--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 198 ASK A COP Ref: F1S00039 Date: 01/19/98 From: RICH WILLBANKS Time: 10:56pm \/To: TONY CAMPBELL (Read 1 times) Subj: Censorship TC> Shall we take it to the extreme? No explosive knowledge TC> at all? If so, are you willing to give up your car? TC> Actually, every engine ever known? That is another TC> example of constructive use of knowledge of detonation TC> properties. Correct. TC> Another example. Nitroglycerine. Want to ban the TC> knowledge of how to make it? Don't tell all those heart TC> problem folks. Correct to a point. TC> Another example. Radioactives, just how many medical uses TC> are there, and how many lives have been saved or improved? Wrong. None of the radioisotopes are used in the construction of a nuclear weapon. I'm not sure which are currently in use but I don't think any of them are even the result of a nuclear reaction. Also plutonium is poisonous. It'd kill you even if you survived the effects of the radiation. Remember: Freedom isn't Free! --- timEd-B11 * Origin: My BBS * Dover, TN * (1:379/301.1) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 198 ASK A COP Ref: F1S00040 Date: 01/22/98 From: CHARLES HUNTER Time: 08:12am \/To: ALAN RACKMILL (Read 1 times) Subj: Censorship AR>And why are you responding to this message by him in the first AR>place? >It was not addressed to you, nor is it about you. >You have been saying many times in the past that you were going to ignore >hi >posts except to "defend yourself".He did not attack you in this post. CH> Starting your crap again; eh, Alan? AR>Nope. Just responding to the crap that you continue to spout. Alan; you are a real piece of work. I mean you really think you are the king of this conference; don't you? YOU think YOU are going to dictate who will be able to post and when and how. Would you kindly just leave me alone? MODERATOR PLEASE TAKE NOTE. CHARLES HUNTER * 1st 2.00 #9124 * You've got to have an ace in the hole. --- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0671 * Origin: AirPower Information Services 610-259-2193 (1:273/408) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 198 ASK A COP Ref: F1S00041 Date: 01/22/98 From: CHARLES HUNTER Time: 08:12am \/To: RD THOMPSON (Read 1 times) Subj: Censorship RT>Since the materials are much more tightly controlled than the >instructions which are avialable in any large public library, I would >assume that speculation is correct. Could be, Rd. You make a valid point; but nonetheless it's still speculation. CHARLES HUNTER * 1st 2.00 #9124 * "1stReader is so good it's taxable!" --- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0671 * Origin: AirPower Information Services 610-259-2193 (1:273/408) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 198 ASK A COP Ref: F1S00042 Date: 01/22/98 From: RD THOMPSON Time: 07:45pm \/To: CHRISTOPHER COYNE (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: Censorship Hi Christopher, as you were just saying about Re: Censorship.... CC> RT> TJ> Yeah, i just dont see how it was their fault at all. I mean, if CC> RT> TJ> the drive thru person had thrown the cup of boiling coffee or CC> RT> TJ> spilled it all over that woman.. then yes. But instead.. she had CC> RT> TJ> driven like a mile away, and spilled it on herself. I think she CC> RT> TJ> probably wanted a whole lot more. 200,000 is enough money to cover CC> RT> TJ> about 200 trips to the hospital. Seeing as how 1 nights stay, plus CC> RT> TJ> the ambulance ride goes about 960 bucks. CC> CC> RT> You obviously don't know how badly she was burned. CC> CC> All I hear is how badly she got burned by your side to CC> justify the descision. I feel sorry for the lady, but it al CC> comes down to one issue: Who's at fault, her or McDs. I haven't taken any side in how badly she was burned. That is a matter of record. I have also said that I think that Mickey Dees should have just settled and that she should not have won the case. Mickey Dees attitude is what gave her the win. What more do you want? CC> I broke my arm when I was seven playing follow the leader. I was CC> swinging on the tree and misjudged the swing. Should I have sued CC> the apartment complex for putting the tree there or the people CC> playing with me who carried me home because I was in a lot of pain? CC> That's assuming by your statement that people are not capable of CC> taking responsibility for their own actions. Show me where I made that statement. Take all the screens that you need. CC> If the answer is anything other than I should've taken CC> responsibility and my family should've payed, then we have CC> created a monster out of the civil legal system indeed. Agreed. RD sandman@azstarnet.com - A newspaper ISP - Arizona Daily Star sandman@brassroots.org - A no compromise gun rights organization. http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman ___ X KWQ/2 1.2i X If it ain't broke yet, let ME have a shot at it. --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: DPSystem:4285 OS2-WARPED 520-290-8418 USR V.e+ (1:300/105) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 198 ASK A COP Ref: F1S00043 Date: 01/22/98 From: RD THOMPSON Time: 07:46pm \/To: ALAN RACKMILL (Read 1 times) Subj: Censorship Hi Alan, as you were just saying about Censorship.... AR> AR> RT> Did you realize that she recieved severe burns in her AR> AR> RT> genital area (the part that you can't mention)? Bottom line AR> AR> RT> is that the coffee in that particular Mickey Dees *was* AR> AR> RT> overheated. AR> AR> AR> AR> It was not overheated. AR> AR> RT> Compared to the rest of the industry, yes, it was. It was AR> RT> served at over 180 degrees. Boiling is only 212. AR> AR> it was heated to a higher temperature