Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:15:47 -0800, the infamous "DGDevin"
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>
>> "Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in
>> message news:190220101506327105%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>>
>>> I'm not sure if, as a parent, I'd consult a lawyer, or simply ambush
>>> the SOB responsible and break both his legs with a baseball bat.
>>
>> Better hope he doesn't have a CCW permit.
>
> He can't! Schools are gun-free zones, as afforded us by the libtards.
> They can't even carry them in their vehicles to school in most states.
> <sigh>
Carry in your car? Heck, in most places your G.I. Joe doll has to be
disarmed! I'm not kidding.
But you can carry a firearm in Texas schools with proper permission.
Interestingly, it was not against the law to carry a firearm at Virginia
Tech. It was a SCHOOL rule and subjected the offender to disciplinary action
(if a student, staff, or faculty). Visitors could go wild.
Again, in Texas, one may carry a concealed firearm in the state capitol or
even the governor's office (our governor has a CHL). This may not last,
though. A couple of weeks ago, some person left his representative's office,
walked out to the capitol's front porch, pulled out his hog-leg, fired a few
rounds in the air, and yelled out "Yee-Haw, Sani-Flush!"n fact the
legislature got so pissed at some cities posting various things like
libraries and parks, that a new law prohibits any government entity from
disallowing firearms on any property owned or controlled by any branch of
government. This includes libraries, parks, city hall, waste treatment
plants, city owned busses, convention centers, anything. Of course there are
obvious exceptions, like jails and courts.
Now some liberal representative (yes, we do have a few - we keep them around
to show school children) is making noises about metal detectors and strip
searches for capitol visitors. I sent him an email along the lines that if
he was afraid to be in his office, he could resign, go back home, and sell
earth shoes for a living.
I haven't gotten a response yet. I'm sure he figures he's safer in his
capitol office - even with CHL weapons around - than he is back home in his
ghetto.
On Feb 20, 12:29=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/19/10 11:58 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 10:55 pm, -MIKE-<[email protected]> =A0wrote:
> >>> More seriously - what is wrong with you? =A0You're happy to trust in =
any
> >>> "official" organization and stupidly go on your merry way, believing =
that
> >>> all will be as they say? =A0Do you live in a rose colored world? =A0H=
ave you no
> >>> sense of reality, even when presented with evidence? =A0You sir are t=
he one
> >>> that needs to seek help. =A0Seriously.
>
> >> No kidding. =A0What keeps the IT guys from spying on your daughter in =
her
> >> room?
>
> >> There was a teacher at my high school who got arrested for video tapin=
g
> >> girls changing in his pool house. =A0They were on some team that he
> >> coached or something and he'd have them over for pool parties.
> >> Apparently, the boy's teams were never invited.
>
> >> What parent doesn't see red flags with something like that?
>
> > Most probably do.
>
> > Thank GOD most would also seek recourse through the law, and not
> > vigilante justice....
>
> I agree. =A0But honestly, if I were the Dad of a daughter, I would
> definitely seek recourse through the law..... but the guy may show up to
> court on crutches. =A0:-)
>
Things get slippery out there this time of year.
In article <[email protected]>, Morris Dovey
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Mind the wrap...
>
>
> http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/18/school-allegedly-uses-students-laptop-webca
> m-for-espionage-law/
I saw that earlier today on techdirt.com
I'm not sure if, as a parent, I'd consult a lawyer, or simply ambush
the SOB responsible and break both his legs with a baseball bat.
In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/19/2010 3:06 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
> > In article<[email protected]>, Morris Dovey
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Mind the wrap...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/18/school-allegedly-uses-students-laptop-we
> >> bca
> >> m-for-espionage-law/
> >
> > I saw that earlier today on techdirt.com
> >
> > I'm not sure if, as a parent, I'd consult a lawyer, or simply ambush
> > the SOB responsible and break both his legs with a baseball bat.
>
> Both ...
Well, they'd have to be in the correct order.
Bat first, lawyer second?
In article <[email protected]>, DGDevin
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
> news:190220101506327105%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>
> > I'm not sure if, as a parent, I'd consult a lawyer, or simply ambush
> > the SOB responsible and break both his legs with a baseball bat.
>
> Better hope he doesn't have a CCW permit.
Unlikely here in Canada.
In article <[email protected]>, DGDevin
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
> news:190220101718372584%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>
> >> > I'm not sure if, as a parent, I'd consult a lawyer, or simply ambush
> >> > the SOB responsible and break both his legs with a baseball bat.
> >>
> >> Better hope he doesn't have a CCW permit.
> >
> > Unlikely here in Canada.
>
> Ah, yes. I was reading some article on firearms legislation many years ago
> and it quoted the then Minister of Justice in Canada as stating Canadian law
> did not recognize a right to self-defense. Even if it was his opinion as
> opposed to the law it struck me as an astonishing statement. But
> considering that well-publicized case in Britain recently where a home-owner
> was jailed for injuring the leader of an armed home-invasion gang who
> threatened his family, maybe it was more than just the Minister's opinion.
We're nowhere near the cesspool that GB is. Handguns are severely
restricted, but the current Conservative government has suspended the
long gun registry implemented by the Liberals.
The law in Canada certainly recognizes the right to self defence, and
there are many cases in recent years that demonstrate that the crown
prosecutors understand that right.
In article <[email protected]>, DGDevin
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
> news:190220101753187451%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>
> > We're nowhere near the cesspool that GB is. Handguns are severely
> > restricted, but the current Conservative government has suspended the
> > long gun registry implemented by the Liberals.
>
> I heard about that, but then there is nothing to stop the Liberals from
> moving ahead with the program when they return to power since you have no
> constitutional right that would stop them.
That is correct. There is no constitutional right to bear arms, or for
that matter constitutional protection of property rights, in Canada
In article <[email protected]>, Lew Hodgett
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Basic rule:
>
> Always hire two apprentices, never just one.
Sorta like that eggs & basket thing?
Swingman <[email protected]> writes:
>On 2/19/2010 2:09 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:
>>
>> Mind the wrap...
>>
>> http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/18/school-allegedly-uses-students-laptop-webcam-for-espionage-law/
>
>Yep ... maybe Dell could use it whenever they want? Where's my blue
>painter's tape?
>
>"The tale begins when Assistant Principal Lindy Mastko of Harriton High
>School informed a student that he was "engaged in improper behavior in
>his home"
>
>WTF are we coming to??
Fifteen years ago, SGI Indy workstations came with a webcam. There was
one in the SGI library for employees to use. Being unix, remote logins
were quite typical and folks would often turn on the webcam remotely
in the library.
One day, they caught a VP & Admin literally with their pants down.
scott
On Feb 19, 3:06=A0pm, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Morris Dovey
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Mind the wrap...
>
> >http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/18/school-allegedly-uses-students-lap...
> > m-for-espionage-law/
>
> I saw that earlier today on techdirt.com
>
> I'm not sure if, as a parent, I'd consult a lawyer, or simply ambush
> the SOB responsible and break both his legs with a baseball bat.
Hire the lawyer to break both his legs with a baseball bat.
Robatoy wrote:
>
> The 'law' is in many cases is cumbersome and handcuffed by nanny-state
> legislation. The local constabulary is often more intimidated by the
> pile of paperwork each case generates than the investigation warrants
> (in their eyes).
> A quick, firm grip around the throat, and gentle smack against a wall
> and a serious stare in the coward's eyes will work wonders.
> Sometimes a softly whispered warning like: "Keep this up, asshole and
> you're going to wake up with a crowd around you." works wonders as
> well.
>
> That's not vigilantism, it called Neighbourhood Watch.
Ah, but sometimes even that doesn't work.
I pulled up behind a patrol officer who had pulled over and was dealing with
a wife-beater. She declined to file charges, so the patrol officer had to
let him go. Still, the officer tried to help:
"Listen up, asshole, you touch that woman again and you're gonna have ME to
deal with! You got that straight?"
"You must be fuckin' crazy," said the wife-beater. "When I get her ass home,
I'm gonna beat her so bad she won't even be able to lie down. Get in the
car, woman!"
And they rode off into the night.
All was well.
On the other hand, one deputy I know got home after work and his wife
reluctantly told him a neighbor purposefully exposed himself to their 9-year
old daughter. Further, the wife discovered that the neighbor had done this
to other little girls on the block.
The deputy recruited a couple of other fathers and went to the mopes home,
drug him outside, and beat the shit out of him. As he lay there bleeding and
broken, he was advised that he had 24 hours to move from the neighborhood or
he would die.
He left the next morning.
On Feb 20, 9:00=A0am, tom <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 7:45=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 20, 7:31=A0am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > >. =A0I'm more concerned that such a thing seems of no
> > > concern to you.
>
> > First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out=97because I
> > was not a communist;
> > Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out=97
> > because I was not a trade unionist;
> > Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out=97because I was no=
t
> > a Jew;
> > Then they came for me=97and there was no one left to speak out for me.
>
> "School officials cannot, any more than police, enter into the home
> either electronically or physically without an invitation or a
> warrant," Walczak said.
