Court authorized wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year

[John Fields]

On 3 May 2005 18:03:23 -0700, Winfield Hill
<hill_a@t_rowland-dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote...

I'm continuously getting crap snail mail from AARP. I just sent some
back today, scrawled across with, "I may be old, but I ain't senile"
;-)

Hey, that's for us to judge, you old goat! :&gt

I started getting AARP mail when I was 50, weird. Now that I'm over
60 it's more appropriate. Last month I got my first senior-citizen
discount, a $13 haircut at 10% off, only $11.70 for a custom mowing
that I specified: my new don't-comb-it, whatever-it-looks-like-when-
I-get-out-of-bed hairdo. My new scheme is to mess-up the hair at
various points during the cut, and have snipped off whatever sticks
out too severely. It worked like a charm. Right out of bed, no more
futzing at the mirror. Pretty good for under $12, but I did leave a
$5 tip. You'll be able to see the results in Harvard's spring 2005
DEAS newsletter when it comes out soon.

---
What's a haircut?

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich The Newsgroup Wacko
<wacko@example.com> wrote (in
<pan.2005.05.04.17.29.03.864199@example.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Wed, 4 May 2005:

"Nuke the gay, unborn, baby whales for Jesus."

Reminds me of the ultimate 'red-top tabloid' (mass-circulation dumb
newspaper) headline, 'Teenage sex-change priest in Palace baby
mercy-dash'.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Wed, 4 May 2005 18:50:29 +0100, the renowned John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich The Newsgroup Wacko
wacko@example.com> wrote (in
pan.2005.05.04.17.29.03.864199@example.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Wed, 4 May 2005:

"Nuke the gay, unborn, baby whales for Jesus."

Reminds me of the ultimate 'red-top tabloid' (mass-circulation dumb
newspaper) headline, 'Teenage sex-change priest in Palace baby
mercy-dash'.

A famous New York Post (tabloid) one was "Headless Body Found in
Topless Bar". Blame Rupert Murdoch.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Rich The Newsgroup Wacko]

On Wed, 04 May 2005 14:11:11 -0400, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Wed, 4 May 2005 18:50:29 +0100, the renowned John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich The Newsgroup Wacko
wacko@example.com> wrote (in
pan.2005.05.04.17.29.03.864199@example.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Wed, 4 May 2005:

"Nuke the gay, unborn, baby whales for Jesus."

Reminds me of the ultimate 'red-top tabloid' (mass-circulation dumb
newspaper) headline, 'Teenage sex-change priest in Palace baby
mercy-dash'.

A famous New York Post (tabloid) one was "Headless Body Found in
Topless Bar". Blame Rupert Murdoch.

Well, I'll be! It's true!
http://home.austin.rr.com/electronicfolio/HeadlessBodyPostcard.gif
--
Cheers!
Rich
------
"There once was a man named Eugene
Who invented a screwing machine
Concave and convex
It served either sex
And it played with itself in between."

 

[Rich The Newsgroup Wacko]

On Wed, 04 May 2005 14:11:11 -0400, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Wed, 4 May 2005 18:50:29 +0100, the renowned John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich The Newsgroup Wacko
wacko@example.com> wrote (in
pan.2005.05.04.17.29.03.864199@example.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Wed, 4 May 2005:

"Nuke the gay, unborn, baby whales for Jesus."

Reminds me of the ultimate 'red-top tabloid' (mass-circulation dumb
newspaper) headline, 'Teenage sex-change priest in Palace baby
mercy-dash'.

A famous New York Post (tabloid) one was "Headless Body Found in
Topless Bar". Blame Rupert Murdoch.

Oh, good grief:
http://www.djangomusic.com/item_movie.asp?id=V+++134822
--
Cheers!
Rich
------
"Three minutes of serious sex and I need eight hours of sleep and a bowl
of Wheaties."
-- Richard Pryor

 

[Rich The Newsgroup Wacko]

On Wed, 04 May 2005 14:11:11 -0400, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Wed, 4 May 2005 18:50:29 +0100, the renowned John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich The Newsgroup Wacko
wacko@example.com> wrote (in
pan.2005.05.04.17.29.03.864199@example.com&gt about 'Court authorized
wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Wed, 4 May 2005:

"Nuke the gay, unborn, baby whales for Jesus."

Reminds me of the ultimate 'red-top tabloid' (mass-circulation dumb
newspaper) headline, 'Teenage sex-change priest in Palace baby
mercy-dash'.

