| Author |
Message |
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:07 am
Post subject: Re: "It's a different world now" |
|
|
On 30 Oct 2005 21:41:27 -0800, "The Other Fran"
<fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Tony Cooper wrote:
On 30 Oct 2005 19:49:20 -0800, "The Other Fran"
fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote:
Tony Cooper wrote:
On 30 Oct 2005 16:50:46 -0800, "The Other Fran"
fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote:
Plainly, because I believed what I did write was unremarkable and
clear. Most found it so, but it seems you were the exception.
Where do you get that idea? You have only those that comment to judge
by, and "most" didn't comment.
Well, OK. Most of those who troubled to respond got it. In context, I
thought that implied. Had I said "most people here think [A]" without
any current reliable data to support the claim, your objection would be
fair enough.
As it was a response to Skitt on whether what I wrote on this
particular occasion was "understandable" it's surely implied that I
could only have been talking about what others had posted. Had nobody
(or perhaps only one other person) besides Skitt answered, it would
have been an obvisously silly claim, precisely because it could only
have referred to AUE at large.
What you can deduce about "most" is
that they didn't read the post, or that they weren't interested enough
to comment, or that they were so confused that they didn't know where
to start criticizing, or that they understood it completely and felt
no need to comment. There are probably some other "or that"s.
These aren't deductions. It's a series of untested hypotheses that are
consistent with the known data. How much each of these describes
non-responders is impossible to say.
I hope that you meant this as a joke.
What's ostensibly amusing about it? Are you saying, for example that
the suggestion that some who didn't respond, failed to do so because
they failed to read the post, is *not* "an untested hypothesis
corresponding to the known data"?
|
Well, I guess you - in all seriousness - would say that the points
listed were untested hypotheses corresponding to the known data rather
than things to be merely deduced.
'Course instead of a rock in your shoe you'd have an instance of a
consolidated aggregate of mineraloids composed of igneous and
metamorphic particles.
| Quote: | You might want to argue that it's a plausible inference (but that's
just another way of saying it's an untested hypothesis. Surely it's not
a deduction until one can establish that it is logically compelling?
It's possible for people to make flawed deductions - to deduce
something on inadequate grounds, but I don't believe that's what you
were proposing.
It's curious that you assume that "most" refers to AUE at large, and I
wonder why that is? There's nothing in my claim that implies that.
Then what possible "most" did you have in mind? You received only
five actual replies, and only two of those addressed your point. The
other three took off on their own hobbyhorses. The rest of the posts
in the thread were replies to replies.
Well Charles clipped the post leaving in the section to which Skitt
objected and then said:
I was distressed about this and said so some weeks ago. I got a big
ho-hum from Brits John Dean and crew. The parliament, I notice, is
less unconcerned.
I count this as implying he understood what "this" was.
|
You feel that Charles needs to understand what is written to reply to
it? You've not read his posts before?
| Quote: | Mr Wolff said:
Mr Wolf is quite capable of understanding even muddled writing, but is |
too polite to call it muddled.
| Quote: | Likewise Rick Wotnaz said:
|
Ditto Mr Wotnaz.
| Quote: | Ditto Steve Hayes.
|
Steve took his hobbyhorse for an outing.
| Quote: | Jim Lawton took no position, but didn't object.
|
Not voicing an objection is not the same as feeling a point was
clearly presented.
| Quote: | All of these had responded by the time Skitt made his observation. None
of them felt the need to clarify or even distinguish what they were
saying from what I'd written. That's a tacit acknowledgement that they
followed the post. Only Skitt objected.
I'd say that qualifies as "most" (who responded).
|
Skitt called you on the phrasing. You cannot deduce, or hypothesize,
that not bringing something up is tacit acceptance.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Other Fran
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:07 am
Post subject: Re: "It's a different world now" |
|
|
Tony Cooper wrote:
| Quote: | On 30 Oct 2005 19:49:20 -0800, "The Other Fran"
fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote:
Tony Cooper wrote:
On 30 Oct 2005 16:50:46 -0800, "The Other Fran"
fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote:
Plainly, because I believed what I did write was unremarkable and
clear. Most found it so, but it seems you were the exception.
Where do you get that idea? You have only those that comment to judge
by, and "most" didn't comment.
Well, OK. Most of those who troubled to respond got it. In context, I
thought that implied. Had I said "most people here think [A]" without
any current reliable data to support the claim, your objection would be
fair enough.