than most other AR> places, but it was not "overheated". ;-) We disagree, but since we were not on the jury it didn't make any difference. :^) AR> AR> The coffee in McDonald's was hotter than any other place, AR> AR> BUT it was the temperature that the Coffee Institute of AR> AR> America recommended for coffee to be served at to produce AR> AR> its fullest flavor. AR> AR> This temperature is approximately 30 degrees hotter than AR> AR> other places, if I remember my research correctly. AR> AR> RT> Agreed. AR> AR> AR> In fact, McD was noted for the fact that it served its AR> AR> coffee at a very hot temperature. AR> AR> RT> Also agreed. AR> AR> AR> RT> Was she careless driving off with it between AR> AR> RT> her legs? Yes. AR> AR> AR> AR> She was the passanger in the car. AR> AR> And she put the cup of coffee between her legs in order to AR> AR> "anchor it" while she took the top off. AR> AR> As she was attempting to remove the top, the cup collapsed AR> AR> and spilled the hot coffee on her. AR> AR> RT> Be that as it may, she was still holding that paper cup of AR> RT> coffee between her legs in a vehicle that was starting to AR> RT> move.. AR> AR> The movement of the vehicle was not what caused the coffee to AR> spill. AR> AR> The cup "collapsed" when she put too much pressure on the AR> top as she was trying to get the lid off. Yep. AR> I have spilled coffee and other liquids on me several times AR> when I slipped while removing the lid from a cup of liquid. AR> It is easy to do. Been there....done that. AR> AR> RT> Was Mickey Dees negligent in the AR> AR> RT> temperature of the coffee? Yes. AR> AR> AR> AR> No they were not. AR> AR> RT> See my comment above. AR> AR> AR> The little old lady was the one who was negligent. AR> AR> Actually, she was stupid, but that is another problem altogether. AR> RT> AR> RT> Yes, she was and the jury should not have made the award. AR> RT> We both know that the jury award was not as much for her as AR> RT> it was against Mickey Dees. AR> AR> Right. AR> And when the jury was asked how they came up with the figure of AR> $2,000,000.00, they said that it represented two days worth AR> of coffee receipts for McDonald's, according to the figures AR> it was given about the sales of coffee. AR> AR> Hmmmmm, that would amount to about roughly one million cups AR> of coffee sold daily. AR> I forget how many people get burned while drinking AR> McDonald's coffee, but I wonder why there aren't more suits? We probably don't hear about the folks who complained that their coffee was too cold. RD sandman@azstarnet.com - A newspaper ISP - Arizona Daily Star sandman@brassroots.org - A no compromise gun rights organization. http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman ___ X KWQ/2 1.2i X In order to save face, keep the bottom half shut. --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: DPSystem:4285 OS2-WARPED 520-290-8418 USR V.e+ (1:300/105) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 198 ASK A COP Ref: F1S00044 Date: 01/22/98 From: RD THOMPSON Time: 08:07pm \/To: CHRISTOPHER COYNE (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: Censorship rHi Christopher, as you were just saying about Re: Censorship.... CC> RT> CC> Just so I know we're on the same wavelength, would you CC> RT> CC> define being a member of a terrorist group to me? CC> CC> RT> I differ greatly in my definition from Janet Napolitano. I believe CC> RT> that *known* terrorists are identified members of a group that believes CC> RT> that violence or the threat of that violence is the correct mode for CC> RT> settling differences or accomplishing goals. CC> CC> Then the discussion has just changed. No it hasn't. CC> That includes many that I CC> know including many military personel and LACs, me in some cases CC> being one of them. For example, I could be considered in the group CC> thet believes that if you molest their family member that you CC> should be killed. Not what we were talking about. CC> Many military generals right now believes we CC> should bomb Iraq because of their chemical weapons and their threat CC> to shoot down our spy planes. I still have connections in the CC> criminal world that won't mess with you unless you mess with them, CC> but you do something to them like steal their money or threaten CC> them they'll kill you. As will I under the right conditions. That was not the point I said above. CC> Many police are in the group that if you CC> kill one of their comrades you should die. Many examples, many CC> people, all violent. You may want to make your definition a little CC> narrower, cause I have a feeling it's not very well thought out. When you learn to read I will. :^) No where did I say that using violence under your conditions defines a terrrorist. I stated that they "...believe[s] that violence or the threat of that violence is the correct mode for settling differences or accomplishing goals." See the word "correct"? That means that it is the *only* or the *first* method that they consider. I believe that you are trying to read something into what I wrote that just isn't there. Now I hope that your next response is better read and more thought out. :^) CC> I CC> know you probably wouldn't consider many of these people CC> terrorists, or so I hope. I don't, but you should have figured that out by now. :^) RD sandman@azstarnet.com - A newspaper ISP - Arizona Daily Star sandman@brassroots.org - A no compromise gun rights organization. http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman ___ X KWQ/2 1.2i X Love is grand. Divorce? ....About twenty grand. --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: DPSystem:4285 OS2-WARPED 520-290-8418 USR V.e+ (1:300/105) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 