You stated that you'd rather lose your freedom of speech, right to be secure in your possessions...
Now, you're not only insulting me, you're putting words into my mouth. I never said or implied anything like what you're now claiming I did.
So, which is it so my personal attacks are more accurate?
Neither of them. They are, however, proof that you're more interested in insulting me than in discussing the issue, and that shows me quite a bit about you.
You misunderstand: WordPerfect stored its files in a proprietary markup language. (It wasn't exactly hard to get the specifications; all you had to do was ask.) There was a special key combination (Alt-F3, if memory serves) that toggled Reveal Codes mode. In that mode, the screen was split into to halves. In the upper, you had the regular display. In the lower, you could see all the markup and edit it. That way, if you'd accidentally entered (let's say) a new margin by accident, you could see exactly were it was and remove it. I've known people who learned the program by having Reveal Codes on at all times so that they could see the effects of what they were doing and learn how the program worked.
For a religion that survived the Romans and has become the dominant religious force in the western world by eschewing government control over private free expression...
I presume that you've never studied history. Among other things, I take it that you've never heard of the Spanish Inquisition. Christianity has used governmental control to tell people how to think whenever it's had the power to do so, at least, until recently.
The reason that I press this issue is that piracy is still very much a real issue in the world. In the US people are very shielded from it because nobody fucks with the Coast Guard...
That sounds real good, and I'd like to agree with you, but it just isn't so. In 2006, some pirates off Somalia fired on the US Navy. As a former Navy man, I'm proud to say that the sailors returned fire in the finest tradition of their Service, sinking one of the pirate vessels and capturing the rest. To bring an old slogan up-to-date, "Billions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!"
It seems only appropriate to seize those assets and auction them off to pay part of his fines. After all, I doubt he'll be allowed to use any of them in the slammer.
I see it as a problem because when these small-minded little petty tyrants sue over something like this, they end up wasting more money on the suit that would have been spent on the display. And, they tend to make more people unhappy because the display's canceled than were bothered by it in the first place. We both agree that things like Nativity Scenes are harmless; and if so, who really cares if they're there if it makes enough people feel good? To me, at least, things like this sound like the plaintiffs are saying, "It's not part of my religion, therefore you can't do it even though it's part of yours." And, to be fair, the ACLU doesn't always get involved in things like this. Sometimes, but not always.
The big problem is that it's easy to go too far in separating the two. Every year, people sue to prevent local governments from allowing Nativity Scenes on public property simply because that's not part of their religion. It's not part of mine, either, but I don't care if they have them or not, as long as I'm not required to look at them.
That's a damned good question. Thank you for asking. I don't know, but I suspect that any attempt to tax people and give it over to a specific denomination would be seen as violating the established religion clause, but of course, IANAL.
Fine. Use Windows if you're happy with it and know how to use it. Nobody's saying you shouldn't. One of the things I like about Linux and why I use it (dual boot, with Windows) is because it gives me a choice; I can either do things the Windows way, or the Linux way whichever makes me happy at the time. If you don't mind only having one way to do things, do whatever floats your boat, and I'll do whatever floats mine.
Your ignorance is offensive to me, and is an embarrassment to this country and its people.
I often feel the same way about people on your side of the discussion, but I never say so because I think to highly of myself to descend to insult. By doing so, you prove nothing except your own lack of good manners.
I've stated elsewhere in this thread that I have no cites. However, I do know that they recently supported it in Texas, and all the news articles mentioned how unusual that is. That should count for something, I'd think.
I don't support them for many reasons, including the fact that almost every time I read about the ACLU getting involved in a case I think they're in the wrong. Their refusal to support the Second Amendment is just the cherry on top.
Your interpretation doesn't say "who" should get to keep and bear arms.
That's right; it doesn't. The clause starts off with, "...the right of the people..." and that's who I think it refers to: the people. All the people. Not just the Militia, anybody and everybody who wants to. (Exception made here for convicted felons, people with certain mental illnesses, minors and others who probably shouldn't be allowed out without a keeper.) I believe that if the Founders had intended to limit that right to members of the militia, they would have written it that way. Not only that, they had ample time to explain their intentions afterwards and never said anything about such a limit.