A famous New York Post (tabloid) one was "Headless Body Found in
Topless Bar". Blame Rupert Murdoch.

Stop me before I fuck again! (-- George Carlin)
http://www.boxoffice.com/scripts/fiw.dll?GetReview&where=Name&terms=HEADLESS
--
Cheers!
Rich
------
"A dreary young bank clerk named Fennis
Wished to foster an aura of menace.
To make people afraid
He wore gloves of grey suede
And white footgear intended for tennis."
-- Edward Gorey, "Amphigorey"

 

[Zak]

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

But many more dopsters might be created. Neither of us know the
overall slope of that curve.

"Might be"? Take a look at The Netherlands.

The highest proportion or heroin addicts seem to be in Iran, of all
places. Harsh punishments there, but also heroin is well available there...

Thomas

 

[Steve K.]

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2005 19:07:44 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2005 06:46:51 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2005 19:29:13 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:


Yes. I find the argument of, well marijuana is harmful, so it
should be illegal, completely bogus. Its got f'all do do with
state what someone chooses to do with their own bodies.


Fine, so long as the state does not facilitate the harm, and does
not pay any resulting medical expenses.


And I knew that was coming...Its a completely bogus argument.


It's not bogus in San Francisco. Drug abuse is a serious burden on
public medical resources already. We keep the drinking water clean and
the rats out of the restaurants in the cause of public health; so why
not restrict the supply of heroin?


Its bogus because we can use the *same* argument to justify banning
*anything*.

You name it, anything you like, and I well tell why it causes harm to
something.

Do you wish to ban everything? If not, the why chose one over another?


Ban the things that do a lot more harm than they do good. One of the
mandates of government is "to promote the public good." What's wrong
with that?

Oh please. The General Welfare Clause doesn't even come close to
enumerating powers of government which the masses have been hoodwinked
into thinking it means (largely since FDR).

Madison made this clear in The Federalist #41 and also vetoed a bill for
"internal improvments" when he was president. Things like federal
involvement in schooling and social security are unconstitutional. So
is prohibiting drug usage.

Basically the anti-federalists fears and reservations have become
reality: Madison's language was not strong enough to inhibit today's
tyrants. The powers of government are supposed to be very limited.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=general+welfare+clause%2C+constitution

Excerpt from #41:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
....
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have
grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language
in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to
lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts,
and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United
States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power
which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general
welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which
these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a
misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress
been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited,
the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it
would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of
describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to
destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate
the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very
singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general
welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the
objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is
not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different
parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give
meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same
sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall
the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent,
and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification
whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers
be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the
preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first
to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital
of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which
neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other
effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are
reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the
objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the
liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the
language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of
Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described
in article third, are "their common defense, security of their
liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth
are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses
that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and
allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a
common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth.
Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the
construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing
Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would
have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these
general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain
and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of
providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the
objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the
same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of
against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own
condemnation!

PUBLIUS.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Ben Bradley]

On Tue, 03 May 2005 12:58:38 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2005 19:07:44 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
see_website@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Do you wish to ban everything? If not, the why chose one over another?


Ban the things that do a lot more harm than they do good. One of the
mandates of government is "to promote the public good." What's wrong
with that?

Looking at the total number of deaths caused by alcohol, caused by
tobacco, and caused by all illegal drugs combined, it looks like the
US laws are totally backwards! Illegal drugs might as well be
legalized, but tobacco and alcohol should be made illegal!

John

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

 

[Robert]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:lpi871dv98gkvcq0707qd4p4d5kcaehmrg@4ax.com...

On Sun, 01 May 2005 01:34:08 GMT, "Tom Del Rosso"
ng01@att.net.invalid> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message
news:dvj4719u2dfmeh8ng6ek2k35bm8upnh40i@4ax.com...

Right. If you're planning a serious felony, use good encryption, and
it's best not to plan your hits over your cell phone.

You don't even have to be careful if you're planning a mere felony. They
still can't get a warrant until after the crime. But due to the extremely
oppressive patriot act ...


I sort of *like* the idea of oppressing terrorists.

John

It's the "friendly fire" that other people worry about.

But never mind, the fantasies/nightmares of leftist wienies never come true.

Robert

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <jtui7151e6cfns9tvt6rru0t9p9hj1edj4@4ax.com>,
Ben Bradley <ben_nospam_bradley@frontiernet.net> wrote:
[...]