As it was a response to Skitt on whether what I wrote on this
particular occasion was "understandable" it's surely implied that I
could only have been talking about what others had posted. Had nobody
(or perhaps only one other person) besides Skitt answered, it would
have been an obvisously silly claim, precisely because it could only
have referred to AUE at large.
What you can deduce about "most" is
that they didn't read the post, or that they weren't interested enough
to comment, or that they were so confused that they didn't know where
to start criticizing, or that they understood it completely and felt
no need to comment. There are probably some other "or that"s.
These aren't deductions. It's a series of untested hypotheses that are
consistent with the known data. How much each of these describes
non-responders is impossible to say.
I hope that you meant this as a joke.
|
What's ostensibly amusing about it? Are you saying, for example that
the suggestion that some who didn't respond, failed to do so because
they failed to read the post, is *not* "an untested hypothesis
corresponding to the known data"?
You might want to argue that it's a plausible inference (but that's
just another way of saying it's an untested hypothesis. Surely it's not
a deduction until one can establish that it is logically compelling?
It's possible for people to make flawed deductions - to deduce
something on inadequate grounds, but I don't believe that's what you
were proposing.
| Quote: | It's curious that you assume that "most" refers to AUE at large, and I
wonder why that is? There's nothing in my claim that implies that.
Then what possible "most" did you have in mind? You received only
five actual replies, and only two of those addressed your point. The
other three took off on their own hobbyhorses. The rest of the posts
in the thread were replies to replies.
|
Well Charles clipped the post leaving in the section to which Skitt
objected and then said:
||||
I was distressed about this and said so some weeks ago. I got a big
ho-hum from Brits John Dean and crew. The parliament, I notice, is
less unconcerned.
||||
I count this as implying he understood what "this" was.
Mr Wolff said:
||||
I and maybe others, try ever so hard to keep off philosophical and
political topics here, unless I can inject a scintilla of usage
interest
into my words. (Often, I doubt that they hold any interest whatsoever,
but whatthehell.)
But this is a serious issue, and yes, I am very concerned. I don't
elect MPs in order to have them behave like headmasters adding to the
school rules. I'm sorry to say that the longer I live, the less
respect
I can muster for the careerists in House of Commons.
||||
He too asserted that "this" was a serious issue and added words which
implied a grasp of the topic at hand. Given his initial concern to keep
the group focused on language issues, it's reasonable to assume he'd
have take the trouble to query the post on these grounds had there been
something worthy of comment.
Likewise Rick Wotnaz said:
||||
You've pointed out some differences: The world in which travelers
within their own country were required to produce "papers" on
demand was one derided by my teachers during my formative years.
The idea that the police could come and take people away without
ever charging them with a crime or allowing them to defend
themselves in a court was regarded as totalitarian and barbaric.
One nation conquering another on a whim was labelled "aggression",
and classed among those activities that provoked war crimes
tribunals.
| Quote: | From a historical perspective, none of these things are novel, so
the world hasn't really changed. What is new is that the nations |
claiming world leadership are consciously adopting tools and
tactics they used to deplore as a matter of policy. They justify
this on the grounds of security, in much the same way corporations
proclaim that their new intrusive policies are being introduced
"for your convenience". The labels are just smokescreens. Terror is
the new red.
||||
This was perfectly on topic and demonstrated a grasp of the point at
hand.
Ditto Steve Hayes.
Jim Lawton took no position, but didn't object. Had he thought it
impenetrable or even difficult, given that this is a.u.e., I find it
hard to believe he'd not have said something along those lines. Later,
in a second post, he developed his idea, on topic.
All of these had responded by the time Skitt made his observation. None
of them felt the need to clarify or even distinguish what they were
saying from what I'd written. That's a tacit acknowledgement that they
followed the post. Only Skitt objected.
I'd say that qualifies as "most" (who responded).
| Quote: | No response is neither an indication of support nor an indication of
disagreement.
That's true but not pertinent here.
Of course it is. It is pertinent to your claim that "most" understood
your post.
|
Only if the "most" refers to AUE rather than those who responded.
TOF
| Quote: | --
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:07 am
Post subject: Re: "It's a different world now" |
|
|
On 30 Oct 2005 19:49:20 -0800, "The Other Fran"
<fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Tony Cooper wrote:
On 30 Oct 2005 16:50:46 -0800, "The Other Fran"
fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote:
Plainly, because I believed what I did write was unremarkable and
clear. Most found it so, but it seems you were the exception.
