading "Jeff, I'm over here!"... and certainly if they try to show you the existence of other holes, you still believe they are sitting snugly in the whole in which you attempted to shove them. > Even though what he desires is impossible, unjust, and unlawful under > this country's laws and God's law ( do no covet thy neighbor's > posessions ) - and ignores history and would be the cause of much > mayhem and destruction of life and property to achieve. [Neglecting, for a moment, that the above is a string of lies, incorrect assumptions, fallacious statements and rhetorical blunders...] Even though all of that, what? J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 08:59:06 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:59:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA25BBC.8020601@jhenshaw.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, J.A. Henshaw wrote: > So if they leave out the 200 year old definition and subsitute a > NewSpeak version, I think we can safely believe they must have had > some purpose for doing so. Yeah, their purpose is to accurately reflect the meaning of the word based on its usage. Even if you fail to account for cultural acceleration (caused by industrialization and mass communication) and simply look at the way words were defined 200 years before the Constitution was written (around the time of Shakespeare's prolific period), you'll find the same kinds of changes in the meanings of words between then and the time of Jefferson, et al. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 10:29:59 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Wil Cooley) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 02:29:59 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA2CB9B.7080600@jhenshaw.com>; from jeff@jhenshaw.com on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 11:51:55PM -0800 References: <20020327143517.V1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA252D7.4060301@jhenshaw.com> <20020327153211.Y1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA25BBC.8020601@jhenshaw.com> <20020327164725.B1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA2727C.8040303@dsl-only.net> <20020327175815.J1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA2868D.1010007@jhenshaw.com> <20020327221118.L1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA2CB9B.7080600@jhenshaw.com> Message-ID: <20020328022959.N1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> --utew04vv9FCWZJ01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Remember: To the list! Also Sprach J.A. Henshaw on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 11:51:= 55PM PST > Wil Cooley wrote: >=20 > > Also Sprach J.A. Henshaw on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 06= :57:17PM PST > >=20 > >>Wil Cooley wrote: >=20 > >=20 > > I don't understand you Jeff because sometimes your writing is > > unintelligible. This is the section I was responding to: > >=20 > > "The point, once again, is not in the details - the point is, that > > the use of the word by Wil is akin to the use of it by Ted Kopppel > > when defining politically correct thought." > >=20 > > Are you asserting that I'm changing the meaning of the word > > "conspiracy" to fit my political ideals? The word conspiracy has > > meaned what I assert it means for as long as I've known it and in > > all the literature I've read. I challenge you to find a dictionary > > where it doesn't. > >=20 >=20 >=20 > Uh, the word paranoid was the one I referred to; the one I=20 > called charged and perjorative........... doh!!!! No it wasn't. At least, if it were, you certainly didn't make it clear. Here's the quoted message: ### >>A conspiracy is three or more people with a common goal. = =20 >> = =20 > = =20 > No it's not. It's two or more people with a "plot." > "Plot" =20 > implies doing bad things, or evil, if you will. = =20 > = =20 > = =20 Still a common goal. The point, once again, is not in the details - the point is, that the use of the word by Wil is akin to the use of it by Ted Kopppel when defining politically correct thought. ### At this point, as far as I can tell, we're talking about the nature of a conspiracy. If we weren't, then you've just demonstrated: """ > Impossible? Whatever. Show me two sentences that don't=20 > fit, instead of just claiming it, ok? """ Either you've switched to talking about paranoia without telling anyone and thus validated my claim that it's nearly impossible to tell which point you're arguing at any one time, or you're wrong and we were talking about the meaning of "conspiracy." > I am saying that you chose that word knowing it is a loaded=20 > word; when you attack a man instead of his arguments,=20 > well.... you know the rest, don't ya. Back to this? Didn't I *admit* this before? Yes, I did. At the beginning of this exchange, I was feeling a little more flippant than I am now, and, Jupiter forbit, I was kinda joking. > > You also have a tendency to disregard > > some statements which pose good questions. The problems with your > > writing and the disorganization of your arguments prejudice me > > against these discoveries of yours. >=20 >=20 > I see, the messenger IS the message. Got it. First of all, your statement is not a message and you are not a messenger; it is an assertion and you are the one arguing to prove it. (Okay, in some sense, these are e-mail "messages"; but that's not the sense in which you used the word.) Secondly, the reputation and comportment of a person lends credibility to his assertions. If a person with bad, uncorrected vision tells you he saw something and another person with normal vision tells you he saw something different, whom do you believe? And in fact, it's more complex than that: One has limited time for study and argumentation in one's life, so one must choose the matters one takes up carefully. So one must choose whom to read and whom to ignore; I prefer to read the writings of someone with the skills and clarity of mind to cogently explain or argue a point. Thirdly, one's writing skills are usually indicative the degree of intellectual training one has had, which is usually accompanied with the disciplines and rigors required for clear thought. > Why is the history of the US and the the law of the land my=20 > responsibilty to teach you in an email discussion anyway? It isn't. If you make a claim, however, it is your responsibility to support it and not expect someone to just believe you. > Do you think I can give you 20 years of study in a paragraph=20 > without losing you somehow? >=20 > Why in the heck don't you just go look it up? I am not in=20 > the full time education business. The problem is that you've covered so much ground that it's impossible to know what "it" is in the above sentence. You can't make a single point and back it up. When I ask you more carefully, you side-step the point with non sequiturs and ad ignoratum arguments! (Scot, didn't I tell you this is what he'd do?) > >=20 > > When you present a statement which is contrary to your interlocuter's > > belief, the burden of proof falls on you. Usually, you'd rather > > just make absurd statements which are irrelevant. > >=20 > >=20 >=20 > Hmm.. I don't recall making any absurd statements. Oh yeah,=20 > but I'm paranoid and insane, and you are judge of what is=20 > factual and what is paranoia, so why do I even argue with you? You're doing what I pointed out previous right here--instead of actually addressing the matter of burden of proof, you focus instead on a non-issue and try to make an issue of it. Furthermore, I also said expressly that I didn't think you were chronically insane. > >>You still believe the constitution allows John Maynard=20 > >>Keynes' employer to control our money, so I am not surprised! > >> > >>You still cannot see why inflation robs you, and yet you=20 > >>call me delusional. > >> > >=20 > > I can perfectly well understand how inflation decreases the > > value of the money I have on hand. > > =20 > >=20 >=20 > OK so far so good.... Actually, I mispoke here. What I should have said was "I can perfectly well recognize that inflation decreases the value of money I have on hand." >=20 >=20 > >>I tell you what, since you want to rewrite the constitution=20 > >>to account for Keynesian economics, and the inflation he=20 > >>championed; > >> > >=20 >=20 >=20 > There is a a message wherein you say that the constitution=20 > didn't account for inflation, and so on....if you can't=20 > follow your own arguments, it's no wonder you can't follow=20 > mine. That statement was in a wholly separate argument which I was having with Scot. I was asking him an hypothetical question about what he thought of the matter. The context should have been clear. > In another post you say that the first and second amendments=20 > need to be reexamined. >=20 > Hence, my perception of your view that it needs to be=20 > rewritten... I guess reexamined in Latin means something=20 > else, who knows.... sheesh! I can't follow you Wil! DO you=20 > or don't you want to rewrite it? In English even! "reexamine" does *not* mean "rewrite"! > > Please cite the messages where I asserted I wanted to do so. > >=20 >=20 > Well, you have a copy don't ya? Short memory you have too. You're good at hat tricks, but I won't fall for it. > >=20 > >>I will be happy to trade federal reserve notes for any gold=20 > >>or silver coins you may have, or any U.S. treasury notes you=20 > >>may have, since you obviously cannot tell the difference;=20 > >>let someone who can appreciate the difference be the steward=20 > >>of any such items, okay? > >> > >>I am tired of debating with someone who still cannot=20 > >>understand BASIC principles of the constitution like what a=20 > >>gold coin is and why it is proscribed; worse yet you don't=20 > >>seem to recognize the importance of it! > >> > >=20 > > Likewise, I'm tired of debating with someone who cannot argue > > clearly. > >=20 > >=20 > >>You don't appear to be ready to argue the meaning of the=20 > >>English language either today or yesterday. > >> > >=20 > > I'm perfectly ready to argue the meaning of words in the English > > language. The language itself has no meaning; only the words and > > constructions from those words have meaning. > >=20 >=20 >=20 > And where are words not used in communication, as to convey=20 > a meaning? Are these two really separate? If they are, or=20 > are not, what is the point of nitpicking over virtually=20 > irrelevant tangents when you perfectly well understand me.... Hm, it seemed a point worth making at the time. Identifying linguistic mistakes is one of my hobbies. >=20 > Besides that I have already stated that it makes one look=20 > like an ass? > (or perhaps, a monkey flinging feces around) >=20 >=20 > >=20 > >>Is there some new dictionary I need to read, that tells me=20 > >>what the current definition of lawful money is? > >> > >>And if it hasn't changed, who is (actually) delusional? > >> > >=20 > > I don't care about the definition of lawful money. You have > > failed to demonstrate to me why it is important and how things > > could realistically be changed for the better.=20 >=20 >=20 > Okay, the guy who can't follow along and is the arbiter of=20 > what is delusional and what is not, states above that >=20 > "I can perfectly well understand how inflation decreases the=20 > value of the money I have on hand." >=20 > Apparently not *perfectly* well; but I won't criticize your=20 > choice of words, sentence structure, or provide Merriam=20 > Webster's definition of *perfectly* because it's not=20 > important, and I would be an ass. You would be correct to do so; as I said, I mispoke. > If you will, lay > > out a plan (perhaps phased in over a period of, say, 20 years) > > of how you would return to a system that is consitutional and what > > our daily life would look like at that point. >=20 >=20 > Here is a one day plan: >=20 > Follow the law; or shall I say APPLY the law... (does anyone=20 > need an interpreter to understand THAT?) >=20 > Now, our daily life will be enriched by re-establishing justice. >=20 > Justice, if you recall, is one of the things our government=20 > is supposed to establish. >=20 > It is a worthy goal, I assure you. So this is able to just happen, *poof*, overnight? Everyone will like it more than the way before? We'll still be able to get along with the rest of the world? > >=20 > > I'm still awaiting your response to a fair number of questions I > > have asked. Which dictionary has "conspired" to change the meanings > > of words to its will and which words? You started out with "coin", > > in our discussion on IRC, and then today moved to "regulate" and > > "militia." When did the British crown "conspire" to "restore the > > King of England's reign over the freeholders of the USA" ? > >=20 > > Wil > >=20 >=20 >=20 > Yes, and I told you that Title 4 has the governments own=20 > rules for the war flag and what it was about, you do not=20 > respond after I show you. Yes, because reading about how to fold the flag bores me. > We will argue about etymology rather than here your=20 > assessment of the gold fringe on the flag, and it's=20 > significance. I fail to see any significance. About the only thing you've said about it that sounds at all important is that the flag that flies now indicates wartime and marshall law, in which a person is guilty until proven innocent. Is that the point you're trying to make? If so, why has the judicial system not made any recognizable changes? Where are the protestors screaming in the street about innocent-until-guilty being overthrown? Why didn't you just say that in the first place instead of sending me to a page with paragraph after paragraph about how the flag should be folded? > Was I right? Was I wrong? No response, you don't sem to=20 > think it is important, like inflation is not, apparently. > You are still waiting for responses because I don't see the point in > having several simultaneous debates with you; you apparently cannot > follow too well and as you say, you think coins are paper money since > our discussion in IRC and yet you think you understand money perfectly > well... why go any further? I never said I think coins are paper money; they are manifestly different types of objects--one made a base metal (with a gloss of precious metal) and one made of Crane paper. > You have plenty to chew on, and I don't care for being insulted on a > regular basis because you haven't, as you state above in this post I > reply too, heard it often ewnough. "regular" basis? Do you mean a "well-trained" basis? > "I assign a higher certitude to things that I have=20 > internalized > through time and exposure. That's the way humans work." > I am trying to expose you to some things, and you need more time and > exposure before you internalize it. > Ted Koppel? Don't expect him to repeat it for you. > ;) Wil --=20 W. Reilly Cooley wcooley@nakedape.cc Naked Ape Consulting http://nakedape.cc irc.linux.com #orlug,#lnxs When I hear a man applauded by the mob I always feel a pang of pity for him. All he has to do to be hissed is to live long enough. -- H.L. Mencken, "Minority Report" --utew04vv9FCWZJ01 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8ovCmJpn3uYWUEaoRAj1aAJ9Gxd5XrWxtHkhtg6xZybA42VcKXgCeO31+ w81qaUeyLjnW87aY9AmYyKA= =tHAM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --utew04vv9FCWZJ01-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 11:02:56 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 03:02:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <20020328022959.N1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Wil Cooley wrote: > First of all, your statement is not a message and you are not > a messenger; it is an assertion and you are the one arguing to > prove it. (Okay, in some sense, these are e-mail "messages"; > but that's not the sense in which you used the word.) And if it was, then "messenger" means a whole different thing, too. > > You have plenty to chew on, and I don't care for being insulted on a > > regular basis because you haven't, as you state above in this post I > > reply too, heard it often ewnough. > > "regular" basis? Do you mean a "well-trained" basis? Goddamn. Now THAT is high comedy worthy of Jeffrey "The Dude" Lebowski. You mean coitus? J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 11:14:10 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russell Senior) Date: 28 Mar 2002 03:14:10 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <20020328022959.N1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> References: <20020327143517.V1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA252D7.4060301@jhenshaw.com> <20020327153211.Y1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA25BBC.8020601@jhenshaw.com> <20020327164725.B1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA2727C.8040303@dsl-only.net> <20020327175815.J1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA2868D.1010007@jhenshaw.com> <20020327221118.L1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA2CB9B.7080600@jhenshaw.com> <20020328022959.N1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> Message-ID: <86k7rxj665.fsf@coulee.tdb.com> >>>>> "Wil" == Wil Cooley writes: >> Yes, and I told you that Title 4 has the governments own rules for >> the war flag and what it was about, you do not respond after I show >> you. Wil> Yes, because reading about how to fold the flag bores me. >> We will argue about etymology rather than here your assessment of >> the gold fringe on the flag, and it's significance. Wil> I fail to see any significance. About the only thing you've said Wil> about it that sounds at all important is that the flag that flies Wil> now indicates wartime and marshall law, in which a person is Wil> guilty until proven innocent. Is that the point you're trying to Wil> make? If so, why has the judicial system not made any Wil> recognizable changes? Where are the protestors screaming in the Wil> street about innocent-until-guilty being overthrown? Why didn't Wil> you just say that in the first place instead of sending me to a Wil> page with paragraph after paragraph about how the flag should be Wil> folded? Hey, this sounds like good stuff. I went and searched Title 4 and found nothing about "war flag" or "war" or "gold" or "fringe" or "marshall". Could someone please point me at whatever the /sbin/fsck he is talking about? Citations are helpful. -- Russell Senior ``The two chiefs turned to each other. seniorr@aracnet.com Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated meant, `This is extremely unusual.' '' From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 12:11:40 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 04:11:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA2996B.3050909@dsl-only.net> Message-ID: I'm not going to pick these all apart just for the sake of time and tedium, but I wanted to mention a couple of big points... On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, J.A.Henshaw wrote: > Your money is replaced with debt instruments. Money _is_ a debt instrument. > Private property ownership is replaced with real estate ownership ( > real estate is everything from the ground up ) Clearly you don't know the difference between realty and personalty. Property law has been based on a distinction between the two for centuries. > Basically, all ten planks of the communist manifesto are in place, Just for grins, run '"ten planks" "communist manifesto"' through google. Last time I did, I got nothing but right-wing sites claiming the above... mostly all copies of the same document scattered about the web. In fact, I can't find one reference to "the ten planks" from a source that isn't far right-wing. (And exactly one that isn't a specific reference to how "America" has implemented each one.) Weird, huh? And as for what these planks are and what they DO, well, I assure you it has nothing to do with communism, socialism, or even, more generally, marxism. _IF_ they really were part of the original document by Marx and Engels, then we must note that the document was a manifesto for a new political party and the "planks" would be the planks of a platform. A political party's platform is a statement of purpose for the upcoming political season designed to show what specific policies are generally supported by the candidates carrying party support. These particular planks appear to be all about consolidating power. The consolidation of power is, of course, contrary to the philosophy inherent in the rest of the Communist Manifesto and certainly contrary to any cause of good or right in the rest of Marx's work. BUT I can imagine a particular political group deciding, at some point, that such a consolidation of power in the hands of a public agency is a necessary first step in wresting power from the hands of the private few who held it previously. And if the organization involved in reigning in that power and bringing it under one umbrella were truly of a marxist bent, the next step would be redistribution of that power to the people. Now, that's a rationalization full of speculation. It's quite possible that those planks, as stated by the various right-wing organizations that hold them up, were part of a particular communist party's platform when that party was merely a front for a megalomaniac or greedy few seeking power. We all know full well and can point to examples in history showing that evil and greedy people use the language of common good and populist sentiment to mislead the people and dupe the gullible. But one thing can be stated with certainty: The "ten planks" as laid out on the sites listed from the above google search are not communist in nature and an implementation of the systems suggested within those planks is certainly not necessarily communist. (I'd be hard pressed, as a matter of fact, to contrive a communist society that sustained such institutions as described in those planks with even the most idealized and carefully chosen denizens.) > And you deny a conspiracy. > Do you attribute the current state of affairs to the chaos theory? > Or is it possible perhaps there was a plot somewhere and this was not > the result of random chance? You're talking about a basic destruction of civil rights and a loss of popular control of the world's wealth. I attribute the current state of affairs to greed and lust for power. We set up a system that covets wealth and allows that wealth to self-propogate. Small advantages existed for the wealthy to wield power. Lust for power and greed are incredible motivators. The powerful (wealthy) have the greatest ability to make change to society by definition. Those people, acting in their own selfish interests, continued to modify the system to benefit themselves... first in small ways (as their small advantage in wealth gave them a small advantage in power) and then in larger ways (as their wealth grew, their ability to turn that wealth into power and that power into wealth also grew). This degenerative cycle continues to this day and all that are not the wealthy elite (e.g. you and me) suffer. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 17:07:39 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Craighead, Scot D) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:07:39 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Message-ID: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6A3@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> >> Or do you categorically deny any and all possibility of any >> kind of plot at any time or place - to restore the King of >> England's reign over the freeholders of the USA > >And approximately when did this plot occur? The War of 1812? From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 17:11:43 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Wil Cooley) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:11:43 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6A3@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com>; from craighead.scot@vectorscm.com on Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 09:07:39AM -0800 References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6A3@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> Message-ID: <20020328091143.O1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> --MGmrTRZxVujQoXMz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Also Sprach Craighead, Scot D on Thu, Mar 28= , 2002 at 09:07:39AM PST > >> Or do you categorically deny any and all possibility of any=20 > >> kind of plot at any time or place - to restore the King of=20 > >> England's reign over the freeholders of the USA > > > >And approximately when did this plot occur? >=20 > The War of 1812? Would you call that a conspiracy also? Wil --=20 Wil Cooley wcooley@nakedape.cc Naked Ape Consulting http://nakedape.cc irc.linux.com #orlug,#pdxlug,#lnxs --MGmrTRZxVujQoXMz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8o07PJpn3uYWUEaoRAja5AKCrX0IQBkOR87Wn4P4CndI/MrqcdwCggqfp CgEb6sAeXlS6BdftlZCF/Ls= =sqHx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --MGmrTRZxVujQoXMz-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 17:26:14 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Craighead, Scot D) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:26:14 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Message-ID: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6A4@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> >I suppose. Most of what I see on Fox News is stories about >rescuing cats from trees or clueless reporters asking dumb >questions. Maybe I'm just thinking of FOX 49. I meant the Fox News Channel. >Okay, so consider the practically of this these days. What good >would half the male population carrying small arms be against >the size of weapons the military has now? Not much, I think. >The balance of military power has shifted considerably since WWI. This is a common arguement so let's consider it. I think that the population of the United States is about 360 million. Someone can correctly me if I'm wrong, but it's at least in the neighborhood. About half are male. That's 180 million. We choose the number 90%, so 90% of 180 million is 162 million. I don't know the number of poeple in the US military at the moment, but I do know it is well under 1 million. Lets say 500,000. That's probably close. So the rebels would out number the military by about 324 to 1. You can get more accurate numbers, but it wouldn't come out much different. I think that the rebels would win. Second consider that the military is supplied by the citizens and without that, they would not be resupplied. Also, consider the oaths taken by military personel. I don't know every word, but it starts with something like, "I will protect and defend the constitution of the United States against all enimies both foreign and domestic." This is first and above all else. Next theu pledge to obey the lawful orders of the president and the officer appointed by him. This is key. This is secondary to defending the constitution. This is all put in place so that if the president or some other official were to declare the constitution invalid, the military would be obligated to regard that person as a domestic enemy and take him out. As long as the president is acting within the scope of the constitution, the military is obligated to obay him. So the same event that would maybe cause 90% of the men in this country to rebel would most likely require the military to rebel with them. You may say that people just read the oath and don't pay attention or care about what they are saying, but I say that most do. Certainly the officers do as they have a great deal of training in this before they take the oath. The second amendment is an important part of the constitution put in place to ensure our freedom. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 18:18:51 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Craighead, Scot D) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:18:51 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Message-ID: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6A6@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> >I attribute the current state of affairs to greed and lust for power. We >set up a system that covets wealth and allows that wealth to >self-propogate. Small advantages existed for the wealthy to wield power. >Lust for power and greed are incredible motivators. The powerful >(wealthy) have the greatest ability to make change to society by >definition. Those people, acting in their own selfish interests, >continued to modify the system to benefit themselves... first in small >ways (as their small advantage in wealth gave them a small advantage in >power) and then in larger ways (as their wealth grew, their ability to >turn that wealth into power and that power into wealth also grew). This >degenerative cycle continues to this day and all that are not the wealthy >elite (e.g. you and me) suffer. Welcome to Earth. That's just how it is and how it has always been. The difference is in a communists society, there are no safeguards for us little people. We have one safeguard. The constitution of the United States. It works by limiting what the rich and powerful (who control the government) can do. The whole purpose of it is to limit the power of government so that you and I can live as we choose. In a communists government, the little people are just slaves. Marxism is just the pretty words that communists use to justify making people slaves. (We're doing this for YOU! See how much better off you are? Those capitalists aren't stealing your labor!) From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 18:24:14 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Craighead, Scot D) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:24:14 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Message-ID: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6A8@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> >> The War of 1812? > >Would you call that a conspiracy also? I think it meets the definition. Planned by more than one person. Attempting to remove the American government. That's illegal in this country. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 18:43:24 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Wil Cooley) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:43:24 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6A8@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com>; from craighead.scot@vectorscm.com on Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 10:24:14AM -0800 References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6A8@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> Message-ID: <20020328104324.P1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> --8bIXokQePRfDuBGo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Also Sprach Craighead, Scot D on Thu, Mar 28= , 2002 at 10:24:14AM PST > >> The War of 1812? > > > >Would you call that a conspiracy also? >=20 > I think it meets the definition. Planned by more than one person. > Attempting to remove the American government. That's illegal in this > country. But isn't the purpose of the 2nd amendment to protect the means of removing the government? With a rebellion of the sort which the 2nd amendment is supposed to provide for, what distinguishes treason from a just exercise of this right or, perhaps, duty? Wil --=20 Wil Cooley wcooley@nakedape.cc Naked Ape Consulting http://nakedape.cc irc.linux.com #orlug,#pdxlug,#lnxs --8bIXokQePRfDuBGo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8o2RMJpn3uYWUEaoRAkV2AJ4vyEU0Gbqzi1F99cws9GBOCITfMQCdGqoh 3JEJUDtQ2AnXqjsLHU84guY= =2/wj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --8bIXokQePRfDuBGo-- From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 18:47:50 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Michael Rasmussen) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:47:50 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Message-ID: <0E402AD0FEACD411B7C100508BCDF6110463ABB6@cmc-exchange.columbiafunds.com> > From: Wil Cooley [mailto:wcooley@nakedape.cc] > Just for the sake of argument, if not for sport hunting, what is > the purpose of second amendment? To have the people, ordinary citizens, able in some small way to put up a revolt in case the government gets too onerous again. I'm a fan of the right to keep and bear arms to take them up against our government should it become oppressive. NOTICE: This communication may contain confidential or other privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you have received this communication in error, please do not print, copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use the information. Also, please indicate to the sender that you have received this email in error, and delete the copy you received. Any communication that does not relate to official Columbia business is that of the sender and is neither given nor endorsed by Columbia. Thank you. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 18:52:55 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Michael Rasmussen) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:52:55 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Message-ID: <0E402AD0FEACD411B7C100508BCDF6110463ABB7@cmc-exchange.columbiafunds.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: J.A.Henshaw [mailto:jhenshaw@dsl-only.net] > > Quite a bit has changed that potentially affects free speech and > > the right to bear arms. > > > You are discussing unalienable natural rights. They are not > subject to legislation under our form of government. Those rights are neither unalienable or natural. If they were, they would not need the protection of the constitution and the government. -- Michael Rasmussen - Network Engineer, Columbia Management voice: 971-925-6723 cell: 503-807-1447 rasmussenm@columbiafunds.com http://www.columbiafunds.com NOTICE: This communication may contain confidential or other privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you have received this communication in error, please do not print, copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use the information. Also, please indicate to the sender that you have received this email in error, and delete the copy you received. Any communication that does not relate to official Columbia business is that of the sender and is neither given nor endorsed by Columbia. Thank you. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 18:55:29 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Craighead, Scot D) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:55:29 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Message-ID: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6A9@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> >> I think it meets the definition. Planned by more than one person. >> Attempting to remove the American government. That's illegal in this >> country. This was an attempt at humor. >But isn't the purpose of the 2nd amendment to protect the means of >removing the government? Yes. >With a rebellion of the sort which the 2nd amendment is supposed >to provide for, what distinguishes treason from a just exercise of >this right or, perhaps, duty? It would not be treason if persons in government were acting outside the scope of the constitution. The government needs to know that they can only go so far before the citizens will step in and stop them. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 20:55:06 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A. Henshaw) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:55:06 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: Message-ID: <3CA3832A.80103@jhenshaw.com> Jeme A Brelin wrote: > I'm not going to pick these all apart just for the sake of time and > tedium, but I wanted to mention a couple of big points... > > On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, J.A.Henshaw wrote: > >>Your money is replaced with debt instruments. >> > > Money _is_ a debt instrument. > Jeme, which kind of money are you talking about? Is 25.8 grains of gold, 900 fineness, a debt or a debt instrument? > >>Private property ownership is replaced with real estate ownership ( >>real estate is everything from the ground up ) >> > > Clearly you don't know the difference between realty and personalty. > Property law has been based on a distinction between the two for > centuries. > Please explain the significance here, between the two, as you see it. I am pointing out that you do not own the land under the home today, when you "buy" a home. What does your injection of "personalty" into the argument achieve, or prove, or illustrate, or contribute? Is it to say that I am incorrect? You make a one sentence retort claiming I don't know the difference between a word I used and a word I have not used. I have a hard time understanding your point, if any. > >>Basically, all ten planks of the communist manifesto are in place, >> > > Just for grins, run '"ten planks" "communist manifesto"' through > google. Last time I did, I got nothing but right-wing sites claiming the > above... mostly all copies of the same document scattered about the > web. The word often used today during election years is "platform". Platforms, are made of planks. > > In fact, I can't find one reference to "the ten planks" from a source that > isn't far right-wing. (And exactly one that isn't a specific reference to > how "America" has implemented each one.) > > Weird, huh? Your point? > > And as for what these planks are and what they DO, well, I assure you it > has nothing to do with communism, socialism, or even, more generally, > marxism. Well, the rest of the world disagrees with you. > > _IF_ they really were part of the original document by Marx and Engels, > then we must note that the document was a manifesto for a new political > party and the "planks" would be the planks of a platform. A political > party's platform is a statement of purpose for the upcoming political > season designed to show what specific policies are generally supported by > the candidates carrying party support. These particular planks appear to > be all about consolidating power. The consolidation of power is, of > course, contrary to the philosophy inherent in the rest of the Communist > Manifesto and certainly contrary to any cause of good or right in the rest > of Marx's work. BUT I can imagine a particular political group deciding, > at some point, that such a consolidation of power in the hands of a public > agency is a necessary first step in wresting power from the hands of the > private few who held it previously. And if the organization involved in > reigning in that power and bringing it under one umbrella were truly of a > marxist bent, the next step would be redistribution of that power to the > people. > > Now, that's a rationalization full of speculation. It's quite possible > that those planks, as stated by the various right-wing organizations that > hold them up, were part of a particular communist party's platform when > that party was merely a front for a megalomaniac or greedy few seeking > power. We all know full well and can point to examples in history showing > that evil and greedy people use the language of common good and populist > sentiment to mislead the people and dupe the gullible. > > But one thing can be stated with certainty: The "ten planks" as laid out > on the sites listed from the above google search are not communist in > nature and an implementation of the systems suggested within those planks > is certainly not necessarily communist. (I'd be hard pressed, as a matter > of fact, to contrive a communist society that sustained such institutions > as described in those planks with even the most idealized and carefully > chosen denizens.) Oh really? Again, I think the rest of the world agrees that Marx was a communist. > > >>And you deny a conspiracy. >>Do you attribute the current state of affairs to the chaos theory? >>Or is it possible perhaps there was a plot somewhere and this was not >>the result of random chance? >> > > You're talking about a basic destruction of civil rights and a loss of > popular control of the world's wealth. > > I attribute the current state of affairs to greed and lust for power. We > set up a system that covets wealth and allows that wealth to > self-propogate. Small advantages existed for the wealthy to wield power. > Lust for power and greed are incredible motivators. The powerful > (wealthy) have the greatest ability to make change to society by > definition. Those people, acting in their own selfish interests, > continued to modify the system to benefit themselves... first in small > ways (as their small advantage in wealth gave them a small advantage in > power) and then in larger ways (as their wealth grew, their ability to > turn that wealth into power and that power into wealth also grew). This > degenerative cycle continues to this day and all that are not the wealthy > elite (e.g. you and me) suffer. > > J. > Again, every word from you is a sales pitch for communism with a new face. -- Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what they will have for lunch. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 21:13:43 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russ Johnson) Date: 28 Mar 2002 13:13:43 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA3832A.80103@jhenshaw.com> References: <3CA3832A.80103@jhenshaw.com> Message-ID: <1017350024.2754.8.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 12:55, J.A. Henshaw wrote: > I am pointing out that you do not own the land under the > home today, when you "buy" a home. Why do you say that? When I have in my possession a deed to a property described in the county records, do I not own the property described? If I have an undeveloped property deeded to me, do I own nothing? > Oh really? Again, I think the rest of the world agrees > that Marx was a communist. No, Marx was a socialist. His dream was communism, achieved through socialist methods. America is more socialist now than it was 100 years ago. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 21:48:40 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Don Buchholz) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:48:40 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6A8@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> <20020328104324.P1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> Message-ID: <3CA38FB8.B62705AD@truedisk.com> Wil Cooley wrote: > > > But isn't the purpose of the 2nd amendment to protect the means > of removing the government? > That has always been my impression. > With a rebellion of the sort which the 2nd amendment is supposed > to provide for, what distinguishes treason from a just exercise > of this right or, perhaps, duty? > Whether you win or lose. If you win, there must've been sufficient popular support for a revolution. If you lose ... you're a criminal for disturbing our most genteel society. -- - Don Buchholz - TrueDisk, 7431 NW Evergreen Pkwy - #110, Hillsboro, OR 97124 - voice: 503/615-0888 x266 FAX: 503/693-0873 From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 22:03:45 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A. Henshaw) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:03:45 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: <3CA3832A.80103@jhenshaw.com> <1017350024.2754.8.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> Message-ID: <3CA39341.7050806@jhenshaw.com> Russ Johnson wrote: > On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 12:55, J.A. Henshaw wrote: > >>I am pointing out that you do not own the land under the >>home today, when you "buy" a home. >> > > Why do you say that? When I have in my possession a deed to a property > described in the county records, do I not own the property described? > You have exclusive right to use the land, as long as you: pay your taxes (rent) follow the building codes ( setbacks, fencelines, etc) the health codes (septic, water etc) the penal codes ( grow marijuana, etc) Build a shed with a concrete slab underneath? Got your permission from the city? What else do you "own" that you need permission to do things with? However, the above is food for thought, and not meant to be proof. I sense that you are genuinely interested in this and not merely being rhetorical, so if you want the entire enchilada I will be more than happy to give you the history and the proof. > If I have an undeveloped property deeded to me, do I own nothing? > You have exclusive use pending conditions set forth by the owner of the land, the city or county in which your deed is recorded in. > >>Oh really? Again, I think the rest of the world agrees >>that Marx was a communist. >> > > No, Marx was a socialist. His dream was communism, achieved through > socialist methods. > > America is more socialist now than it was 100 years ago. > > Same thing, whatever you say. Is there a significant distinction? Either one is antithetical to the constitution. -- Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what they will have for lunch. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 22:04:05 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Craighead, Scot D) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:04:05 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Message-ID: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6B2@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> >America is more socialist now than it was 100 years ago. And that's A Bad Thing. Thank you Democratic Party. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 22:11:58 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Richard Langis) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:11:58 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Liberal vs Conservative? Message-ID: <3CA3952E.60303@sun.com> The people on #orlug weren't very helpful, and google turned up a bunch of mirrored pages that said nothing, so I thought I'd ask this list. What is the definition of Liberal, and Conservative? Meant with regards to viewpoints, and with some examples. An example of sorts: Liberals are generally pro-choice, while Conservatives are generally pro-life. Any opinions out there? -R -- s u n m i c r o s y s t e m s ~ Richard Langis Jr. ~ richard.langis@sun.com From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 22:22:36 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:22:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6A6@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Craighead, Scot D wrote: > >This degenerative cycle continues to this day and all that are not the > >wealthy elite (e.g. you and me) suffer. > > Welcome to Earth. That's just how it is and how it has always been. You're right, of course. That is how it's always been. But at least you recognize it is greed and lust for power that causes a destruction of liberty. It's not a communist plot. > The difference is in a communists society, there are no safeguards for > us little people. We have one safeguard. The constitution of the > United States. Wow. Do you know what communism IS? Communism is an economic system, not a political one. The Constitution of the United States doesn't reflect favor for one economic system over another. > It works by limiting what the rich and powerful (who control the > government) can do. The whole purpose of it is to limit the power of > government so that you and I can live as we choose. The whole purpose of communism is to limit the power of wealth and its ability to coerce the public by ensuring public control of the means of production of human necessities. > In a communists government, the little people are just slaves. I think you're confusing communism with Stalinism. > Marxism is just the pretty words that communists use to justify making > people slaves. (We're doing this for YOU! See how much better off > you are? Those capitalists aren't stealing your labor!) I think a person can make a VERY strong argument that working in a modern capitalist nation amounts to slavery for an enormous percentage of the people. While the propaganda on the right talks about the rising tide raising all boats and the land of opportunity, real wages have steadily decreased while working hours have steadily increased. More than 40% of the people have no wealth of which to speak and that number has also been steadily increasing over the past forty years. That's the recipe for a growing slave class... just so you know. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 22:23:25 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A.Henshaw) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:23:25 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: <20020327143517.V1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA252D7.4060301@jhenshaw.com> <20020327153211.Y1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA25BBC.8020601@jhenshaw.com> <20020327164725.B1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA2727C.8040303@dsl-only.net> <20020327175815.J1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA2868D.1010007@jhenshaw.com> <20020327221118.L1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA2CB9B.7080600@jhenshaw.com> <20020328022959.N1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> Message-ID: <3CA397DD.6060908@dsl-only.net> Wil Cooley wrote: >> >>"I can perfectly well understand how inflation decreases the >>value of the money I have on hand." >> >>Apparently not *perfectly* well; but I won't criticize your >>choice of words, sentence structure, or provide Merriam >>Webster's definition of *perfectly* because it's not >>important, and I would be an ass. >> > > You would be correct to do so; as I said, I mispoke. Wil; Is this what you expect me to paraphrase for you: The Economic Rape of America - Chapter One WHAT IS MONEY? Abraham was very rich in livestock, in silver, and in gold. Genesis 13, verse 2 "The definitions, or descriptions, that have been applied to money are legion. They range from those which carry the implication that [the love of] it is the root of all evil to those who regard it as manna from heaven. Some have argued that it does not matter, others that it matters too much. Money has been described as a political, or sociological, phenomenon, as a mechanism, as a mirror, as a religion, as a myth, as a means of communication which reduces complexity and as a distortion which increases it, as the curse of the miser and the elixir of the spendthrift, as a means to all ends and as an end in itself, as barren and as all-powerful, as inert or neutral and as "the drink which stimulates the economic system to activity," as the tool of social progress and as an obstacle to it." -- S. Herbert Frankel, 1977 To properly understand the extent of the economic rape of America, how it is being perpetrated, and who does it, we need to understand a few things about this curious thing or phenomenon we call "money." ANDREW CARNEGIE'S EXPLANATION "I suppose everyone who has spoken to or written for the public has wished at times that everybody would drop everything and just listen to him for a few minutes. I feel so this morning, for I believe that a grave injury threatens the people and progress of our country simply because the masses - the farmers and the wage-earners - do not understand the question of money. I wish therefore to explain "money" in so simple a way that all can understand it." So wrote Andrew Carnegie, the steel magnate, around the turn of the century - I guess. I have an undated 28-page booklet by him called The A B C of Money. The booklet is not copyrighted, so I shall quote from it extensively. First, Carnegie explains why "money" comes about and what it really is. In "primitive" societies barter develops because some people have things that others want, and some people do certain things better than others. Specialization and division of labor occur. One person becomes a shoemaker, another a farmer. The farmer exchanges ten bushels of wheat for a pair of shoes. Both parties gain from the transaction. It would take the farmer five times as long to make a pair of shoes, compared to the shoemaker, and it is not even practical for the shoemaker to attempt to grow his own wheat. As society develops, someone gets the idea of becoming a "barter specialist" and opens a store. His store becomes a center for barter. Spontaneously, in every society, some article becomes the "basis-article" that turns out to be most convenient for exchange and for expressing the value of other articles. In Pennsylvania that article was wheat; in Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina it was tobacco. There was a saying, "As good as wheat." Tobacco remained a basic money in Virginia and its neighboring colonies for nearly two centuries. Our modern word "pecuniary" comes from "pecunia," the Latin word for "cow." Our word "fee" comes from the German word "Vieh," meaning cattle. In several societies cattle spontaneously came to serve the function of money. In other societies salt, silk, dried fish, feathers, stones, cowrie shells, beads, cigarettes, cognac, whiskey, sheep, goats, and horses have been used as money. The early American settlers used the "wampum," a form of shell, to trade with native Americans. Now back to Carnegie: "... [I]n all cases human society chooses for that basis-article we call "money" that which fluctuates least in price, is the most generally used or desired, is in the greatest, most general, and most constant demand, and has value in itself... An article is not first made valuable by law and then elected to be "money." The article first proves itself valuable and best suited for the purpose, and so becomes of itself and in itself the basis-article - money. It elects itself. We take one step further. The country becomes more and more populous, the wants of the people more and more numerous. The use of bulky products like wheat and tobacco, changeable in value, liable to decay, and of different grades, is soon found troublesome and unsuited for the growing business of exchange of articles, and they are therefore unfit to be longer used as "money." You see at once that we could not get along today with grain as "money." Then metals proved their superiority. These do not decay, do not change in value so rapidly, and they share with wheat and tobacco the one essential quality of also having value in themselves for other purposes than for the mere basis of exchange. People want them for personal adornment or in manufacture and the arts - for a thousand uses; and it is this very fact that makes them suitable for use as "money." Just try to count how many purposes gold is needed for, because it is best suited for those purposes. It meets us everywhere. We cannot even get married without the ring of gold. ... We have proceeded so far that we have now dropped all perishable articles and elected metals as our "money"; or, rather, metals have proved themselves better than anything else for the standard of value, "money." But another great step had to be taken. When I was in China, I received as change shavings and chips cut off a bar of silver and weighed before my eyes in the scales of the merchant, for the Chinese have no "coined" money. ... [Y]ou can well see how impossible it was for me to prevent the Chinese dealer from giving me less than the amount of silver to which I was entitled... Civilized nations soon felt the necessity of having their governments take certain quantities of the metals and stamp upon them evidence of their weight, purity, and real value. Thus came the "coinage" of metals into "money" - a great advance. People then knew at sight the exact value of each piece and could no longer be cheated, no weighing or testing being necessary. Note that the government stamp did not add any value to the coin. The government did not attempt to "make money" out of nothing; it only told the people the market value of the metal in each coin, just what the metal - the raw material - could be sold for as metal and not as "money." But even after this much swindling occurred. Rogues cut the edges and then beat the coins out, so that many of these became very light. A clever Frenchman invented the "milling" of the edges of the coins, whereby this robbery was stopped, and civilized nations had at last the coinage which still remains with us, the most perfect ever known, because it is of high value in itself and changes least... Although one would think that in coined metal pieces we had reached perfection, and that with these the masses of the people could not be cheated out of what is so essential to their well-being - "honest money" - yet one way was found to defraud the people even when such coin was used. The coins have sometimes been "debased" by needy governments after exhausting wars or pestilence, when countries were really too poor or too weak to recover from their misfortunes. A coin is called "debased" coin when it does not possess metal enough to bring in the open market the sum stamped upon the coin by the government. There is nothing new about this practice, which always cheats the masses. It is very, very old. Five hundred and seventy-four years before Christ the Greeks debased their coinage. The Roman Emperors debased theirs often when in desperate straits. England debased hers in the year 1300. The Scotch coin was once so debased that one dollar was worth only twelve cents. The Irish, the French, German, and Spanish governments have all tried debased coin when they could wring no more taxes directly out of their people, and had therefore to get more money from them indirectly. It was always the last resort to "debase" the coinage. These instances happened long ago. Nations of the first rank in our day do not fall so low. I must pause to make one exception to this statement. I bow my head in shame as I write it - the republic of the United States. Every one of its silver dollars is a "debased coin." When a government issues "debased coin," it takes leave of all that experience has proved to be sound in regard to money. Sound finance requires the government only to certify to the real value possessed by each coin issued from its mints, so that the people may not be cheated. Every time the government stamps the words "One Dollar" upon 371 1/4 grains of silver, it stamps a lie; disgraceful, but, alas! too true, for the silver in it is worth today not a dollar, but only seventy- eight cents. Another delusion about money has often led nations into trouble - the idea that a government could "make money" simply by stamping certain words upon pieces of paper, just as any of you can "make money" by writing a note promising to pay one hundred dollars on demand. But you know that when you do that, you are not making "money," but making "a debt"; so is any government that issues its promise to pay. And there is this about both the individual and the government who take to issuing such notes on a large scale: they seldom pay them. The French did this during their revolution, and more recently the Confederate States "made money" at a great pace, and issued bonds which are now scarcely worth the paper they are printed upon. Every experiment of this kind has proved that there can be no money "made" where there is not value behind it... But I am now to tell you another quality which this basis-article of metal has proved itself to possess... The whole world has such confidence in its fixity of value that there has been built upon it, as upon a sure foundation, a tower of "credit" so high, so vast, that all the silver and gold in the United States, and all the greenbacks and notes issued by the government, only perform eight percent of the exchanges of the country. Go into any bank, trust company, mill, factory, store, or place of business, and you will find that for every one hundred thousand dollars of business transacted, only about eight thousand dollars of "money" is used, and this only for petty purchases and payments. Ninety-two percent of the business is done with little bits of paper - checks, drafts. Upon this basis also rest all the government bonds, all state, county, and city bonds, and the thousands of millions of bonds the sale of which has enabled our great railway systems to be built, and also the thousands of millions of the earnings of the masses deposited in savings-banks, which has been lent by these banks to various parties, and which must be returned in "good money" or the poor depositor's savings will be partially or wholly lost. The businesses and exchanges of the country, therefore, are not done now with "money" - with the article itself. Just as in former days the articles themselves ceased to be exchanged, and a metal called "money" was used to effect the exchanges, so today the metal itself - the "money" - is no longer used. The check or draft of the buyer of articles upon a store of gold deposited in a bank - a little piece of paper - is all that passes between the buyer and the seller. Why is this bit of paper taken by the seller or the one to whom there is a debt due? Because the taker is confident that if he really needed the article itself that it calls for - the gold - he could get it. He is confident also that he will not need the article itself, and why? Because for what he wishes to buy the seller or any man whom he owes will take his check, a similar bit of paper, instead of gold itself; and then, most vital of all, everyone is confident that the basis-article cannot change in value... ... The question is, How long could you get people to take these slips for dollars? How soon would some suspicious man suggest that you were issuing too many? And then these slips would lose reputation; people would begin to doubt whether you could really pay all the dollars you promised if called upon; and from that moment you could issue no more. Just so with governments: All can keep their small change afloat, although it may not contain metal equal to its face value; and it is a poor government which cannot go a little further and get the world to take something from it in the shape of "money" which is only partially so... Every nation has had eventually to recoin its "debased" coin or repudiate its obligations, and go through the perils and disgrace of loss of credit and position. In many instances the "debased" coin never was redeemed, the poor people who held it being compelled to take the loss. ... Upon the solid rock of gold as our basis-article we have built up the wealthiest country in the world, and the greatest agricultural, manufacturing, and mining and commercial country ever known. We have prospered beyond any nation the sun ever shone upon. In no country are wages of labor so high or the masses of the people so well off. Shall we discard the gold basis, or even endanger it? This is the question before the people of the United States today." All the above quotations are from Andrew Carnegie's The A B C of Money. The following section is partially based on The Biggest Con: How the Government is Fleecing You by Irwin A. Schiff. THE FUNCTIONS OF MONEY According to Schiff, "Money, like the wheel, was one of mankind's most important inventions... Because of the development of money, which facilitated and accelerated the exchange of goods and services and made specialization and division of labor possible, productivity increased and thus living standards rose. The sounder a nation's money, the more efficient would be its economy and the faster would its standard of living grow." Sound money performs four basic functions: 1. It serves as a standard of value or a unit of account. At present the U.S. Dollar still performs this function. When we see something priced at $10 we have an idea of its value and how that value compares to the value of something else. Companies keep their accounting records and issue their financial statements, using the dollar as unit of account. 