> Did you convienently forget about sneak and peek search warrant
> capabilities granted to law enforcement in the Patriot Act, Mr.
> Walczak?
D'oh! Conveniently...
On Feb 19, 6:59=A0pm, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, DGDevin
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
> >news:190220101753187451%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>
> > > We're nowhere near the cesspool that GB is. Handguns are severely
> > > restricted, but the current Conservative government has suspended the
> > > long gun registry implemented by the Liberals.
>
> > I heard about that, but then there is nothing to stop the Liberals from
> > moving ahead with the program when they return to power since you have =
no
> > constitutional right that would stop them.
>
> That is correct. There is no constitutional right to bear arms, or for
> that matter constitutional protection of property rights, in Canada
The only rights you have are those that you can take and hold by
yourself. Tom
your kind of guy wrote:
>
> This would make a great thread in a political group to not re-elect
> any that favoured the Patriot Act and get it repealed.
Actually, the Patriot Act (PA) was an omnibus collection of enhancements to
existing laws, rather than a single new law. For example, previous law
required a wiretap warrant to be issued in the federal district where the
target telephone was located. With 52 federal judicial districts and bad
guys with cell phones that move around, this became an onerous and sometimes
impossible burden on law enforcement. The PA merely amended the existing law
to allow the tapping of a "person" rather than a particular telephone
instrument.
In the morning of 9-11, after the attack on the WTC buildings, FBI agents
fanned out across Boston, visiting the major hotels. The operating theory
was that by matching guest check-out records with flight manifests they
might be able to discover a match, and possibly prevent, additional,
imminent, attacks. In every case the agents were refused access to the
records - the hotels citing 'privacy' concerns. This, and other stumbling
blocks, gave rise to the "letter subpoena" capabilities of the PA. This was
not a new law, however, in that existing legislation designed decades
earlier to combat the drug trade already had provisions for record
examination in banks, financial institutions, car rental agencies, and
storage facilities (!). The PA amendment simply extended this capability to
any commercial transaction.
In fact, almost every section of the PA begins with "XXX is hereby amended
by inserting/deleting the following..." There's nothing basically
revolutionary in the Patriot Act. There ARE a few new things, such as
funding for anti-terrorism activities and the FBI's Technical Support
Center, but nobody really has a problem with these.
All that said, exactly with what provision(s) of the Patriot Act do you
disagree? I've asked this question often and seldom get a coherent answer.
Perhaps you can offer one up?
On Feb 20, 7:45=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 7:31=A0am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >. =A0I'm more concerned that such a thing seems of no
> > concern to you.
>
> First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out=97because I
> was not a communist;
> Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out=97
> because I was not a trade unionist;
> Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out=97because I was not
> a Jew;
> Then they came for me=97and there was no one left to speak out for me.
It can't be easy to be locked in black/white thinking.
"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:b9743a5e-46ab-47f1-a6e6-ad9801481ba9@s33g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
As long as you're comfortable with you baseless and ridiculous
assumptions ... then ... that's all that matters :-)
That binary, huh? If I don't want to do grievous bodily harm to the
person, then I don't care??
Hmmmmmm.
************************************************************************************
No - the fact that you cannot begin to understand human nature and the way
that people express themselves without jumping to the "you need help" crap
is what paints you. It's not a baseless and ridiculous assumption - it's a
reflection of your own foolish words. I'm done wasting any time with this
part of this thread. You offer no counter thought - only your "wit", and
you've offered nothing since your original post that is any deeper than your
pathetic attempt to be insulting. Carry on - you're not worth any further
discussion.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Feb 20, 7:31=A0am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>. =A0I'm more concerned that such a thing seems of no
> concern to you.
>
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out=97because I
was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out=97
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out=97because I was not
a Jew;
Then they came for me=97and there was no one left to speak out for me.
On Feb 20, 7:45=A0am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 7:31=A0am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >. =A0I'm more concerned that such a thing seems of no
> > concern to you.
>
> First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out=97because I
> was not a communist;
> Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out=97
> because I was not a trade unionist;
> Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out=97because I was not
> a Jew;
> Then they came for me=97and there was no one left to speak out for me.
"School officials cannot, any more than police, enter into the home
either electronically or physically without an invitation or a
warrant," Walczak said.
Did you convienently forget about sneak and peek search warrant
capabilities granted to law enforcement in the Patriot Act, Mr.
Walczak?
On Feb 21, 5:32 pm, tom <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 9:02 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.lawsch.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/37patriot.html
>
> > In other words you don't have a clue.
>
> > <plonk>
>
> Heavens to Betsy! Again (well, it was at the bottom, hard to see),
> "To the extent Section 213 may conflict
> with Rule 41, Section 213 prevails..."
And here's the "old Rule 41" http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule41.htm
On Feb 19, 2:06=A0pm, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Morris Dovey
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Mind the wrap...
>
> >http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/18/school-allegedly-uses-students-lap...
> > m-for-espionage-law/
>
> I saw that earlier today on techdirt.com
>
> I'm not sure if, as a parent, I'd consult a lawyer, or simply ambush
> the SOB responsible and break both his legs with a baseball bat.
Seek help.
Seriously.
Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> Mind the wrap...
>
> http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/18/school-allegedly-uses-students-lapto
> p-webcam-for-espionage-law/
>
I was seriously looking at laptops recently (a month ago) and couldn't
hardly find any without built in cameras. Apparently, once you get past
the super cheap ones, they're standard equipment.
Puckdropper
--
Never teach your apprentice everything you know.
On 2010-02-19 15:09:19 -0500, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> said:
> http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/18/school-allegedly-uses-students-laptop-webcam-for-espionage-law/
Forget
>
that "allegedly" stuff:
http://www.lmsd.org/sections/news/default.php?m=0&t=today&p=lmsd_anno&id=1137
This is one of those times when the school administrators really ARE
the cause of the problem.
On 2010-02-19 22:38:06 -0500, [email protected] (Doug Miller) said:
> Exactly so. Indiana takes a lot of heat for being "backward" but that's
> one thing this state got right in our Constitution:
>
> "The people shall have the right to keep and bear arms, for the defense
> of themselves and of the State." -- IOW, the right to armed
> self-defense is explicit.
Of course, we did have a state legislature that tried to pass a law
defining the value of pi as 3.0, so the "backward" image has some basis.
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> 3.2, actually -- and it was only the House that was taken in, passing
> the bill 67-0 with little debate. Wiser heads prevailed in the Senate,
> though, where "the bill was brought up and made fun of. The Senators
> made bad puns about it, ridiculed it and laughed over it. The fun
> lasted half an hour." and consideration of it was "indefinitely
> postponed."
>
> Full story:
> http://www.agecon.purdue.
> edu/crd/localgov/second%20level%20pages/indiana_pi_story.htm
>
> Note, too, that this occurred in 1897, some considerable time after
> the Constitution was written.
When I went to school in Indiana, it was always Ohio that had defined PI
to be 9. A few quick search queries don't turn up anything, though.
Puckdropper
--
Never teach your apprentice everything you know.
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Lew Hodgett"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Puckdropper wrote:
>>
>>> Never teach your apprentice everything you know.
>>
>>Then how do you expect to move upstairs if there isn't anybody to take
>>your place?
>
> Bingo! If you can't be replaced ... you can't be promoted.
You can teach your apprentice everything he needs to know to get the job
done properly (and make yourself replacable at that task), but still not
teach him everything. After all, it was Darth Vador who searched the
galaxy for Luke Skywalker and not the emperor. (The signature is based
off of Star Wars.)
Puckdropper
--
Never teach your apprentice everything you know.
"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Feb 19, 2:06 pm, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Morris Dovey
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Mind the wrap...
>
> >http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/18/school-allegedly-uses-students-lap...
> > m-for-espionage-law/
>
> I saw that earlier today on techdirt.com
>
> I'm not sure if, as a parent, I'd consult a lawyer, or simply ambush
> the SOB responsible and break both his legs with a baseball bat.
Seek help.
Seriously.
*****************************************************************************************
More seriously - what is wrong with you? You're happy to trust in any
"official" organization and stupidly go on your merry way, believing that
all will be as they say? Do you live in a rose colored world? Have you no
sense of reality, even when presented with evidence? You sir are the one
that needs to seek help. Seriously.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2/19/2010 2:09 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:
>>
>> Mind the wrap...
>>
>> http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/18/school-allegedly-uses-students-laptop-webcam-for-espionage-law/
>
> Yep ... maybe Dell could use it whenever they want? Where's my blue
> painter's tape?
>
> "The tale begins when Assistant Principal Lindy Mastko of Harriton High
> School informed a student that he was "engaged in improper behavior in his
> home"
>
> WTF are we coming to??
>
Preach it brother...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Feb 19, 4:20=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/19/2010 3:17 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article<[email protected]>, Swingman
> > <[email protected]> =A0wrote:
>
> >> On 2/19/2010 3:06 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
> >>> In article<[email protected]>, Morris Dovey
> >>> <[email protected]> =A0 wrote:
>
> >>>> Mind the wrap...