Where do you get that idea? You have only those that comment to judge
by, and "most" didn't comment.
Well, OK. Most of those who troubled to respond got it. In context, I
thought that implied. Had I said "most people here think [A]" without
any current reliable data to support the claim, your objection would be
fair enough.
As it was a response to Skitt on whether what I wrote on this
particualr occasion was "understandable" it's surely implied that I
could only have been talking about what others had posted. Had nobody
(or perhaps only one other person) besides Skitt answered, it would
have been an obvisously silly claim, precisely because it could only
have referred to AUE at large.
What you can deduce about "most" is
that they didn't read the post, or that they weren't interested enough
to comment, or that they were so confused that they didn't know where
to start criticizing, or that they understood it completely and felt
no need to comment. There are probably some other "or that"s.
These aren't deductions. It's a series of untested hypotheses that are
consistent with the known data. How much each of these describes
non-responders is impossible to say.
|
I hope that you meant this as a joke.
| Quote: | It's curious that you assume that "most" refers to AUE at large, and I
wonder why that is? There's nothing in my claim that implies that.
Then what possible "most" did you have in mind? You received only |
five actual replies, and only two of those addressed your point. The
other three took off on their own hobbyhorses. The rest of the posts
in the thread were replies to replies.
| Quote: | No response is neither an indication of support nor an indication of
disagreement.
That's true but not pertinent here.
|
Of course it is. It is pertinent to your claim that "most" understood
your post.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:07 am
Post subject: Re: "It's a different world now" |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 03:41:06 -0000, Ted Schuerzinger
<fedya@bestweb.spam> wrote:
| Quote: | Somebody claiming to be Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote
in news:etuam15sjogtfvkq7csg792gjq4gce8085@4ax.com:
Where do you get that idea? You have only those that comment to judge
by, and "most" didn't comment.
ObAUE: Wouldn't "those *who* comment" be better? After all, we commenters
aren't inanimate objects. 
|
That's a well-traveled road. It's been judged perfectly acceptable to
use "that" instead of "who", even if some don't accept it graciously.
I try to write "who" instead of "that", but only to avoid conflict. I
always try to keep my head below the parapets here.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:32 pm
Post subject: Re: "It's a different world now" |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 21:24:39 GMT, Tony Cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 13:01:24 -0800, "Skitt" <skitt99@comcast.net
wrote:
Tony Cooper wrote:
"Skitt" wrote:
The Other Fran wrote:
Of late in Australia, much like the US and Britain I imagine,
You don't have to imagine the US and Britain -- they exist.
It's an odd construction, but there's nothing about it to indicate
that either the US or Britain is to be imagined.
There sure is -- the lack of a comma. "I imagine" was meant to be a
parenthetical phrase, but the lacking comma didn't make it such and changed
the meaning.
Again, it's awkward but it doesn't make you think the US and Britain
are imagined.
|
Nope. Skitt is absolutely right when saying the comma, or lack
thereof, changes the meaning of the sentence. Most commas are of
minimal importance, as can be seen when reading Faulkner or Joyce,
among others, but that wasn't the case here.
--
Charles Riggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:32 pm
Post subject: Re: "It's a different world now" |
|
|
On 30 Oct 2005 21:41:27 -0800, "The Other Fran"
<fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | From a historical perspective, none of these things are novel, so
the world hasn't really changed. What is new is that the nations
claiming world leadership are consciously adopting tools and
tactics they used to deplore as a matter of policy. They justify
this on the grounds of security, in much the same way corporations
proclaim that their new intrusive policies are being introduced
"for your convenience". The labels are just smokescreens. Terror is
the new red.
|
You're my kind of woman, Fran -- were from the start.
Although John of Oxford, one of our more intelligent members, seems
unconcerned, agreeing with Tony Blair that these control measures are
necessary if Britain is to maintain its way of life, I find them
scary. Even stricter measures in both the US and Britain are almost
bound to follow if people meekly accept a loss of their freedoms, all
in the name of fighting terrorism.
If we allow such things to continue, not arguing against them as
British MPs are doing as we speak, the terrorists have won at least
one battle. America may be a goner from a freedom standpoint, but we
can't lose Europe, the cradle of Western civilization and still the
world's best hope.