Looking at the total number of deaths caused by alcohol, caused by
tobacco, and caused by all illegal drugs combined, it looks like the
US laws are totally backwards! Illegal drugs might as well be
legalized, but tobacco and alcohol should be made illegal!

More people die of cancer or heart disease.
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <d5ehop$mur$3@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:

In article <jtui7151e6cfns9tvt6rru0t9p9hj1edj4@4ax.com>,
Ben Bradley <ben_nospam_bradley@frontiernet.net> wrote:
[...]
Looking at the total number of deaths caused by alcohol, caused by
tobacco, and caused by all illegal drugs combined, it looks like the
US laws are totally backwards! Illegal drugs might as well be
legalized, but tobacco and alcohol should be made illegal!

More people die of cancer or heart disease.

If you look at the long term numbers, no more people die given tobacco

smoking than if no-one smoked!!! It is just that people tend to die
sooner. .

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 03 May 2005 17:52:39 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
<eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2005 07:58:26 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2005 06:46:51 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
...
And I knew that was coming...Its a completely bogus argument.

It's not bogus in San Francisco. Drug abuse is a serious burden on
public medical resources already. We keep the drinking water clean and
the rats out of the restaurants in the cause of public health; so why
not restrict the supply of heroin?

In what way does some junkie getting zonked out in the privacy of his
home impact "public health?"

Because shooting narcotics into your arm (or legs, and eventually
feet, as the veins get trashed) *is* a diminution of public health.
The junkie is a member of the public too.

So, the libertarian view is to allow people to harm themselves all
they want to. But what about the people who manufacture and sell
heroin for a profit? Since they are harming *others* for their own
benefit, is that OK too?

The best combination is probably to decriminalize use of hard drugs,
but make dealing a capital offense.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 6 May 2005 08:19:54 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote:

In article <d5ehop$mur$3@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:
In article <jtui7151e6cfns9tvt6rru0t9p9hj1edj4@4ax.com>,
Ben Bradley <ben_nospam_bradley@frontiernet.net> wrote:
[...]
Looking at the total number of deaths caused by alcohol, caused by
tobacco, and caused by all illegal drugs combined, it looks like the
US laws are totally backwards! Illegal drugs might as well be
legalized, but tobacco and alcohol should be made illegal!

More people die of cancer or heart disease.

If you look at the long term numbers, no more people die given tobacco
smoking than if no-one smoked!!! It is just that people tend to die
sooner. .

Actually, fewer die. Smoking causes both cancer and impotence, both of
which reduce the birth rate.

John

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Winfield Hill wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote...

I'm continuously getting crap snail mail from AARP. I just sent some
back today, scrawled across with, "I may be old, but I ain't senile"
;-)

Hey, that's for us to judge, you old goat! :&gt

I started getting AARP mail when I was 50, weird. Now that I'm over
60 it's more appropriate. Last month I got my first senior-citizen
discount, a $13 haircut at 10% off, only $11.70 for a custom mowing
that I specified: my new don't-comb-it, whatever-it-looks-like-when-
I-get-out-of-bed hairdo. My new scheme is to mess-up the hair at
various points during the cut, and have snipped off whatever sticks
out too severely. It worked like a charm. Right out of bed, no more
futzing at the mirror. Pretty good for under $12, but I did leave a
$5 tip. You'll be able to see the results in Harvard's spring 2005
DEAS newsletter when it comes out soon.

--
Thanks,
- Win

I was 32 when AARP started sending me their junk mail.


--
Former professional electron wrangler.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Larkin wrote:

If you're so unhappy with life, why are you still around?

He can't bore others if he leaves.

--
Former professional electron wrangler.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Rich The Newsgroup Wacko]

On Fri, 06 May 2005 22:03:40 +0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Winfield Hill wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote...

I'm continuously getting crap snail mail from AARP. I just sent some
back today, scrawled across with, "I may be old, but I ain't senile"
;-)

Hey, that's for us to judge, you old goat! :&gt

I started getting AARP mail when I was 50, weird. Now that I'm over
60 it's more appropriate. Last month I got my first senior-citizen
discount, a $13 haircut at 10% off, only $11.70 for a custom mowing
that I specified: my new don't-comb-it, whatever-it-looks-like-when-
I-get-out-of-bed hairdo. My new scheme is to mess-up the hair at
various points during the cut, and have snipped off whatever sticks
out too severely. It worked like a charm. Right out of bed, no more
futzing at the mirror. Pretty good for under $12, but I did leave a
$5 tip. You'll be able to see the results in Harvard's spring 2005
DEAS newsletter when it comes out soon.