>
> >>>>http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/18/school-allegedly-uses-students-lap=
...
> >>>> bca
> >>>> m-for-espionage-law/
>
> >>> I saw that earlier today on techdirt.com
>
> >>> I'm not sure if, as a parent, I'd consult a lawyer, or simply ambush
> >>> the SOB responsible and break both his legs with a baseball bat.
>
> >> Both ...
>
> > Well, they'd have to be in the correct order.
>
> > Bat first, lawyer second?
>
> Sounds like a plan to me ... Rob's got the drill down.
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
Don't you just hate it when somebody slams their eyeball onto your
elbow and then proceeds to ram his groin onto your knee?
On Feb 20, 9:38=A0pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:b9743a5e-46ab-47f1-a6e6-ad9801481ba9@s33g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> As long as you're comfortable with you baseless and ridiculous
> assumptions ... then ... that's all that matters :-)
>
> That binary, huh? =A0If I don't want to do grievous bodily harm to the
> person, then I don't care??
>
> Hmmmmmm.
>
> *************************************************************************=
** *********
>
> No - the fact that you cannot begin to understand human nature and the wa=
y
> that people express themselves without jumping to the "you need help" cra=
p
> is what paints you. =A0It's not a baseless and ridiculous assumption - it=
's a
> reflection of your own foolish words. =A0I'm done wasting any time with t=
his
> part of this thread. =A0You offer no counter thought - only your "wit", a=
nd
> you've offered nothing since your original post that is any deeper than y=
our
> pathetic attempt to be insulting. =A0Carry on - you're not worth any furt=
her
> discussion.
Ouch.
On 22 Feb 2010 01:17:12 GMT, the infamous Han <[email protected]>
scrawled the following:
>Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> How times have changed ... as I've mentioned before, and when in HS, I
>> used to ride my buckskin mare to school, bareback, tie up her up next to
>> the football field with a halter, leave my 20 ga Remington model 11, my
>> hunting vest, and her bridle in the shop teachers office, and pick up
>> 'em ap after school so I could hunt doves on my way home.
>>
>> An every day, common, and totally innocent act, that is totally
>> unbelievable in today's supposedly "enlightened" culture.
>
>I believe you, and I'm sure it was safe. Where I live now, and even where
>I hike in the nearby "mountains" of Harriman State Park, the Catskill area
>and others, I don't go hiking during hunting season, unless it is in a
>"protected" area.
>
>With all the not so sane people around here (f you believe the papers), I'm
>glad there aren't more guns around. I don't think there is a good way to
>weed out the whackos <grin>.
Sure there is. Give 'em a gun and let 'em pull it on someone who can
sense their idiocy; someone armed. Darwin, wot?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Life is full of little surprises. --Pandora
On Feb 20, 10:36=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> tom wrote:
>
> > "School officials cannot, any more than police, enter into the home
> > either electronically or physically without an invitation or a
> > warrant," Walczak said.
> > Did you convienently forget about sneak and peek search warrant
> > capabilities granted to law enforcement in the Patriot Act, Mr.
> > Walczak?
>
> A "sneak and peek" search warrant is still a search warrant, police can't
> just sneak into your house on a whim, they have to get a judge to authori=
ze
> it first, just like any other search warrant.
"It is obvious that these restrictions on issuing sneak and peek
search warrants border on the meaningless, especially in light of the
somber reality that search warrants are issued secretly and ex parte,
that they are typically issued on the basis of recurring, generalized,
boilerplate allegations, and that the judicial officials who issue
them tend to be rubber stamps for law enforcement. Take, for example,
the =93adverse result=94 requirement. The statutory definition of adverse
result is so all-encompassing that it is difficult to imagine many
criminal investigations where at least one form of such a result is
not going to be arguably applicable; furthermore, to satisfy the
requirement the court need not have reasonable cause to believe that
there will be an adverse result, only that there =93may=94 be an adverse
result. The second requirement, that the warrant prohibit the seizure
of tangible property, is drained of significance by the gigantic
exception allowing seizure of such property =93where the court finds
reasonable necessity for the seizure.=94 It will be a rare case indeed
where such necessity, if alleged, will not be determined to exist by
the issuing court; and it may be confidently predicted that, with the
passage of time, requests for seizure of tangible evidence will become
the rule rather than the exception in connection with sneak and peek
warrants. The final requirement, that the warrant provide for the
giving of notice within a reasonable period, involves merely a
question of the wording of a sneak and peek warrant, and the provision
permitting the court (acting ex parte) to extend the period (one or
more times) =93for good cause shown,=94 a standard easily met, makes it
likely that such extensions will become routine and pro forma." This
legal opinion is from http://www.lawsch.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes=
_more/37patriot.html
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:19:07 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>Steve wrote:
>
>> On 2010-02-19 15:09:19 -0500, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> said:
>>
>>> http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/18/school-allegedly-uses-students-laptop-
>webcam-for-espionage-law/
>>
>> Forget
>>>
>> that "allegedly" stuff:
>>
>http://www.lmsd.org/sections/news/default.php?m=0&t=today&p=lmsd_anno&id=1137
>>
>> This is one of those times when the school administrators really ARE
>> the cause of the problem.
>
> Yep. Because, after all, all of the IT admins and anyone else with admin
>authority are absolutely pure of heart and would never do anything to abuse
>that policy. /sarcasm
>
> Imagine the concern if you were the parent of a high school student
>(especially a daughter).
>
> This really falls into the "what were they thinking?" category. It is one
>thing, if as an owner of a laptop, you enable this kind of security feature
>and have control of when it's activated. It's an entirely different animal
>if this feature is present on a computer issued by someone else with a
>remote IT staff.
Well, you know that (given the make of the computer) those were very
liberal administrators who sent out the computers. Maybe they really
_were_ dumb to the possibility of abuse.
--
"Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt."
-- Clarence Darrow
On Feb 21, 7:39=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On the other hand, one deputy I know got home after work and his wife
> reluctantly told him a neighbor purposefully exposed himself to their 9-y=
ear
> old daughter. Further, the wife discovered that the neighbor had done thi=
s
> to other little girls on the block.
>
> The deputy recruited a couple of other fathers and went to the mopes home=
,
> drug him outside, and beat the shit out of him. As he lay there bleeding =
and
> broken, he was advised that he had 24 hours to move from the neighborhood=
or
> he would die.
>
> He left the next morning.
THAT is Neighbourhood Watch at its best.
On Feb 19, 4:09=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/19/2010 3:06 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
> > In article<[email protected]>, Morris Dovey
> > <[email protected]> =A0wrote:
>
> >> Mind the wrap...
>
> >>http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/18/school-allegedly-uses-students-lap..=
.
> >> m-for-espionage-law/
>
> > I saw that earlier today on techdirt.com
>
> > I'm not sure if, as a parent, I'd consult a lawyer, or simply ambush
> > the SOB responsible and break both his legs with a baseball bat.
>
> Both ...
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
They had words...and then the guy came towards him...clearly a case of
self defence.
"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:190220101506327105%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
> I'm not sure if, as a parent, I'd consult a lawyer, or simply ambush
> the SOB responsible and break both his legs with a baseball bat.
Better hope he doesn't have a CCW permit.
On 2/19/2010 3:17 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, Swingman
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2/19/2010 3:06 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
>>> In article<[email protected]>, Morris Dovey
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mind the wrap...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/18/school-allegedly-uses-students-laptop-we
>>>> bca
>>>> m-for-espionage-law/
>>>
>>> I saw that earlier today on techdirt.com
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if, as a parent, I'd consult a lawyer, or simply ambush
>>> the SOB responsible and break both his legs with a baseball bat.
>>
>> Both ...
>
> Well, they'd have to be in the correct order.
>
> Bat first, lawyer second?
Sounds like a plan to me ... Rob's got the drill down.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Robatoy wrote:
> On Feb 20, 12:58Â am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 10:55Â pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > More seriously - what is wrong with you? Â You're happy to trust in
>> > > any "official" organization and stupidly go on your merry way,
>> > > believing that all will be as they say? Â Do you live in a rose
>> > > colored world? Â Have you no sense of reality, even when presented
>> > > with evidence? Â You sir are the one that needs to seek help.
>> > > Seriously.
>>
>> > No kidding. Â What keeps the IT guys from spying on your daughter in her
>> > room?
>>
>> > There was a teacher at my high school who got arrested for video taping
>> > girls changing in his pool house. Â They were on some team that he
>> > coached or something and he'd have them over for pool parties.
>> > Apparently, the boy's teams were never invited.
>>
>> > What parent doesn't see red flags with something like that?
>>
>> Most probably do.
>>
>> Thank GOD most would also seek recourse through the law, and not
>> vigilante justice....
>
> The 'law' is in many cases is cumbersome and handcuffed by nanny-state
> legislation. The local constabulary is often more intimidated by the
> pile of paperwork each case generates than the investigation warrants
> (in their eyes).
> A quick, firm grip around the throat, and gentle smack against a wall
> and a serious stare in the coward's eyes will work wonders.
