"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> We have more people in prison per capita than any nation on the planet.
>> Most people serving prison terms are in for non violent crimes, drugs
>> being the highest number. Now this also includes you local jails and
>> stockades for short term offenders.
>
>
> Which doesn't demonstrate that America loves to punish, it demonstrates
> that criminals are punished.
>
> --
> Dave
> www.davebbq.com
>

Really that may well be true but I don't tend to believe it. Putting someone
in jail for 10 to 15 years for smoking a joint or life as a three time loser
for a few petty theft charges seems a little harsh to me. The crime is the
over loaded courts and justice system because of the victimless crimes that
could be handled easily outside of the court system. We have a notion that
regardless of what you did and why you may have done it you broke the law
and have to pay the fullest penalty. We have taken common sense out of the
equation over the last few decades and I don't see us getting smarter in the
future. As a country we spend too much time in others peoples business
telling them how we think they should live their lives. And if they choose
not to we pass a law to make them. Rant over.


Joe

"Joe Cilinceon" > wrote in message
...
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Joe Cilinceon" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Dee Dee" > wrote in message
>>> ps.com...
>>>> On Jul 11, 4:23 pm, "Joe Cilinceon" > wrote:
>>>>> >JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> > I wonder if the figures account for having to build more prisons to
>>>>> > house
>>>>> > all these murderers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh they would build the prisons regardless of how many murders. We
>>>>> live in a
>>>>> country that loves its punishment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>> I've never noticed that this country loves punishment.
>>>> Dee Dee
>>>>
>>>
>>> We have more people in prison per capita than any nation on the planet.
>>> Most people serving prison terms are in for non violent crimes, drugs
>>> being the highest number. Now this also includes you local jails and
>>> stockades for short term offenders.
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>
>> Good luck with the drug offenders. Until cops and pushers are
>> disconnected from the financial benefits of drugs being illegal, the
>> problem will continue. Cash is more addictive than some of the drugs.
>>
>
> Yes I do agree with that assessment, just a different kind of probation
> and remember what that gave us last time with alcohol. Just understand
> that what I've said is based solely on what I have read and seen reported.
> It doesn't necessarily reflect my opinions on crime and punishment. Though
> I tend to believed in live and let live to a point, I do have a point
> where all bets are off.
>
> Joe


Punish users who are operating machinery that can hurt other people. Period.

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> "Joe Cilinceon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Dee Dee" > wrote in message
>> ps.com...
>>> On Jul 11, 4:23 pm, "Joe Cilinceon" > wrote:
>>>> >JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> > I wonder if the figures account for having to build more prisons to
>>>> > house
>>>> > all these murderers.
>>>>
>>>> Oh they would build the prisons regardless of how many murders. We live
>>>> in a
>>>> country that loves its punishment.
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>
>>> I've never noticed that this country loves punishment.
>>> Dee Dee
>>>
>>
>> We have more people in prison per capita than any nation on the planet.
>> Most people serving prison terms are in for non violent crimes, drugs
>> being the highest number. Now this also includes you local jails and
>> stockades for short term offenders.
>
>
> Which doesn't demonstrate that America loves to punish, it demonstrates
> that criminals are punished.
>
> --
> Dave
> www.davebbq.com


His point, which you pretended not to notice, is that we imprison people for
***SOME*** things which are absurd, like possessing enough cocaine for one
person, not a party. We act as if we're protecting people by arresting them,
but meanwhile, if you drink enough, you can wreck your liver, which makes
you more susceptible to liver cancer. Who gets arrested for possession of
booze?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

> His point, which you pretended not to notice, is that we imprison
> people for ***SOME*** things which are absurd, like possessing enough
> cocaine for one person, not a party.

Is is against the law to posses any amount of illegal narcotic or not?

> We act as if we're protecting
> people by arresting them, but meanwhile, if you drink enough, you can
> wreck your liver, which makes you more susceptible to liver cancer.
> Who gets arrested for possession of booze?

Is it illegal to possess booze?

Change the laws, or obey them.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>> His point, which you pretended not to notice, is that we imprison
>> people for ***SOME*** things which are absurd, like possessing enough
>> cocaine for one person, not a party.
>
> Is is against the law to posses any amount of illegal narcotic or not?
>
>> We act as if we're protecting
>> people by arresting them, but meanwhile, if you drink enough, you can
>> wreck your liver, which makes you more susceptible to liver cancer.
>> Who gets arrested for possession of booze?
>
> Is it illegal to possess booze?
>
> Change the laws, or obey them.
> --
> Dave


I figured you'd get to that.

What if your elected slobs made it illegal to go more than 11 miles per hour
in your car? Would you obey that law? It's as stupid as keeping drugs
illegal. You may notice that the elected slobs rarely mention doing anything
to change these stupid laws.

So - would you obey the 11 mph law?

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>> His point, which you pretended not to notice, is that we imprison
>> people for ***SOME*** things which are absurd, like possessing enough
>> cocaine for one person, not a party.
>
> Is is against the law to posses any amount of illegal narcotic or not?
>
>> We act as if we're protecting
>> people by arresting them, but meanwhile, if you drink enough, you can
>> wreck your liver, which makes you more susceptible to liver cancer.
>> Who gets arrested for possession of booze?
>
> Is it illegal to possess booze?
>
> Change the laws, or obey them.
> --
> Dave
> www.davebbq.com
>

The point is we have some stupid, poorly thought out laws on our books in
this country. They are not based on protecting the general population from
each other and keeping an orderly society but protecting us from ourselves.
If a cop followed the average driver for 1 mile he could write him with
several tickets easily. One of which could get you jail time. If you enjoy
it odds are it is illegal somewhere in this country.