--
Thanks,
- Win

I was 32 when AARP started sending me their junk mail.

Geez! When I was 32, they were still checking my ID!
--
Cheers!
Rich
------
"COCAINE: The thinking man's Dristan."

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Fri, 06 May 2005 23:35:06 GMT, the renowned Rich The Newsgroup
Wacko <wacko@example.com> wrote:

On Fri, 06 May 2005 22:03:40 +0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Winfield Hill wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote...

I'm continuously getting crap snail mail from AARP. I just sent some
back today, scrawled across with, "I may be old, but I ain't senile"
;-)

Hey, that's for us to judge, you old goat! :&gt

I started getting AARP mail when I was 50, weird. Now that I'm over
60 it's more appropriate. Last month I got my first senior-citizen
discount, a $13 haircut at 10% off, only $11.70 for a custom mowing
that I specified: my new don't-comb-it, whatever-it-looks-like-when-
I-get-out-of-bed hairdo. My new scheme is to mess-up the hair at
various points during the cut, and have snipped off whatever sticks
out too severely. It worked like a charm. Right out of bed, no more
futzing at the mirror. Pretty good for under $12, but I did leave a
$5 tip. You'll be able to see the results in Harvard's spring 2005
DEAS newsletter when it comes out soon.

--
Thanks,
- Win

I was 32 when AARP started sending me their junk mail.

Geez! When I was 32, they were still checking my ID!

I last got carded at 40 (in Westwood, CA).

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 06 May 2005 20:07:11 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Fri, 06 May 2005 23:35:06 GMT, the renowned Rich The Newsgroup
Wacko <wacko@example.com> wrote:

On Fri, 06 May 2005 22:03:40 +0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Winfield Hill wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote...

I'm continuously getting crap snail mail from AARP. I just sent some
back today, scrawled across with, "I may be old, but I ain't senile"
;-)

Hey, that's for us to judge, you old goat! :&gt

I started getting AARP mail when I was 50, weird. Now that I'm over
60 it's more appropriate. Last month I got my first senior-citizen
discount, a $13 haircut at 10% off, only $11.70 for a custom mowing
that I specified: my new don't-comb-it, whatever-it-looks-like-when-
I-get-out-of-bed hairdo. My new scheme is to mess-up the hair at
various points during the cut, and have snipped off whatever sticks
out too severely. It worked like a charm. Right out of bed, no more
futzing at the mirror. Pretty good for under $12, but I did leave a
$5 tip. You'll be able to see the results in Harvard's spring 2005
DEAS newsletter when it comes out soon.

--
Thanks,
- Win

I was 32 when AARP started sending me their junk mail.

Geez! When I was 32, they were still checking my ID!

I last got carded at 40 (in Westwood, CA).

"N" got carded in a San Francisco "joint" when she was 31... she had
already borne our fourth child. Made her day ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[keith]

On Fri, 06 May 2005 17:22:07 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 06 May 2005 20:07:11 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Fri, 06 May 2005 23:35:06 GMT, the renowned Rich The Newsgroup
Wacko <wacko@example.com> wrote:

On Fri, 06 May 2005 22:03:40 +0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Winfield Hill wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote...

I'm continuously getting crap snail mail from AARP. I just sent some
back today, scrawled across with, "I may be old, but I ain't senile"
;-)

Hey, that's for us to judge, you old goat! :&gt

I started getting AARP mail when I was 50, weird. Now that I'm over
60 it's more appropriate. Last month I got my first senior-citizen
discount, a $13 haircut at 10% off, only $11.70 for a custom mowing
that I specified: my new don't-comb-it, whatever-it-looks-like-when-
I-get-out-of-bed hairdo. My new scheme is to mess-up the hair at
various points during the cut, and have snipped off whatever sticks
out too severely. It worked like a charm. Right out of bed, no more
futzing at the mirror. Pretty good for under $12, but I did leave a
$5 tip. You'll be able to see the results in Harvard's spring 2005
DEAS newsletter when it comes out soon.

--
Thanks,
- Win

I was 32 when AARP started sending me their junk mail.

Geez! When I was 32, they were still checking my ID!

I last got carded at 40 (in Westwood, CA).

"N" got carded in a San Francisco "joint" when she was 31... she had
already borne our fourth child. Made her day ;-)

I was carded about five years ago in NH. My gray/silver hair didn't
matter much to the bimbette behind the counter at the quickie mart.

--
Keith