198 ASK A COP Ref: F1S00045 Date: 01/21/98 From: RON TAYLOR Time: 08:46am \/To: TOM RIGHTMER (Read 1 times) Subj: Censorship TR> TC> I begin to think that your scope is a bit too narrow... Let me try > TC> to widen it some. Think of construction, mining, military, > TC> police, medical (yes, medical), transportation, etc. Think if we had > TC> no knowledge of explosives at all. Shall we take it to the extreme? TR>Knowledge of explosives in these areas is already available with no problems >I have no problem with "a need to know basis". What I would have a problem >with is information being made available to the general public "without a >need to know." This is what we were really talking about. Tom, what you are advocating is extremely close to what we all fear... a police state. Who is to decide who needs to know what? The government! When you put that kind of POWER into the hands of someone, it WILL corrupt them. You will find that the "need" gets narrower and narrower because as knowledge gets more scarce, the ones who _know_ get more powerful and they will find reasons to limit more and more knowledge. Did you ever hear the phrase, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you"? It's usually said tongue in cheek and for a very good reason. The bottom line is that we should censure _behaviour_ not censor information. --- * QMPro 1.02 42-7029 * Politicians & diapers...Change often...Same reason --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: CrimeBytes:Take A MegaByte Out Of Crime! (305)592-9831 1:135/5.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 198 ASK A COP Ref: F1S00046 Date: 01/21/98 From: RON TAYLOR Time: 09:17am \/To: TOM RIGHTMER (Read 1 times) Subj: Kiddie Porn TR>Let's get away from juveniles and pornography and talk about a very simple >example involving freedom of the press. XYZ newspaper does not have the righ >to print lies about you which will defame your character. If XYZ is >restricted in an example this simple, surely there would be many more >restrictions in the publishing of child pornography. There is no >Constitutional Right to illegally victimize another, most especially so when >you are talking about children. Just thoughts. Tom, the key factor is `damage' to one or more parties. Your XYZ paper would be guilty of damaging the name of the individual that they lied about. The same story, if true, would have the same effect on the person's public image, but it is legal because the person's actions were the cause of the damage...his own fault, not that of the newspaper. No constitutional "freedom" extends to the point that it is legal to damage another person. Therein lies the answer to the entire discussion of censorship. Does the _information_ itself cause damage to someone? As to child pornography... it is the consensus that a child does not have the maturity to make the decision and that he/she will most likely be emotionally and/or physically damaged by the acts that are necessary to create the pornographic materials. Consequently, the products of child pornography are illegal. It is not a matter of censorship. As to the old adage, "Its illegal to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater"... I'm not sure that that is necessarily true. I'm willing to bet that if someone did yell, "FIRE" in the theater and NO ONE MOVED, there would be no consequence to the person. If however, the crowd stampeded and someone got hurt.. _damaged_... then the person would be held responsible. It is not a matter of censorship. Censorship only applies when you limit knowledge or restrict the freedom of expression to eliminate the _potential_ of damage. Then you tread on the freedom of the one that would use the _same_ knowledge for the benefit of his fellow man. Think about the total effect before you agree that THAT is a good idea. --- * QMPro 1.02 42-7029 * Who elected her??????? --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: CrimeBytes:Take A MegaByte Out Of Crime! (305)592-9831 1:135/5.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 198 ASK A COP Ref: F1S00047 Date: 01/22/98 From: RUTH HANSCHKA Time: 01:00am \/To: TODD JASPERS (Read 1 times) Subj: demonology -> It wouldn't if you lived in it. I've read up on it, and come away -> with the conclusion that I'd rather live in -> Watts....:-( .. . . Well, obviously i would rather go -> in as a noble, instead of a serf or something. But i TJ> think it would be rather neat. Back then, I'd have been dead by now...or a nun. Women are far better off these days in a lot of ways. But we're WAYYYY off topic. --- Maximus 2.02 * Origin: Eastern Light BBS 860/290-8578 10p-8a Only (1:142/578) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 198 ASK A COP Ref: F1S00048 Date: 01/22/98 From: RUTH HANSCHKA Time: 01:25am \/To: RICH WILLBANKS (Read 1 times) Subj: demonology RW> You bet! I think the average life span was around 40 RW> y.o. You could die from nothing more then a scratch RW> that got infected. Yep - and women at certain times didn't live THAT long - in the mid 1300s the average livespan for a female was under 30 years. Cut down a lot on the time she had to get into trouble with the law, but...:) RW> And I don't think you even want to get into the medical RW> and/or dental field. What dental field? They pulled teeth,and that was about it. There was a bit of medical knowledge, but it was illegal in some places to dissect a human body right up into the Renaissance and beyond in some places. OTOH, they were doing post mortems in Maine in the 1780s. Go figure.:) They could do some things for some diseases and disorders, but if you needed surgery, forget it. --- Maximus 2.02 * Origin: Eastern Light BBS 860/290-8578 10p-8a Only (1:142/578)