Joe

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
> ...
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>>> His point, which you pretended not to notice, is that we imprison
>>> people for ***SOME*** things which are absurd, like possessing
>>> enough cocaine for one person, not a party.
>>
>> Is is against the law to posses any amount of illegal narcotic or
>> not?
>>> We act as if we're protecting
>>> people by arresting them, but meanwhile, if you drink enough, you
>>> can wreck your liver, which makes you more susceptible to liver
>>> cancer. Who gets arrested for possession of booze?
>>
>> Is it illegal to possess booze?
>>
>> Change the laws, or obey them.
>> --
>> Dave
>
>
> I figured you'd get to that.
>
> What if your elected slobs made it illegal to go more than 11 miles
> per hour in your car? Would you obey that law? It's as stupid as
> keeping drugs illegal. You may notice that the elected slobs rarely
> mention doing anything to change these stupid laws.

All sorts of ludicrous premises can be put forward. Fiction is a respite for
those with no logical argument. My point stands: change the law or live with
it. You can also commit to civil disobedience, and accept the consequence.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>
>>>> His point, which you pretended not to notice, is that we imprison
>>>> people for ***SOME*** things which are absurd, like possessing
>>>> enough cocaine for one person, not a party.
>>>
>>> Is is against the law to posses any amount of illegal narcotic or
>>> not?
>>>> We act as if we're protecting
>>>> people by arresting them, but meanwhile, if you drink enough, you
>>>> can wreck your liver, which makes you more susceptible to liver
>>>> cancer. Who gets arrested for possession of booze?
>>>
>>> Is it illegal to possess booze?
>>>
>>> Change the laws, or obey them.
>>> --
>>> Dave
>>
>>
>> I figured you'd get to that.
>>
>> What if your elected slobs made it illegal to go more than 11 miles
>> per hour in your car? Would you obey that law? It's as stupid as
>> keeping drugs illegal. You may notice that the elected slobs rarely
>> mention doing anything to change these stupid laws.
>
> All sorts of ludicrous premises can be put forward. Fiction is a respite
> for those with no logical argument. My point stands: change the law or
> live with it. You can also commit to civil disobedience, and accept the
> consequence.
>
> --
> Dave

You cannot change the drug laws without risking your life. Two major
categories of people are enriched by keeping them illegal. That why *I*
believe we rarely, if ever hear our elected slobs mention the idea, except
around election time. What is your theory to explain why our elected slobs
won't touch these laws?

Another question: Does it bother you that drugs are illegal? Do you find
anything wrong with it?

Joe Cilinceon wrote:
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
> ...
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>>> His point, which you pretended not to notice, is that we imprison
>>> people for ***SOME*** things which are absurd, like possessing
>>> enough cocaine for one person, not a party.
>>
>> Is is against the law to posses any amount of illegal narcotic or
>> not?
>>> We act as if we're protecting
>>> people by arresting them, but meanwhile, if you drink enough, you
>>> can wreck your liver, which makes you more susceptible to liver
>>> cancer. Who gets arrested for possession of booze?
>>
>> Is it illegal to possess booze?
>>
>> Change the laws, or obey them.
>> --
>> Dave
>> www.davebbq.com
>>
>
> The point is we have some stupid, poorly thought out laws on our
> books in this country. They are not based on protecting the general
> population from each other and keeping an orderly society but
> protecting us from ourselves. If a cop followed the average driver
> for 1 mile he could write him with several tickets easily. One of
> which could get you jail time. If you enjoy it odds are it is illegal
> somewhere in this country.

That is not the same as stating that America loves to imprison people. The
great thing about America is that you can work to change laws that your
disagree with.

Again, ludicrous examples are the fiction of the desperate.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
> ...
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> His point, which you pretended not to notice, is that we imprison
>>>>> people for ***SOME*** things which are absurd, like possessing
>>>>> enough cocaine for one person, not a party.
>>>>
>>>> Is is against the law to posses any amount of illegal narcotic or
>>>> not?
>>>>> We act as if we're protecting
>>>>> people by arresting them, but meanwhile, if you drink enough, you
>>>>> can wreck your liver, which makes you more susceptible to liver
>>>>> cancer. Who gets arrested for possession of booze?
>>>>
>>>> Is it illegal to possess booze?
>>>>
>>>> Change the laws, or obey them.
>>>> --
>>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>> I figured you'd get to that.
>>>
>>> What if your elected slobs made it illegal to go more than 11 miles
>>> per hour in your car? Would you obey that law? It's as stupid as
>>> keeping drugs illegal. You may notice that the elected slobs rarely
>>> mention doing anything to change these stupid laws.
>>
>> All sorts of ludicrous premises can be put forward. Fiction is a
>> respite for those with no logical argument. My point stands: change
>> the law or live with it. You can also commit to civil disobedience,
>> and accept the consequence.
>>
>> --
>> Dave
>
> You cannot change the drug laws without risking your life. Two major
> categories of people are enriched by keeping them illegal. That why
> *I* believe we rarely, if ever hear our elected slobs mention the
> idea, except around election time. What is your theory to explain why
> our elected slobs won't touch these laws?

I agree with the laws, so they don't concern me. If you disagree with them,
get them changed.

> Another question: Does it bother you that drugs are illegal? Do you
> find anything wrong with it?