> Sometimes a softly whispered warning like: "Keep this up, asshole and
> you're going to wake up with a crowd around you." works wonders as
> well.
>
> That's not vigilantism, it called Neighbourhood Watch.
Sad thing is that the authorities are more prone to prosecute vigilantism
than the original crime. It has amazed me that when cases like this occur,
there is no shortage of evidence gathering or zeal on the part of
prosecutors and law enforcement to make sure that the person who has
committed such a crime is fully prosecuted in order to clearly send the
message that "people should not take the law into their own hands". At the
same time, the perpetrators of the original offense, or others committing
such offenses have to pretty much leave a signed, blood-stained confession
along with their wallets, ID, and a map to their residences before
authorities actually seek to make an arrest, let alone prosecute.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Wouldn't want to try that ambush tactic on one of the teachers from
> this
> school:
> <http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5945430.html>. My mom went
> to school in that district many years ago.
>
I hope they have sufficient well-locked file cabinets to document all those
requirements. And have qualified school psychologists to certify the
teachers.
Did I say I trust psychologists? Nooooo!!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 21 Feb 2010 12:25:07 GMT, the infamous Han <[email protected]>
> scrawled the following:
>
>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Wouldn't want to try that ambush tactic on one of the teachers
>>> from this
>>> school:
>>> <http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5945430.html>. My mom
>>> went to school in that district many years ago.
>>>
>>
>>I hope they have sufficient well-locked file cabinets to document all
>>those requirements. And have qualified school psychologists to
>>certify the teachers.
>>
>>Did I say I trust psychologists? Nooooo!!
>
> Please, Han. Your silly liberalness is showing. If someone is
> unhinged, what's to stop them from taking a weapon to school _now_,
> when there are -no- others around to stop them?
>
> And what the 'ell do locked file cabinets have to do with security at
> school? What "requirements"? And the teachers who would carry are
> already teaching and are already gun owners and CCW holders. Why the
> extra psychology crap? (Many believe that the psychologists are the
> sicker of the two, between the doctor and the patient. YMMV.) You've
> been living in NYC for too long, sir. ;)
>
> Y'know, if racists would just stop noticing skin color and if
> gun-controllers would just stop seeing guns as inherently evil (and
> all gun owners as criminals), the world would be a much, much better
> and safer place.
>
> (P.S: No, I'm not calling you a racist, Han. The outcome of two
> little changes in perspective would be similar, that's all.)
>
> --
> "Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt."
> -- Clarence Darrow
I didn't think you'd call me a racist, so I'm grateful you make that
clear. But please do go and read what the conditions are for being
allowed to carry in that school.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> How times have changed ... as I've mentioned before, and when in HS, I
> used to ride my buckskin mare to school, bareback, tie up her up next to
> the football field with a halter, leave my 20 ga Remington model 11, my
> hunting vest, and her bridle in the shop teachers office, and pick up
> 'em ap after school so I could hunt doves on my way home.
>
> An every day, common, and totally innocent act, that is totally
> unbelievable in today's supposedly "enlightened" culture.
I believe you, and I'm sure it was safe. Where I live now, and even where
I hike in the nearby "mountains" of Harriman State Park, the Catskill area
and others, I don't go hiking during hunting season, unless it is in a
"protected" area.
With all the not so sane people around here (f you believe the papers), I'm
glad there aren't more guns around. I don't think there is a good way to
weed out the whackos <grin>.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Feb 20, 5:31=A0am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:ffdda434-ca36-4540-a232-faf5c8717d7c@o16g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 19, 10:48 pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
> > On Feb 19, 2:06 pm, Dave Balderstone
>
> > <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> > > In article <[email protected]>, Morris Dovey
>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Mind the wrap...
>
> > > >http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/18/school-allegedly-uses-students-la=
p...
> > > > m-for-espionage-law/
>
> > > I saw that earlier today on techdirt.com
>
> > > I'm not sure if, as a parent, I'd consult a lawyer, or simply ambush
> > > the SOB responsible and break both his legs with a baseball bat.
>
> > Seek help.
>
> > Seriously.
>
> > ***********************************************************************=
****
> > **************
>
> > More seriously - what is wrong with you? You're happy to trust in any
> > "official" organization and stupidly go on your merry way, believing th=
at
> > all will be as they say? Do you live in a rose colored world? Have you =
no
> > sense of reality, even when presented with evidence? You sir are the on=
e
> > that needs to seek help. Seriously.
>
> > --
>
> > -Mike-
> > [email protected]
>
> Actually, then ... if that's truly how you feel, then please DO
>
> "ambush the SOB responsible and break both his legs with a baseball
> bat."
>
> That'll solve everything, and you'll be in jail.
>
> WTF???
>
> *************************************************************************=
** *******************
>
> Well - with the obvious consideration that the original poster employed a
> bit of exaggeration to express his point, some things are indeed worth
> getting worked up over. =A0I'm more concerned that such a thing seems of =
no
> concern to you.
As long as you're comfortable with you baseless and ridiculous
assumptions ... then ... that's all that matters :-)
That binary, huh? If I don't want to do grievous bodily harm to the
person, then I don't care??
Hmmmmmm.
On 2/19/2010 2:09 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:
>
> Mind the wrap...
>
> http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/18/school-allegedly-uses-students-laptop-webcam-for-espionage-law/
Yep ... maybe Dell could use it whenever they want? Where's my blue
painter's tape?
"The tale begins when Assistant Principal Lindy Mastko of Harriton High
School informed a student that he was "engaged in improper behavior in
his home"
WTF are we coming to??
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:3357a7de-0c2b-4952-8dbf-f588857d63dd@k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 20, 7:45 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 7:31 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >. I'm more concerned that such a thing seems of no
> > concern to you.
>
> First they came for the communists, and I did not speak outbecause I
> was not a communist;
> Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out
> because I was not a trade unionist;
> Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak outbecause I was not
> a Jew;
> Then they came for meand there was no one left to speak out for me.
It can't be easy to be locked in black/white thinking.
***********************************************************************************************
Well - at least he's thinking, and not blindly following the feel good
garbage that tickles the ear...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ffdda434-ca36-4540-a232-faf5c8717d7c@o16g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 19, 10:48 pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 19, 2:06 pm, Dave Balderstone
>
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Morris Dovey
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Mind the wrap...
>
> > >http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/18/school-allegedly-uses-students-lap...
> > > m-for-espionage-law/
>
> > I saw that earlier today on techdirt.com
>
> > I'm not sure if, as a parent, I'd consult a lawyer, or simply ambush
> > the SOB responsible and break both his legs with a baseball bat.
>
> Seek help.
>
> Seriously.
>
> ***************************************************************************
> **************
>
> More seriously - what is wrong with you? You're happy to trust in any
> "official" organization and stupidly go on your merry way, believing that
> all will be as they say? Do you live in a rose colored world? Have you no
> sense of reality, even when presented with evidence? You sir are the one
> that needs to seek help. Seriously.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
Actually, then ... if that's truly how you feel, then please DO
"ambush the SOB responsible and break both his legs with a baseball
bat."
That'll solve everything, and you'll be in jail.
WTF???
**********************************************************************************************
Well - with the obvious consideration that the original poster employed a
bit of exaggeration to express his point, some things are indeed worth
getting worked up over. I'm more concerned that such a thing seems of no
concern to you.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:190220101718372584%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>> > I'm not sure if, as a parent, I'd consult a lawyer, or simply ambush
>> > the SOB responsible and break both his legs with a baseball bat.
>>
>> Better hope he doesn't have a CCW permit.
>
> Unlikely here in Canada.
Ah, yes. I was reading some article on firearms legislation many years ago
and it quoted the then Minister of Justice in Canada as stating Canadian law
did not recognize a right to self-defense. Even if it was his opinion as
opposed to the law it struck me as an astonishing statement. But
considering that well-publicized case in Britain recently where a home-owner
was jailed for injuring the leader of an armed home-invasion gang who
threatened his family, maybe it was more than just the Minister's opinion.
On Feb 21, 9:17=A0am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:36:24 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 20, 12:58=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Feb 19, 10:55=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > > More seriously - what is wrong with you? =A0You're happy to trust =
in any
> >> > > "official" organization and stupidly go on your merry way, believi=
ng that
> >> > > all will be as they say? =A0Do you live in a rose colored world? =
=A0Have you no
> >> > > sense of reality, even when presented with evidence? =A0You sir ar=
e the one
> >> > > that needs to seek help. =A0Seriously.
>
> >> > No kidding. =A0What keeps the IT guys from spying on your daughter i=
n her
> >> > room?
>
> >> > There was a teacher at my high school who got arrested for video tap=
ing
> >> > girls changing in his pool house. =A0They were on some team that he
> >> > coached or something and he'd have them over for pool parties.
> >> > Apparently, the boy's teams were never invited.
>
> >> > What parent doesn't see red flags with something like that?
>
> >> Most probably do.
>
> >> Thank GOD most would also seek recourse through the law, and not
> >> vigilante justice....