No need to apologize, I wasn't offended. But yes, I do see what you mean, especially in the case of Evolution. It's a little harder with Gay Marriage. After all, a religion can't exactly be expected to approve of that if it believes that being actively gay is an unforgivable sin. In such cases, I'd hope, they keep their disapproval to themselves, except where co-religionists are involved.
Agnostics certainly don't. Personally, I know that my religion is right for me, but I don't insist that it's right for everybody else. In fact, my religion doesn't claim it's right for everybody. Make of that what you will.
They clearly support the 2nd, so that ends that discussion.
I don't have cites handy, but I've seen a number of statements by State ACLU branches saying that they would not, under any circumstances become involved in a Second Amendment case. Clearly, they don't defend all the civil rights.
At the time, the intend was to prevent Congress from setting up an Established Church of the United States. It forbid the states from having Established Churches, and several did for some time.
I didn't quote that part because most of the gun control debate seems (to me, at least) to center around the words I quoted. My personal feeling is that the opening phrase of the amendment is there to explain why it's so important to preserver the right to keep and bear arms.
Not so. I think that most of the confusion is caused by people trying to make it say what they want it to say. Personally, I think it says that the people have the right to keep arms and that they have the right to bear arms. Nothing more, nothing less. I also think that back then, the Founders saw two possibilities: either anybody had the right to have a firearm and use it, or nobody did except for the Army. I find it hard to believe that it ever occurred to them that a time would come when it would be appropriate that some of the populace would have that right and others would not. I also think that if they'd considered that possibility, they'd have written the Second Amendment differently, to show what they thought should happen in such a case. Alas, they didn't, and now we have to work out what's right. I, at least, don't think that all gun control laws should be repealed, or that convicted felons should be allowed to own them. I also think, however, that in adjusting our policy on guns to reflect modern conditions,, we should make as little change as possible, and then reluctantly. However, if you feel differently, I'll not argue with you because I see no way either of us could do anything except waste time and get angry with each other for no good reason.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't used WordPervect in years and wasn't sure if it still maintained Reveal Codes. Glad to hear that it does.
Now, you're not only insulting me, you're putting words into my mouth. I never said or implied anything like what you're now claiming I did.
So, which is it so my personal attacks are more accurate?
Neither of them. They are, however, proof that you're more interested in insulting me than in discussing the issue, and that shows me quite a bit about you.
You misunderstand: WordPerfect stored its files in a proprietary markup language. (It wasn't exactly hard to get the specifications; all you had to do was ask.) There was a special key combination (Alt-F3, if memory serves) that toggled Reveal Codes mode. In that mode, the screen was split into to halves. In the upper, you had the regular display. In the lower, you could see all the markup and edit it. That way, if you'd accidentally entered (let's say) a new margin by accident, you could see exactly were it was and remove it. I've known people who learned the program by having Reveal Codes on at all times so that they could see the effects of what they were doing and learn how the program worked.
There's a fungus amongus!
I presume that you've never studied history. Among other things, I take it that you've never heard of the Spanish Inquisition. Christianity has used governmental control to tell people how to think whenever it's had the power to do so, at least, until recently.
Well, yes but that goes without saying. After all, you are a slashdotter, aren't you?
That sounds real good, and I'd like to agree with you, but it just isn't so. In 2006, some pirates off Somalia fired on the US Navy. As a former Navy man, I'm proud to say that the sailors returned fire in the finest tradition of their Service, sinking one of the pirate vessels and capturing the rest. To bring an old slogan up-to-date, "Billions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!"
It seems only appropriate to seize those assets and auction them off to pay part of his fines. After all, I doubt he'll be allowed to use any of them in the slammer.
I see it as a problem because when these small-minded little petty tyrants sue over something like this, they end up wasting more money on the suit that would have been spent on the display. And, they tend to make more people unhappy because the display's canceled than were bothered by it in the first place. We both agree that things like Nativity Scenes are harmless; and if so, who really cares if they're there if it makes enough people feel good? To me, at least, things like this sound like the plaintiffs are saying, "It's not part of my religion, therefore you can't do it even though it's part of yours." And, to be fair, the ACLU doesn't always get involved in things like this. Sometimes, but not always.
How about things like yogurt, pudding or applesauce?
The big problem is that it's easy to go too far in separating the two. Every year, people sue to prevent local governments from allowing Nativity Scenes on public property simply because that's not part of their religion. It's not part of mine, either, but I don't care if they have them or not, as long as I'm not required to look at them.
That's a damned good question. Thank you for asking. I don't know, but I suspect that any attempt to tax people and give it over to a specific denomination would be seen as violating the established religion clause, but of course, IANAL.
Fine. Use Windows if you're happy with it and know how to use it. Nobody's saying you shouldn't. One of the things I like about Linux and why I use it (dual boot, with Windows) is because it gives me a choice; I can either do things the Windows way, or the Linux way whichever makes me happy at the time. If you don't mind only having one way to do things, do whatever floats your boat, and I'll do whatever floats mine.
I often feel the same way about people on your side of the discussion, but I never say so because I think to highly of myself to descend to insult. By doing so, you prove nothing except your own lack of good manners.
I've stated elsewhere in this thread that I have no cites. However, I do know that they recently supported it in Texas, and all the news articles mentioned how unusual that is. That should count for something, I'd think.
I don't support them for many reasons, including the fact that almost every time I read about the ACLU getting involved in a case I think they're in the wrong. Their refusal to support the Second Amendment is just the cherry on top.
I never said that they claimed there was anything wrong with it, just that in general they won't support it.
That's right; it doesn't. The clause starts off with, "...the right of the people..." and that's who I think it refers to: the people. All the people. Not just the Militia, anybody and everybody who wants to. (Exception made here for convicted felons, people with certain mental illnesses, minors and others who probably shouldn't be allowed out without a keeper.) I believe that if the Founders had intended to limit that right to members of the militia, they would have written it that way. Not only that, they had ample time to explain their intentions afterwards and never said anything about such a limit.
No need to apologize, I wasn't offended. But yes, I do see what you mean, especially in the case of Evolution. It's a little harder with Gay Marriage. After all, a religion can't exactly be expected to approve of that if it believes that being actively gay is an unforgivable sin. In such cases, I'd hope, they keep their disapproval to themselves, except where co-religionists are involved.
Agnostics certainly don't. Personally, I know that my religion is right for me, but I don't insist that it's right for everybody else. In fact, my religion doesn't claim it's right for everybody. Make of that what you will.
Thank you. Gun control is not (believe it or not) one of my hobby-horses, and I was not aware of that. Live and learn.
I don't have cites handy, but I've seen a number of statements by State ACLU branches saying that they would not, under any circumstances become involved in a Second Amendment case. Clearly, they don't defend all the civil rights.
At the time, the intend was to prevent Congress from setting up an Established Church of the United States. It forbid the states from having Established Churches, and several did for some time.
I didn't quote that part because most of the gun control debate seems (to me, at least) to center around the words I quoted. My personal feeling is that the opening phrase of the amendment is there to explain why it's so important to preserver the right to keep and bear arms.
Not so. I think that most of the confusion is caused by people trying to make it say what they want it to say. Personally, I think it says that the people have the right to keep arms and that they have the right to bear arms. Nothing more, nothing less. I also think that back then, the Founders saw two possibilities: either anybody had the right to have a firearm and use it, or nobody did except for the Army. I find it hard to believe that it ever occurred to them that a time would come when it would be appropriate that some of the populace would have that right and others would not. I also think that if they'd considered that possibility, they'd have written the Second Amendment differently, to show what they thought should happen in such a case. Alas, they didn't, and now we have to work out what's right. I, at least, don't think that all gun control laws should be repealed, or that convicted felons should be allowed to own them. I also think, however, that in adjusting our policy on guns to reflect modern conditions,, we should make as little change as possible, and then reluctantly. However, if you feel differently, I'll not argue with you because I see no way either of us could do anything except waste time and get angry with each other for no good reason.