2. Money serves as a medium of exchange. As Carnegie and Schiff explained, money facilitates exchange. The U.S. Dollar also still performs this function. There are several reasons why the dollar is still used as a medium of exchange: "Legal tender laws" that say we must accept the dollar; "Everybody" uses the dollar - banks, shops, everybody; Ignorance of the true nature of the dollar; Confidence in the dollar; Most other currencies lose their value even faster than the dollar - in comparison the dollar seems "strong"; Most Americans spend their money as fast as they get it, so they don't notice its loss of value from day to day; Habit; Anyone who attempts to introduce an alternative currency is branded a counterfeiter and criminal. 3. Money provides mobility of value. Because of our superb communications, the dollar can be wired almost instantaneously to any part of the world - value being "transported" from one place to another. Money also makes it possible to obtain value in the present in the form of a loan or credit, and to repay the value in the future - another aspect of mobility of value. 4. Money serves as a store of value; it makes it possible to "transport" value into the future. Because of the rapid rate at which the dollar loses its value, it no longer serves as a store of value into the future. Every month the dollar loses some of its value. As we shall see in Chapter Four, the loss of value is considerably greater than "measured" by government statistics, like the consumer price index. STATE, RELIGION, AND MONEY Many of the original American settlers were religious rebels. In England and Europe they had been persecuted for practicing "illegal religions." For example, William Penn, the famous Quaker who gave his name to Pennsylvania, was prosecuted in England for preaching an "illegal religion." The American settlers wanted to be free to practice the religion of their choice. They certainly did not want the state to dictate to them what their religion should be. Our Founding Fathers established the principle called "separation of church and state." The state has no business interfering with people's religion or dictating what their religious beliefs should be. This principle has been repeatedly upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. This is why prayers are not allowed in state schools. Now stretch your imagination. Imagine that the original American settlers were "money rebels" rather than religious rebels. They had been persecuted for using the money of their choice. They came to America to achieve monetary freedom. People had an inalienable right to use the money of their choice. Our Founding Fathers established the principle of the "separation of money and state." The state had no business interfering with people's money or dictating to them what their money should be. Not so long ago, in Russia, atheism was the "state religion." Other religions were declared illegal. People practicing the religions of their choice were persecuted. At the time of the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress considered decreeing the death penalty for anyone who refused to accept the "lawful money" - Continental Dollars - they issued. That is where the expression "not worth a continental" comes from. Today, in America, the paper dollar is the "state money." There are "legal tender laws" which essentially decree that people must use the paper dollar as money and other kinds of money are illegal. People who use the money of their choice are persecuted, prosecuted, and jailed. The members of the National Commodity and Barter Association use gold as money. During the past few years their branches across the country have been raided by armed government agents. Their gold, equipment, and records have been confiscated; their members persecuted, prosecuted, and jailed... Hans F. Sennholz, author of Age of Inflation, was asked in the context of currency reform after World War II in Germany, what he would do if he had the power to reform the currency. His reply: "When pressed for his proposal for a currency reform, this writer must confess that he would have conducted the simplest reform of all. He would pass no reform law, seek no conversion or parity, and offer no government cooperation. He would merely cease and desist from interfering with the inalienable rights of man. In particular, he would immediately restore all economic freedoms and repeal all legal tender laws. The freedom to trade and hold gold, the freedom to use gold in all exchanges, and the freedom to mint coins would bring forth the ideal currency to which all others would repair." WHAT, THEN, IS MONEY? In this report the term "money" will be used to refer to whatever people freely choose to serve as their medium of exchange. The term "fiat money" will be used to refer to what people are forced by government decree to use as medium of exchange. The Latin word "fiat" means "let it be done." The U.S. dollar is fiat money. (Similarly, in Russia atheism was the "fiat religion" people were forced to adopt by government decree.) The term "currency" will be used to include all the items people use in practice as a medium of exchange. It includes money, fiat money, checks, drafts, bonds, etc. I will use the term "currency supply" (where most people say "money supply") to refer to the total currency in circulation. In a free market people choose their money. There is competition between different kinds of money. Over time, people come to prefer and use as money that which best fulfills the functions of money outlined above. Historically, people have chosen gold and silver as money. The Bible is replete with examples. It is quite possible that monetary theorists, such as C.H. Douglas (Social Credit), Sylvio Gesell (The Natural Economic Order), Henry Meulen (Free Banking), and E.C. Riegel (Private Enterprise Money), will devise forms of money that will prove superior to gold and silver. In a free market all such "advanced moneys" will have the opportunity to prove themselves. However, as workable money, only gold and silver have passed the test of history. "I deny the power of the general government to making paper money, or anything else a legal tender." -- Thomas Jefferson "The terms 'lawful money' and 'lawful money of the United States' shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States." (12 USC 152) "Legal tender is quite different from lawful money. In no U.S. law are Federal Reserve notes declared to be "lawful money." Lawful money is that money described in the Coinage Act of 1792 and in Article I, section 10 of the U.S. Constitution: gold and silver... the only money the Supreme Law of the Land allows states to make legal tender." -- Tupper Saussy, 1980 From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 22:30:13 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A. Henshaw) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:30:13 -0800 Subject: [Fwd: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.] Message-ID: <3CA39975.50802@jhenshaw.com> I sent this to Wil directly by mistake; resent to the list. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:52:49 -0800 From: "J.A. Henshaw" To: Wil Cooley Wil Cooley wrote: > >>Do you think I can give you 20 years of study in a paragraph >>without losing you somehow? >> >>Why in the heck don't you just go look it up? I am not in >>the full time education business. >> > > The problem is that you've covered so much ground that it's > impossible to know what "it" is in the above sentence. You can't > make a single point and back it up. When I ask you more carefully, > you side-step the point with non sequiturs and ad ignoratum > arguments! > > (Scot, didn't I tell you this is what he'd do?) > Take your pick, Wil, and look it up. You don't think the constitution requires the govt to use gold and silver coins, I say it does. I point out that no state shall use anything but gold and silver coin as payment for debts. You grab a dictionary and read off a definition of coin to me that says a coin is a piece of paper. How does a govt make a silver or gold piece of paper, Wil. If I cannot pay a debt because the lawful means of doing so is removed from circulation, this opens a huge can of worms. For now, however, since you cannot pick any topic from all of "it" we've covered; I'll again go back to the simple concept of a gold standard and a gold coin, and ask you how can a debt be repaid with today's legal tender? Remember: A debt can only be paid with lawful money, as far as the court is concerned. A debt can be repaid in like kind of money, as far as common law is concerned. I asked you if the bank would like being repaid for a home "loan" with like kind of money. I wonder if you would like being sued in a court of law for payment of a debt when the holder in due course of the "note" you wrote from your checking account for, say, a car, went to the federal reserve and asked for his gold dollars, and was laughed out of the bank. Now he has a worthless piece of paper, and you have his car. You have not paid for the car yet, as he has not recieved equitable consideration. By the way, this has been done, and can be done, at any time. Banks have beem sued under the RICO statutes as a matter of fact, and plaintiffs have won treble damages. I named a book you can get at your library, written by a retired Admiral and L.L.B. which goes into great detail and it names the cases in which these plaintiffs won. I do not expect to rewrite that book here in email in order to convince you of anything, it is an exercise for the reader to follow up if you have doubts. I don't take responsibility for proving every word I say to you, particularly when I have the strong sense that you are looking for ways to shoot it down at every turn, while being flippant and joking about things constantly, I don't get the sense that you are genuinely interested in the facts, it seems to be a game to you and that is why I don't take hours out of my day to "prove" my "discoveries" to you. The ones I have provided cites for "bore" you and you do not finish reading them. Why do you still expect me to play that game? >>>> >>>I can perfectly well understand how inflation decreases the >>>value of the money I have on hand. >>> >>> >>> >>OK so far so good.... >> > > Actually, I mispoke here. What I should have said was "I can > perfectly well recognize that inflation decreases the value of > money I have on hand." > > >> >>>>I tell you what, since you want to rewrite the constitution >>>>to account for Keynesian economics, and the inflation he >>>>championed; >>>> >>>> >> >>There is a a message wherein you say that the constitution >>didn't account for inflation, and so on....if you can't >>follow your own arguments, it's no wonder you can't follow >>mine. >> > > That statement was in a wholly separate argument which I was > having with Scot. I was asking him an hypothetical question > about what he thought of the matter. The context should > have been clear. > The thread is the same, whether you addressed Scot, or whoever is reading the thread, I don't see a great distinction here. > >>In another post you say that the first and second amendments >>need to be reexamined. >> >>Hence, my perception of your view that it needs to be >>rewritten... I guess reexamined in Latin means something >>else, who knows.... sheesh! I can't follow you Wil! DO you >>or don't you want to rewrite it? >> > > In English even! "reexamine" does *not* mean "rewrite"! > > What, pray tell, is the point of re-examining a written document, if not to rewrite it. >>>> >>>> >>>I don't care about the definition of lawful money. You have >>>failed to demonstrate to me why it is important and how things >>>could realistically be changed for the better. Wil, if you don't care about definitions, why are we even discussing dictionaries. Why would/should someone bother to explain things to you when the definitions are not important to you? The topic of how things would be changed for the better is enormous and far-reaching, better for you to get a book and take it upon yourself to find out, I am not arguing this part of it at any rate; I was arguing the fundamental points such as the constitutional requirement for gold backed currency. The notes to the constitutional convention have plenty to offer in support of my position, have you read them yet? Why not let Thomas Jefferson speak for himself on this subject, he is far more eloquent than I. Retyping his words is not my idea of time well spent. > > So this is able to just happen, *poof*, overnight? Everyone > will like it more than the way before? We'll still be able > to get along with the rest of the world? > And what if it is? Will you still find ways to disparage anyone subscribing to this simple concept because it is not often repeated and not yet internalized by you? I have my doubts, chiefly because you seem to think it is absolutely absurd. Even the most cursory study of this subject will quickly prove that inflation is a disease that is like a cancer on our society; I am absolutely amazed that you seem to dispute this. Do you think latchkey children are a good thing? Two wage earners to make ends meet a good thing? Is it so hard to see? There are two examples for you right there. I don't think the entire litany is going to make my position any more or any less persuasive, so I will leave it at that. > >>>I'm still awaiting your response to a fair number of questions I >>>have asked. Which dictionary has "conspired" to change the meanings >>>of words to its will and which words? You started out with "coin", >>>in our discussion on IRC, and then today moved to "regulate" and >>>"militia." When did the British crown "conspire" to "restore the >>>King of England's reign over the freeholders of the USA" ? >>> >>>Wil Verbicide is what it is called. Is that word in your dictionary? Until you understand the magnitude of the swindling of the nation via privately held banks controlling your money supply, I refuse to get into a completely unproductive tangent such as verbicide and it's ramifications. You are the one who brought out a dictionary and tried to prove to me that the constitution does not mean gold coins when it says gold coins, okay. I don't want to argue about the lexicographers when the point is the constitution and it's intent. The constitution and the words used within, it is generally agreed, should be analyzed within the context of the language in use at the time it was written. The accepted dictionary in use at the time, Black's Law. The 1828 Black's Law edition is the proper dictionary to look to. After that verbicide has shifted the meaning of too many of the words chosen by the authors of said constitution, and using your Websters 2001 is not going to be a valid reference for the purpose of the discussion at hand. Can you agree to that? >>> >> >>Yes, and I told you that Title 4 has the governments own >>rules for the war flag and what it was about, you do not >>respond after I show you. >> > > Yes, because reading about how to fold the flag bores me. > Well that's your problem, not mine. > >>We will argue about etymology rather than here your >>assessment of the gold fringe on the flag, and it's >>significance. >> > > I fail to see any significance. About the only thing you've said > about it that sounds at all important is Uh, yeah, it is *a little* important, WIl.. that the flag that flies > now indicates wartime and marshall law, Martial law in which a person is guilty > until proven innocent. Just a *slight* change to the justice system, eh. Is that the point you're trying to make? > If so, why has the judicial system not made any recognizable > changes? This is too naive to be intellectually honest coming from you. Where are the protestors screaming in the street about > innocent-until-guilty being overthrown? Uh, a lot of them are in jail, I can list a few. But you don't want the answers, you are arguing with yourself are you not? Why didn't you just say that > in the first place instead of sending me to a page with paragraph > after paragraph about how the flag should be folded? > > Because you asked for cites. >>>You are still waiting for responses because I don't see the point in >>having several simultaneous debates with you; you apparently cannot >>follow too well and as you say, you think coins are paper money since >>our discussion in IRC and yet you think you understand money perfectly >>well... why go any further? >> > > I never said I think coins are paper money; they are manifestly > different types of objects--one made a base metal (with a gloss of > precious metal) and one made of Crane paper. > I see you neglect entirely lawful money, coins which are made of pure precious metals, not coated with a gloss of precious metal. I made reference to this again and again because you had a dictionary claiming that coin and paper money were one and the same, Wil. Was it published in 1776? Have you read the notes to the constitutional convention? If you have, why don't you see my point? It is clear that we had a war to break free from the bank of england, and its paper money, is it not? Is that news to you? Why do you suppose that fought a war over this if it is of superfluous import?? Are you being rhetorical like you are when you ask why we need a 2nd amendment, or what? -- Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what they will have for lunch. -- Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what they will have for lunch. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 22:32:14 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A. Henshaw) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:32:14 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: Message-ID: <3CA399EE.4060704@jhenshaw.com> Jeme A Brelin wrote: > On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Craighead, Scot D wrote: > >>>This degenerative cycle continues to this day and all that are not the >>>wealthy elite (e.g. you and me) suffer. >>> >>Welcome to Earth. That's just how it is and how it has always been. >> > > You're right, of course. That is how it's always been. But at least you > recognize it is greed and lust for power that causes a destruction of > liberty. It's not a communist plot. > > >>The difference is in a communists society, there are no safeguards for >>us little people. We have one safeguard. The constitution of the >>United States. >> > > Wow. Do you know what communism IS? > > Communism is an economic system, not a political one. The Constitution of > the United States doesn't reflect favor for one economic system over > another. > > >>It works by limiting what the rich and powerful (who control the >>government) can do. The whole purpose of it is to limit the power of >>government so that you and I can live as we choose. >> > > The whole purpose of communism is to limit the power of wealth and its > ability to coerce the public by ensuring public control of the means of > production of human necessities. > > >>In a communists government, the little people are just slaves. >> > > I think you're confusing communism with Stalinism. > > >>Marxism is just the pretty words that communists use to justify making >>people slaves. (We're doing this for YOU! See how much better off >>you are? Those capitalists aren't stealing your labor!) >> > > I think a person can make a VERY strong argument that working in a modern > capitalist nation amounts to slavery for an enormous percentage of the > people. > > While the propaganda on the right talks about the rising tide raising all > boats and the land of opportunity, real wages have steadily decreased > while working hours have steadily increased. More than 40% of the people > have no wealth of which to speak and that number has also been steadily > increasing over the past forty years. That's the recipe for a growing > slave class... just so you know. > > J. > -- > ----------------- > Jeme A Brelin > jeme@brelin.net Yes, and Socialism is the answer, I know. It couldn't have anything to do with the paper money I talk about, could it. No, that wouldn't fit your agenda so you ignore it. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 22:32:20 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Bill) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:32:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Liberal vs Conservative? In-Reply-To: <3CA3952E.60303@sun.com> Message-ID: Conservatives believe "the end justifies the means," while liberals get accused of believing that. On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Richard Langis wrote: > The people on #orlug weren't very helpful, and google turned up a bunch of > mirrored pages that said nothing, so I thought I'd ask this list. > > What is the definition of Liberal, and Conservative? Meant with regards to > viewpoints, and with some examples. > > An example of sorts: Liberals are generally pro-choice, while Conservatives > are generally pro-life. > > Any opinions out there? > > -R > From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 22:32:20 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Bill) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:32:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Liberal vs Conservative? In-Reply-To: <3CA3952E.60303@sun.com> Message-ID: Conservatives believe "the end justifies the means," while liberals get accused of believing that. On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Richard Langis wrote: > The people on #orlug weren't very helpful, and google turned up a bunch of > mirrored pages that said nothing, so I thought I'd ask this list. > > What is the definition of Liberal, and Conservative? Meant with regards to > viewpoints, and with some examples. > > An example of sorts: Liberals are generally pro-choice, while Conservatives > are generally pro-life. > > Any opinions out there? > > -R > From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 22:40:05 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A.Henshaw) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:40:05 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: <20020327143517.V1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA252D7.4060301@jhenshaw.com> <20020327153211.Y1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA25BBC.8020601@jhenshaw.com> <20020327164725.B1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA2727C.8040303@dsl-only.net> <20020327175815.J1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA2868D.1010007@jhenshaw.com> <20020327221118.L1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA2CB9B.7080600@jhenshaw.com> <20020328022959.N1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA397DD.6060908@dsl-only.net> Message-ID: <3CA39BC5.5000800@dsl-only.net> THE DESTRUCTION OF THE U.S. DOLLAR You that trample on the needy, and bring ruin to the poor of the land, saying... We will make the ephah small and the shekel great, and practice deceit with false balances. Amos 8, verses 4-5 "It is apparent from the whole context of the Constitution as well as the history of the times which gave birth to it, that it was the purpose of the Convention to establish a currency consisting of the precious metals. These were adopted by a permanent rule excluding the use of a perishable medium of exchange, such as of certain agricultural commodities recognized by the statutes of some States as tender for debts, or the still more pernicious expedient of paper currency." -- Andrew Jackson, 1836 "There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." -- John Maynard Keynes, 1920 http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/rape2.shtml From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 22:42:02 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A.Henshaw) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:42:02 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: <20020327143517.V1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA252D7.4060301@jhenshaw.com> <20020327153211.Y1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA25BBC.8020601@jhenshaw.com> <20020327164725.B1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA2727C.8040303@dsl-only.net> <20020327175815.J1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA2868D.1010007@jhenshaw.com> <20020327221118.L1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA2CB9B.7080600@jhenshaw.com> <20020328022959.N1538@rheingold.nakedape.priv> <3CA397DD.6060908@dsl-only.net> Message-ID: <3CA39C3A.7080808@dsl-only.net> "All of the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arises, not from the defects of the Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation." -- John Adams, Founding Father http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/rape3.shtml From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 22:51:46 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Craighead, Scot D) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:51:46 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Message-ID: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6B4@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> >You're right, of course. That is how it's always been. But at least you >recognize it is greed and lust for power that causes a destruction of >liberty. It's not a communist plot. Thank you. >Wow. Do you know what communism IS? > >Communism is an economic system, not a political one. The Constitution of >the United States doesn't reflect favor for one economic system over >another. It's an econimic system that requires the government to own the means of production, so it is both economic and political. Our constitution is just political. >The whole purpose of communism is to limit the power of wealth and its >ability to coerce the public by ensuring public control of the means of >production of human necessities. This is where your arguement falls apart. What does public control mean? It means that the government owns it. That means that the people that control the government also control the wealth. Sound familiar? They have no check and balance because they control both the government and the businesses at the same time. Absolute power. If you have very decent people in government then this could work OK. What happens if an evil person (Stalin) gets in there? >I think you're confusing communism with Stalinism. I think you are confusing that they are not the same thing. See what I said above. What eventually happens in every form of government is some jerk gets in there and starts screwing over the public for their own benefit. It happens here also. The only difference is we have ways of getting the jerk out of power. >I think a person can make a VERY strong argument that working in a modern >capitalist nation amounts to slavery for an enormous percentage of the >people. I think not. Simply because I can choose to quit a job I don't like. Slaves can't do that. >While the propaganda on the right talks about the rising tide raising all >boats and the land of opportunity, real wages have steadily decreased >while working hours have steadily increased. More than 40% of the people >have no wealth of which to speak and that number has also been steadily >increasing over the past forty years. That's the recipe for a growing >slave class... just so you know. I will give you that in the last few years people are being asked to work harder for the same pay. This is corporate greed and the only solution is for workers to just refuse to take it. I have. I was working 70 to 80 hours a week for almost a year. I quit that job and now get paid about the same to work 40 to 50. Employers will take what you give them. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 23:14:12 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:14:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA3832A.80103@jhenshaw.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, J.A. Henshaw wrote: > Jeme A Brelin wrote: > > Money _is_ a debt instrument. > > Jeme, which kind of money are you talking about? Is 25.8 > grains of gold, 900 fineness, a debt or a debt instrument? 25.8 grains of gold, 900 fineness is a pile of dust, to me. Neither I nor anyone with which I have regular need to trade has any need for gold, either. As an arbitrary medium of exchange, gold was chosen for its durability (your safe full of amassed wealth isn't going to rust away) and its scarcity in the ancient world. I don't see any of those things being particularly valuable to me. And choosing some random stone as the principle medium of exchange only encourages the constant scoring and scouring of the earth for embedded wealth that doesn't contribute to human progress. And of course, gold has practical uses and so as it is crafted into items of greater value than their base metal (objects of historical or artistic significance, objects of utility) which decreases the global supply. Presumably that decrease in supply would eventually impact the value and the crafted objects would be worth more melted down and chopped into grains than as history, art or tools. How much of Chinese or Mayan culture was melted down into coins to please some ruler or lord's lust for gold? > >>Private property ownership is replaced with real estate ownership ( > >>real estate is everything from the ground up ) > > > > Clearly you don't know the difference between realty and personalty. > > Property law has been based on a distinction between the two for > > Please explain the significance here, between the two, as > you see it. Essentially, ersonalty is property which is movable, realty is property which is not. > I am pointing out that you do not own the land under the home today, > when you "buy" a home. Well, my personal argument would be that you have no fucking right to claim absolute control over something that will exist long after you're gone. Our first obligation, as living things, is to posterity. > What does your injection of "personalty" into the argument achieve, or > prove, or illustrate, or contribute? > Is it to say that I am incorrect? You make a one sentence retort > claiming I don't know the difference between a word I used and a word > I have not used. > I have a hard time understanding your point, if any. My point is that the distinction between different KINDS of property and the relative rights a person can hold over that property is as old as the concept of property itself. The concept of "real estate" was not invented to undermine private property, but has always been a separate concept from personalty and the kinds of rights you hold over realty has always been distinct from personalty. I think you should read a first year law text on property. Go up to Lewis & Clark and get one at the bookstore there. You'll find that it's mostly a description of the history of property and property rights in the western world since the middle ages and a description of the common law. The law as implemented within any particular State or the United States collectively is not the focus. There is nothing new about the way we treat realty today. Your property is not being taken away... the rights you would assert over realty have never existed. > The word often used today during election years is "platform". > Platforms, are made of planks. Yeah, I got that. > > In fact, I can't find one reference to "the ten planks" from a source that > > isn't far right-wing. (And exactly one that isn't a specific reference to > > how "America" has implemented each one.) > > > > Weird, huh? > > Your point? My point is that there was not one historical reference to "planks of the communist manifesto" and no online copy of the communist manifesto uses the word "plank". > > And as for what these planks are and what they DO, well, I assure you it > > has nothing to do with communism, socialism, or even, more generally, > > marxism. > > Well, the rest of the world disagrees with you. I don't really think so. Read Capital again and tell me where the description of communism refers to a monolithic state. Marx used the term "communist" interchangeably with "utopian". He described a society in which the means of production of human necessity is not privately controlled and, hence, people could not be manipulated based on their needs. Desires beyond needs are not addressed. Marx described this communist world as being the inevitable evolutionary result of civilization. He described an intermediary step between "communism" (or, "the end of dictatorship") and what he perceived as his day's "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie". He refered to that economic order as "socialism" or "the dictatorship of the proletariat". Marx recognized that the rule of the most common workers was a kind of dictatorship and not ideal, but saw it as a necessary step in the evolution of society to the higher goal of utopia where production is not controlled. The question, of course, is how we are supposed to meet the needs of the people without controlled production. Well, if we had that answer, we wouldn't need to worry about intermediary steps, would we? Clearly we, as a people, do not yet have the depth of understanding necessary to build uncontrolled, publicly beneficial systems. It's a dream, but not yet an attainable one. Anyway, centralization of power is not part of a communist society. In fact, the entire purpose of communism is the elimination of power. > > But one thing can be stated with certainty: The "ten planks" as laid out > > on the sites listed from the above google search are not communist in > > nature and an implementation of the systems suggested within those planks > > is certainly not necessarily communist. (I'd be hard pressed, as a matter > > of fact, to contrive a communist society that sustained such institutions > > as described in those planks with even the most idealized and carefully > > chosen denizens.) > > Oh really? Again, I think the rest of the world agrees that Marx was > a communist. Well, "Marx was a communist" is a sort of tautology. I mean, he invented the damned thing and defined the word to reflect his own views. However, I think you're working from your own skewed perception of what communism is and applying that definition back to history. You can't look to any establishment of power and find a definition of communism. No communist order has ever risen to power because power is contrary to communism. Again, read Capital. And for a description of the mechanics of progressive politics and why it does not prevail against regressive structures of wealth and power, I recommend H. G. Wells' The New Machiavelli. > > You're talking about a basic destruction of civil rights and a loss of > > popular control of the world's wealth. > > > > I attribute the current state of affairs to greed and lust for power. We > > set up a system that covets wealth and allows that wealth to > > self-propogate. Small advantages existed for the wealthy to wield power. > > Lust for power and greed are incredible motivators. The powerful > > (wealthy) have the greatest ability to make change to society by > > definition. Those people, acting in their own selfish interests, > > continued to modify the system to benefit themselves... first in small > > ways (as their small advantage in wealth gave them a small advantage in > > power) and then in larger ways (as their wealth grew, their ability to > > turn that wealth into power and that power into wealth also grew). This > > degenerative cycle continues to this day and all that are not the wealthy > > elite (e.g. you and me) suffer. > > Again, every word from you is a sales pitch for communism with a new > face. There's no sales pitch there. It's a description of the mechanics by which rights are stripped and wealth and power are accumulated in the few. There are lots of remedies for such a situation and the total destruction of wealth and power for the common good is just one unrealistic one. Are you going to say that the powerful DO NOT manipulate the system for their own benefit? Are you going to say that it hasn't become easier for the rich to get richer? Someone recently wrote in this very thread about how the Constitution's protections exist (in part, I suppose, but its irrelevant whether that part is a large or small part) to prevent the powerful from running rough-shod over the poor and powerless. If that's true, then doesn't it stand to reason that the destruction of those same Constitutional protections would be devised and implemented by the wealthy and powerful to remove the barriers that exist between them and more wealth and power? It's a struggle as old as the Enlightenment. I think it's useful to look at the Constitution as separate documents. The first is a somewhat morally neutral (except for the forceless preamble) document that describes a political system without inherent ideology mostly reflecting the will of the Federalists (Madison, Washington, et al.). Lack of morality and ideology is always the sign of a destructive social force. The second is the Bill of Rights (which was a slightly modified version of the Constitution of the State of Virginia, a Democratic Republican document written by Thomas Jefferson) which defines a value system for the nation that includes equity and liberty. The other amendments fall into one category or the other based on which points are amended... with the possible exception of the 13th and 14th Amendments (ratified by an illegal Congress, as I understand it) which carry a very different tone and agenda. The article of prohibition is another amendment outside the intent of the first two documents, but thankfully it was repealed. In essence, the Constitution was written by rich men, for rich men. The Bill of Rights was an attempt to prevent the public from getting TOTALLY screwed by the rich and powerful. Any destruction of the rights gauranteed by those Amendments is a blow to equity and a benefit to the rich and powerful. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 23:17:45 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:17:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA399EE.4060704@jhenshaw.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, J.A. Henshaw wrote: > Yes, and Socialism is the answer, I know. I was just letting you know that the other side uses the exact same argument. Yes, that side often says the mythical true socialism is the answer. Just as your side often says the mythical free market capitalism is the answer. > It couldn't have anything to do with the paper money I talk about, > could it. > No, that wouldn't fit your agenda so you ignore it. I ignored it because it wasn't part of that email. I mentioned money in a reply to the message about money. Let's try to keep our topics straight, ok? J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 23:23:29 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russ Johnson) Date: 28 Mar 2002 15:23:29 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA39341.7050806@jhenshaw.com> References: <3CA3832A.80103@jhenshaw.com> <1017350024.2754.8.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> <3CA39341.7050806@jhenshaw.com> Message-ID: <1017357810.2739.22.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 14:03, J.A. Henshaw wrote: > pay your taxes (rent) This is so far from rent it's not even funny. I've been paying rent now for 20 years. What have I to show for it. I'd GLADLY trade my rent payment for a house payment and tax payment. At least then I'd be getting something for my money. > follow the building codes ( setbacks, fencelines, etc) Yeah, those are the price we pay for living in a society. It also is somewhat based on safety. > the health codes (septic, water etc) Again, this is for safety and health reasons. Can you imagine what Portland would look like if everyone just drained their toilets into the gutter? > the penal codes ( grow marijuana, etc) Well, duh. > What else do you "own" that you need permission to do things > with? How about my car? I have to have a license to drive it. I have to register the vehicle to drive it on public streets. I pay taxes on it each time I put gas in it. > However, the above is food for thought, and not meant to > be proof. It's not proof. It's spurious at best. > I sense that you are genuinely interested in this and not > merely being rhetorical, so if you want the entire > enchilada I will be more than happy to give you the history > and the proof. Yes, I am interested. However, be warned that any proof that requires anarchy will not fly with me. > >>Oh really? Again, I think the rest of the world agrees > >>that Marx was a communist. > >> > > > > No, Marx was a socialist. His dream was communism, achieved through > > socialist methods. > > > > America is more socialist now than it was 100 years ago. > > > > > > > Same thing, whatever you say. Is there a significant > distinction? Socialism is when the government provides everything for the people. There is still someone (or group) in charge, and they decide what's best for the people. Communism is when everyone is equal, and no one is in charge. In my opinion, Socialism can be achieved in this country (and is in many ways. E.G. Welfare). Communism can't be achieved. Humans want to be in charge. They want a hierarchy of power. > Either one is antithetical to the constitution. How do you explain the rampant socialism coming out of Washington? From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 23:24:53 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russ Johnson) Date: 28 Mar 2002 15:24:53 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6B2@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6B2@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> Message-ID: <1017357893.2739.25.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 14:04, Craighead, Scot D wrote: > >America is more socialist now than it was 100 years ago. > > And that's A Bad Thing. Thank you Democratic Party. I agree. The thing is, it wasn't always that way. At one point (about 40 years ago) the Democrats were MUCH more conservative. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 23:28:51 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russ Johnson) Date: 28 Mar 2002 15:28:51 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1017358131.2739.29.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 14:22, Jeme A Brelin wrote: > While the propaganda on the right talks about the rising tide raising all > boats and the land of opportunity, real wages have steadily decreased > while working hours have steadily increased. More than 40% of the people > have no wealth of which to speak and that number has also been steadily > increasing over the past forty years. That's the recipe for a growing > slave class... just so you know. Look back further. 100 years ago, real wages were lower, working hours longer, and working conditions were terrible. It goes in cycles. Unfortunately, we're on the downswing right now. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 23:41:36 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russ Johnson) Date: 28 Mar 2002 15:41:36 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6B4@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6B4@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> Message-ID: <1017358897.2754.37.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 14:51, Craighead, Scot D wrote: > It's an econimic system that requires the government to own the means of > production, so it is both economic and political. Our constitution is just > political. I believe you are confusing communism with socialism. This is common, as many people believe the folks in the former USSR were communists. They were not. They never made it to communism (as Marx and Stalin claimed to want.) from socialism. This is why they were called, "United Soviet Socialists Republic" or USSR. In communism, everyone owns everything, and everyone has access to all goods and services. In socialism, the state owns everything, and the state decides what you get or don't get. Marx claimed that by starting a socialist government, it would eventually whither away, leaving no government, and a communist society where everyone would have all their needs met, without government interference. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 23:53:19 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Craighead, Scot D) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:53:19 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Message-ID: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6B6@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> >I agree. > >The thing is, it wasn't always that way. At one point (about 40 years >ago) the Democrats were MUCH more conservative. I couldn't agree more! What would the current democratic party think of JFK if he were alive today? They'd call him a rightwing conservative nut! From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 00:10:00 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Craighead, Scot D) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:10:00 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Message-ID: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6B7@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> >Desires beyond needs are not addressed. Is that a good thing? Who gets to decide what someone needs? If you have a 10 foot by 10 foot room with a toilet, sink, bed and access to a public bathroom to live in, are your living needs met? Do you need music? Do you need art? Do you need dental care? Who decides in your perfect communist leaderless world? >Well, "Marx was a communist" is a sort of tautology. I mean, he invented >the damned thing and defined the word to reflect his own views. > >However, I think you're working from your own skewed perception of what >communism is and applying that definition back to history. > >You can't look to any establishment of power and find a definition of >communism. No communist order has ever risen to power because power is >contrary to communism. > >Again, read Capital. And for a description of the mechanics of >progressive politics and why it does not prevail against regressive >structures of wealth and power, I recommend H. G. Wells' The New >Machiavelli. True communism is an ideal that can never be achieved. It expects humans to act against there basic nature and if they don't, it completely falls apart into a brutal, horrible police state. That is way most of us look at the former soviet union or the current Chinese government as communists. They have achieved all that can be achieved with that form of government. >In essence, the Constitution was written by rich men, for rich men. The >Bill of Rights was an attempt to prevent the public from getting TOTALLY >screwed by the rich and powerful. Any destruction of the rights >gauranteed by those Amendments is a blow to equity and a benefit to the >rich and powerful. Your arguement is circular. First you say that the constitution protects the little guy from the rich and powerful, then you say it is written by and for them. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 00:11:12 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Craighead, Scot D) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:11:12 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Message-ID: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6B8@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> >How do you explain the rampant socialism coming out of Washington? The Democratic National Committee. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 00:13:19 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:13:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6B4@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Craighead, Scot D wrote: > Thank you. No problem. Don't say I never gave you anyting. > >Wow. Do you know what communism IS? > It's an econimic system that requires the government to own the means > of production, so it is both economic and political. Our constitution > is just political. Now, there you're wrong. Government has nothing to do with communism. Communism is an economic system wherein the means of production of human necessity are not controlled. They are a public asset in the way that the air you breathe is a public asset... not in the way that the Post Office is a public asset. > >The whole purpose of communism is to limit the power of wealth and its > >ability to coerce the public by ensuring public control of the means of > >production of human necessities. > > This is where your arguement falls apart. It's not MY argument. > What does public control mean? It means that the government owns it. That's an assumption. The public controls it because the public needs and uses it. I don't like to use the word "government" when referring to free states because free people do not require governing. Let's say, for the time being, that what you call government is a collection of public agencies. Think about the words here. They are agents of the public. Everyone is a member of the public and a thing wouldn't be a public necessity if EVERYONE didn't need it. We're talking about those things necessary for good health, not bliss. > That means that the people that control the government also control > the wealth. Sound familiar? The public controls its own agencies and destroys them when they conflict with public interest. Sound familiar? In order to CONTROL the means of production, one must control the workers. > They have no check and balance because they control both the > government and the businesses at the same time. Absolute power. If > you have very decent people in government then this could work OK. > What happens if an evil person (Stalin) gets in there? First and foremost, Stalin didn't just "get in there". Stalin constructed the system from the ground up to serve his purposes. There were no checks and balances because he didn't want any, not because they're impossible to impelement in a communist economy. Second, I'm not going to sit back and describe to you the perfect communist economy and how it could be achieved in real life, here and now. I don't think anybody has those kinds of answers or plans. Marx was a firm believer in technology. He thought that one day worker productivity would be so high that it would take only a minimal amount of human effort to meet the needs of the people. I've always been on the lookout for information that described exactly how many man-hours were required, in the modern age, to keep a person in the necessities for a week... and, correspondingly, what level of human necessity can be met for all men based on 5 hours work per person per week (and 10 and 20 and so on). I don't have those numbers and can only speculate. > >I think you're confusing communism with Stalinism. > > I think you are confusing that they are not the same thing. See what > I said above. What eventually happens in every form of government is > some jerk gets in there and starts screwing over the public for their > own benefit. It happens here also. The only difference is we have > ways of getting the jerk out of power. What is inherent in a communist economy that prevents ousting jerks that try to amass power? Why wouldn't that person be opposed by the public whose liberty and freedom is threatened by the consolidation of power not strike down such a man? > >I think a person can make a VERY strong argument that working in a modern > >capitalist nation amounts to slavery for an enormous percentage of the > >people. > > I think not. Simply because I can choose to quit a job I don't like. > Slaves can't do that. The bottom two-fifths of the people in the United States of America have NO WEALTH. That means they cannot sustain their lives for a single month without income. How is it that these people are free to quit their jobs? In a communist economy, a person has a minimal obligation according to their ability that must be met to receive the basic goods and services to meet their needs. The assumption is that this obligation would be minimized (truly, optimally, minimized) by the collective efforts of the public and withholding what you are able to contribute would only increase the amount you had to give in order to meet your basic needs. The benefit of having one's needs met should outweigh the benefit of withdrawing from the system. While full participation is encouraged under the theory that more participants decreases the required input by all, equally, I don't see any way for a communist economy to force participation. Don't participate, don't reap the rewards. Run off and build your own house and farm. You'll probably end up working a whole lot harder and having less time and resources for luxuries. That's the argument, anyway. I'm just saying that no communist ideals benefit from the restriction of personal freedom. > >While the propaganda on the right talks about the rising tide raising all > >boats and the land of opportunity, real wages have steadily decreased > >while working hours have steadily increased. More than 40% of the people > >have no wealth of which to speak and that number has also been steadily > >increasing over the past forty years. That's the recipe for a growing > >slave class... just so you know. > > I will give you that in the last few years people are being asked to > work harder for the same pay. That's a sort of misleading way to put it. People are working harder for less pay. Most people aren't able to maintain the same pay by working harder. > This is corporate greed and the only solution is for workers to just > refuse to take it. I have. I was working 70 to 80 hours a week for > almost a year. I quit that job and now get paid about the same to > work 40 to 50. You had the wealth necessary to take that stand. Most people do not. > Employers will take what you give them. Tell that to the food service and hospitality industries. The demand for workers has been rising steadily for 20 years, but real wages have gone down. There are more jobs than workers, nationally, but the compensation is not increasing. The industry can hold out longer than the workers can. That's the sum of it. The workers can quit their jobs in protest, but they can't find a better job (better giving/compensation ratio) before they really damage themselves (losing shelter, etc.). The situation continues because the workers are slaves. They don't have a real choice in leaving their work. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 00:19:44 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:19:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA39341.7050806@jhenshaw.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, J.A. Henshaw wrote: > You have exclusive right to use the land, as long as you: Russel Johnson addressed this stuff fairly well. We are social animals. If you want to participate with the other animals, you gotta abide by some common rules. We can look on some people that have lived outside of society and talk about how they didn't have to abide by rules, but they also didn't get any kind of "exclusive right" to anything. > I sense that you are genuinely interested in this and not merely being > rhetorical, so if you want the entire enchilada I will be more than > happy to give you the history and the proof. Proof of what? > >>Oh really? Again, I think the rest of the world agrees > >>that Marx was a communist. > > > > No, Marx was a socialist. His dream was communism, achieved through > > socialist methods. > > > > America is more socialist now than it was 100 years ago. > > Same thing, whatever you say. Is there a significant distinction? > > Either one is antithetical to the constitution. I defy you to find one item on the Constitution of the United States of America that prevents a communist economy or a socialist state. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 00:26:25 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A.Henshaw) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:26:25 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6B7@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> Message-ID: <3CA3B4B1.7050409@dsl-only.net> Craighead, Scot D wrote: >>Desires beyond needs are not addressed. >> > > Is that a good thing? Who gets to decide what someone needs? If you have a > 10 foot by 10 foot room with a toilet, sink, bed and access to a public > bathroom to live in, are your living needs met? Do you need music? Do you > need art? Do you need dental care? Who decides in your perfect communist > leaderless world? > > >>Well, "Marx was a communist" is a sort of tautology. I mean, he invented >>the damned thing and defined the word to reflect his own views. >> >>However, I think you're working from your own skewed perception of what >>communism is and applying that definition back to history. >> >>You can't look to any establishment of power and find a definition of >>communism. No communist order has ever risen to power because power is >>contrary to communism. >> >>Again, read Capital. And for a description of the mechanics of >>progressive politics and why it does not prevail against regressive >>structures of wealth and power, I recommend H. G. Wells' The New >>Machiavelli. >> > > True communism is an ideal that can never be achieved. It expects humans to > act against there basic nature and if they don't, it completely falls apart > into a brutal, horrible police state. That is way most of us look at the > former soviet union or the current Chinese government as communists. They > have achieved all that can be achieved with that form of government. > > >>In essence, the Constitution was written by rich men, for rich men. The >>Bill of Rights was an attempt to prevent the public from getting TOTALLY >>screwed by the rich and powerful. Any destruction of the rights >>gauranteed by those Amendments is a blow to equity and a benefit to the >>rich and powerful. >> > > Your arguement is circular. First you say that the constitution protects > the little guy from the rich and powerful, then you say it is written by and > for them. > These are the EXACT same things I said to Jeme. He says I am an old man with outmoded thinking ;) From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 00:28:23 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russ Johnson) Date: 28 Mar 2002 16:28:23 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6B8@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> References: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6B8@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> Message-ID: <1017361704.2739.40.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 16:11, Craighead, Scot D wrote: > >How do you explain the rampant socialism coming out of Washington? > > The Democratic National Committee. Well, yes. That's what I was thinking. I was referring to J.A.'s remark that socialism was contrary to the constitution. If that is the case, why does our society have so much socialism in it? From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 00:36:44 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:36:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <1017357810.2739.22.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> Message-ID: On 28 Mar 2002, Russ Johnson wrote: > > Same thing, whatever you say. Is there a significant > > distinction? I forgot to address this part earlier, but that's OK because I can deal with it here. But the first thing I'd like to say on the topic is that your ignorance on this subject completely disqualifies you from any intelligent discussion about its nature. > Socialism is when the government provides everything for the people. > There is still someone (or group) in charge, and they decide what's > best for the people. Close. Socalism is a system in which the workers control the means of production. This is Marx's Dictatorship of the Proletariat. There's the side-effect of the law that says "He who controls the means of production defines the political order." making the working-class the de-facto leaders of government. > Communism is when everyone is equal, and no one is in charge. That's pretty darned close. Everyone has equal access to the means and ends of production. > In my opinion, Socialism can be achieved in this country (and is in > many ways. E.G. Welfare). > Communism can't be achieved. Humans want to be in charge. They want a > hierarchy of power. You're neglecting the situtuations that arise when everyone has the means to undermine the power. Marx worked under the idea that it would become so effortless to provide for the needs of the public, that it would become impossible for any person or group of people to totally control those means of production. Power is derived from the control of value and value is derived from scarcity. When scarcity is destroyed, there is either no value or no control and therefore no power. We see this dynamic all the time in history. For example, in the dark ages, there were few who could read and write. The ability to do those things allowed a person to wield power over those who could not. In time, however, the knowledge and the ability to create permanent inks and quality papers at low cost spread and the people took that power into their own hands. It would be VERY DIFFICULT in this day and age to structure a society around functional illiteracy because the means exist to redistribute that power in a very short time. We're seeing something similar in music publishing. The power to control the scarcity of recordings is being redistributed just as the power to control reading and writing was once redistributed. This is a natural phenomenon. I don't think it's unreasonable to foresee a time when the basic needs of mankind are not scarce and, therefore, cannot be controlled. > > Either one is antithetical to the constitution. > How do you explain the rampant socialism coming out of Washington? I assume he'll explain it by pointing out structures in Washington that act outside the Constitution or were created by unconstitutional law. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 00:37:48 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russ Johnson) Date: 28 Mar 2002 16:37:48 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1017362268.2754.48.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 16:13, Jeme A Brelin wrote: > How is it that these people are free to quit their jobs? They just have to find a new one prior to quiting. There are more jobs than people in our society. Maybe not what you want to do, but there are other jobs out there. Otherwise, the help wanted section of the newspaper would dry up. > Tell that to the food service and hospitality industries. The demand for > workers has been rising steadily for 20 years, but real wages have gone > down. There are more jobs than workers, nationally, but the compensation > is not increasing. That's because there are workers willing to take those jobs. If the jobs quit getting filled, then wages will go up. > The industry can hold out longer than the workers can. That's the sum of > it. The workers can quit their jobs in protest, but they can't find a > better job (better giving/compensation ratio) before they really damage > themselves (losing shelter, etc.). If there are more jobs than workers, then it's not hard to find another job. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 00:35:50 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Mike Witt) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:35:50 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Route command on Microsoft Win2000 Message-ID: <3CA3B6E6.53EECDE6@computer-arts.net> I have a MS Win2000 machine on which I need to point a host route at a given interface. I need to do this *regardless* of the fact the the machine doesn't *think* that the destination can be found on that interface, based on it's (dhcp downloaded) configuration. On Unix, the command "route add -host dev eth0" would do the trick. Win2k does have a route command, but I can't figure out any syntax that will do the same job. Win2k does not have an ifconfig command (that was another thread :-) so I can't create a virual interface that believes it's on the required subnet. (I *could* do this through the normal Win2k GUI, but since the machine is doing DCHP it doesn't believe I need to configure interfaces and won't let me :-( BTW, I doubt this msg will make any sense to anyone who hasn't come across this specific situation. So, don't waste too much time reading it :-) -Mike From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 00:40:09 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:40:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <1017358131.2739.29.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> Message-ID: On 28 Mar 2002, Russ Johnson wrote: > Look back further. 100 years ago, real wages were lower, working hours > longer, and working conditions were terrible. > > It goes in cycles. Unfortunately, we're on the downswing right now. The conditions change as power and wealth consolidate and redistribute. The industrial revolution lead to the redistribution of power and wealth because the old models couldn't be sustained. However, the new system has now been mastered by those who were successful and they can now use it to wield power and return to their usual business of stripping power and wealth from others for themselves. It will take another revolution of that magnitude to reverse the process. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 00:41:07 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Craighead, Scot D) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:41:07 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Message-ID: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6B9@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> >These are the EXACT same things I said to Jeme. > > >He says I am an old man with outmoded thinking ;) When I was 20 I thought that about my grandfather. At 36, I have come to realize that I am still not as smart as he was. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 00:43:18 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:43:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <1017358897.2754.37.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> Message-ID: On 28 Mar 2002, Russ Johnson wrote: > I believe you are confusing communism with socialism. I believe you are confusing socialism with fascism. > This is common, as many people believe the folks in the former USSR > were communists. They were not. They never made it to communism (as > Marx and Stalin claimed to want.) from socialism. This is why they > were called, "United Soviet Socialists Republic" or USSR. What we call Soviet-style Socialism wasn't really socialist at all because power never resided in the hands of the proletariat. > In communism, everyone owns everything, and everyone has access to all > goods and services. That's a good enough definition, sure. I would refine it just a little to say that no party can control the means of meeting human needs. > In socialism, the state owns everything, and the state decides what > you get or don't get. That's only half of it. Socialism also has the requirement that the state be run by the workers. Simply giving the state control over the means of production does not make a socialist state if control of the state still rests in the hands of the few. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 00:50:55 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Craighead, Scot D) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:50:55 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Message-ID: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6BA@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> >Now, there you're wrong. > >Government has nothing to do with communism. Communism is an economic >system wherein the means of production of human necessity are not >controlled. They are a public asset in the way that the air you breathe >is a public asset... not in the way that the Post Office is a public >asset. You are bypassing the main point. Someone, somewhere has to make decisions regarding what gets done with these "public assets". Should this particular piece of land be used as a car factory or and apartment building. Someone has to decide. Certainly, it can't be both. Certainly, people will disagree as to which it should be. You propose that "the public" decides. How do they? Should every decision no matter how minor be voted on? That would be chaos. If assets are "public" the state owns them. >The bottom two-fifths of the people in the United States of America have >NO WEALTH. That means they cannot sustain their lives for a single month >without income. How is it that these people are free to quit their jobs? We have the riches poor people in the world. In India, if you are poor, it means you may die of starvation. Here it means you have a cheap place to live and a crappy car. >Tell that to the food service and hospitality industries. The demand for >workers has been rising steadily for 20 years, but real wages have gone >down. There are more jobs than workers, nationally, but the compensation >is not increasing. > >The industry can hold out longer than the workers can. That's the sum of >it. The workers can quit their jobs in protest, but they can't find a >better job (better giving/compensation ratio) before they really damage >themselves (losing shelter, etc.). > >The situation continues because the workers are slaves. They don't have a >real choice in leaving their work. They can move to other jobs, it's just easier not to. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 01:01:28 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:01:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6B7@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Craighead, Scot D wrote: > >Desires beyond needs are not addressed. > > Is that a good thing? Who gets to decide what someone needs? If you > have a 10 foot by 10 foot room with a toilet, sink, bed and access to > a public bathroom to live in, are your living needs met? Do you need > music? Do you need art? Do you need dental care? Who decides in > your perfect communist leaderless world? Gadzooks. First, it's not MY perfect communist leaderless world. I'm just describing the theory. Second, when I said that desires beyond needs were not addressed, I wasn't saying it was a good or bad thing... just that it's not present in the theory. If we go back to what was argued earlier (by you, no?) and say that industry is kept in line with the needs of the public by the public having the option of packing up and leaving a job that failed to meet their needs, then doesn't a society in which basic needs are gauranteed (even if by only a 10x10 room and a toilet, nutrition paste, a tunic and a blanket) give the public more freedom to control industry by removing the threat of homelessness, starvation and hypothermia from the equation? Third, the idea here is that as things become abundant and scarcity is eliminated, it doesn't matter WHAT you call "needs", people still have access to them. Things that are scarce will always be easily controlled. Lastly, art is one of the many things that has already been "communized". It is not scarce and it is very easy for a person with any amount of free time at all (ten or twelve minutes a day) to create and appreciate art. The greatest threat to art and science today is the attempt by some to return the sharing of information to a condition of scarcity. > True communism is an ideal that can never be achieved. It expects > humans to act against there basic nature and if they don't, it > completely falls apart into a brutal, horrible police state. That is > way most of us look at the former soviet union or the current Chinese > government as communists. They have achieved all that can be achieved > with that form of government. As I said, Marx used the term "communism" interchangeably with "utopia". Of course, it can never be achieved. But it is a goal. You'll never achieve permanent bliss, but you increase your luxuries. You can never achieve omniscience, but you study. The unattainability of a goal is not reason enough to stop pursuing it. > >In essence, the Constitution was written by rich men, for rich men. > >The Bill of Rights was an attempt to prevent the public from getting > >TOTALLY screwed by the rich and powerful. Any destruction of the > >rights gauranteed by those Amendments is a blow to equity and a benefit > >to the rich and powerful. > > Your arguement is circular. First you say that the constitution > protects the little guy from the rich and powerful, then you say it is > written by and for them. No. I made a clear distinction between the gaurantee of rights in the Bill of Rights and the enumeration of powers and definition of structure of the main body of the Constitution. They were written by different people for different purposes. I thought I made that clear. Sorry. And by the way, that wouldn't have been a circular argument, but a self-contradictory one. It's kind of the opposite thing. In one, a statement is used to support itself; in the other, a statement can be used to negate itself. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 01:02:59 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:02:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA3B4B1.7050409@dsl-only.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, J.A.Henshaw wrote: > These are the EXACT same things I said to Jeme. > > He says I am an old man with outmoded thinking ;) And that's what I said to him. You have to think beyond scarcity and imagine a world without it. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 01:01:52 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Craighead, Scot D) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:01:52 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Message-ID: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6BB@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> >Simply giving the state control over the means of production does not make >a socialist state if control of the state still rests in the hands of the >few. I'm going to try to say this a different way. It is impossible for everyone to control anything. There will always be a ruling class. Anarchy doesn't work. You can't have anarchy and technology at the same time. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 01:02:47 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Dylan Reinhardt) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:02:47 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Liberal vs Conservative? Message-ID: <3CA3680400000560@mta07.san.yahoo.com> > What is the definition of Liberal, and Conservative? > Meant with regards to viewpoints, and with some examples. I'll take a stab at that. Finally, a chance to use my degree. :-) You can find people within each camp (and several others besides) who wil= l argue you into a stupor explaining why this or that opinion is held by *t= rue* Conservatives, *true* Liberals, or *true* whatever. Was Clinton "Liberal?" Is Dubya a "Conservative?" Many cases pro and co= n could easily be made... after all, Clinton spearheaded the passage of NAF= TA, while Dubya's contribution to international trade has been to propose a huge tarrif on steel. It's a common (but worthless) trope that Republicans are Conservative and= that Democrats are Liberal. Memebers of each party may exhibit identifia= ble traits on certain issues, but it's hard to make the case that they do so with any philosophical consistency. What, for example, is the "Conservative" position on the drug war? Marke= t conservatives (at least the honest ones) see government interfering in co= mmerce on the basis of misguided moralism. Social conservatives see vice and ev= il and want government to act to put a stop to it. Two utterly irreconcilab= le opinions and both of them vote Republican. And Liberals? Well, who the heck knows what they think about the drug wa= r... as far as I can tell, they're simply content to thank their personal high= er power that it didn't get rolling until after most of them graduated from college. Besides, it has nothing to do with choice, which is the only is= sue Liberals agree about anyway. While on the subject, I read an essay recently that plug-talk'ers might enjoy... it's a fun rant on why the three major branches of American poli= tical thought all suck. (http://www.scalzi.com/w020322.htm). Enjoy, Dylan From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 01:07:19 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Dylan Reinhardt) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:07:19 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] What is money? (was Fair Use, etc.) Message-ID: <3CA368040000056E@mta07.san.yahoo.com> > Then metals proved their superiority. These do not decay, > do not change in value so rapidly, and they share with wheat > and tobacco the one essential quality of also having value in > themselves for other purposes than for the mere basis of exchange. > People want them for personal adornment or in manufacture and the > arts - for a thousand uses; and it is this very fact that makes > them suitable for use as "money." Just try to count how many purposes > gold is needed for, because it is best suited for those purposes. It > meets us everywhere. We cannot even get married without the ring of gol= d. I may just be one of the brainwashed masses, but I just don't get the who= le "hidden history of money" thing. I've read a number of articles and spent hours listening to theories that= carefully explain how somewhere in the process of going off the gold stan= dard or developing Federal Reserve Notes everyone lost all their rights and we= are actually virtual wage/interest slaves of an economic system that's se= cretly controlled by International Finance or some other monolithic secret body.= Baloney. Gold has value in some industrial applications, as does silver. Aside fr= om that, they have almost no intrinsic value, no magical properties. None. My willingness to exchange useful stuff (like food) for gold is contingen= t on my belief that most other people will be willing to trade me other use= ful stuff for the gold I'm holding. Gold is nice and shiny, but I can't eat it, live in it or wear it on my feet. In order for it to have real value= , others must *believe* that it has real value... and those others could on= ly hold such a belief if they, too, believe that most everyone shares their belief. Thus, what value gold and silver have derives almost entirely from our sh= ared perception that they are valuable materials. In this respect, gold and silver coins are little different than paper currency, stock certificates= , or Beanie Babies. It is the *shared perception* of enduring value--not the item itself--which holds value. This point notwithstanding, it is certainly the case that "fiat" currency= is susceptable to mis-use and degredation of value. Carneige's concerns were well-placed, as the Weimar Republic so grimly demonstrated in the 19= 20's. But most of the reading world learned from that fiasco. Guarding against= the debasement of currency is a matter for fiscal policy to address, not a sign of some pecuniary Original Sin from which we are doomed never to recover. In point of fact, money is far less real now than when Carneige put pen to paper... and we're all vastly better off for it. One could look at the credit card transaction clearing process (as I have= ) and conclude that money has simply become an elaborate way of keeping sco= re. When you charge that NIC at Fry's, ~$30 simply springs into existence. In= a very real way, that money simply didn't exist until the moment you spen= t it. The process of creating wealth may look scary if you're used to thin= king of wealth as a scarce commodity (like a coin or a sheaf of wheat). But it= isn't scary: it's our greatest opportunity for growth. By moving beyond a token-based economy, we have removed artificial barrie= rs to the creation and distribution of wealth. The US turned its back on th= e gold standard and moved exclusively to fiat currency. That process took a long time and became finalized only in the last 100 years. Not coincid= entally, we have also seen the US grow from an largely agrarian plutocracy to a fa= r more egalitarian society that also happens to be the world's largest indu= strial power. If that's what we get for moving to fake money, I'm glad we did it. When the supply of metals drove our economy, depressions were more severe= and oddball events like the discovery of caches of gold or silver had the= potential to disrupt economic activity at all levels. It's not so much the case that we were manipulated or tricked into relinquishing gold; rat= her, it's more accurate to say that we simply outgrew it. Token-based economi= es treat each person as a mouth--yet one more drain on a fixed supply of res= ources. Currency allows for the possibility that a person is not just a mouth, but a set of hands. Why should the measure of value in an economy be tie= d to anything other than the sum of what people produce? No, I'm not saying that everything is perfectly optimized yet, but you'd be hard pressed to show that average people today enjoy less freedom or political clout than average people of the 18th century. Perhaps the mid= dle class of today enjoy fewer perks than the plutocrats of yore... but that'= s a whole different ball of wax, isn't it? Dylan From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 01:13:19 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:13:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <1017362268.2754.48.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> Message-ID: On 28 Mar 2002, Russ Johnson wrote: > On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 16:13, Jeme A Brelin wrote: > > How is it that these people are free to quit their jobs? > > They just have to find a new one prior to quiting. There are more jobs > than people in our society. If there are more jobs than people, why is there unemployment? > Maybe not what you want to do, but there are other jobs out there. > Otherwise, the help wanted section of the newspaper would dry up. Just because there are jobs available doesn't mean there aren't MORE people looking for work. And we're talking about a class of people that have limited skills and leisure time. They don't have a free hand with which to grab their own bootstraps. I highly recommend a book that is a mix of anecdote and research about the nature and condition of unskilled labor in this country. It's called Nickel And Dimed: On (Not) Getting By In America by Barbara Ehrenreich. The first chapter is available here: > > Tell that to the food service and hospitality industries. The demand for > > workers has been rising steadily for 20 years, but real wages have gone > > down. There are more jobs than workers, nationally, but the compensation > > is not increasing. > > That's because there are workers willing to take those jobs. If the > jobs quit getting filled, then wages will go up. You didn't read what I wrote. There are more jobs than workers. The jobs are not getting filled, yet the wages are not going up. > > The industry can hold out longer than the workers can. That's the sum of > > it. The workers can quit their jobs in protest, but they can't find a > > better job (better giving/compensation ratio) before they really damage > > themselves (losing shelter, etc.). > > If there are more jobs than workers, then it's not hard to find > another job. Again, read what I wrote. Not just ANOTHER job, but a BETTER job. In that industry, there are more jobs than workers, yet no employer is following that free market principle by which they should be raising their attractiveness to employees. THAT is the dilemma. Why is this theory not holding true? It's because the wealth of the employers so far outstrips the wealth of the employees that symbiosis no longer exists. The employers can survive without the employees longer than the employees can survive without the employers. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 01:20:22 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:20:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6BB@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Craighead, Scot D wrote: > >Simply giving the state control over the means of production does not make > >a socialist state if control of the state still rests in the hands of the > >few. > > I'm going to try to say this a different way. My response wasn't a rebuttal to you. It was a rebuttal to Russel Johnson's definition of Socialism. > It is impossible for everyone to control anything. And it's impossible for ANYONE to control something that is not scarce. > There will always be a ruling class. But what if they only rule things that don't matter to most people? > Anarchy doesn't work. You can't have anarchy and technology at the > same time. Actually, the more ubuiquitous a technology becomes, the more resistant that technology becomes to imposed control and artificial order. In a sense, technology breeds anarchy. But it is an anarchy of natural order, rather than imposed, controlled order. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 01:35:54 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:35:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] What is money? (was Fair Use, etc.) In-Reply-To: <3CA368040000056E@mta07.san.