Answered above.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> His point, which you pretended not to notice, is that we imprison
>>>>>> people for ***SOME*** things which are absurd, like possessing
>>>>>> enough cocaine for one person, not a party.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is is against the law to posses any amount of illegal narcotic or
>>>>> not?
>>>>>> We act as if we're protecting
>>>>>> people by arresting them, but meanwhile, if you drink enough, you
>>>>>> can wreck your liver, which makes you more susceptible to liver
>>>>>> cancer. Who gets arrested for possession of booze?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it illegal to possess booze?
>>>>>
>>>>> Change the laws, or obey them.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I figured you'd get to that.
>>>>
>>>> What if your elected slobs made it illegal to go more than 11 miles
>>>> per hour in your car? Would you obey that law? It's as stupid as
>>>> keeping drugs illegal. You may notice that the elected slobs rarely
>>>> mention doing anything to change these stupid laws.
>>>
>>> All sorts of ludicrous premises can be put forward. Fiction is a
>>> respite for those with no logical argument. My point stands: change
>>> the law or live with it. You can also commit to civil disobedience,
>>> and accept the consequence.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dave
>>
>> You cannot change the drug laws without risking your life. Two major
>> categories of people are enriched by keeping them illegal. That why
>> *I* believe we rarely, if ever hear our elected slobs mention the
>> idea, except around election time. What is your theory to explain why
>> our elected slobs won't touch these laws?
>
> I agree with the laws, so they don't concern me. If you disagree with
> them, get them changed.
>
>> Another question: Does it bother you that drugs are illegal? Do you
>> find anything wrong with it?
>
> Answered above.
>
> --
> Dave

OK. Do you feel that cocaine or heroin are more dangerous than alcohol? If
yes, explain why, or provide links. Or, if you don't want to put much effort
into this, just tell me who told you to say one drug was more dangerous than
another.

On Jul 11, 6:09 pm, "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
> Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
> > On Jul 11, 10:29 am, Dee Dee > wrote:
> >> On Jul 11, 10:04 am, Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 11, 7:53 am, Dee Dee > wrote:
>
> >>>> On Jul 10, 11:36 am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>
> >>>>> Yikes. Guess that'll teach him.
>
> >>>>>http://www.marke****ch.com/news/stor...rmer-chief-foo...
>
> >>>>> or
>
> >>>>>http://tinyurl.com/2amfgp
>
> >>>>> nancy
>
> >>>> Yes, but I wonder how many other people it will teach. Not one,
> >>>> according to death penalty opponents; i.e., death penalty is not a
> >>>> deterrent to anyone else.
>
> >>> It doesn't deter crimes of passion, crimes of desperation, and I
> >>> doubt it does much to deter organized crime killings, but you can
> >>> bet your ass it'd deter white collar murder (see my "One Chinese
> >>> import..." post)
>
> >>>> Dee Dee
>
> >>> --Bryan
>
> >> "Kill one, scare 10,000"?
>
> > If capitalists were as afraid of losing their lives as working people
> > are of losing their jobs or health insurance, the First World would be
> > a better place for most people.
>
> So, working people are never capitalists?

A working person could easily be a Capitalist, as in one who believes
in Capitalism. I was using small "c" capitalist to signify that class
of persons who derive the overwhelming majority of their income from
owning, rather than working. Sorry if that was confusing.
Heck, even New Deal social democrats could be called Capitalists, as
we believe that Capitalism is valuable and desirable in many spheres.
Just to be clear, very few people--even those who are considerably
further left than myself--put small business owners who put lots of
their own time and labor into their enterprise into the same category
as the wealthy parasites at the top, or even their extravagantly
overpaid corporate lackeys (CEOs, etc.).
> --
> Davewww.davebbq.com

--Bryan

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
> ...
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>>> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His point, which you pretended not to notice, is that we
>>>>>>> imprison people for ***SOME*** things which are absurd, like
>>>>>>> possessing enough cocaine for one person, not a party.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is is against the law to posses any amount of illegal narcotic or
>>>>>> not?
>>>>>>> We act as if we're protecting
>>>>>>> people by arresting them, but meanwhile, if you drink enough,
>>>>>>> you can wreck your liver, which makes you more susceptible to
>>>>>>> liver cancer. Who gets arrested for possession of booze?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it illegal to possess booze?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Change the laws, or obey them.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I figured you'd get to that.
>>>>>
>>>>> What if your elected slobs made it illegal to go more than 11
>>>>> miles per hour in your car? Would you obey that law? It's as
>>>>> stupid as keeping drugs illegal. You may notice that the elected
>>>>> slobs rarely mention doing anything to change these stupid laws.
>>>>
>>>> All sorts of ludicrous premises can be put forward. Fiction is a
>>>> respite for those with no logical argument. My point stands: change
>>>> the law or live with it. You can also commit to civil disobedience,
>>>> and accept the consequence.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dave
>>>
>>> You cannot change the drug laws without risking your life. Two major
>>> categories of people are enriched by keeping them illegal. That why
>>> *I* believe we rarely, if ever hear our elected slobs mention the
>>> idea, except around election time. What is your theory to explain
>>> why our elected slobs won't touch these laws?
>>
>> I agree with the laws, so they don't concern me. If you disagree with
>> them, get them changed.
>>
>>> Another question: Does it bother you that drugs are illegal? Do you
>>> find anything wrong with it?
>>
>> Answered above.
>>
>> --
>> Dave
>
> OK. Do you feel that cocaine or heroin are more dangerous than
> alcohol? If yes, explain why, or provide links. Or, if you don't want
> to put much effort into this, just tell me who told you to say one
> drug was more dangerous than another.