>
> >The 'law' is in many cases is cumbersome and handcuffed by nanny-state
> >legislation. The local constabulary is often more intimidated by the
> >pile of paperwork each case generates than the investigation warrants
> >(in their eyes).
> >A quick, firm grip around the throat, and gentle smack against a wall
> >and a serious stare in the coward's eyes will work wonders.
> >Sometimes a softly whispered warning like: "Keep this up, asshole and
> >you're going to wake up with a crowd around you." works wonders as
> >well.
>
> >That's not vigilantism, it called Neighbourhood Watch.
>
> Yeah, Neil. What he said.
Be sure to thoroughly check each other for nits, huh?
On Feb 20, 1:41=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> tom wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 10:36 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> tom wrote:
>
> >>> "School officials cannot, any more than police, enter into the home
> >>> either electronically or physically without an invitation or a
> >>> warrant," Walczak said.
> >>> Did you convienently forget about sneak and peek search warrant
> >>> capabilities granted to law enforcement in the Patriot Act, Mr.
> >>> Walczak?
>
> >> A "sneak and peek" search warrant is still a search warrant, police
> >> can't just sneak into your house on a whim, they have to get a judge
> >> to authorize it first, just like any other search warrant.
>
> > =A0"It is obvious that these restrictions on issuing sneak and peek
> > search warrants border on the meaningless, especially in light of the
> > somber reality that search warrants are issued secretly and ex parte,
> > that they are typically issued on the basis of recurring, generalized,
> > boilerplate allegations, and that the judicial officials who issue
> > them tend to be rubber stamps for law enforcement. =A0Take, for example=
,
> > the =93adverse result=94 requirement. =A0The statutory definition of ad=
verse
> > result is so all-encompassing that it is difficult to imagine many
> > criminal investigations where at least one form of such a result is
> > not going to be arguably applicable; furthermore, to satisfy the
> > requirement the court need not have reasonable cause to believe that
> > there will be an adverse result, only that there =93may=94 be an advers=
e
> > result. =A0The second requirement, that the warrant prohibit the seizur=
e
> > of tangible property, is drained of significance by the gigantic
> > exception allowing seizure of such property =93where the court finds
> > reasonable necessity for the seizure.=94 =A0It will be a rare case inde=
ed
> > where such necessity, if alleged, will not be determined to exist by
> > the issuing court; and it may be confidently predicted that, with the
> > passage of time, requests for seizure of tangible evidence will become
> > the rule rather than the exception in connection with sneak and peek
> > warrants. =A0The final requirement, that the warrant provide for the
> > giving of notice within a reasonable period, involves merely a
> > question of the wording of a sneak and peek warrant, and the provision
> > permitting the court (acting ex parte) to extend the period (one or
> > more times) =93for good cause shown,=94 a standard easily met, makes it
> > likely that such extensions will become routine and pro forma." This
> > legal opinion is from
> >http://www.lawsch.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/37patriot.html
>
> So go through that pile of crap line by line and tell us specifically whi=
ch
> items are unique to "sneak and peek" warrants and do not apply equally we=
ll
> to regular warrants, which existed long, long before there was a "patriot
> act".
"Section 213 of the USA Patriot Act,11 enacted on Oct. 26, 2001,
contains the first express statutory authorization for the issuance of
sneak and peek search warrants in American history. Section 213 is
not restricted to terrorists or terrorism offenses; it may used in
connection with any federal crime, including misdemeanors. Section
213 is one of the provisions of the USA Patriot Act excepted from the
Act=92s sunset provisions.12 To the extent Section 213 may conflict
with Rule 41, Section 213 prevails.13". There's not too much more to
read at http://www.lawsch.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/37patrio=
t.html
On Feb 20, 9:02 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >http://www.lawsch.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/37patriot.html
>
> In other words you don't have a clue.
>
> <plonk>
Heavens to Betsy! Again (well, it was at the bottom, hard to see),
"To the extent Section 213 may conflict
with Rule 41, Section 213 prevails..."
On Feb 20, 12:58=A0am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 10:55=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > More seriously - what is wrong with you? =A0You're happy to trust in =
any
> > > "official" organization and stupidly go on your merry way, believing =
that
> > > all will be as they say? =A0Do you live in a rose colored world? =A0H=
ave you no
> > > sense of reality, even when presented with evidence? =A0You sir are t=
he one
> > > that needs to seek help. =A0Seriously.
>
> > No kidding. =A0What keeps the IT guys from spying on your daughter in h=
er
> > room?
>
> > There was a teacher at my high school who got arrested for video taping
> > girls changing in his pool house. =A0They were on some team that he
> > coached or something and he'd have them over for pool parties.
> > Apparently, the boy's teams were never invited.
>
> > What parent doesn't see red flags with something like that?
>
> Most probably do.
>
> Thank GOD most would also seek recourse through the law, and not
> vigilante justice....
The 'law' is in many cases is cumbersome and handcuffed by nanny-state
legislation. The local constabulary is often more intimidated by the
pile of paperwork each case generates than the investigation warrants
(in their eyes).
A quick, firm grip around the throat, and gentle smack against a wall
and a serious stare in the coward's eyes will work wonders.
Sometimes a softly whispered warning like: "Keep this up, asshole and
you're going to wake up with a crowd around you." works wonders as
well.
That's not vigilantism, it called Neighbourhood Watch.
On Feb 19, 10:55=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> > More seriously - what is wrong with you? =A0You're happy to trust in an=
y
> > "official" organization and stupidly go on your merry way, believing th=
at
> > all will be as they say? =A0Do you live in a rose colored world? =A0Hav=
e you no
> > sense of reality, even when presented with evidence? =A0You sir are the=
one
> > that needs to seek help. =A0Seriously.
>
> No kidding. =A0What keeps the IT guys from spying on your daughter in her
> room?
>
> There was a teacher at my high school who got arrested for video taping
> girls changing in his pool house. =A0They were on some team that he
> coached or something and he'd have them over for pool parties.
> Apparently, the boy's teams were never invited.
>
> What parent doesn't see red flags with something like that?
Most probably do.
Thank GOD most would also seek recourse through the law, and not
vigilante justice....
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 20:02:30 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:15:47 -0800, the infamous "DGDevin"
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>>>
>>>"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:190220101506327105%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>>>
>>>> I'm not sure if, as a parent, I'd consult a lawyer, or simply ambush
>>>> the SOB responsible and break both his legs with a baseball bat.
>>>
>>>Better hope he doesn't have a CCW permit.
>>
>> He can't! Schools are gun-free zones, as afforded us by the libtards.
>> They can't even carry them in their vehicles to school in most states.
>> <sigh>
>>
>
> Not true in AZ. CCW holders can leave their guns, out of sight, in a
>locked parked car on school grounds.
It's truly too bad they have to lock 'em up, but at least they'll be
closer than any cop's pistol would be when the fit hits the shan.
> Wouldn't want to try that ambush tactic on one of the teachers from this
>school:
><http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5945430.html>. My mom went to
>school in that district many years ago.
Nope, nor would I. Nor would I want to attend any school nowadays,
with the sorry state of the educational systems and spoiled brats
getting away with anything short of murder. It's sickening.
--
"Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt."
-- Clarence Darrow
On Feb 19, 10:48=A0pm, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 19, 2:06 pm, Dave Balderstone
>
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Morris Dovey
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Mind the wrap...
>
> > >http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/18/school-allegedly-uses-students-lap.=
..
> > > m-for-espionage-law/
>
> > I saw that earlier today on techdirt.com
>
> > I'm not sure if, as a parent, I'd consult a lawyer, or simply ambush
> > the SOB responsible and break both his legs with a baseball bat.
>
> Seek help.
>
> Seriously.
>
> *************************************************************************=
** **************
>
> More seriously - what is wrong with you? =A0You're happy to trust in any
> "official" organization and stupidly go on your merry way, believing that
> all will be as they say? =A0Do you live in a rose colored world? =A0Have =
you no
> sense of reality, even when presented with evidence? =A0You sir are the o=
ne
> that needs to seek help. =A0Seriously.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
Actually, then ... if that's truly how you feel, then please DO
"ambush the SOB responsible and break both his legs with a baseball
bat."
That'll solve everything, and you'll be in jail.
WTF???
Han wrote:
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Wouldn't want to try that ambush tactic on one of the teachers from
>> this
>> school:
>> <http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5945430.html>. My mom went
>> to school in that district many years ago.
>>
>
> I hope they have sufficient well-locked file cabinets to document all
> those
> requirements. And have qualified school psychologists to certify the
> teachers.
>
Relax Han, that place isn't the East coast, New England area where average
citizens quiver in fear at the mere sight of the picture of a gun or the
mere mention of guns. Most of the kids in that area have grown up hunting
quail and rabbits on their parents' or relatives' farms and down in the
Pease and Red Rivers. The teachers most likely have hunted with the kids or
their parents. I've been there many times while I was growing up and after
I moved to Dallas -- its a very rural area with very strong ties between
neighbors watching out for each other. The reason the teachers wanted to be
armed was the fact that Highway 287 runs very close to the school and there
was concern that some crazy on the run from somewhere might cause trouble.