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Dylan Reinhardt wrote: > I've read a number of articles and spent hours listening to theories that > carefully explain how somewhere in the process of going off the gold standard > or developing Federal Reserve Notes everyone lost all their rights and we > are actually virtual wage/interest slaves of an economic system that's secretly > controlled by International Finance or some other monolithic secret body. I've heard and read much of the same stuff. My view is slightly different, however. I definitely see how a society in debt is a society more easily controlled. (You're not going to quit your abusive and destructive job that gives your employer high profit margins if you can't make your house payment when you do so, etc.) But the relationship to that and fiscal policy is much less clear. I look at the way the Treasury (buying its own notes to control the costs and stabilize the value of the dollar, etc.) and Federal Reserve (printing money and then charging interest on it) operate and instinctually feel that it's fucked up and needlessly complex. But I learned long ago that the existence of a bureaucratic clusterfuck does not ALWAYS indicate a conspiracy of obfuscation. Like the prison-industrial complex and the war on drugs (and unlike the war on terrorism), I think the monetary system evolved to serve the purposes of the powerful and hinder the progress of the people through natural system dynamics rather than imposed intelligence. I don't believe there is or ever was a secret committee that devised the system to benefit itself. Rather, the system evolved around several people working in their own interest and both consciously and unconsciously encouraging the causes of the effects most beneficial to themselves. > My willingness to exchange useful stuff (like food) for gold is > contingent on my belief that most other people will be willing to > trade me other useful stuff for the gold I'm holding. Gold is nice > and shiny, but I can't eat it, live in it or wear it on my feet. In > order for it to have real value, others must *believe* that it has > real value... and those others could only hold such a belief if they, > too, believe that most everyone shares their belief. > > Thus, what value gold and silver have derives almost entirely from our > shared perception that they are valuable materials. In this respect, > gold and silver coins are little different than paper currency, stock > certificates, or Beanie Babies. It is the *shared perception* of > enduring value--not the item itself--which holds value. I wrote almost this exact paragraph earlier today. I don't think I sent it, though. I guess the only fundamental difference I see between the two are that paper money, stock certificates, and Beanie Babies have a specific locus of control of scarcity. So the Federal Reserve, some particular major stockholder, and Ty, Inc. have much more ability to dictate the value of those things than, say, silver. But I can't say for sure because I don't know what the real distribution of gold and silver are in this world. It could be that some particular interest has gathered or has the ability to gather so much of that resource that they can control the amount in circulation with their whim. Anyway, just a few cents. Heh. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 01:36:14 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Craighead, Scot D) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:36:14 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Liberal vs Conservative? Message-ID: <51C603B9AB4696408D7273AA133734AC1EA6BD@ljcms002.prod.vectorscm.com> >While on the subject, I read an essay recently that plug-talk'ers might >enjoy... it's a fun rant on why the three major branches of American political >thought all suck. (http://www.scalzi.com/w020322.htm). Pretty funny! From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 01:51:31 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:51:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Liberal vs Conservative? In-Reply-To: <3CA3680400000560@mta07.san.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Dylan Reinhardt wrote: > What, for example, is the "Conservative" position on the drug war? > Market conservatives (at least the honest ones) see government > interfering in commerce on the basis of misguided moralism. Right. "Market conservatives" claim moral neutrality. This allows them to dismiss human rights and dignity as being irrelevant to their work even though these people support systems that foster the destruction of both. > Social conservatives see vice and evil and want government to act to > put a stop to it. Right. "Social conservatives" are all about enacting their current value systems as permanent regulation. > And Liberals? Well, who the heck knows what they think about the drug > war... So, did your degree only cover "conservatives"? I think it's fairly safe to say that there are folks who self-identify as "liberals" who believe all kinds of different things about the drug war. Personally, I've never met one that supported it, but that's not to say they're not out there. It takes all kinds. > as far as I can tell, they're simply content to thank their personal > higher power that it didn't get rolling until after most of them > graduated from college. Besides, it has nothing to do with choice, > which is the only issue Liberals agree about anyway. Wow, but you haven't stereotyped anyone or anything. > While on the subject, I read an essay recently that plug-talk'ers > might enjoy... it's a fun rant on why the three major branches of > American political thought all suck. > (http://www.scalzi.com/w020322.htm). I referenced H.G. Wells' The New Machiavelli earlier. He gives a very good description of what he says are the three inevitable political groups. They're not too different from what is written here, but he writes with a much more measured and compassionate show of deep understanding than the above article could possibly muster. His statement on "the liberals", for example, shows that they are weak by design, not by a failure within their ranks. They are necessarily the group of the disenfranchised and the under-represented. As soon as they gain power, they cease to be liberal because they are no longer disenfranchised... they are the establishment. Wells gives a much more complete description of why these names change in meaning every few years by showing that they don't apply to a set of ideologies, but to a social role that is often met by folks with different views. If you want to see what an intelligent, unbiased view on this subject looks like, read Wells' The New Machiavelli. "Oh," I hear you now, "he's unbiased, is he? Are you saying he had no political agenda when he wrote this book?" Absolutely not. I'm saying that he DID have a political agenda, but the words defined a totally different set of people a century ago and the fact that his descriptions of the groups still apply even though the ideologies have shifted shows that what he wrote does not depend on his own personal views. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 02:07:40 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 18:07:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Liberal vs Conservative? In-Reply-To: <3CA3952E.60303@sun.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Richard Langis wrote: > The people on #orlug weren't very helpful, and google turned up a > bunch of mirrored pages that said nothing, so I thought I'd ask this > list. > > What is the definition of Liberal, and Conservative? Meant with > regards to viewpoints, and with some examples. > > An example of sorts: Liberals are generally pro-choice, while > Conservatives are generally pro-life. > > Any opinions out there? I'll make my third and final recommendation for The New Machiavelli. Here's the full text online: Here's a quote from chapter 3: Every modern European state will have in some form or other these three parties: the resistent, militant, authoritative, dull, and unsympathetic party of establishment and success, the rich party; the confused, sentimental, spasmodic, numerous party of the small, struggling, various, undisciplined men, the poor man's party; and a third party sometimes detaching itself from the second and sometimes reuniting with it, the party of the altogether expropriated masses, the proletarians, Labour. Change Conservative and Liberal to Republican and Democrat, for example, and you have the conditions in the United States. The Crown or a dethroned dynasty, the Established Church or a dispossessed church, nationalist secessions, the personalities of party leaders, may break up, complicate, and confuse the self-expression of these three necessary divisions in the modern social drama, the analyst will make them out none the less for that. . . . I would personally add, though, that the Republicans and the Democrats no longer fill these roles in American politics. They've come to a kind of unspoken agreement in the "Moderate" camp. They have essentially the same views on labor, fiscal policy, the role of government and human rights, but make mountains of the molehills that dot the landscape of sensationalist politics in order to forge a distinction where there is none. I personally judge views and opinions outside the scope of their stated affiliations with parties or movements based on their ultimate effects. And for these veiws and opinions I have three categories: Progressive, Regressive, Conservative. I will admit freely that my idea of progress informs my use of the word Progressive. Progress: Increasing understanding, justice, peace, happiness, and comfort for all living things. Conservation: Maintaining the status quo. Regress: Decreasing understanding, justice, peace, happiness or comfort for any living thing. Yeah, it's simplistic... but it has to be in order to be broad in scope and application. I guess that since my definition of progress includes work for the benefit of the disenfranchised and poor as well as the wealthy and powerful, I'm a Liberal. But I'm not going to let that name tie me to someone else's beliefs... not for a second. Personally, I oppose political parties and think they contribute to laziness in society and in the minds of individuals. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 03:34:26 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russ Johnson) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 19:34:26 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: References: <1017357810.2739.22.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020328191938.00a7af70@mail.localnet.dimstar.net> At 04:36 PM 3/28/2002 -0800, you wrote: >On 28 Mar 2002, Russ Johnson wrote: > > > Same thing, whatever you say. Is there a significant > > > distinction? > >I forgot to address this part earlier, but that's OK because I can deal >with it here. > >But the first thing I'd like to say on the topic is that your ignorance on >this subject completely disqualifies you from any intelligent discussion >about its nature. > > > Socialism is when the government provides everything for the people. > > There is still someone (or group) in charge, and they decide what's > > best for the people. > >Close. > >Socalism is a system in which the workers control the means of production. >This is Marx's Dictatorship of the Proletariat. I disagree with your definition. Please site a reference that supports your position. Mine comes partly from http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/pc/1957/3-2socialism.html > > Communism is when everyone is equal, and no one is in charge. > >That's pretty darned close. Everyone has equal access to the means and >ends of production. > > > In my opinion, Socialism can be achieved in this country (and is in > > many ways. E.G. Welfare). > > Communism can't be achieved. Humans want to be in charge. They want a > > hierarchy of power. > >You're neglecting the situtuations that arise when everyone has the means >to undermine the power. And that can happen where? When? Not in our lifetimes. >Marx worked under the idea that it would become so effortless to provide >for the needs of the public, that it would become impossible for any >person or group of people to totally control those means of production. And that's where he failed. You still have to have a plant manager, and he's going to have more power than the workers. As long as one person has to expect more effort than another, you'll have hierarchy, and that's why communism won't work. That is ALSO why capitalism DOES work. People who work with the system, move up. People who don't either don't move, or move down. Welfare begets welfare. I'm an example. I started out as a minimum wage worker, pumping gas. Now I make much more than minimum wage, enough to live comfortably, with a little left over. Not bad for 20 years since graduation from High School. And no, I don't have a college degree. >Power is derived from the control of value and value is derived from >scarcity. When scarcity is destroyed, there is either no value or no >control and therefore no power. So, you would say that we'd have to have many plants, churning out processors, so that there's no shortage. How does this work if you have to buy raw materials from outside of your utopian area? Russ Johnson Stargate Online http://www.dimstar.net telnet://telnet.dimstar.net ICQ: 3739685 When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail - Abraham Maslow From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 03:37:34 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russ Johnson) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 19:37:34 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Route command on Microsoft Win2000 In-Reply-To: <3CA3B6E6.53EECDE6@computer-arts.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020328193611.028e67f8@mail.localnet.dimstar.net> This is what I see when I run "route" with no arguments. route ADD 157.0.0.0 MASK 255.0.0.0 157.55.80.1 METRIC 3 IF 2 destination^ ^mask ^gateway metric^ ^ Interface^ If IF is not given, it tries to find the best interface for a given gateway. --8<-- cut here At 04:35 PM 3/28/2002 -0800, you wrote: >I have a MS Win2000 machine on which I need to point a host route >at a given interface. I need to do this *regardless* of the fact >the the machine doesn't *think* that the destination can be found >on that interface, based on it's (dhcp downloaded) configuration. Russ Johnson Stargate Online http://www.dimstar.net telnet://telnet.dimstar.net ICQ: 3739685 When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail - Abraham Maslow From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 03:38:52 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russ Johnson) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 19:38:52 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: References: <1017358131.2739.29.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020328193803.028e8638@mail.localnet.dimstar.net> At 04:40 PM 3/28/2002 -0800, you wrote: >However, the new system has now been mastered by those who were successful >and they can now use it to wield power and return to their usual business >of stripping power and wealth from others for themselves. It's beginning to sound like you believe wealth is a zero sum business... Russ Johnson Stargate Online http://www.dimstar.net telnet://telnet.dimstar.net ICQ: 3739685 When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail - Abraham Maslow From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 03:48:36 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russ Johnson) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 19:48:36 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: References: <1017358897.2754.37.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020328194141.028e6658@mail.localnet.dimstar.net> At 04:43 PM 3/28/2002 -0800, you wrote: >On 28 Mar 2002, Russ Johnson wrote: > > I believe you are confusing communism with socialism. > >I believe you are confusing socialism with fascism. I don't think so. "Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other loyalties." (http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html) Nowhere in my definitions is there anything to do with race, country, or any sort of fanaticism. > > This is common, as many people believe the folks in the former USSR > > were communists. They were not. They never made it to communism (as > > Marx and Stalin claimed to want.) from socialism. This is why they > > were called, "United Soviet Socialists Republic" or USSR. > >What we call Soviet-style Socialism wasn't really socialist at all because >power never resided in the hands of the proletariat. So you are also saying that the US style "social" programs are not socialist? My definition falls in with the page I referenced previously. http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/pc/1957/3-2socialism.html > > In communism, everyone owns everything, and everyone has access to all > > goods and services. > >That's a good enough definition, sure. I would refine it just a little to >say that no party can control the means of meeting human needs. And that (again) is where it will fail. Just as anarchy will fail. It relies on people being "good". People are greedy. > > In socialism, the state owns everything, and the state decides what > > you get or don't get. > >That's only half of it. Socialism also has the requirement that the state >be run by the workers. Not according to http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/pc/1957/3-2socialism.html. Russ Johnson Stargate Online http://www.dimstar.net telnet://telnet.dimstar.net ICQ: 3739685 When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail - Abraham Maslow From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 04:02:43 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Russ Johnson) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:02:43 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: References: <1017362268.2754.48.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020328195555.028e64c8@mail.localnet.dimstar.net> At 05:13 PM 3/28/2002 -0800, you wrote: >On 28 Mar 2002, Russ Johnson wrote: > > On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 16:13, Jeme A Brelin wrote: > > > How is it that these people are free to quit their jobs? > > > > They just have to find a new one prior to quiting. There are more jobs > > than people in our society. > >If there are more jobs than people, why is there unemployment? Several possibilities come to mind. It boils down to, "One is waiting for the "Right job". " In the 80's, I was unemployed several times. Each time, I had a new job within 1 week. The only exception to this was the time I moved from Coos Bay back to Eugene, and waited for a planned opening at the business I wanted to work at. At that time, I waited 4 weeks for the job to open up. > > Maybe not what you want to do, but there are other jobs out there. > > Otherwise, the help wanted section of the newspaper would dry up. > >Just because there are jobs available doesn't mean there aren't MORE >people looking for work. > >And we're talking about a class of people that have limited skills and >leisure time. They don't have a free hand with which to grab their own >bootstraps. How do you know the later any more than we know the former? > > If there are more jobs than workers, then it's not hard to find > > another job. > >Again, read what I wrote. Not just ANOTHER job, but a BETTER job. If you aren't happy in your current job, another job, paying the same wages, just may be better. Russ Johnson Stargate Online http://www.dimstar.net telnet://telnet.dimstar.net ICQ: 3739685 When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail - Abraham Maslow From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 04:53:51 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:53:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020328191938.00a7af70@mail.localnet.dimstar.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Russ Johnson wrote: > >Socalism is a system in which the workers control the means of production. > >This is Marx's Dictatorship of the Proletariat. > > I disagree with your definition. Please site a reference that supports > your position. Mine comes partly from > http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/pc/1957/3-2socialism.html Well, I cite specifically Marx's Capital, but I'll also cite the definition on the page you gave above: socialism. A political and economic theory of social organization based on collective or governmental ownership and democratic management of the essential means of the production and distribution of goods; . . . Note that it says "AND democratic management". That means control of the government by the people. A government owning the stuff doesn't make it socialistic... you need the people controlling the government as well. > >You're neglecting the situtuations that arise when everyone has the means > >to undermine the power. > > And that can happen where? When? Not in our lifetimes. We're seeing it happen right now with regard to information. Control of dissemination of information is losing its force of power. The entertainment industry is doing its damnedest to hang on to that power, but they've already lost. > >Marx worked under the idea that it would become so effortless to provide > >for the needs of the public, that it would become impossible for any > >person or group of people to totally control those means of production. > > And that's where he failed. You still have to have a plant manager, > and he's going to have more power than the workers. Haven't you ever worked in either a non-hierarchical or a worker-managed organization? I refer you to worker-owned collectives throughout the world... but if you want a specific, local example, you can check out the Red & Black Cafe on Division. A "manager" isn't a manager of people, but a manager of projects and expectations in this kind of organization. At my last job, the "supervisor" of our group left the company and a replacement was sought. The manager of the group understood that the role to be filled was essentially one of service to the workers. He suggested we define the role and interview the replacement since, after all, he was working for us. A manager is essentially a liaison between functional groups, managing expectations and administrivia. The power is in the workers doing the work. > As long as one person has to expect more effort than another, you'll > have hierarchy, and that's why communism won't work. But what is more effort and who expects it? If you think effort is what dictates power, then I think you should have a look around and think again. Power exists primarily to defer effort. > That is ALSO why capitalism DOES work. People who work with the > system, move up. Heh... "work with the system". In other words, the system is exploitable and is based on "working with it", rather than actually advancing anything. > People who don't either don't move, or move down. Welfare begets > welfare. I don't see how that last bit follows from what you were writing before. > I'm an example. I started out as a minimum wage worker, pumping gas. > Now I make much more than minimum wage, enough to live comfortably, > with a little left over. Not bad for 20 years since graduation from > High School. And no, I don't have a college degree. Well, I don't have a college degree and I started out working fast food for minimum wage and last year made a fuck of a lot more than minimum wage. Not bad for ten years since graduation from high school. But I don't think I worked particularly hard to get where I am. Life is hard for everyone and effort is relative. We can swap anecdotes all day long, but that's not going to make it true that the wealthy deserve power over the poor. And in this country, you are poor and powerless... but you have lots of nice things because the entire third world is slaving away to provide it for you. > >Power is derived from the control of value and value is derived from > >scarcity. When scarcity is destroyed, there is either no value or no > >control and therefore no power. > > So, you would say that we'd have to have many plants, churning out > processors, so that there's no shortage. How does this work if you > have to buy raw materials from outside of your utopian area? What outside? You assume too much. We're talking about fundamental changes in human society as a whole. Literacy didn't remove the power of the literate until it was widespread... not within a particular nation, but throughout the connected cultures. Until then, the literate nations merely reigned over the illiterate ones. The high worker productivity that comes with industrialization is a good example of this. While some nations are industrialized and others are not, the ones that are use their extraneous wealth and leisure to enslave the nations that have nothing. Beside that, the only physical goods that are truly required are food and space. Anything else you can think of is a product of service... that is to say, we don't need the OBJECT, just the USE of the object. So we won't need to churn out processor after processor if we develop extremely efficient and capable processors that are durable, reusable, and powerful. Hell, it might not even be that straightforward. Could be that someone just develops an extremely efficient task-switching engine that allows for a single processor to manage everything in a given building or household. Truly ubiquitous computing is probably centuries away and nobody knows what the technology holds. I would argue, however, that capitalism does not work toward ending scarcity in any field. As we enter the late stages of capitalism and those who have figured out the rules to the game amass their power in previously unseen volume, we see our industry becoming purposefully non-productive and contrary to human progress. Medical research focusses on treatments instead of cures. The recording industry limits civil rights and stymies science and technological progress in the form of legislation. The software industry develops crippleware and licensing enforcement. The oil industry lies and bribes to prevent sustainable energy research from receiving funding. Everywhere, monopolies and oligopolies buy the startups and upstarts that might actually bring progress to the world. It is not in the best interest of the capitalist to bring progress to mankind by solving problems. It is not in the interest of the capitalist to promote personal freedom. It is not in the interest of the capitalist to provide general education. It is not in the interest of the capitalist to support peace. Suffering is opportunity. Scarcity is value. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 05:11:17 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:11:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020328194141.028e6658@mail.localnet.dimstar.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Russ Johnson wrote: > At 04:43 PM 3/28/2002 -0800, you wrote: > > >On 28 Mar 2002, Russ Johnson wrote: > > > I believe you are confusing communism with socialism. > > > >I believe you are confusing socialism with fascism. > > I don't think so. > > "Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the > nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other > loyalties." (http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html) > > Nowhere in my definitions is there anything to do with race, country, or > any sort of fanaticism. Here's Fascism in Mousilini's words: "The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State." Fascism is a belief in the all-powerful and all-purposeful state. The state controls because the state is all that matters. What is the word, then, for what you describe? It's not socialism because it ignores the vital element of control of the people (the "social" in "socialism", if you will) and replaces it with a "government" or "state" of (apparently) irrelevant composition. > > > This is common, as many people believe the folks in the former USSR > > > were communists. They were not. They never made it to communism (as > > > Marx and Stalin claimed to want.) from socialism. This is why they > > > were called, "United Soviet Socialists Republic" or USSR. > > > >What we call Soviet-style Socialism wasn't really socialist at all because > >power never resided in the hands of the proletariat. > > So you are also saying that the US style "social" programs are not > socialist? No. I didn't mention the United States or their programs. > > > In communism, everyone owns everything, and everyone has access to > > > all goods and services. > > > That's a good enough definition, sure. I would refine it just a > > > little to say that no party can control the > > means of meeting human needs. > > And that (again) is where it will fail. Just as anarchy will fail. It > relies on people being "good". People are greedy. Again, it doesn't matter if people are greedy if there is PLENTY. Take and take and there's still enough for others, so your greed doesn't matter. Communism is not an attainable goal, but an ideal to work toward. Now, setting that aside, I have to ask this: If greediness isn't "good", then why would you support a system that uses greed as its only rewarded motivator? > > > In socialism, the state owns everything, and the state decides what > > > you get or don't get. > > > >That's only half of it. Socialism also has the requirement that the state > >be run by the workers. > > Not according to > http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/pc/1957/3-2socialism.html. Let me amend my statement slightly, "Socialism also has the requirement that the state be run by the workers, if the state is in control of the means of production." since it is possible to have a socialist system in which the state is not involved as a party (hence, the "collective OR governmental" in the definition you cited). How else do you interpret the phrase "and democratic management"? J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 05:21:53 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:21:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020328195555.028e64c8@mail.localnet.dimstar.