So, you've evolved this discussion from the climate of imprisonment in
America, to laws that you disagree with, to the justification of allowing
drug usage.

Nice try. People commit crimes, including drug possession which is illegal.
People get jailed when caught for committing crime. People have the choice
to obey the law or not. If you disagree with the law change it.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> Joe Cilinceon wrote:
> That is not the same as stating that America loves to imprison people. The
> great thing about America is that you can work to change laws that your
> disagree with.
>
> Again, ludicrous examples are the fiction of the desperate.
> --
> Dave
> www.davebbq.com
>

Really, when was the last time you tried to change a law on the books in
this country that you though was unfair? Or when was the last time you
saw/read and unfair law that didn't effect you? When was the last time you
came to a conclusion of some ones guilt before they went to trial based on
news reports. We are all guilty of it since we are human and emotional. We
think it is true so it must be true regardless of the facts or what can be
proved. We believe our views of life are just so they must be just for
everyone. If they don't agree we want to punish them into submission. Just
our nature and America is not alone in this, true of every culture in
history.

Joe

Joe Cilinceon wrote:
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Joe Cilinceon wrote:
>> That is not the same as stating that America loves to imprison
>> people. The great thing about America is that you can work to change
>> laws that your disagree with.
>>
>> Again, ludicrous examples are the fiction of the desperate.
>> --
>> Dave
>> www.davebbq.com
>>
>
> Really, when was the last time you tried to change a law on the books
> in this country that you though was unfair? ... snip

I'm not the one complaining. If you don't like a law, work to change it. If
you want to simply whine, I suggest going to the market and purchasing some
cheese to go with it.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>>>> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> His point, which you pretended not to notice, is that we
>>>>>>>> imprison people for ***SOME*** things which are absurd, like
>>>>>>>> possessing enough cocaine for one person, not a party.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is is against the law to posses any amount of illegal narcotic or
>>>>>>> not?
>>>>>>>> We act as if we're protecting
>>>>>>>> people by arresting them, but meanwhile, if you drink enough,
>>>>>>>> you can wreck your liver, which makes you more susceptible to
>>>>>>>> liver cancer. Who gets arrested for possession of booze?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it illegal to possess booze?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Change the laws, or obey them.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I figured you'd get to that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What if your elected slobs made it illegal to go more than 11
>>>>>> miles per hour in your car? Would you obey that law? It's as
>>>>>> stupid as keeping drugs illegal. You may notice that the elected
>>>>>> slobs rarely mention doing anything to change these stupid laws.
>>>>>
>>>>> All sorts of ludicrous premises can be put forward. Fiction is a
>>>>> respite for those with no logical argument. My point stands: change
>>>>> the law or live with it. You can also commit to civil disobedience,
>>>>> and accept the consequence.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>> You cannot change the drug laws without risking your life. Two major
>>>> categories of people are enriched by keeping them illegal. That why
>>>> *I* believe we rarely, if ever hear our elected slobs mention the
>>>> idea, except around election time. What is your theory to explain
>>>> why our elected slobs won't touch these laws?
>>>
>>> I agree with the laws, so they don't concern me. If you disagree with
>>> them, get them changed.
>>>
>>>> Another question: Does it bother you that drugs are illegal? Do you
>>>> find anything wrong with it?
>>>
>>> Answered above.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dave
>>
>> OK. Do you feel that cocaine or heroin are more dangerous than
>> alcohol? If yes, explain why, or provide links. Or, if you don't want
>> to put much effort into this, just tell me who told you to say one
>> drug was more dangerous than another.
>
> So, you've evolved this discussion from the climate of imprisonment in
> America, to laws that you disagree with, to the justification of allowing
> drug usage.
>
> Nice try. People commit crimes, including drug possession which is
> illegal. People get jailed when caught for committing crime. People have
> the choice to obey the law or not. If you disagree with the law change it.
>
> --
> Dave
> www.davebbq.com


I agree that some drugs are illegal, and that by strict definition, using or
having them is against the law, will you promise not to say it again? If so,
we can get to the next thing, which I already started.

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> Joe Cilinceon wrote:
>> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Joe Cilinceon wrote:
>>> That is not the same as stating that America loves to imprison
>>> people. The great thing about America is that you can work to change
>>> laws that your disagree with.
>>>
>>> Again, ludicrous examples are the fiction of the desperate.
>>> --
>>> Dave
>>> www.davebbq.com
>>>
>>
>> Really, when was the last time you tried to change a law on the books
>> in this country that you though was unfair? ... snip
>
> I'm not the one complaining. If you don't like a law, work to change it.
> If you want to simply whine, I suggest going to the market and purchasing
> some cheese to go with it.
>
> --
> Dave
> www.davebbq.com