--
Charles Riggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:32 pm
Post subject: Re: "It's a different world now" |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 06:23:14 GMT, Tony Cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On 30 Oct 2005 21:41:27 -0800, "The Other Fran"
fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well Charles clipped the post leaving in the section to which Skitt
objected and then said:
|
Sorry, Fran. I'm usually careful not to make mistakes of that kind.
| Quote: | I was distressed about this and said so some weeks ago. I got a big
ho-hum from Brits John Dean and crew. The parliament, I notice, is
less unconcerned.
I count this as implying he understood what "this" was.
You feel that Charles needs to understand what is written to reply to
it? You've not read his posts before?
Mr Wolff said:
Mr Wolf is quite capable of understanding even muddled writing, but is
too polite to call it muddled.
|
I may not always be polite, but I generally understand your writing
too, TC.
| Quote: | Likewise Rick Wotnaz said:
Ditto Mr Wotnaz.
Ditto Steve Hayes.
Steve took his hobbyhorse for an outing.
Jim Lawton took no position, but didn't object.
Not voicing an objection is not the same as feeling a point was
clearly presented.
All of these had responded by the time Skitt made his observation. None
of them felt the need to clarify or even distinguish what they were
saying from what I'd written. That's a tacit acknowledgement that they
followed the post. Only Skitt objected.
I'd say that qualifies as "most" (who responded).
Skitt called you on the phrasing. You cannot deduce, or hypothesize,
that not bringing something up is tacit acceptance.
|
It may be time to move on, guys. The horse is well dead.
--
Charles Riggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:33 pm
Post subject: Re: "It's a different world now" |
|
|
On 30 Oct 2005 22:47:16 -0800, "The Other Fran"
<fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Tony Cooper wrote:
You feel that Charles needs to understand what is written to reply to
it? You've not read his posts before?
Yes I have, and by and large, when responding he seems capable of being
pertinent.
|
A case of damning (twice, even) with faint praise, something recently
discussed here. :-)
| Quote: | Skitt called you on the phrasing. You cannot deduce, or hypothesize,
that not bringing something up is tacit acceptance.
I *can*, and you can object to me doing so.
|
For sure, but Christmas is nearing. Who plans to serve turkey and
dressing? to bring things around to something more pleasant.
--
Charles Riggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CDB
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:42 pm
Post subject: Re: "It's a different world now" |
|
|
"Charles Riggs" <chriggs@éircom.net> wrote in message
news:44jbm1ps5sndu6hck5hmf8rj61buau672a@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On 30 Oct 2005 21:41:27 -0800, "The Other Fran"
fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote:
From a historical perspective, none of these things are novel, so
the world hasn't really changed. What is new is that the nations
claiming world leadership are consciously adopting tools and
tactics they used to deplore as a matter of policy. They justify
this on the grounds of security, in much the same way corporations
proclaim that their new intrusive policies are being introduced
"for your convenience". The labels are just smokescreens. Terror is
the new red.
You're my kind of woman, Fran -- were from the start.
|
[...]
Actually, I believe that was Mr. Wotnaz being your kind of man. Just
another example of snipping's dark side (but you have to admit the
style is not typical of TOF). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:48 am
Post subject: Re: "It's a different world now" |
|
|
The Other Fran wrote:
| Quote: | Skitt wrote:
The Other Fran wrote:
I'm still unclear how this was confusing.
Well, try to read that long sentence of yours -- the one starting
with "A system of laws ...".
A system of laws involving preventive detention for up
to two weeks, along with "control orders" (home detention with ankle
bracelets and restrictions on communication with others is in the
process of development as I write in order, it is argued, to deal with
the threat of "terror".
Yes, the parentheses should have closed following "others". There
should have been a comma following "write". Still, one or two in here
expressed the view that I used too many commas.
Perhaps this would have been better:
A system of laws involving preventive detention for up to two weeks,
along with "control orders" is in the process of development as I
write. It is argued that this is needed to deal with the threat of
"terror". (Control orders involve home detention with ankle bracelets
and restrictions on communication with others).
|
Yup, better. The first sentence could be further improved by adding a comma
before the
"is" (to close the parenthetical phrase you started with "along").
<snip>
| Quote: | You do not write in a a readily understandable style. Remember,
this has pointed out to you before, and not by me.
|
<snip>
| Quote: | Hmm. There are a few of exemplars of "Skitt's Law" above. It's nice to
know it's non-discriminatory.
|
Yup. I am by no means immune to SL, or to changing horses in mid stream.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:03 am
Post subject: Re: "It's a different world now" |
|
|
The Other Fran wrote:
| Quote: | Tony Cooper wrote:
"The Other Fran" wrote:
These aren't deductions. It's a series of untested hypotheses that
are consistent with the known data. How much each of these describes
non-responders is impossible to say.
I hope that you meant this as a joke.
What's ostensibly amusing about it? Are you saying, for example that
the suggestion that some who didn't respond, failed to do so because
they failed to read the post, is *not* "an untested hypothesis
corresponding to the known data"?
|
Again, it took me about three readings to get that second sentence straight.
I think you meant:
Are you saying, for example, that the suggestion that "some who didn't
respond failed to do so because they failed to read the post" is
*not* "an untested hypothesis corresponding to the known data"?
| Quote: | You might want to argue that it's a plausible inference (but that's
just another way of saying it's an untested hypothesis. Surely it's
not a deduction until one can establish that it is logically
compelling?
|
There's that "missing parenthesis" thing again.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Other Fran
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:03 am
Post subject: Re: "It's a different world now" |
|
|
Charles Riggs wrote:
| Quote: | On 30 Oct 2005 21:41:27 -0800, "The Other Fran"
fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote:
From a historical perspective, none of these things are novel, so
the world hasn't really changed. What is new is that the nations
claiming world leadership are consciously adopting tools and
tactics they used to deplore as a matter of policy. They justify
this on the grounds of security, in much the same way corporations
proclaim that their new intrusive policies are being introduced
"for your convenience". The labels are just smokescreens. Terror is
the new red.
You're my kind of woman, Fran -- were from the start.
|
I never decline bouquets, even in cases of mistaken identity. Mr Wotnaz
does put the matter well here. As a matter of interest, it was not that
long ago that the Bush camp was/were(?) mouthing platitudes about
rejecting the old policy of backing whoever was on their side without
worrying about their democratic credentials. It's now clear that that
was mere eyewash.
| Quote: |
Although John of Oxford, one of our more intelligent members, seems
unconcerned, agreeing with Tony Blair that these control measures are
necessary if Britain is to maintain its way of life, I find them
scary. Even stricter measures in both the US and Britain are almost
bound to follow if people meekly accept a loss of their freedoms, all
in the name of fighting terrorism.
|
The Prevention of Terrorism Act has been in force over there since
about 1972 IIRC.
Here in Australia, one of the new developments is the revamp to the
definition of "sedition" that has been tucked in at the back of the
package. Sedition (2005-style) will use the idea act of bringing the
sovereign into ridicule so as to incite criminal acts or attacks on the
ADF (Australian Defence Forces) but now includes the phrase "by any
means". Accordingly, there will now be an untrammelled opportunity to
interpret speech and performance seen as dissenting as connected with
physical resistance to the ADF here or abroad. Anyone dissenting from
the consensus in matters of foreign policy, no matter how qualified the
dissent, could be caught up in this.
TOF
| Quote: | If we allow such things to continue, not arguing against them as
British MPs are doing as we speak, the terrorists have won at least
one battle. America may be a goner from a freedom standpoint, but we
can't lose Europe, the cradle of Western civilization and still the
world's best hope.
--
Charles Riggs |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Bonde ('by a commodi
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:58 am
Post subject: Re: "It's a different world now" |
|
|
The Other Fran wrote:
| Quote: |
Of late in Australia, much like the US and Britain I imagine, Australia
is moving to clamp down on the profligate application of frivolous
legal principles like habeus corpus and the right to avoid punishment
without trial. A system of laws involving preventive detention for up
to two weeks, along with "control orders" (home detention with ankle
bracelets and restrictions on communication with others is in the
process of development as I write in order, it is argued, to deal with
the threat of "terror".
I think you should put a comma after "write" and before "in". |
| Quote: | Often when these matters are discussed, one hears the phrase "it's a
different world now" or something equivalent. The thrust seems to be
that the changed circumstances from other condition of world affairs is
what mandates the apparently outlandish restrictions being mooted.
This, it seems to me, is a rather impressive claim, if it's true, and
yet I'm yet to hear anyone say precisely what they mean by this, apart
from the vague wave of the hand in the direction of suicide bombers and
the internet. How precisely, is the world different these days?
I think that 9/11 shocked some of us into the realization that it could |
happen here, and it could happen on a scale that was not really limited
in any way we could calculate. Previously the attacks from terrorist
groups were often limited to discourage the "different world" response
you are talking about. Because in a "different world", it is harder to
operate as a terrorist. Also, you are unlikely to ever get whatever it
was changed that you wanted changed. Imagine if the Real IRA had nuked
London. Would anyone be talking about a rational negotiation?
Because of what is now perceived as an unlimited threat from undeterable
and irrational "hypernihilists", people who want to destroy themselves
and every last one of the rest of us right along with them, the response
from the US, UK and AU governments has been to try to prepare for what
they surely believe is the catastrophic WMD attack. That seems to
include more restrictions on what sort of behaviour is allowed within
the sphere of influence of each country. It would be interesting to
compare what we three end up with to what France has had for many years
now.
--
Had Tolstoy confined himself to war or peace, he could have been
finished in seven hundred and fifty pages.
--
In a day and age when some people would think nothing of throwing stones
at Rosa Parks, she dared to rock the bus. Bully for her! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Bonde ('by a commodi
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:09 am
Post subject: Re: "It's a different world now" |
|
|
Charles Riggs wrote:
| Quote: |
On 30 Oct 2005 01:01:52 -0700, "The Other Fran"
fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote:
Of late in Australia, much like the US and Britain I imagine, Australia
is moving to clamp down on the profligate application of frivolous
legal principles like habeus corpus and the right to avoid punishment
without trial. A system of laws involving preventive detention for up
to two weeks, along with "control orders" (home detention with ankle
bracelets and restrictions on communication with others is in the
process of development as I write in order, it is argued, to deal with
the threat of "terror".
I was distressed about this and said so some weeks ago. I got a big
ho-hum from Brits John Dean and crew. The parliament, I notice, is
less unconcerned.
One of the problems with allowing terrorist recruiting within our |
borders is that it makes it far easier for the enemy to find people who
can blend into our society unnoticed long enough to blow up tube trains
and double-decker buses. You'll notice that each time there is a
successful terror attack, the government looks for new ways to clamp
down. It seems logical that anyone who wants ultimately to retain one of
the freest societies in the world would want to find ways to make the
next terrorist attacks easier to detect and less likely to occur.
--
Had Tolstoy confined himself to war or peace, he could have been
finished in seven hundred and fifty pages.
--
In a day and age when some people would think nothing of throwing stones
at Rosa Parks, she dared to rock the bus. Bully for her! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:39 am
Post subject: Re: "It's a different world now" |
|
|
In message <tinam15c1dj34m8q0pi98utfp5c66elucq@4ax.com>, Ross Howard
<gguiri@yahoo.com> writes
| Quote: | On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 19:20:36 +0000, Paul Wolff
bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> wrought:
In message <v2a9m1h0irogekhmq6s1ulj85s51dc7549@4ax.com>, Charles Riggs
chriggs@?.net.invalid> writes
On 30 Oct 2005 01:01:52 -0700, "The Other Fran"
fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote:
Of late in Australia, much like the US and Britain I imagine, Australia
is moving to clamp down on the profligate application of frivolous
legal principles like habeus corpus and the right to avoid punishment
without trial. A system of laws involving preventive detention for up
to two weeks, along with "control orders" (home detention with ankle
bracelets and restrictions on communication with others is in the
process of development as I write in order, it is argued, to deal with
the threat of "terror".
I was distressed about this and said so some weeks ago. I got a big
ho-hum from Brits John Dean and crew. The parliament, I notice, is
less unconcerned.
I, and maybe others, try ever so hard to keep off philosophical and
political topics here, unless I can inject a scintilla of usage interest
into my words. (Often, I doubt that they hold any interest whatsoever,
but whatthehell.)
But this is a serious issue, and yes, I am very concerned. I don't
elect MPs in order to have them behave like headmasters adding to the
school rules. I'm sorry to say that the longer I live, the less respect
I can muster for the careerists in House of Commons.
Fear not; you're expecte to remuster your respect as they move
themselves up to the House of Lords:
The "leader" of the Green Party has nominated himself for a
peerage, a leaked list obtained by The Independent on Sunday
reveals. This has provoked calls for an urgent review of the
honours system.
Opposition politicians said the honours system had descended
into farce as the list also revealed Dr Ian Paisley, leader of
the DUP, has nominated his wife, Eileen, for a peerage.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/ulster/article323354.ece
NuLab farce aside, the House of Lords does still deserve respect. |
Elevation is often a Damascene moment for the party hacks, discovering
their integrity.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in