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Russ Johnson wrote: > >If there are more jobs than people, why is there unemployment? > > Several possibilities come to mind. > > It boils down to, "One is waiting for the "Right job". " If it boiled down to that, there wouldn't be "economic indicators" that showed when employment was going to rise again. It would merely be a social movement based on the whimsy of the workers. Heck, we could have a "feel good about your job" campaign and that, alone, should solve the unemployment problem. Let's see, in the greater Portland area, there are about 30,000 unemployed people. How many pages of ads in The Oregonian would that be? > > > Maybe not what you want to do, but there are other jobs out there. > > > Otherwise, the help wanted section of the newspaper would dry up. > > > >Just because there are jobs available doesn't mean there aren't MORE > >people looking for work. > > > >And we're talking about a class of people that have limited skills and > >leisure time. They don't have a free hand with which to grab their own > >bootstraps. > > How do you know the later any more than we know the former? I don't understand that sentence or to what it refers. > > > If there are more jobs than workers, then it's not hard to find > > > another job. > > > >Again, read what I wrote. Not just ANOTHER job, but a BETTER job. > > If you aren't happy in your current job, another job, paying the same > wages, just may be better. So these people working two to four food service jobs coming to 70 or 80 hours a week are just too lazy to find better work. I see. Apparently you think it's impossible for a capitalist to exploit his wealth at the expense of his employees. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 05:45:24 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Dylan Reinhardt) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:45:24 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Message-ID: <3CA368040000080D@mta07.san.yahoo.com> > At any rate, it should not be this hard to answer a > simple question. Laws should be in black and white. > The courts have taken power that they should not have > in my opinion. Several times in the arcane legal discussion of the last few days the ass= ertion has been made that laws should, by their very nature, be simple and easy to read. A corrollary opinion seems to be that laws which are insufficie= ntly simple are invalid. As far as advocating for simpler laws goes, I'm all for it. My philosoph= y of law could be expressed most simply as "fewer laws, clearer laws, stric= ter enforcement" but I don't get where the case can be made that complexity or obscurity actually invalidates a law. Am I reading in here? I'd like, for example, to see us move to a tax code that was simple enoug= h that any person could calculate their tax burden with a calculator. But we, the people have demanded a system that acts to prod, push, and punish= certain forms of behavior, so that's what we've got. It sucks, but is an= yone seriously arguing that this somehow isn't the law? The fact that the law is complex and arcane may reveal little besides the= fact that the subject matter or domain of influence is complex and intric= ately nuanced. Indeed, Linux users should find this point particularly easy to= appreciate. Many people crave operating systems with cartoon-driven, knowledge-option= al user interfaces. Most people I encounter have little interest in the sub= tler points of mail transport, httpd tuning, ethernet configuration, kernel op= timization or journaling filesystems. For the layperson, computers should simply *w= ork* and not demand so much of the user. Those of us who feel otherwise see tremendous benefit to actually underst= anding the intricate details. After all, knowledge is power. Being able to rec= ognize the difference between the requirements of a decent word processing syste= m and a high-availability web server may be obvious to us... but the fact that it is not obvious to the lay person does not suggest that we have si= mply *made up* terminology to lock all the non-believers out of our nifty secu= lar priesthood. I realize that OS design has no bearing on the law. But as we shake our fists at a legal system too complex to describe in simple terms, isn't it= possible that we're really reacting to the natural result of a system tha= t deals with a large number of diverse and complecated interests and goals?= Federal law encompasses matters ranging from forestry to fuel economy, la= bor relations to drug manufacturing. We can certainly have opinions about wh= en and how Federal law should be applied... but there are bound to be seriou= s complexities in even the most stripped-down and modest attempt at governa= nce. Dylan From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 09:08:38 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A. Henshaw) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 01:08:38 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: Message-ID: <3CA42F16.1060701@jhenshaw.com> Jeme A Brelin wrote: > On 28 Mar 2002, Russ Johnson wrote: > >>>Same thing, whatever you say. Is there a significant >>>distinction? >>> > > I forgot to address this part earlier, but that's OK because I can deal > with it here. > > But the first thing I'd like to say on the topic is that your ignorance on > this subject completely disqualifies you from any intelligent discussion > about its nature. > > It was I who wrote "Same thing". Because either one is not important to me in the context of this discussion; One requires force to deploy, and the other doesn't work anyway. Just like your Utopia would require force, because there are MANY who reject your thinking because we know better- we know it won't work and is against human nature. Major flaw. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 09:10:28 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A. Henshaw) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 01:10:28 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: <3CA368040000080D@mta07.san.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3CA42F84.6020906@jhenshaw.com> Dylan Reinhardt wrote: >>At any rate, it should not be this hard to answer a >>simple question. Laws should be in black and white. >>The courts have taken power that they should not have >>in my opinion. >> > > Several times in the arcane legal discussion of the last few days the assertion > has been made that laws should, by their very nature, be simple and easy > to read. A corrollary opinion seems to be that laws which are insufficiently > simple are invalid. > > As far as advocating for simpler laws goes, I'm all for it. My philosophy > of law could be expressed most simply as "fewer laws, clearer laws, stricter > enforcement" but I don't get where the case can be made that complexity > or obscurity actually invalidates a law. Am I reading in here? No, you're reading it right. > > I'd like, for example, to see us move to a tax code that was simple enough > that any person could calculate their tax burden with a calculator. But > we, the people have demanded a system that acts to prod, push, and punish > certain forms of behavior, so that's what we've got. It sucks, but is anyone > seriously arguing that this somehow isn't the law? No one is arguing that it isn't the law, but there are many who can show you why the income tax does not apply to the average American. It is jut another example of peoples internalized truths being incorrect; and exposing them to the truth usually is more of a study in human nature than a study of law. Many wil balk and laugh, question your sanity and seek comfort from others whose belief system agrees with their long held "truths" rather than go learn the facts at the risk of shaking the walls of their intellectual prison/paradigm down. > > The fact that the law is complex and arcane may reveal little besides the > fact that the subject matter or domain of influence is complex and intricately > nuanced. Indeed, Linux users should find this point particularly easy to > appreciate. > > Many people crave operating systems with cartoon-driven, knowledge-optional > user interfaces. Most people I encounter have little interest in the subtler > points of mail transport, httpd tuning, ethernet configuration, kernel optimization > or journaling filesystems. For the layperson, computers should simply *work* > and not demand so much of the user. > > Those of us who feel otherwise see tremendous benefit to actually understanding > the intricate details. After all, knowledge is power. Being able to recognize > the difference between the requirements of a decent word processing system > and a high-availability web server may be obvious to us... but the fact > that it is not obvious to the lay person does not suggest that we have simply > *made up* terminology to lock all the non-believers out of our nifty secular > priesthood. > > I realize that OS design has no bearing on the law. But as we shake our > fists at a legal system too complex to describe in simple terms, isn't it > possible that we're really reacting to the natural result of a system that > deals with a large number of diverse and complecated interests and goals? > > Federal law encompasses matters ranging from forestry to fuel economy, labor > relations to drug manufacturing. We can certainly have opinions about when > and how Federal law should be applied... but there are bound to be serious > complexities in even the most stripped-down and modest attempt at governance. > > Dylan > The complexities arise when the lawmakers overstep their bounds. The constitution IS a stripped-down attempt. -- Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what they will have for lunch. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 09:22:08 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A. Henshaw) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 01:22:08 -0800 Subject: [Fwd: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.] Message-ID: <3CA43240.2030903@jhenshaw.com> I sent this earlier and it was too long and I got a message about a moderator having to read it first; I trimmed the content -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:44:54 -0800 From: "J.A. Henshaw" To: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org References: <3CA3832A.80103@jhenshaw.com> <1017350024.2754.8.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> <3CA39341.7050806@jhenshaw.com> <1017357810.2739.22.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> Russ Johnson wrote: > On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 14:03, J.A. Henshaw wrote: > >>pay your taxes (rent) >> > > This is so far from rent it's not even funny. I've been paying rent now > for 20 years. What have I to show for it. I'd GLADLY trade my rent > payment for a house payment and tax payment. At least then I'd be > getting something for my money. > Something, maybe... but not land ownership. I am still correct. > >>follow the building codes ( setbacks, fencelines, etc) >> > > Yeah, those are the price we pay for living in a society. It also is > somewhat based on safety. > Yes, I know.. freedom for safety, yada yada Patrick Henry had a few words for you. > >>the health codes (septic, water etc) >> > > Again, this is for safety and health reasons. Can you imagine what > Portland would look like if everyone just drained their toilets into the > gutter? > Hmm, 1921 they passed some building codes, and prior to that all Americans waded through their own feces every day right? > >>the penal codes ( grow marijuana, etc) >> > > Well, duh. > Well, duh, this is *only* unconstitutional. But gee golly whiz, we are safe from those nasty green plants while the MJTF attacks your neighbors with machine guns and helicopters.... what do I say to you? > >>What else do you "own" that you need permission to do things >>with? >> > > How about my car? I have to have a license to drive it. I have to > register the vehicle to drive it on public streets. I pay taxes on it > each time I put gas in it. > Terrible example.. I have addressed this briefly already, and I tried to explain driving an it's legal definition. I don't think you care, you want safety in exchange for freedom. See above reference to Patrick Henry. I ask you this: If the jails are overcrowded with drunk drivers, what has your licensing scheme achieved? Safety? > >>However, the above is food for thought, and not meant to >>be proof. >> > > It's not proof. It's spurious at best. > > Spurious? Patrick Henry is spurious too then. I would rather be associated with him than a person who gladly licks the hands that feed him. ( May your chains rest lightly) >>I sense that you are genuinely interested in this and not >>merely being rhetorical, so if you want the entire >>enchilada I will be more than happy to give you the history >>and the proof. >> > > Yes, I am interested. However, be warned that any proof that requires > anarchy will not fly with me. > > I strongly suspect that you consider constitutional authority anarchy. I feel the opposite. >>>>Oh really? Again, I think the rest of the world agrees >>>>that Marx was a communist. >>>> >>>> >>>No, Marx was a socialist. His dream was communism, achieved through >>>socialist methods. >>> >>>America is more socialist now than it was 100 years ago. >>> >>> >>> >> >>Same thing, whatever you say. Is there a significant >>distinction? >> > > Socialism is when the government provides everything for the people. > There is still someone (or group) in charge, and they decide what's best > for the people. > > Communism is when everyone is equal, and no one is in charge. > > In my opinion, Socialism can be achieved in this country (and is in many > ways. E.G. Welfare). > > Communism can't be achieved. Humans want to be in charge. They want a > hierarchy of power. > > >>Either one is antithetical to the constitution. >> > > How do you explain the rampant socialism coming out of Washington? > > That has been my message all along, the law is not applied and you have socialism to show for it. Now you show me that you don't get it. I am exasperated. The text below addresses many of your questions: The Economic Rape of America - Chapter Nine GOVERNMENT RAPE, ANARCHY, AND MURDER http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/rape9.shtml From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 10:46:44 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Jeme A Brelin) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 02:46:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. In-Reply-To: <3CA42F16.1060701@jhenshaw.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, J.A. Henshaw wrote: > Jeme A Brelin wrote: > >>>Same thing, whatever you say. Is there a significant > >>>distinction? > > > > But the first thing I'd like to say on the topic is that your ignorance on > > this subject completely disqualifies you from any intelligent discussion > > about its nature. > > It was I who wrote "Same thing". I certainly knew at the time of writing that those were your words. If I failed to keep the attribution when trimming extraneous quoted material, then I apologize PROFUSELY to Russell for any mistaken attribution. > Because either one is not important to me in the context of this > discussion; > > One requires force to deploy, and the other doesn't work anyway. > > Just like your Utopia would require force, because there are MANY who > reject your thinking because we know better- we know it won't work and > is against human nature. > > Major flaw. First, again, I will state that it's not MY utopia. It seems to me that you want to personalize these sentiments so you can easily dismiss them as the thoughts of a sole individual. This isn't a philosphy I devised nor even really one to which I adhere. I can't see why you continue to call this MY system. I certainly don't call selfish YOUR idea. Now, let's talk about the above... I'll quote it again for clarity. > One requires force to deploy, and the other doesn't work anyway. I'm going to assume you're talking about socialism in the former and communism in the latter. Every system BUT communism requires force to deploy. That's why Marx called them dictatorships. There's the dictatorship of the wealthy few, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and so on. You go on and on about the dictatorship of the majority... same thing. If you think that the system you support doesn't require force to deploy, you're absolutely and totally disconnected from reality. The protection of your beloved private property is probably the single greatest instigator of violence in the history of the world. As for communism "not working anyway" (to paraphrase), it is a tribute to communists that they recognize their ideal as unattainable. The Laissez Faire "Free Market" capitalists generally ignore the inherent unattainability of a perfect market and, what's worse, deny the more salient flaws of the system including the eventual emergence of a "winner", the failure of purely economic motivators to encourage concern for environmental quality, and the negative difference between the rate of increase in the amount of wealth in a system and the rate at which the percentage of that wealth held by the elite grows. While communism is a nice ideal that's simply unattainable, capitalism is an unattainable ideal that is destructive to the majority of the people in the system. J. -- ----------------- Jeme A Brelin jeme@brelin.net ----------------- [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 10:10:06 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Steve Jorgensen) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 02:10:06 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Liberal vs Conservative? Message-ID: <01C1D6D0.133EA9E0.jorgens@coho.net> On Thursday, March 28, 2002 5:03 PM, Dylan Reinhardt [SMTP:dylan@dylanreinhardt.com] wrote: ... > While on the subject, I read an essay recently that plug-talk'ers might > enjoy... it's a fun rant on why the three major branches of American political > thought all suck. (http://www.scalzi.com/w020322.htm). Great link! I'm bookmarking that one. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 10:34:20 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Steve Jorgensen) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 02:34:20 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Liberal vs Conservative? Message-ID: <01C1D6D0.18F90880.jorgens@coho.net> On Thursday, March 28, 2002 6:08 PM, Jeme A Brelin [SMTP:jeme@brelin.net] wrote: ... > Personally, I oppose political parties and think they contribute to > laziness in society and in the minds of individuals. Damn straight. Unfortunately, the structure of our electoral system leads inevitably to the existence of 2 dominant parties. It is a little-known fact, however, that there is nothing in our constitution governing the mechanics of the electoral process just as it is a little-known fact that juries have the authority to vote their conscience above the law if they believe the law is unjust in a particular case (jury nullification). It is possible, without constitutional amendment, that the USA could migrate to a different election system (so long as it included an electoral college for national elections), though the 2 parties in power are resistant to such attempts. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 10:43:26 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Steve Jorgensen) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 02:43:26 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Route command on Microsoft Win2000 Message-ID: <01C1D6D0.1ABE3820.jorgens@coho.net> Windows NT/2K servers can do real routing (NT requires installation of RRAS). Workstations cannot - Windows workstations can only be given a list of default gateways. You options are: 1. Run a Windows server OS rather than a workstation. 2. Use a gateway to a router/system that -can- be told how to route to all desired addresses. If you are using a Linux router (this is a PLUG list, right?) then just tell it how to route to where you need to go, and Windows will get where it's going by using the Linux box as its default gateway. On Thursday, March 28, 2002 4:36 PM, Mike Witt [SMTP:mike@computer-arts.net] wrote: > I have a MS Win2000 machine on which I need to point a host route > at a given interface. I need to do this *regardless* of the fact > the the machine doesn't *think* that the destination can be found > on that interface, based on it's (dhcp downloaded) configuration. > > On Unix, the command "route add -host dev eth0" > would do the trick. Win2k does have a route command, but I can't > figure out any syntax that will do the same job. Win2k does not > have an ifconfig command (that was another thread :-) so I can't > create a virual interface that believes it's on the required subnet. > (I *could* do this through the normal Win2k GUI, but since the > machine is doing DCHP it doesn't believe I need to configure > interfaces and won't let me :-( > > BTW, I doubt this msg will make any sense to anyone who hasn't > come across this specific situation. So, don't waste too much time > reading it :-) > > -Mike > _______________________________________________ > PLUG-talk mailing list > PLUG-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-talk From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 11:06:36 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Steve Jorgensen) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 03:06:36 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] What is money? (was Fair Use, etc.) Message-ID: <01C1D6D0.1DFAC580.jorgens@coho.net> On Thursday, March 28, 2002 5:07 PM, Dylan Reinhardt [SMTP:dylan@dylanreinhardt.com] wrote: ... > In point of fact, money is far less real now than when Carneige put pen > to paper... and we're all vastly better off for it. I take special exception to such value statements. It may be true that the transition was inevitable and part of the natural course of events, but better? That is a cosmic question. > One could look at the credit card transaction clearing process (as I have) > and conclude that money has simply become an elaborate way of keeping score. > When you charge that NIC at Fry's, ~$30 simply springs into existence. In > a very real way, that money simply didn't exist until the moment you spent > it. The process of creating wealth may look scary if you're used to thinking > of wealth as a scarce commodity (like a coin or a sheaf of wheat). But it > isn't scary: it's our greatest opportunity for growth. > > By moving beyond a token-based economy, we have removed artificial barriers > to the creation and distribution of wealth. The US turned its back on the > gold standard and moved exclusively to fiat currency. That process took > a long time and became finalized only in the last 100 years. Not coincidentally, > we have also seen the US grow from an largely agrarian plutocracy to a far > more egalitarian society that also happens to be the world's largest industrial > power. If that's what we get for moving to fake money, I'm glad we did > it. This seems to be like many things that benefit the early adopters - like oxygen breathing organisms. Is it a better ecosystem? Well, it's certainly different, and the first on board certainly have an advantage. > When the supply of metals drove our economy, depressions were more severe > and oddball events like the discovery of caches of gold or silver had the > potential to disrupt economic activity at all levels. It's not so much > the case that we were manipulated or tricked into relinquishing gold; rather, > it's more accurate to say that we simply outgrew it. Token-based economies > treat each person as a mouth--yet one more drain on a fixed supply of resources. > Currency allows for the possibility that a person is not just a mouth, > but a set of hands. Why should the measure of value in an economy be tied > to anything other than the sum of what people produce? This implies that the value of tokens is truly a less biased measure of true value. I'm not sure this is any more true than the idea that the current price of a corporation's stock represents its long-term viability. > No, I'm not saying that everything is perfectly optimized yet, but you'd > be hard pressed to show that average people today enjoy less freedom or > political clout than average people of the 18th century. Perhaps the middle > class of today enjoy fewer perks than the plutocrats of yore... but that's > a whole different ball of wax, isn't it? I agree with that paragraph except for the word "yet". Systems of biology and of social interaction are in constant flux. There is no final state of "perfect optimization"; we are simply in a state of constant adaptation to current trends, and the actions we take to adapt (along with many external factors) continually change the environment to which we must adapt in ways we could never predict. Evolution has no forward vector, it is simply an endless, chaotic process. There is no guarantee that our tiny, transient improvement in freedom and clout will persist - or on what scale of space/time. Whether the stock market is on the rise or decline is based on the chosen geographical scope and starting and ending times of measure. Progress or regress of personal freedom and political clout are much the same, though more difficult to quantify. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 09:53:09 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Steve Jorgensen) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 01:53:09 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Liberal vs Conservative? Message-ID: <01C1D6D0.0DCF0FE0.jorgens@coho.net> My 2 cents on the whole Liberal/Conservative thing... I am a former "Liberal". I wish there were more former "Liberals" and former "Conservatives" around. "Liberal" and "Conservative" are each labels for constellations of unrelated beliefs that have been lumped together and have a slight tendency to be held by the same people in common at a particular time. The exact definitions of "Liberal" and "Conservative" vary over time and can even swap places on many issues over 50 to 100 years or so. For one thing, classical conservatism is very strong on personal freedom, but this is now more of a Liberal platform with the majority of Conservatives in the Christian camp on the side of limiting everyone's behavior to that which is sanctioned by a particular interpretation of Christian scripture. I suppose labels are inevitable, and even the artificial lumping of opinions into 2 sides on each issue and each side to its half of the political spectrum, but personally, I find the Liberal/Conservative division extraordinarily limiting - even with the distinctions of moderate vs extreme and fiscal vs social. On Thursday, March 28, 2002 2:12 PM, Richard Langis [SMTP:richard.langis@sun.com] wrote: > The people on #orlug weren't very helpful, and google turned up a bunch of > mirrored pages that said nothing, so I thought I'd ask this list. > > What is the definition of Liberal, and Conservative? Meant with regards to > viewpoints, and with some examples. > > An example of sorts: Liberals are generally pro-choice, while Conservatives > are generally pro-life. > > Any opinions out there? > > -R > -- > s u n m i c r o s y s t e m s > > ~ Richard Langis Jr. ~ > richard.langis@sun.com > > > _______________________________________________ > PLUG-talk mailing list > PLUG-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-talk From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 10:24:40 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Steve Jorgensen) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 02:24:40 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Liberal vs Conservative? Message-ID: <01C1D6D0.16D84B60.jorgens@coho.net> On Thursday, March 28, 2002 5:52 PM, Jeme A Brelin [SMTP:jeme@brelin.net] wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Dylan Reinhardt wrote: > > What, for example, is the "Conservative" position on the drug war? > > Market conservatives (at least the honest ones) see government > > interfering in commerce on the basis of misguided moralism. > > Right. "Market conservatives" claim moral neutrality. This allows them > to dismiss human rights and dignity as being irrelevant to their work even > though these people support systems that foster the destruction of both. > > > Social conservatives see vice and evil and want government to act to > > put a stop to it. > > Right. "Social conservatives" are all about enacting their current value > systems as permanent regulation. > > > And Liberals? Well, who the heck knows what they think about the drug > > war... > > So, did your degree only cover "conservatives"? > > I think it's fairly safe to say that there are folks who self-identify as > "liberals" who believe all kinds of different things about the drug war. > Personally, I've never met one that supported it, but that's not to say > they're not out there. It takes all kinds. > > > as far as I can tell, they're simply content to thank their personal > > higher power that it didn't get rolling until after most of them > > graduated from college. Besides, it has nothing to do with choice, > > which is the only issue Liberals agree about anyway. > > Wow, but you haven't stereotyped anyone or anything. > > > While on the subject, I read an essay recently that plug-talk'ers > > might enjoy... it's a fun rant on why the three major branches of > > American political thought all suck. > > (http://www.scalzi.com/w020322.htm). > > I referenced H.G. Wells' The New Machiavelli earlier. > > He gives a very good description of what he says are the three inevitable > political groups. They're not too different from what is written here, > but he writes with a much more measured and compassionate show of deep > understanding than the above article could possibly muster. > > His statement on "the liberals", for example, shows that they are weak by > design, not by a failure within their ranks. They are necessarily the > group of the disenfranchised and the under-represented. As soon as they > gain power, they cease to be liberal because they are no longer > disenfranchised... they are the establishment. > > Wells gives a much more complete description of why these names change in > meaning every few years by showing that they don't apply to a set of > ideologies, but to a social role that is often met by folks with different > views. > > If you want to see what an intelligent, unbiased view on this subject > looks like, read Wells' The New Machiavelli. > > "Oh," I hear you now, "he's unbiased, is he? Are you saying he had no > political agenda when he wrote this book?" > > Absolutely not. I'm saying that he DID have a political agenda, but the > words defined a totally different set of people a century ago and the fact > that his descriptions of the groups still apply even though the ideologies > have shifted shows that what he wrote does not depend on his own personal > views. I was going to say... "As I stated previously, I am a former "Liberal". As such, I take great amusement in the accurate representation of "Liberals" is sanctimonious hypocrites. Not to put too fine a point on it, but you took a post and an article that really poked equal fun at all political biases in different ways, and responded to it as a specific attack on liberalism. In a way, you are demonstrating the point, that we "Liberals" must learn to lighten up a bit." On thorough reading, though, I see that you did say much more of deep substance - I'll definitely have to follow up on your H.G. Wells references. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 11:34:33 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Alex) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 05:34:33 -0600 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Silly Hosting Question Message-ID: <20020329113433.VCFY21878.mta11.onebox.com@onebox.com> Hey everyone, I have a non-linux-related question. I previously had a virtual server (freebsd) account for hosting my site, loreseeker.com. I've had the account for over a year, and over time they've received 1200 dollars from me. I find myself now unemployed and i've never really done anything with the account other than using perhaps 250 mb for storage (a rudimentary website), and email. The account is a luxury i can no longer afford. I've been meaning to transfer it to a cheaper account with another company, but i got busy and forgot about it. They disconnected the account for nonpayment the day i opened an account with another company. I'm afraid i'm going to have to bite the bullet and pay them the 200.00 for the two months i'm behind on the billing. I've spoken with technical support and they won't change the ns information until my billing is current. (I registered the domain name through the accoun that's hosting it). My question to you: Is there anything i can do without paying the two months i'm behind? Quite honestly they've gotten tons more than their money's worth out of me, and i can't afford the two hundred bucks, but i don't want to lose my domain (which is registered in my name, by the way). Or are they effectively holding me hostage? Cheers, Alex From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Fri Mar 29 16:21:48 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (Michael Rasmussen) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 08:21:48 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Silly Hosting Question Message-ID: <0E402AD0FEACD411B7C100508BCDF6110463ABE7@cmc-exchange.columbiafunds.com> Alex, Are you saying your domain is hosted by crsnic.net? If so, you'll need to pay up to get your domain back. If not you are in luck. According to http:/bw.org/whois/whois.cgi you are the sole point of contact for Domain, Admin, and Tech issues for loreseeker.com. if you can still get email at foxglove@onebox.com you can transfer your domain to another registrar. As to being held hostage, the value of the services you're received and all that: You made a deal with them. Even by your own description they've done everything they promised. You have not paid for the last two months. By the terms of your agreement, you own them the money. IF you want the domain it seems your only true option is to pay up. Whether they have been able to supply less service than anticipated for your cash is not at issue, nor is it their concern or doing. You didn't use the service, that is your fault not theirs. I suggest chalking this one up to tuition in the school of life. [Warning - I'm about to leave town for the weekend and won't see responses to this until Monday.] -- Michael Rasmussen - Network Engineer, Columbia Management voice: 971-925-6723 cell: 503-807-1447 rasmussenm@columbiafunds.com http://www.columbiafunds.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex [mailto:foxglove@onebox.com] > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 3:35 AM > To: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org > Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Silly Hosting Question > > > Hey everyone, > > I have a non-linux-related question. I previously had a > virtual server > (freebsd) account for hosting my site, loreseeker.com. I've had the > account for over a year, and over time they've received 1200 dollars > from me. > > I find myself now unemployed and i've never really done anything with > the account other than using perhaps 250 mb for storage (a rudimentary > website), and email. The account is a luxury i can no longer afford. > I've been meaning to transfer it to a cheaper account with > another company, > but i got busy and forgot about it. > > They disconnected the account for nonpayment the day i opened > an account > with another company. I'm afraid i'm going to have to bite the bullet > and pay them the 200.00 for the two months i'm behind on the billing. > > > I've spoken with technical support and they won't change the > ns information > until my billing is current. (I registered the domain name > through the > accoun that's hosting it). > > My question to you: Is there anything i can do without paying the two > months i'm behind? Quite honestly they've gotten tons more than their > money's worth out of me, and i can't afford the two hundred bucks, but > i don't want to lose my domain (which is registered in my name, by the > way). Or are they effectively holding me hostage? > > Cheers, > Alex > > _______________________________________________ > PLUG-talk mailing list > PLUG-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-talk > NOTICE: This communication may contain confidential or other privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you have received this communication in error, please do not print, copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use the information. Also, please indicate to the sender that you have received this email in error, and delete the copy you received. Any communication that does not relate to official Columbia business is that of the sender and is neither given nor endorsed by Columbia. Thank you. From plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org Thu Mar 28 23:44:54 2002 From: plug-talk@lists.pdxlinux.org (J.A. Henshaw) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:44:54 -0800 Subject: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc. References: <3CA3832A.80103@jhenshaw.com> <1017350024.2754.8.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> <3CA39341.7050806@jhenshaw.com> <1017357810.2739.22.camel@ciclid.tripwire.com> Message-ID: <3CA3AAF6.4070401@jhenshaw.com> Russ Johnson wrote: > On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 14:03, J.A. Henshaw wrote: > >>pay your taxes (rent) >> > > This is so far from rent it's not even funny. I've been paying rent now > for 20 years. What have I to show for it. I'd GLADLY trade my rent > payment for a house payment and tax payment. At least then I'd be > getting something for my money. > Something, maybe... but not land ownership. I am still correct. > >>follow the building codes ( setbacks, fencelines, etc) >> > > Yeah, those are the price we pay for living in a society. It also is > somewhat based on safety. > Yes, I know.. freedom for safety, yada yada Patrick Henry had a few words for you. > >>the health codes (septic, water etc) >> > > Again, this is for safety and health reasons. Can you imagine what > Portland would look like if everyone just drained their toilets into the > gutter? > Hmm, 1921 they passed some building codes, and prior to that all Americans waded through their own feces every day right? > >>the penal codes ( grow marijuana, etc) >> > > Well, duh. > Well, duh, this is *only* unconstitutional. But gee golly whiz, we are safe from those nasty green plants while the MJTF attacks your neighbors with machine guns and helicopters.... what do I say to you? > >>What else do you "own" that you need permission to do things >>with? >> > > How about my car? I have to have a license to drive it. I have to > register the vehicle to drive it on public streets. I pay taxes on it > each time I put gas in it. > Terrible example.. I have addressed this briefly already, and I tried to explain driving an it's legal definition. I don't think you care, you want safety in exchange for freedom. See above reference to Patrick Henry. I ask you this: If the jails are overcrowded with drunk drivers, what has your licensing scheme achieved? Safety? > >>However, the above is food for thought, and not meant to >>be proof. >> > > It's not proof. It's spurious at best. > > Spurious? Patrick Henry is spurious too then. I would rather be associated with him than a person who gladly licks the hands that feed him. ( May your chains rest lightly) >>I sense that you are genuinely interested in this and not >>merely being rhetorical, so if you want the entire >>enchilada I will be more than happy to give you the history >>and the proof. >> > > Yes, I am interested. However, be warned that any proof that requires > anarchy will not fly with me. > > I strongly suspect that you consider constitutional authority anarchy. I feel the opposite. >>>>Oh really? Again, I think the rest of the world agrees >>>>that Marx was a communist. >>>> >>>> >>>No, Marx was a socialist. His dream was communism, achieved through >>>socialist methods. >>> >>>America is more socialist now than it was 100 years ago. >>> >>> >>> >> >>Same thing, whatever you say. Is there a significant >>distinction? >> > > Socialism is when the government provides everything for the people. > There is still someone (or group) in charge, and they decide what's best > for the people. > > Communism is when everyone is equal, and no one is in charge. > > In my opinion, Socialism can be achieved in this country (and is in many > ways. E.G. Welfare). > > Communism can't be achieved. Humans want to be in charge. They want a > hierarchy of power. > > >>Either one is antithetical to the constitution. >> > > How do you explain the rampant socialism coming out of Washington? > > That has been my message all along, the law is not applied and you have socialism to show for it. Now you show me that you don't get it. I am exasperated. The text below addresses many of your questions: The Economic Rape of America - Chapter Nine GOVERNMENT RAPE, ANARCHY, AND MURDER So Samuel reported all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, "These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots; and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers. He will take one- tenth of your grain and give it to his officers and his courtiers. He will take your male and female slaves, and the best of your cattle and donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take one-tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the Lord will not answer you in that day." 1 Samuel 8, verses 10-18 "There are still peoples and herds somewhere, but not with us, my brothers: here there are states. The state? What is that? Well then! Now open your ears, for now I shall speak to you of the death of peoples. The state is the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies, too; and this lie creeps from its mouth; 'I, the state, am the people.' It is a lie! It was creators who created peoples and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life. It is destroyers who set snares for many and call it the state: they hang a sword and a hundred desires over them. Where a people still exists, there the people do not understand the state and hate it as the evil eye and sin against custom and law. I offer you this sign: every people speaks its own language of good and evil: its neighbor does not understand this language. It invented this language for itself in custom and law. But the state lies in all languages of good and evil; and whatever it says, it lies - and whatever it has, it has stolen. Everything about it is false; it bites with stolen teeth. Even its belly is false. Confusion of the language of good and evil; I offer you this sign of the state. Truly, this sign indicates the will to death! Truly, it beckons to the preachers of death! Many too many are born: the state was invented for the superfluous! Just see how it lures them, the many-too-many! How it devours them, and chews them, and re-chews them! ... It would like to range heroes and honorable men about it, this new idol! It likes to sun itself in the sunshine of good consciences - this cold monster! It will give you everything if you worship it, this new idol: thus it buys for itself the luster of your virtues and the glance of your proud eyes. It wants to use you to lure the many-too-many. Yes, a cunning device of Hell has here been devised, a horse of death jingling with the trappings of divine honors! Yes, a death for many has here been devised that glorifies itself as life: truly a heart-felt service to all preachers of death! I call it the state where everyone, good and bad, is a poison-drinker: the state where everyone, good and bad, loses himself: the state where universal slow suicide is called - life. Friedrich Nietzsche, 1884 The people who masquerade as "government" operate in the mode I call economic rape - the political means of obtaining sustenance - "greed armed with a gun." The justification is "the public good." The reality is self-interest and easy rewards for no results or negative results. Sometimes we suspect the motives include vicious, destructive vindictiveness. Consider the story recounted by George Roche in America by the Throat: The Stranglehold of Federal Bureaucracy: "The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) today ordered the University of Illinois to tear down the handrails alongside walkways on campus, and to install new handrails exactly 42 inches high. According to OSHA, the old handrails are several inches too low to comply with regulations." It is a true story - and it cost $500,000 to change the handrails. It is bureaucratic economic rape that has been growing geometrically or logarithmically. The growth of this rape over a ten-year period was encapsulated by Dr. Ravi Batra in his book The Great Depression of 1990: "Many believe that the 1970s experienced an unprecedented growth in federal regulation. Between 1970 and 1980 twenty-one new regulatory agencies, with extensive powers to intervene in business decision-making of numerous industries, were established. The budget of the regulatory bodies expanded approximately 600 percent during this period, while their staffing level grew by over 300 percent." In his book The Squeeze, James Dale Davidson has a chapter, "The Bureaucratic Squeeze," which starts with a quote by Ringo Starr: "Everything government touches turns to crap." Government is a faecal alchemist. And, of course, politicians and bureaucrats touch themselves and each other. Davidson said: "Since 1972 there have been more bureaucrats drawing salaries in America than all the people at work in "all the durable goods manufacturing industries, including such giants as autos, electronics, steel, and heavy machinery." ["The Real Productivity Crisis Is In Government" by Richard S. Rosenbloom, Harvard Business Review, Sep-Oct 1973.] Each business day, the number of bureaucrats increases by about 1,300. And each new bureaucrat contributes an additional overhead cost to everything you buy: he makes your groceries more expensive - by imposing 4,100 regulations on a pound of plain hamburger; when you buy a new car you are paying more for the accumulated efforts of the bureaucrats than you are for all four wheels - General Motors alone must employ 23,000 persons simply to fill out government forms. If the estimates of experts are correct, then the total effect of all regulatory exactions is to impose an annual cost of more than $130 billion upon the economy. That is about $2,500 per family." [1980.] And the growth of bureaucratic economic rape during the fifty years from 1935 to 1985 is described by George Roche: "The problem is bureaucracy, and bureaucracy has become a national epidemic. The federal bureaucracy has more than tripled in size in the last ten years. It is ten times as large and powerful as it was twenty years ago, at the beginning of the Kennedy-Johnson years. It has swollen a thousand-fold in power in the last half century. This titanic expansion of bureaucratic power is shattering the foundations of a free society and menacing the well-being of every citizen. The federal government, designed and intended to be the Servant of the people, now bids to be become our Master." The extent of the bureaucratic economic rape today and its continuing growth were encapsulated in an editorial - based on a study by the Heritage Foundation - in the Arizona Republic, dated July 14, 1992: "... [T]he federal regulatory burden is strangling the U.S. economy. The explosive growth of burdensome rules during the Bush administration... has pushed the tab for the government's oversight of Americans' lives and livelihoods to a level at or above the cost imposed by even federal taxes. Though economists differ slightly on their precise calculations, the cost of all the federal dos and don'ts ranges from $8,338 and $17,134 per U.S. household [per year]. The average federal tax take, in comparison, is about $11,000 per household [per year]. This "hidden tax" affects the economy in a number of counterproductive ways - from higher prices for consumer goods to additional unemployment... lower wages... overhead costs that businesses must absorb for processing paperwork... expenses of attorneys, accountants and others needed to comply with the bureaucracy's complex requirements... incalculable toll on business investment from the prospect of even more rules being passed at Washington's whim... During George Bush's White House tenure alone more than 14,000 pages of new regulations have been added to the Federal Register, which now totals 67,716 pages... The number of federal employees required to police these federal dictates also has risen enormously - from fewer than 105,000 during Ronald Reagan's last year in office to nearly 125,000 today. Funding for Washington's regulatory army has increased, over and above inflation, by nearly 18 percent during the same period. All told, regulation is estimated to cost Americans from $881 billion to $1.65 trillion. In contrast, federal taxes this year are expected to total a "mere" $1.05 trillion." In 1974 William E. Simon was appointed Secretary of the Treasury. I have in my hands the paperback edition of his book A Time For Truth. He wrote, "I had resolved to fight for the free enterprise system. And shout, "Stop!" to bigger and bigger government." On the front cover of the book it says, "Over 200,000 sold in hardcover!" and "30 weeks a national bestseller!" Simon wrote: "The redistribution of wealth from the productive citizen to the nonproductive citizen had become the principal government activity. This process - carried out through a vast array of "social programs" - had roared out of control in the sixties and had continued to proliferate. In 1960 federal, state, and local governments spent a total of $52 billion on assorted social welfare programs. After Congress passed the Economic Opportunity Act in 1965, expenditures soared, rising over the next decade from $77.2 billion to a staggering total of $286 billion in 1975... The actual number of federal programs for transferring producer's income to nonproducer's pockets had proliferated. In 1960, at the end of the Eisenhower years, there were approximately 100 federal programs. By 1963 there were 160 such programs. By 1976 there were more than 1000." Fourteen years after Simon wrote his book, what conclusions can we draw; what is the moral of the story? Might he as well have whispered into the wind, "Stop!" to bigger and bigger government? What can stop the cancerous growth of government? Simon quotes Frederic Bastiat, who about 150 years ago said: "The government offers to cure all the ills of mankind. It promises to restore commerce, make agriculture prosperous, expand industry, encourage arts and letters, wipe out poverty, etc., etc. All that is needed is to create some new government agencies and to pay a few more bureaucrats." Today presidential candidate Bill Clinton is making the same promises. One poll gives him a 63% to 33% lead over George Bush. I'm afraid the moral of the story is that the cancer is terminal. Remember the first principle of taxation from the previous chapter: "Tax is terminal. Any civilization that introduces taxation will eventually tax itself to death." The famous futurist Buckminster Fuller calculated that - given the resources we have on earth and the technology to utilize these resources - every man, woman, and child should be a millionaire many times over. If it were not for the colossal economic rape of our territorial gangsters, who can tell the riches we would enjoy? There would be no poverty, no famine, no homelessness, no unemployment problem. Federal agricultural policy is economic rape on a vast and grandiose scale. According to an editorial in The Arizona Republic of July 20, 1992: "For 60 years the U.S. Department of Agriculture has waged war against increased farm production and lower food prices. Since the adoption of the Agriculture Adjustment Act in 1933, the intent of the government's farm policy has been to organize scarcity. It is now apparent that this policy has failed. The government should declare a cease-fire in its war on agriculture and let the free market assume control of the nation's food supply. ... [T]he vast edifice of agriculture subsidies exists mainly for the benefit of a few millionaires and some behemoth agribusinesses. These are serviced by 108,000 USDA bureaucrats, or one for every three recipients. "What does this system of socialized farming mean for the average American consumer? Higher prices, of course... Total subsidies run between $10 billion and $20 billion... A free agricultural market would work if it were given a chance." Of course, it weren't for the 108,000 USDA bureaucrats, the oranges, apples, clover, corn, cotton, oranges, strawberries, and wheat wouldn't grow, and the chicken, cattle, pigs, and sheep would starve to death, and famine would wrack the land. The Federal Reserve System with its consequent currency debasement and inflation is monetary and economic rape. The IRS is economic rape. Congressional spending is economic rape. The ballooning budget deficits are economic rape squared. And the national debt is economic rape times ten. In The Biggest Con: How The Government is Fleecing You, Irwin A. Schiff calculated that in 1975 the national debt was in reality over $5 trillion; whereas the government reported it as $538.5 billion. In a 54-page chapter Schiff provides extensive facts and figures, all obtained from the government. The discrepancy is due to the government not including in the national debt the "unfunded and contingent government debts and obligations." Remember what Harry Figgie said in Chapter Four about the government raiding trust funds? "The government is doing that to nine trust funds, including Social Security, military pensions, railway pensions, and postal pensions. Uncle Sam is taking $120 billion in trust fund surpluses and replacing that with IOUs. Instead of funding them with cash, they're funding them with federal deficit. They don't count those IOUs or the interest on them. And when those IOUs start coming due, the government is going to owe trillions to Social Security, which will be supporting more retirees with fewer workers." [Emphasis added] This corroborates Schiff's contention. The federal government has huge future obligations that are not included in the published national debt. Meanwhile most of the cash in the trust funds has been embezzled. Schiff describes Social Security as "The World's biggest Chain Letter." In 1976 he wrote that, "there are no monetary reserves available to the Social Security System out of which future benefits can be paid." In 1990 Harry Figgie said essentially the same thing. The Social Security System is economic rape with a vengeance. In The Squeeze, James Dale Davidson made these points: In 1979 the cost of Social Security cost per average working family was $1,400 in direct deductions, $1,400 in "employer contributions," and $2,000 in lost income. "Social Security taxes reduced the income of a middle-class family making $25,000 by almost $5,000 in 1979." In 1971 Social Security taxes caused a decline in personal savings of $61 billion. "Social Security has reduced total private savings by 38%. If it had not been for Social Security, GNP would be 11 percent higher and wages would be 15 percent higher. Given the 1979 rate, Social Security costs the typical worker about $750,000 (1977 dollars) during his lifetime. "Courts have ruled that the government is under no obligation to ever pay anyone anything." "... [L]arge numbers of Social Security participants die without receiving anything. ... The effect is that of a 100-percent inheritance tax." This is what Congressman George Hansen wrote in 1980 about federal spending and waste: "... [O]nly utter contempt for the plight of the taxpayer could produce the incredible waste of many of the federal agencies created by the government. Recently, HEW, the biggest money burner on the scene, admitted that more than $6 billion annually was thrown away in multiple payments, frauds, and bureaucratic errors... It was explained in self-defense that $6 billion is really not so significant in view of the fact that it represented less than 4 percent of the more than $160 billion annual budget of HEW prior to its division into two departments. HUD was empowered a few years ago by Congress to guarantee construction projects for low-income housing recipients. The estimated budgetary cost to the taxpayer was $4 billion. As of this writing, HUD has committed $140 billion to this one project. The same geometric explosion occurred in the Agriculture Department's Food Stamp Program. In forty-eight years, the national debt has gone from $2 billion to over $1 trillion, an increase of 500 times the original debt. The annual interest on the national debt is now more than $90 billion, forty-five times the total debt of 1932. No amount of idiot logic about owing it to ourselves or it being only a small percentage of the Gross National Product can jolly the beleaguered taxpayer out of his fear and anger that he personally and individually, is being pauperized by insane spending policies over which he has little or no control." Since then the "national debt" the feds tell us about has ballooned beyond $4 trillion and the annual interest to over $250 billion per year - the Federal Reserve bankers must love it! And if the "Schiff ratio" still applies, then the real national debt is now over $40 trillion! Remember the words of John Danforth, Republican senator from Missouri, as reported in the Arizona Republic of April 21, 1992: "I have never seen more senators express discontent with their jobs. ... I think the major cause is that, deep down in our hearts, we have been accomplices to doing something terrible and unforgivable to this wonderful country. Deep down in our hearts, we know that we have bankrupted America and that we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy. ... We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected." GOVERNMENT ANARCHY Although the word "anarchy," based on its roots means "having no ruler," I shall use it in the popular sense of "lawlessness, chaos, and disorder." In a state of anarchy people form armed bands and shoot each other in the street. There is no respect for the law. In school, students learn violence rather than reason. Jails overflow. All kinds of systems break down - lawlessness, chaos, and disorder. Theodore Becker, professor of political science at the University of Hawaii wrote a most interesting book in 1972, called Government Anarchy and the POGONOGO Alternative. He says: "... [G]overnment has a great deal of anarchy, more trouble with anarchy in its own ranks than with anarchy outside it. ... Government anarchy has been, continues to be, and forebodes to be a worse subversion and perversion of much of our established legal order than any other anarchies, fancied or practiced. We don't need to destroy our system. We need to resurrect and salvage it, yes, even "liberate" it, from our own government officials. ... [G]overnment has become one of the most dangerous single factions in our society. Many high and low officials are drunk with delusions of superiority to us in the rank-and-file citizenry. ... [B]eing a government official gives a sense of being above the law and a sense of being more important as a person, a sense that rarely exists among those out of government." Becker's book has a chapter on police anarchy. It analyses police riots, such as the 1968 Chicago police riot, similar riots in People's Park and Isla Vista, and the 1969 Jackson State police riot. Based on certain studies he estimated that one million Americans a year are arrested for no good reason and that 30,000 are physically abused for no good reason. In some studies, while police were being observed by independent observers, and the police knew they were being observed, the false arrests and physical abuse continued nevertheless. Becker has this to say about government conspiracy: "For those who might be appalled at calling government acts conspiracy, there is expert opinion to substantiate the fact that the first conspiracy statutes in English law were directed against government itself. Conspiracy, from the beginning, was a crime among officials to deprive individuals of their personal rights. One could only bring a conspiracy charge, though, upon bein