I'm getting the feeling we're interrupting something at your house. Either
that, or you are intellectually lazy. Joe pointed out that it's virtually
impossible to get some laws changed, simply because of inertia. You seem
happy with this situation. Are you happy with this situation?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
> ...
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>>> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> His point, which you pretended not to notice, is that we
>>>>>>>>> imprison people for ***SOME*** things which are absurd, like
>>>>>>>>> possessing enough cocaine for one person, not a party.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is is against the law to posses any amount of illegal narcotic
>>>>>>>> or not?
>>>>>>>>> We act as if we're protecting
>>>>>>>>> people by arresting them, but meanwhile, if you drink enough,
>>>>>>>>> you can wreck your liver, which makes you more susceptible to
>>>>>>>>> liver cancer. Who gets arrested for possession of booze?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is it illegal to possess booze?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Change the laws, or obey them.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I figured you'd get to that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What if your elected slobs made it illegal to go more than 11
>>>>>>> miles per hour in your car? Would you obey that law? It's as
>>>>>>> stupid as keeping drugs illegal. You may notice that the elected
>>>>>>> slobs rarely mention doing anything to change these stupid laws.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All sorts of ludicrous premises can be put forward. Fiction is a
>>>>>> respite for those with no logical argument. My point stands:
>>>>>> change the law or live with it. You can also commit to civil
>>>>>> disobedience, and accept the consequence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>> You cannot change the drug laws without risking your life. Two
>>>>> major categories of people are enriched by keeping them illegal.
>>>>> That why *I* believe we rarely, if ever hear our elected slobs
>>>>> mention the idea, except around election time. What is your
>>>>> theory to explain why our elected slobs won't touch these laws?
>>>>
>>>> I agree with the laws, so they don't concern me. If you disagree
>>>> with them, get them changed.
>>>>
>>>>> Another question: Does it bother you that drugs are illegal? Do
>>>>> you find anything wrong with it?
>>>>
>>>> Answered above.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dave
>>>
>>> OK. Do you feel that cocaine or heroin are more dangerous than
>>> alcohol? If yes, explain why, or provide links. Or, if you don't
>>> want to put much effort into this, just tell me who told you to say
>>> one drug was more dangerous than another.
>>
>> So, you've evolved this discussion from the climate of imprisonment
>> in America, to laws that you disagree with, to the justification of
>> allowing drug usage.
>>
>> Nice try. People commit crimes, including drug possession which is
>> illegal. People get jailed when caught for committing crime. People
>> have the choice to obey the law or not. If you disagree with the law
>> change it. --
>> Dave
>> www.davebbq.com
>
>
> I agree that some drugs are illegal, and that by strict definition,
> using or having them is against the law, will you promise not to say
> it again? If so, we can get to the next thing, which I already
> started.

There is no 'next thing'. If people are being jailed for breaking a law, the
criminal has made that choice to commit the crime not the criminal justice
system. If people want to change the law, work to get it changed.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

> I'm getting the feeling we're interrupting something at your house.

Nope.

> Either that, or you are intellectually lazy.

Not hardly.

> Joe pointed out that
> it's virtually impossible to get some laws changed, simply because of
> inertia.

So what? If inertia exists, then there is no overwhelming support by the
public to change the law. Life sucks for the person who thought they could
get the public to move on their side.

>You seem happy with this situation. Are you happy with this
> situation?

I have no problem with existing drug laws.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> Joe Cilinceon wrote:
>> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Joe Cilinceon wrote:
>>> That is not the same as stating that America loves to imprison
>>> people. The great thing about America is that you can work to change
>>> laws that your disagree with.
>>>
>>> Again, ludicrous examples are the fiction of the desperate.
>>> --
>>> Dave
>>> www.davebbq.com
>>>
>>
>> Really, when was the last time you tried to change a law on the books
>> in this country that you though was unfair? ... snip
>
> I'm not the one complaining. If you don't like a law, work to change it.
> If you want to simply whine, I suggest going to the market and purchasing
> some cheese to go with it.
>
> --
> Dave
> www.davebbq.com
>

Actually you are seem to be whining about my opinion not me. As I stated
earlier I could care less as to the laws at my age. LOL

You stick to your views Dave you fit right in with the majority of the
world.

Joe

Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:

>A working person could easily be a Capitalist, as in one who believes
>in Capitalism. I was using small "c" capitalist to signify that class
>of persons who derive the overwhelming majority of their income from
>owning, rather than working.

So that would make any retiree a capitalist?

Steve

Joe Cilinceon wrote:
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Joe Cilinceon wrote:
>>> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Joe Cilinceon wrote:
>>>> That is not the same as stating that America loves to imprison
>>>> people. The great thing about America is that you can work to
>>>> change laws that your disagree with.
>>>>
>>>> Again, ludicrous examples are the fiction of the desperate.
>>>> --
>>>> Dave
>>>> www.davebbq.com
>>>>
>>>
>>> Really, when was the last time you tried to change a law on the
>>> books in this country that you though was unfair? ... snip
>>
>> I'm not the one complaining. If you don't like a law, work to change
>> it. If you want to simply whine, I suggest going to the market and
>> purchasing some cheese to go with it.
>>
>> --
>> Dave
>> www.davebbq.com
>>
>
> Actually you are seem to be whining about my opinion not me.

That's an interesting interpretation. Too bad that's not the case.

> As I
> stated earlier I could care less as to the laws at my age. LOL
>
> You stick to your views Dave you fit right in with the majority of the
> world.

Thank you.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:
>
>>A working person could easily be a Capitalist, as in one who believes
>>in Capitalism. I was using small "c" capitalist to signify that class
>>of persons who derive the overwhelming majority of their income from
>>owning, rather than working.
>
> So that would make any retiree a capitalist?
>
> Steve

Actually I very much for capitalism and I'm semi retired (own a self storage
facility now). Worked all my life for others and saved to own what I have
now. There are problems with capitalism like any system but it isn't all bad
either. It sure beats the alternatives like starvation.

Joe

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>> I'm getting the feeling we're interrupting something at your house.
>
> Nope.
>
>> Either that, or you are intellectually lazy.
>
> Not hardly.
>
>> Joe pointed out that
>> it's virtually impossible to get some laws changed, simply because of
>> inertia.
>
> So what? If inertia exists, then there is no overwhelming support by the
> public to change the law. Life sucks for the person who thought they could
> get the public to move on their side.
>
>>You seem happy with this situation. Are you happy with this
>> situation?
>
> I have no problem with existing drug laws.
>
> --
> Dave
> www.davebbq.com


Why do you have no problem with them?

"Joe Cilinceon" > wrote in message
...
> "Steve Pope" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:
>>
>>>A working person could easily be a Capitalist, as in one who believes
>>>in Capitalism. I was using small "c" capitalist to signify that class
>>>of persons who derive the overwhelming majority of their income from
>>>owning, rather than working.
>>
>> So that would make any retiree a capitalist?
>>
>> Steve
>
> Actually I very much for capitalism and I'm semi retired (own a self
> storage facility now). Worked all my life for others and saved to own what
> I have now. There are problems with capitalism like any system but it
> isn't all bad either. It sure beats the alternatives like starvation.
>
> Joe


I have a bone to pick with self-storage people. It's almost impossible to
find a place that will sell you 2-3 days worth of storage, even if you're
willing to pay almost a month's rent for the privilege. Reason: "That's not
normally something we do". WTF?

Me: Here's some money for you. I need to park my boat here for 3 nights.
Them: No, thanks.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
> ...
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>>> I'm getting the feeling we're interrupting something at your house.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>> Either that, or you are intellectually lazy.
>>
>> Not hardly.
>>
>>> Joe pointed out that
>>> it's virtually impossible to get some laws changed, simply because
>>> of inertia.
>>
>> So what? If inertia exists, then there is no overwhelming support by
>> the public to change the law. Life sucks for the person who thought
>> they could get the public to move on their side.
>>
>>> You seem happy with this situation. Are you happy with this
>>> situation?
>>
>> I have no problem with existing drug laws.
>>
>> --
>> Dave
>> www.davebbq.com
>
>
> Why do you have no problem with them?

As I said, I'm not going to allow you to evolve our discussion any ole way
you feel. If YOU have a problem with the laws, work to change them.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm getting the feeling we're interrupting something at your house.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>> Either that, or you are intellectually lazy.
>>>
>>> Not hardly.
>>>
>>>> Joe pointed out that
>>>> it's virtually impossible to get some laws changed, simply because
>>>> of inertia.
>>>
>>> So what? If inertia exists, then there is no overwhelming support by
>>> the public to change the law. Life sucks for the person who thought
>>> they could get the public to move on their side.
>>>
>>>> You seem happy with this situation. Are you happy with this
>>>> situation?
>>>
>>> I have no problem with existing drug laws.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dave
>>> www.davebbq.com
>>
>>
>> Why do you have no problem with them?
>
> As I said, I'm not going to allow you to evolve our discussion any ole way
> you feel. If YOU have a problem with the laws, work to change them.
>
> --
> Dave

So, the only reason you're OK with imprisoning people for having a gram of
cocaine is because it's illegal? I think the reason you won't let the
discussion evolve is because you know how stupid your beliefs are. No need
to be polite here. Stupid is the right word.

There are only two other possibilities: Lazy, or you believe cocaine is
worse than booze.

So, which is it? Stupid, lazy or misinformed?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

> So, the only reason you're OK with imprisoning people for having a
> gram of cocaine is because it's illegal?

Societal contracts, including laws, should be enforced. The fact that you
believe otherwise leaves anarchy as the ruling authority.

> I think the reason you won't
> let the discussion evolve is because you know how stupid your beliefs
> are. No need to be polite here. Stupid is the right word.

I won't let the discussion go the way YOU want because your thetorical
tactics are juvenile and deviate from the original discussion. Allowing THAT
would be stupid. Your attempt to further degrade the issue is noted.

> There are only two other possibilities: Lazy, or you believe cocaine
> is worse than booze.
>
> So, which is it? Stupid, lazy or misinformed?

You meant to say, 'Damn, he won't take the bait.' If you want to start
another thread about how stupid drug laws are, fine. However the issue here
is whether America loves to put people in prison. And the anwer is the same:
America loves to put criminals into prison.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

JoeSpareBedroom > wrote:

>I have a bone to pick with self-storage people. It's almost impossible to
>find a place that will sell you 2-3 days worth of storage, even if you're
>willing to pay almost a month's rent for the privilege. Reason: "That's not
>normally something we do". WTF?

>Me: Here's some money for you. I need to park my boat here for 3 nights.
>Them: No, thanks.

May have something to do with three nights being about the time it
takes to cook up a batch of meth.

S.

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
...
> I have a bone to pick with self-storage people. It's almost impossible to
> find a place that will sell you 2-3 days worth of storage, even if you're
> willing to pay almost a month's rent for the privilege. Reason: "That's
> not normally something we do". WTF?
>
> Me: Here's some money for you. I need to park my boat here for 3 nights.
> Them: No, thanks.

We are a 2 person operation (my wife and I). Our policy is to prorate your
first month so if you stay two days or the rest of the month that it take
your lock and your stuff and go no refund. Now we give you 4 days into the
next month and if not out by the 5th day then you are locked out and must
pay another months rent.

The reason none of them rent by the day is due to the fact it would be
impossible to keep track of the accounting. It would force you to charge
after use which would cost the owner a bundle in lost rent from skips. You
have no idea how people will try to get their stuff out an not pay. I have
seen every trick in the book too. Now if you the month up front and refund
unused days in the month that would also be a book keeping problem costing a
bundle. Say you have a $10 refund due it would cost us more in time, postage
etc to refund it to you than the $10. If you didn't send a check to the
vacated tenant then that would require a large amount of cash on hand which
would then make us a target for robbery. Hence no daily charge rate except
the first month. Also access to the property by tenants can be 24 hour and
though we live on site I don't stay awake to check who is coming or going.
After office hours a sneaky tenant could easily pack up and go any time they
like unless locked out. This is why once you are 5 days late your gate code
won't work and the pad lock on your space. If not 20% of the monthly tenants
would stiff you out of rent and that is what we depend on to live.

Now I will say that most of the larger outfits charge you a full month up
front regardless and prorate the second month so you get stuck for a whole
month even if you only rent it 5 days before the end of the month. Basically
they figure you will stay two months instead of the rest of the current
month.

Joe

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>
>> So, the only reason you're OK with imprisoning people for having a
>> gram of cocaine is because it's illegal?
>
> Societal contracts, including laws, should be enforced. The fact that you
> believe otherwise leaves anarchy as the ruling authority.
>

You never saw me say I believed in anarchy.



>> I think the reason you won't
>> let the discussion evolve is because you know how stupid your beliefs
>> are. No need to be polite here. Stupid is the right word.
>
> I won't let the discussion go the way YOU want because your thetorical
> tactics are juvenile and deviate from the original discussion. Allowing
> THAT would be stupid. Your attempt to further degrade the issue is noted.

When you continually evade the issue that is inexorably connected with the
original one, you are explicitly asking to be treated this way. I can't
remember a single highly effective teacher who didn't drill down deeper into
subjects with more and more questions. It's an excellent tactic for
learning, at least after the 6th grade.

"Joe Cilinceon" > wrote in message
...
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I have a bone to pick with self-storage people. It's almost impossible to
>> find a place that will sell you 2-3 days worth of storage, even if you're
>> willing to pay almost a month's rent for the privilege. Reason: "That's
>> not normally something we do". WTF?
>>
>> Me: Here's some money for you. I need to park my boat here for 3 nights.
>> Them: No, thanks.
>
> We are a 2 person operation (my wife and I). Our policy is to prorate your
> first month so if you stay two days or the rest of the month that it take
> your lock and your stuff and go no refund. Now we give you 4 days into the
> next month and if not out by the 5th day then you are locked out and must
> pay another months rent.
>
> The reason none of them rent by the day is due to the fact it would be
> impossible to keep track of the accounting. It would force you to charge
> after use which would cost the owner a bundle in lost rent from skips. You
> have no idea how people will try to get their stuff out an not pay. I have
> seen every trick in the book too. Now if you the month up front and
> refund unused days in the month that would also be a book keeping problem
> costing a bundle. Say you have a $10 refund due it would cost us more in
> time, postage etc to refund it to you than the $10. If you didn't send a
> check to the vacated tenant then that would require a large amount of cash
> on hand which would then make us a target for robbery. Hence no daily
> charge rate except the first month. Also access to the property by tenants
> can be 24 hour and though we live on site I don't stay awake to check who
> is coming or going. After office hours a sneaky tenant could easily pack
> up and go any time they like unless locked out. This is why once you are 5
> days late your gate code won't work and the pad lock on your space. If not
> 20% of the monthly tenants would stiff you out of rent and that is what we
> depend on to live.
>
> Now I will say that most of the larger outfits charge you a full month up
> front regardless and prorate the second month so you get stuck for a whole
> month even if you only rent it 5 days before the end of the month.
> Basically they figure you will stay two months instead of the rest of the
> current month.
>
> Joe
>

It's nuts! I've offered to pay a full month's rent up front for 3 days of
service. Hell...I'll even give them a key to my padlock if they think I'm
really going to stay for 2 years and refuse to pay. Basically, it's a boat
hotel I'm looking for. The insurance deductible for theft or damage is $250.
I'm ready to fork over $50-$75.

Oh well.

On Jul 11, 8:28 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>
>
> So - would you obey the 11 mph law?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Raises hand -- I'll obey the law. Many laws are crazy, but I don't
defy them when they are enacted. Change them in whatever fashion you
can no matter how small or seemingly insignificant.
Dee Dee

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> "Joe Cilinceon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I have a bone to pick with self-storage people. It's almost impossible to
>>> find a place that will sell you 2-3 days worth of storage, even if you're
>>> willing to pay almost a month's rent for the privilege. Reason: "That's
>>> not normally something we do". WTF?
>>>
>>> Me: Here's some money for you. I need to park my boat here for 3 nights.
>>> Them: No, thanks.
>> We are a 2 person operation (my wife and I). Our policy is to prorate your
>> first month so if you stay two days or the rest of the month that it take
>> your lock and your stuff and go no refund. Now we give you 4 days into the
>> next month and if not out by the 5th day then you are locked out and must
>> pay another months rent.
>>
>> The reason none of them rent by the day is due to the fact it would be
>> impossible to keep track of the accounting. It would force you to charge
>> after use which would cost the owner a bundle in lost rent from skips. You
>> have no idea how people will try to get their stuff out an not pay. I have
>> seen every trick in the book too. Now if you the month up front and
>> refund unused days in the month that would also be a book keeping problem
>> costing a bundle. Say you have a $10 refund due it would cost us more in
>> time, postage etc to refund it to you than the $10. If you didn't send a
>> check to the vacated tenant then that would require a large amount of cash
>> on hand which would then make us a target for robbery. Hence no daily
>> charge rate except the first month. Also access to the property by tenants
>> can be 24 hour and though we live on site I don't stay awake to check who
>> is coming or going. After office hours a sneaky tenant could easily pack
>> up and go any time they like unless locked out. This is why once you are 5
>> days late your gate code won't work and the pad lock on your space. If not
>> 20% of the monthly tenants would stiff you out of rent and that is what we
>> depend on to live.
>>
>> Now I will say that most of the larger outfits charge you a full month up
>> front regardless and prorate the second month so you get stuck for a whole
>> month even if you only rent it 5 days before the end of the month.
>> Basically they figure you will stay two months instead of the rest of the
>> current month.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>
> It's nuts! I've offered to pay a full month's rent up front for 3 days of
> service. Hell...I'll even give them a key to my padlock if they think I'm
> really going to stay for 2 years and refuse to pay. Basically, it's a boat
> hotel I'm looking for. The insurance deductible for theft or damage is $250.
> I'm ready to fork over $50-$75.
>
> Oh well.
>
>


So just rent it for a month and don't tell them you really only want 3
or 4 days. The only down side is you'll have to wait until the month
ends to get your deposit back. Plus you have to option of using it
again next weekend (during that first month) or the weekend after that
if your plans change.

Bob

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
> ...
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>>> So, the only reason you're OK with imprisoning people for having a
>>> gram of cocaine is because it's illegal?
>>
>> Societal contracts, including laws, should be enforced. The fact
>> that you believe otherwise leaves anarchy as the ruling authority.
>>
>
> You never saw me say I believed in anarchy.

That is all that's left if the only laws to be obeyed are the ones that you
feel OK with.

>>> I think the reason you won't
>>> let the discussion evolve is because you know how stupid your
>>> beliefs are. No need to be polite here. Stupid is the right word.
>>
>> I won't let the discussion go the way YOU want because your
>> thetorical tactics are juvenile and deviate from the original
>> discussion. Allowing THAT would be stupid. Your attempt to further
>> degrade the issue is noted.
>
> When you continually evade the issue that is inexorably connected
> with the original one, you are explicitly asking to be treated this
> way.

Sorry, but those who knowingly break the law, knowing that they are breaking
the law risk arrest and punishment. You wish to not include drug use, for
whatever reason, as part of the criminal code. Well, tough. it exists within
the criminal code. If you wish to change the law, then work to change the
law. But I will not agree that laws should not be enforced simply because
one segment of society disagrees with it. That segment can work to get it
changed. If the rest of society is not on board making it difficult, then
tough.

> I can't remember a single highly effective teacher who didn't
> drill down deeper into subjects with more and more questions. It's an
> excellent tactic for learning, at least after the 6th grade.

So that's the problem, you think you're in a sixth grade class. Must be
summer school.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

> It's nuts! I've offered to pay a full month's rent up front for 3
> days of service. Hell...I'll even give them a key to my padlock if
> they think I'm really going to stay for 2 years and refuse to pay.
> Basically, it's a boat hotel I'm looking for. The insurance
> deductible for theft or damage is $250. I'm ready to fork over
> $50-$75.
> Oh well.

Hey, I've got room. I'll rent you some space.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message

>
> It's nuts! I've offered to pay a full month's rent up front for 3 days of
> service. Hell...I'll even give them a key to my padlock if they think I'm
> really going to stay for 2 years and refuse to pay. Basically, it's a boat
> hotel I'm looking for. The insurance deductible for theft or damage is
> $250. I'm ready to fork over $50-$75.
>
> Oh well.

Like I said we charge a prorated amount up front. Basically we charge from
the day you move in to the end of that current month with no deposit. After
that if you want to stay another month then you pay that months rent which
is due on the 1st of every month but we give you 4 days to vacate (4 day
free rent).

The big outfits don't care as Public Storage tried to do a day by day called
Pay In After and lost millions in 6 months. Due to the volume of business
these places handle there is no real need to deal with a daily renters at
all. For example we are 98% occupied on average year round with only small
spaces 5 x 5 and 5 x 10 vacate. Larger spaces and parking we have a waiting
list to get in.

As far as the rest the local state sets the law but every state has laws
pertaining to the storage business. Here after 45 days of no rent the
content of your space is ours period. Now our policy is to send a letter
telling you that you owe 60 days rent on the 46 day then after that has
passed we send a registered letter giving you at least 15 days notice that
we will sell the contents of your space at public auction. We also run two
ads in the local paper. The first one 14 days before the sale, second one 7
days before listing the name on record and space number. Pretty fair system
really. We have very low delinquency, less than 2% monthly and sell about 6
units in a year. We also cut the lock at the time of auction so we don't
ever open you space until the time of sale.

Joe

"Dee Dee" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Jul 11, 8:28 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>>
>>
>> So - would you obey the 11 mph law?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Raises hand -- I'll obey the law. Many laws are crazy, but I don't
> defy them when they are enacted. Change them in whatever fashion you
> can no matter how small or seemingly insignificant.
> Dee Dee
>

I do too Dee that is why so many people are still alive today. g

Joe

Joe Cilinceon wrote:
> "Dee Dee" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>> On Jul 11, 8:28 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> So - would you obey the 11 mph law?- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Raises hand -- I'll obey the law. Many laws are crazy, but I don't
>> defy them when they are enacted. Change them in whatever fashion you
>> can no matter how small or seemingly insignificant.
>> Dee Dee
>>
>
> I do too Dee that is why so many people are still alive today. g

LOL

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dee Dee" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Jul 11, 8:28 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote:
>>
>>
>> So - would you obey the 11 mph law?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Raises hand -- I'll obey the law. Many laws are crazy, but I don't
> defy them when they are enacted. Change them in whatever fashion you
> can no matter how small or seemingly insignificant.
> Dee Dee
>

Sorry, but I don't believe you.