> Did I say I trust psychologists? Nooooo!!
>
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
Han wrote:
> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
... snip
>>
>> (P.S: No, I'm not calling you a racist, Han. The outcome of two
>> little changes in perspective would be similar, that's all.)
>>
>> --
>> "Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt."
>> -- Clarence Darrow
>
> I didn't think you'd call me a racist, so I'm grateful you make that
> clear. But please do go and read what the conditions are for being
> allowed to carry in that school.
>
Receiving training in crisis management is a bit different than receiving
a psychological evaluation. Given that what the teachers would be defending
could turn out to be a bit different than a homeowner defending his/her
family, some knowledge of crisis situation control could be beneficial.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On 2/19/2010 3:09 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:
>
> Mind the wrap...
>
> http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/18/school-allegedly-uses-students-laptop-webcam-for-espionage-law/
>
>
If you search the news archives you will find articles where people used
the camera to capture the crook who stole their laptop.
It is my understanding that a special program is required that will turn
on he camera, capture the images from the camera, make the internet
connection and transmit the inforomation.
On 2/19/2010 2:35 PM, Swingman wrote:
> WTF are we coming to??
Do you Yahoo? If so, you have already agreed to the following as one
sliver of their TOS:
"You understand that through your use of the Yahoo! Services you consent
to the collection and use (as set forth in the applicable privacy
policy) of this information, including the transfer of this information
to the United States and/or other countries for storage, processing and
use by Yahoo! and its affiliates"
and from their "privacy policy"
"Yahoo! automatically receives and records information from your
computer and browser"
I doubt that Google is much different. It's not a "coming to" as much as
what we've already allowed to crawl in under the door.
Video is just another facet of the jewel.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
In article <[email protected]>, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Puckdropper wrote:
>
>> Never teach your apprentice everything you know.
>
>Then how do you expect to move upstairs if there isn't anybody to take
>your place?
Bingo! If you can't be replaced ... you can't be promoted.
In article <[email protected]>, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On both sides of the border prosecutors sometimes demonstrate it's a right
>they don't really understand and/or agree with. However one difference
>between Canada and the U.S. is that in the U.S. many states have made it
>clear the right to self-defense is not open to question by passing so-called
>"make my day" laws that protect those who use deadly force in self-defense.
Exactly so. Indiana takes a lot of heat for being "backward" but that's one
thing this state got right in our Constitution:
"The people shall have the right to keep and bear arms, for the defense of
themselves and of the State." -- IOW, the right to armed self-defense is
explicit.
In article <[email protected]>, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2010-02-19 22:38:06 -0500, [email protected] (Doug Miller) said:
>
>> Exactly so. Indiana takes a lot of heat for being "backward" but that's
>> one thing this state got right in our Constitution:
>>
>> "The people shall have the right to keep and bear arms, for the defense
>> of themselves and of the State." -- IOW, the right to armed
>> self-defense is explicit.
>
>Of course, we did have a state legislature that tried to pass a law
>defining the value of pi as 3.0, so the "backward" image has some basis.
3.2, actually -- and it was only the House that was taken in, passing the bill
67-0 with little debate. Wiser heads prevailed in the Senate, though, where
"the bill was brought up and made fun of. The Senators made bad puns about
it, ridiculed it and laughed over it. The fun lasted half an hour." and
consideration of it was "indefinitely postponed."
Full story:
http://www.agecon.purdue.
edu/crd/localgov/second%20level%20pages/indiana_pi_story.htm
Note, too, that this occurred in 1897, some considerable time after the
Constitution was written.
Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 2/19/2010 3:09 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:
>>
>> Mind the wrap...
>>
>> http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/18/school-allegedly-uses-students-laptop-webcam-for-espionage-law/
>>
>>
> If you search the news archives you will find articles where people
> used
> the camera to capture the crook who stole their laptop.
>
> It is my understanding that a special program is required that will
> turn
> on he camera, capture the images from the camera, make the internet
> connection and transmit the inforomation.
Which the school put on the machines, and then apparently used as spyware.
> More seriously - what is wrong with you? You're happy to trust in any
> "official" organization and stupidly go on your merry way, believing that
> all will be as they say? Do you live in a rose colored world? Have you no
> sense of reality, even when presented with evidence? You sir are the one
> that needs to seek help. Seriously.
>
No kidding. What keeps the IT guys from spying on your daughter in her
room?
There was a teacher at my high school who got arrested for video taping
girls changing in his pool house. They were on some team that he
coached or something and he'd have them over for pool parties.
Apparently, the boy's teams were never invited.
What parent doesn't see red flags with something like that?
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
In article <[email protected]>, Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> 3.2, actually -- and it was only the House that was taken in, passing
>> the bill 67-0 with little debate. Wiser heads prevailed in the Senate,
>> though, where "the bill was brought up and made fun of. The Senators
>> made bad puns about it, ridiculed it and laughed over it. The fun
>> lasted half an hour." and consideration of it was "indefinitely
>> postponed."
>>
>> Full story:
>> http://www.agecon.purdue.
>> edu/crd/localgov/second%20level%20pages/indiana_pi_story.htm
>>
>> Note, too, that this occurred in 1897, some considerable time after
>> the Constitution was written.
>
>When I went to school in Indiana, it was always Ohio that had defined PI
>to be 9. A few quick search queries don't turn up anything, though.
Oh no. Much as I hate to admit it, that was my state, Indiana.
On 2/19/10 11:58 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Feb 19, 10:55 pm, -MIKE-<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> More seriously - what is wrong with you? You're happy to trust in any
>>> "official" organization and stupidly go on your merry way, believing that
>>> all will be as they say? Do you live in a rose colored world? Have you no
>>> sense of reality, even when presented with evidence? You sir are the one
>>> that needs to seek help. Seriously.
>>
>> No kidding. What keeps the IT guys from spying on your daughter in her
>> room?
>>
>> There was a teacher at my high school who got arrested for video taping
>> girls changing in his pool house. They were on some team that he
>> coached or something and he'd have them over for pool parties.
>> Apparently, the boy's teams were never invited.
>>
>> What parent doesn't see red flags with something like that?
>
>
> Most probably do.
>
>
> Thank GOD most would also seek recourse through the law, and not
> vigilante justice....
>
I agree. But honestly, if I were the Dad of a daughter, I would
definitely seek recourse through the law..... but the guy may show up to
court on crutches. :-)
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
-MIKE- wrote:
> On 2/19/10 11:58 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 10:55 pm, -MIKE-<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> More seriously - what is wrong with you? You're happy to trust in
>>>> any "official" organization and stupidly go on your merry way,
>>>> believing that all will be as they say? Do you live in a rose
>>>> colored world? Have you no sense of reality, even when presented
>>>> with evidence? You sir are the one that needs to seek help.
>>>> Seriously.
>>>
>>> No kidding. What keeps the IT guys from spying on your daughter in
>>> her room?
>>>
>>> There was a teacher at my high school who got arrested for video
>>> taping girls changing in his pool house. They were on some team
>>> that he coached or something and he'd have them over for pool
>>> parties. Apparently, the boy's teams were never invited.
>>>
>>> What parent doesn't see red flags with something like that?
>>
>>
>> Most probably do.
>>
>>
>> Thank GOD most would also seek recourse through the law, and not
>> vigilante justice....
>>
>
> I agree. But honestly, if I were the Dad of a daughter, I would
> definitely seek recourse through the law..... but the guy may show up
> to court on crutches. :-)
Just make sure that the baddest-ass member of the group in the prison that
is most likely to have it in for him knows that he's a child molester and
they'll take care of the rest.
tom wrote:
> On Feb 20, 7:45 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Feb 20, 7:31 am, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> . I'm more concerned that such a thing seems of no
>>> concern to you.
>>
>> First they came for the communists, and I did not speak outbecause I
>> was not a communist;
>> Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out
>> because I was not a trade unionist;
>> Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak outbecause I was
>> not a Jew;
>> Then they came for meand there was no one left to speak out for me.
>
> "School officials cannot, any more than police, enter into the home
> either electronically or physically without an invitation or a
> warrant," Walczak said.
> Did you convienently forget about sneak and peek search warrant
> capabilities granted to law enforcement in the Patriot Act, Mr.
> Walczak?
A "sneak and peek" search warrant is still a search warrant, police can't
just sneak into your house on a whim, they have to get a judge to authorize
it first, just like any other search warrant.
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:00:24 -0800, tom wrote:
> "It is obvious that these restrictions on issuing sneak and peek
> search warrants border on the meaningless, especially in light of the
> somber reality that search warrants are issued secretly and ex parte,
> that they are typically issued on the basis of recurring, generalized,
> boilerplate allegations, and that the judicial officials who issue
> them tend to be rubber stamps for law enforcement. Take, for example,
> the adverse result requirement. The statutory definition of adverse
> result is so all-encompassing that it is difficult to imagine many
> criminal investigations where at least one form of such a result is
> not going to be arguably applicable; furthermore, to satisfy the
> requirement the court need not have reasonable cause to believe that
> there will be an adverse result, only that there may be an adverse
> result. The second requirement, that the warrant prohibit the seizure
> of tangible property, is drained of significance by the gigantic
> exception allowing seizure of such property where the court finds
> reasonable necessity for the seizure. It will be a rare case indeed
> where such necessity, if alleged, will not be determined to exist by
> the issuing court; and it may be confidently predicted that, with the
> passage of time, requests for seizure of tangible evidence will become
> the rule rather than the exception in connection with sneak and peek
> warrants. The final requirement, that the warrant provide for the
> giving of notice within a reasonable period, involves merely a
> question of the wording of a sneak and peek warrant, and the provision
> permitting the court (acting ex parte) to extend the period (one or
> more times) for good cause shown, a standard easily met, makes it
> likely that such extensions will become routine and pro forma." This
> legal opinion is from http://www.lawsch.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/37patriot.html
This would make a great thread in a political group to not re-elect any
that favoured the Patriot Act and get it repealed.
tom wrote:
> On Feb 20, 10:36 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> tom wrote:
>
>>
>>> "School officials cannot, any more than police, enter into the home
>>> either electronically or physically without an invitation or a
>>> warrant," Walczak said.
>>> Did you convienently forget about sneak and peek search warrant
>>> capabilities granted to law enforcement in the Patriot Act, Mr.
>>> Walczak?
>>
>> A "sneak and peek" search warrant is still a search warrant, police
>> can't just sneak into your house on a whim, they have to get a judge
>> to authorize it first, just like any other search warrant.
>
> "It is obvious that these restrictions on issuing sneak and peek
> search warrants border on the meaningless, especially in light of the
> somber reality that search warrants are issued secretly and ex parte,
> that they are typically issued on the basis of recurring, generalized,
> boilerplate allegations, and that the judicial officials who issue
> them tend to be rubber stamps for law enforcement. Take, for example,
> the adverse result requirement. The statutory definition of adverse
> result is so all-encompassing that it is difficult to imagine many
> criminal investigations where at least one form of such a result is
> not going to be arguably applicable; furthermore, to satisfy the
> requirement the court need not have reasonable cause to believe that
> there will be an adverse result, only that there may be an adverse
> result. The second requirement, that the warrant prohibit the seizure
> of tangible property, is drained of significance by the gigantic
> exception allowing seizure of such property where the court finds
> reasonable necessity for the seizure. It will be a rare case indeed
> where such necessity, if alleged, will not be determined to exist by
> the issuing court; and it may be confidently predicted that, with the
> passage of time, requests for seizure of tangible evidence will become
> the rule rather than the exception in connection with sneak and peek
> warrants. The final requirement, that the warrant provide for the
> giving of notice within a reasonable period, involves merely a
> question of the wording of a sneak and peek warrant, and the provision
> permitting the court (acting ex parte) to extend the period (one or
> more times) for good cause shown, a standard easily met, makes it
> likely that such extensions will become routine and pro forma." This
> legal opinion is from
> http://www.lawsch.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/37patriot.html
So go through that pile of crap line by line and tell us specifically which
items are unique to "sneak and peek" warrants and do not apply equally well
to regular warrants, which existed long, long before there was a "patriot
act".
tom wrote:
> On Feb 20, 1:41 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> tom wrote:
>>> On Feb 20, 10:36 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> tom wrote:
>>
>>>>> "School officials cannot, any more than police, enter into the
>>>>> home either electronically or physically without an invitation or
>>>>> a warrant," Walczak said.
>>>>> Did you convienently forget about sneak and peek search warrant
>>>>> capabilities granted to law enforcement in the Patriot Act, Mr.
>>>>> Walczak?
>>
>>>> A "sneak and peek" search warrant is still a search warrant, police
>>>> can't just sneak into your house on a whim, they have to get a
>>>> judge to authorize it first, just like any other search warrant.
>>
>>> "It is obvious that these restrictions on issuing sneak and peek
>>> search warrants border on the meaningless, especially in light of
>>> the somber reality that search warrants are issued secretly and ex
>>> parte, that they are typically issued on the basis of recurring,
>>> generalized, boilerplate allegations, and that the judicial
>>> officials who issue them tend to be rubber stamps for law
>>> enforcement. Take, for example, the adverse result requirement.
>>> The statutory definition of adverse result is so all-encompassing
>>> that it is difficult to imagine many criminal investigations where
>>> at least one form of such a result is not going to be arguably
>>> applicable; furthermore, to satisfy the requirement the court need
>>> not have reasonable cause to believe that there will be an adverse
>>> result, only that there may be an adverse result. The second
>>> requirement, that the warrant prohibit the seizure of tangible
>>> property, is drained of significance by the gigantic exception
>>> allowing seizure of such property where the court finds reasonable
>>> necessity for the seizure. It will be a rare case indeed where
>>> such necessity, if alleged, will not be determined to exist by the
>>> issuing court; and it may be confidently predicted that, with the
>>> passage of time, requests for seizure of tangible evidence will
>>> become the rule rather than the exception in connection with sneak
>>> and peek warrants. The final requirement, that the warrant provide
>>> for the giving of notice within a reasonable period, involves
>>> merely a question of the wording of a sneak and peek warrant, and
>>> the provision permitting the court (acting ex parte) to extend the
>>> period (one or more times) for good cause shown, a standard
>>> easily met, makes it likely that such extensions will become
>>> routine and pro forma." This legal opinion is from
>>> http://www.lawsch.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/37patriot.html
>>
>> So go through that pile of crap line by line and tell us
>> specifically which items are unique to "sneak and peek" warrants and
>> do not apply equally well to regular warrants, which existed long,
>> long before there was a "patriot act".
>
> "Section 213 of the USA Patriot Act,11 enacted on Oct. 26, 2001,
> contains the first express statutory authorization for the issuance of
> sneak and peek search warrants in American history. Section 213 is
> not restricted to terrorists or terrorism offenses; it may used in
> connection with any federal crime, including misdemeanors. Section
> 213 is one of the provisions of the USA Patriot Act excepted from the
> Acts sunset provisions.12 To the extent Section 213 may conflict
> with Rule 41, Section 213 prevails.13". There's not too much more to
> read at
> http://www.lawsch.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/37patriot.html
In other words you don't have a clue.
<plonk>
On 21 Feb 2010 12:25:07 GMT, the infamous Han <[email protected]>
scrawled the following:
>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Wouldn't want to try that ambush tactic on one of the teachers from
>> this
>> school:
>> <http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5945430.html>. My mom went
>> to school in that district many years ago.
>>
>
>I hope they have sufficient well-locked file cabinets to document all those
>requirements. And have qualified school psychologists to certify the
>teachers.
>
>Did I say I trust psychologists? Nooooo!!
Please, Han. Your silly liberalness is showing. If someone is
unhinged, what's to stop them from taking a weapon to school _now_,
when there are -no- others around to stop them?
And what the 'ell do locked file cabinets have to do with security at
school? What "requirements"? And the teachers who would carry are
already teaching and are already gun owners and CCW holders. Why the
extra psychology crap? (Many believe that the psychologists are the
sicker of the two, between the doctor and the patient. YMMV.) You've
been living in NYC for too long, sir. ;)
Y'know, if racists would just stop noticing skin color and if
gun-controllers would just stop seeing guns as inherently evil (and
all gun owners as criminals), the world would be a much, much better
and safer place.
(P.S: No, I'm not calling you a racist, Han. The outcome of two
little changes in perspective would be similar, that's all.)
--
"Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt."
-- Clarence Darrow
On 19 Feb 2010 23:13:33 GMT, Puckdropper
<puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> Mind the wrap...
>>
>> http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/18/school-allegedly-uses-students-lapto
>> p-webcam-for-espionage-law/
>>
>
>I was seriously looking at laptops recently (a month ago) and couldn't
>hardly find any without built in cameras. Apparently, once you get past
>the super cheap ones, they're standard equipment.
>
>Puckdropper
And if you are paranoid, duct tape or a sticky label is cheap.
A little less reversible - finger-nail polish or magic marker.
On 2/19/2010 7:16 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> On Feb 19, 4:20 pm, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 2/19/2010 3:17 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> In article<[email protected]>, Swingman
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 2/19/2010 3:06 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
>>>>> In article<[email protected]>, Morris Dovey
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Mind the wrap...
>>
>>>>>> http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/18/school-allegedly-uses-students-lap...
>>>>>> bca
>>>>>> m-for-espionage-law/
>>
>>>>> I saw that earlier today on techdirt.com
>>
>>>>> I'm not sure if, as a parent, I'd consult a lawyer, or simply ambush
>>>>> the SOB responsible and break both his legs with a baseball bat.
>>
>>>> Both ...
>>
>>> Well, they'd have to be in the correct order.
>>
>>> Bat first, lawyer second?
>>
>> Sounds like a plan to me ... Rob's got the drill down.
>>
>> --www.e-woodshop.net
>> Last update: 10/22/08
>> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>
> Don't you just hate it when somebody slams their eyeball onto your
> elbow and then proceeds to ram his groin onto your knee?
Man after my own heart ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 21 Feb 2010 18:54:01 GMT, the infamous Han <[email protected]>
scrawled the following:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 21 Feb 2010 12:25:07 GMT, the infamous Han <[email protected]>
>> scrawled the following:
>>
>>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Wouldn't want to try that ambush tactic on one of the teachers
>>>> from this
>>>> school:
>>>> <http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5945430.html>. My mom
>>>> went to school in that district many years ago.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I hope they have sufficient well-locked file cabinets to document all
>>>those requirements. And have qualified school psychologists to
>>>certify the teachers.
>>>
>>>Did I say I trust psychologists? Nooooo!!
>>
>> Please, Han. Your silly liberalness is showing. If someone is
>> unhinged, what's to stop them from taking a weapon to school _now_,
>> when there are -no- others around to stop them?
>>
>> And what the 'ell do locked file cabinets have to do with security at
>> school? What "requirements"? And the teachers who would carry are
>> already teaching and are already gun owners and CCW holders. Why the
>> extra psychology crap? (Many believe that the psychologists are the
>> sicker of the two, between the doctor and the patient. YMMV.) You've
>> been living in NYC for too long, sir. ;)
>>
>> Y'know, if racists would just stop noticing skin color and if
>> gun-controllers would just stop seeing guns as inherently evil (and
>> all gun owners as criminals), the world would be a much, much better
>> and safer place.
>>
>> (P.S: No, I'm not calling you a racist, Han. The outcome of two
>> little changes in perspective would be similar, that's all.)
>
>I didn't think you'd call me a racist, so I'm grateful you make that
>clear. But please do go and read what the conditions are for being
>allowed to carry in that school.
What, half a day at a crisis management class, the day they already
spent at the gun range, and a box of frangible bullets. No biggie. As
I said, most of those teachers who do not have licenses yet will not
seek them, so most of those who will carry already have everything but
the box of bullets and the class on crisis.
--
"Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt."
-- Clarence Darrow
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:15:47 -0800, the infamous "DGDevin"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
>news:190220101506327105%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>
>> I'm not sure if, as a parent, I'd consult a lawyer, or simply ambush
>> the SOB responsible and break both his legs with a baseball bat.
>
>Better hope he doesn't have a CCW permit.
He can't! Schools are gun-free zones, as afforded us by the libtards.
They can't even carry them in their vehicles to school in most states.
<sigh>
--
"Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt."
-- Clarence Darrow
On 2/21/2010 6:48 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> mere mention of guns. Most of the kids in that area have grown up hunting
> quail and rabbits on their parents' or relatives' farms and down in the
> Pease and Red Rivers. The teachers most likely have hunted with the kids or
> their parents. I've been there many times while I was growing up and after
> I moved to Dallas -- its a very rural area with very strong ties between
> neighbors watching out for each other. The reason the teachers wanted to be
> armed was the fact that Highway 287 runs very close to the school and there
> was concern that some crazy on the run from somewhere might cause trouble.
How times have changed ... as I've mentioned before, and when in HS, I
used to ride my buckskin mare to school, bareback, tie up her up next to
the football field with a halter, leave my 20 ga Remington model 11, my
hunting vest, and her bridle in the shop teachers office, and pick up
'em ap after school so I could hunt doves on my way home.
An every day, common, and totally innocent act, that is totally
unbelievable in today's supposedly "enlightened" culture.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:190220101753187451%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
> We're nowhere near the cesspool that GB is. Handguns are severely
> restricted, but the current Conservative government has suspended the
> long gun registry implemented by the Liberals.
I heard about that, but then there is nothing to stop the Liberals from
moving ahead with the program when they return to power since you have no
constitutional right that would stop them.
> The law in Canada certainly recognizes the right to self defence, and
> there are many cases in recent years that demonstrate that the crown
> prosecutors understand that right.
On both sides of the border prosecutors sometimes demonstrate it's a right
they don't really understand and/or agree with. However one difference
between Canada and the U.S. is that in the U.S. many states have made it
clear the right to self-defense is not open to question by passing so-called
"make my day" laws that protect those who use deadly force in self-defense.
Of course some people take it too far, that recent Oklahoma case where a
pharmacist shot (and incapacitated) a robber and then went and got another
gun and shot him five more times as he lay unconscious being a good
example--self-defense doesn't apply when you shoot someone who is incapable
of harming you.
Steve wrote:
> On 2010-02-19 15:09:19 -0500, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> said:
>
>> http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/18/school-allegedly-uses-students-laptop-
webcam-for-espionage-law/
>
> Forget
>>
> that "allegedly" stuff:
>
http://www.lmsd.org/sections/news/default.php?m=0&t=today&p=lmsd_anno&id=1137
>
> This is one of those times when the school administrators really ARE
> the cause of the problem.
Yep. Because, after all, all of the IT admins and anyone else with admin
authority are absolutely pure of heart and would never do anything to abuse
that policy. /sarcasm
Imagine the concern if you were the parent of a high school student
(especially a daughter).
This really falls into the "what were they thinking?" category. It is one
thing, if as an owner of a laptop, you enable this kind of security feature
and have control of when it's activated. It's an entirely different animal
if this feature is present on a computer issued by someone else with a
remote IT staff.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:36:24 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Feb 20, 12:58 am, Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 10:55 pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > More seriously - what is wrong with you? You're happy to trust in any
>> > > "official" organization and stupidly go on your merry way, believing that
>> > > all will be as they say? Do you live in a rose colored world? Have you no
>> > > sense of reality, even when presented with evidence? You sir are the one
>> > > that needs to seek help. Seriously.
>>
>> > No kidding. What keeps the IT guys from spying on your daughter in her
>> > room?
>>
>> > There was a teacher at my high school who got arrested for video taping
>> > girls changing in his pool house. They were on some team that he
>> > coached or something and he'd have them over for pool parties.
>> > Apparently, the boy's teams were never invited.
>>
>> > What parent doesn't see red flags with something like that?
>>
>> Most probably do.
>>
>> Thank GOD most would also seek recourse through the law, and not
>> vigilante justice....
>
>The 'law' is in many cases is cumbersome and handcuffed by nanny-state
>legislation. The local constabulary is often more intimidated by the
>pile of paperwork each case generates than the investigation warrants
>(in their eyes).
>A quick, firm grip around the throat, and gentle smack against a wall
>and a serious stare in the coward's eyes will work wonders.
>Sometimes a softly whispered warning like: "Keep this up, asshole and
>you're going to wake up with a crowd around you." works wonders as
>well.
>
>That's not vigilantism, it called Neighbourhood Watch.
Yeah, Neil. What he said.
--
"Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt."
-- Clarence Darrow
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:27:15 -0800, the infamous "DGDevin"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
>news:190220101753187451%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>
>> We're nowhere near the cesspool that GB is. Handguns are severely
>> restricted, but the current Conservative government has suspended the
>> long gun registry implemented by the Liberals.
>
>I heard about that, but then there is nothing to stop the Liberals from
>moving ahead with the program when they return to power since you have no
>constitutional right that would stop them.
The nice thing about Canada is the wide open space in which to hide
the bodies. ;) (just kidding)
>> The law in Canada certainly recognizes the right to self defence, and
>> there are many cases in recent years that demonstrate that the crown
>> prosecutors understand that right.
>
>On both sides of the border prosecutors sometimes demonstrate it's a right
>they don't really understand and/or agree with. However one difference
>between Canada and the U.S. is that in the U.S. many states have made it
>clear the right to self-defense is not open to question by passing so-called
>"make my day" laws that protect those who use deadly force in self-defense.
>Of course some people take it too far, that recent Oklahoma case where a
>pharmacist shot (and incapacitated) a robber and then went and got another
>gun and shot him five more times as he lay unconscious being a good
>example--self-defense doesn't apply when you shoot someone who is incapable
>of harming you.
Yeah, if you must defend yourself, do it right the first time, with
the first shot or two.
--
"Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt."
-- Clarence Darrow
On 2/19/2010 3:06 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, Morris Dovey
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Mind the wrap...
>>
>>
>> http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/18/school-allegedly-uses-students-laptop-webca
>> m-for-espionage-law/
>
> I saw that earlier today on techdirt.com
>
> I'm not sure if, as a parent, I'd consult a lawyer, or simply ambush
> the SOB responsible and break both his legs with a baseball bat.
Both ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:15:47 -0800, the infamous "DGDevin"
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>
>>"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
>>news:190220101506327105%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>>
>>> I'm not sure if, as a parent, I'd consult a lawyer, or simply ambush
>>> the SOB responsible and break both his legs with a baseball bat.
>>
>>Better hope he doesn't have a CCW permit.
>
> He can't! Schools are gun-free zones, as afforded us by the libtards.
> They can't even carry them in their vehicles to school in most states.
> <sigh>
>
Not true in AZ. CCW holders can leave their guns, out of sight, in a
locked parked car on school grounds.
Wouldn't want to try that ambush tactic on one of the teachers from this
school:
<http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5945430.html>. My mom went to
school in that district many years ago.
> --
> "Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt."
> -- Clarence Darrow
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham