EAGLE Netlist conversion

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 17:36:51 +0000, Tom MacIntyre wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 08:48:41 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
null@example.net> wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 08:12:08 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 11:44:55 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Terry Given wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Terry Given wrote:

Tom MacIntyre wrote:


Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?

Tom

reverse your argument, and apply it to your statement re. forced > servitude.
-------------------
You mean having to work for a living? That's not forced servitude,
in serfdom/slavery/servitude you are NOT PAID! In Socialism/Communism
you simply have to work for a living, or else starve! Just like in
real life on earth!


again, too literal. First DMO'C implies Dems are socialists because they
promote mandatory service, and forced servitude is common in socialist
countries.
-------------
That's merely fuzzy thinking. "Involuntary Servitude" is slavery
without pay. Everyone has to work to eat,...

Re-posted because you deleted it:
-------------
That's merely fuzzy thinking. "Involuntary Servitude" is slavery
without pay. Everyone has to work to eat, and to do one's equal
share of the work. If you're paid, it doesn't matter if you HAVE
to or not, you have to work to afford to live, even in the simplest
human society or situation, the earth extracts that, and we merely
decide socially how the burden is divided! The Rich want the rest
of us to do THEIR work FOR them so THEY don't HAVE to,

So who gives a fuck what they want? Are they holding you at
gunpoint?

Slavery depends on the consent of the slave.

Thanks,
Rich

I'm sure black America is really in approval of this line. :-(

Hey, I didn't invent the way reality works, I merely report it.

Sorry that the facts aren't in alignment with your fantasies.

If they're pissed off about the slavery thing, they should take
it up with their African cousins that sold them to the rich white
traders.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Martin]

Am Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:45:59 GMT schrieb Tom MacIntyre
<tom__macintyre@hotmail.com>:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:07:29 GMT, "Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:


"Tom MacIntyre" <tom__macintyre@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:j93qo0potq5la8jb5tb56o5olsh8c5gu4j@4ax.com...

snip

Corporal punishment for my child is MY right, and MY decision, not
that of anyone else.

Tom

That was my stepfathers line, until I broke his nose!
His weapon of choice was a broom stick.
I just used my fist!

If you have to use corporal punishment, you are an unfit parent!


You just admitted that you used corporal punishment on your
step-father (actually, depending on the circumstances, you may have
assaulted him). The only difference is you used a part of your own
body, and you seem to have had a good reason.

It depends on the situation, it could have been, very likely, just self
defense in an assault from his stepfather - we dont really know.


--
Martin

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 10:33:57 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 09:56:38 -0700, uvcceet@juno.com wrote:


uvcceet@juno.com wrote:

In <418B3FEF.17CF@armory.com>, on 11/05/04 at 08:48 AM,
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> said:
[snip]

Nah, I am not a Republican, so your attempt to classify me as a Nazi is
impotent, not unlike yourself. You don't even know what a Nazi is. You were
only born about twenty years ago, so how could you possibly know what Nazi
even is?

[snip]

IIRC, I believe Steve to be an old fart and pornography propagator.

And is this supposed to be a bad thing or something?
I'm an old fart and pornography consumer, so I see no conflict here.

;^j
Rich

 

[Terry Given]

Tom MacIntyre wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 18:07:29 GMT, "Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:


"Tom MacIntyre" <tom__macintyre@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:j93qo0potq5la8jb5tb56o5olsh8c5gu4j@4ax.com...

snip

Corporal punishment for my child is MY right, and MY decision, not
that of anyone else.

Tom

That was my stepfathers line, until I broke his nose!
His weapon of choice was a broom stick.
I just used my fist!

If you have to use corporal punishment, you are an unfit parent!

blanket statements are easy to make but inevitably fail the real-world
test. Just what do you do with the child who insists on running across
the road in front of cars? I ask that because we had an interesting case
publicised in NZ a few years back - a parent was walloping their kids
arse in public, and a neighbour called the police (it is still legal to
smack your kids here). Turns out the kid runs across roads. They fenced
& locked their property, and in this case had locked him inside his
room, but he smashed the window, escaped and was playing chicken with
cars when his mum found him and gave him a hiding. Their defence (apart
from the fact it wasnt illegal) - what the hell else can they do? they
dont want him to die.....

You just admitted that you used corporal punishment on your
step-father (actually, depending on the circumstances, you may have
assaulted him). The only difference is you used a part of your own
body, and you seem to have had a good reason.

It's only one of several options, and always the final one. A light
tap or two on the ass with an open hand is not likely to hurt anyone;
I am not taliking about drawing blood and/or inflicting pain, it's
about sending a message. Numerous courts are on my side in this in
North America. Broomsticks, paint stirring sticks, army belts, the
"strap", caning...the weapons of cowards. Thankfully times have
changed.

I have yet to hit my (9.5yr old) daughter. I doubt the need will arise,
but should it I will not hesitate. I hardly even need to punish her -
when she misbehaves, I explain to her what will happen if she continues,
and that the outcome is entirely her choice. Because I am very
consistent (with a minimal set of rules too) Kate knows I will do
exactly what I say, and almost always chooses to end the bad behaviour.
I have found it to be a very effective technique, which has the added
advantage of teaching her about consequences. It didnt start to work so
effectively until she was 5 or so, and had developed a sufficient
vocabulary to understand the conversations; prior to that the bad
behaviour was punished (usually by being sent to bed, even at 10am)

I am reaonably sure that it was actually NOT your step-father's line,
either...I am sure he was quite happy for you to be beaten first by a
teacher before he repeated the act. Accept my apologies if I am wrong.

Thanks for snipping the more relevant part of my post...must be a
by-product of your (unfair) corporal punishment, perhaps, to remove
evidence that may prove you wrong.

Have you broken anyone else's nose?

Have a nice day.

Tom

Cheers
Terry

 

[Terry Given]

Tom MacIntyre wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 12:15:11 +1300, Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org
wrote:


Tom MacIntyre wrote:


On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:10:41 +1300, Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org
wrote:



Tom MacIntyre wrote:



On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 10:58:10 +1300, Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org
wrote:




Dennis M. O'Connor wrote:




"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com
wrote...




"Dennis M. O'Connor" <dmoc@primenet.com> wrote ...




"hamilton" <hamilton@deminsional.com> wrote...




Here is truth:
Conservatives want to control your life, but will let you keep your

money.




Liberals want to control your money, but will let you keep your

life.




What bullshit. Kerry is advocating a draft ("mandatory service")
for all young adults. No "Conservative" is doing that.

Umm, the draft's already mandatory. It's part of the law.


No, registration for the draft is mandatory, and only for men.
The draft itself is inactive. No one is being drafted NOW.

But Kerry proposed mandatory service for all high school students.
And Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel of NY pushed a bill in Congress
for mandatory military service.

Forced servitude to the state is a common thing in socialist countries,
so it is no surprise that the Democrats are pushing it.





And show me someone from either side that is willing to let
competent adults make their own decisions about what they
eat, drink, breath, smoke or inject into themselves !

To quote your own words, "> What bullshit."


I see no meaning in your response.

Is Israel a socialist country?


Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?

Tom

reverse your argument, and apply it to your statement re. forced servitude.

To paraphrase you:
banning gay marriage is a common thing in islamic countries,
so it is no surprise that the Republicans are pushing it.

there is no causal relationship, its just pointless rhetoric.


No, it is pointing out that mutual exclusivity is rare.


this is quite correct (sorry for the screw up in which I mistook you for
DMO'C). My entire point is that the original argument (basically
socialist countries do it therefore dems are socialist) was stupid - for
exactly the reason you pointed out, and clarified nicely here. My
mis-reading the name led me to argue that DMO'C contradicted himself
when in fact he did not - you pointed out the fallacious argument.

I'll try to read harder next time....


Maybe you got caned a few times too many...

Tom


Tom



Cheers
Terry


LOL

Nah, I blame the drugs

Cheers
Terry

 

[Fred Bloggs]

uvcceet@juno.com wrote:

In <418bd5a5$0$21106$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, on 11/05/04 at 08:34 PM,
"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> said:


"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> schreef in bericht
news:KCMid.45358$G15.36434@fed1read03...


Now, once again, I ask you to tell me what exactly the
9-11 events were supposedly a "righteous" response to.


Bin laded explained that quite clear in his latest video.



Yes, and by all means, we must accept what he said as the truth. No way its
for his own personal agenda. He is the world's fountain of truth, and everyone
else, except every liberal, is lying all the time, and always.

I am pretty sure most of you pretending to be leftists and liberals are really
just conservatives, out for a few jollies in usenet, saying incendiary stuff
just to get a rise out of people. Its a pretty good scam, to a point, but its
getting old. I could rattle off the usernames of half a dozen of you who are
only posting to see if you can get a rise out of others.

Its a good show, but it is probably time to move on, as whining only gets you
so far. To those who are "debating" with these coneheads, I suggest you wake
up and realize they are actually on your side, and just playing with you to
pass the time of day. Unemployed people living off the dole have very little
else to do with their time, so they come to usenet and assume a position they
know with incite arguments. Please don't encourage them. They need to get off
their butts and get jobs and contibute, rather than living off of welfare.

Time to change the channel.

John

Aren't you some kind of Mormon from that God forsaken hell hole that
gave Bush a 40pt spread? The uniformity of beliefs ought to be a
giveaway of what kind of people you are.

 

[Terry Given]

Clarence wrote:

"Terry Given" <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:7objd.4452$op3.170282@news.xtra.co.nz...
snip
If you have to use corporal punishment, you are an unfit parent!


blanket statements are easy to make but inevitably fail the real-world
test. Just what do you do with the child who insists on running across
the road in front of cars? I ask that because we had an interesting case
publicised in NZ a few years back - a parent was walloping their kids
arse in public, and a neighbour called the police (it is still legal to
smack your kids here). Turns out the kid runs across roads. They fenced
& locked their property, and in this case had locked him inside his
room, but he smashed the window, escaped and was playing chicken with
cars when his mum found him and gave him a hiding. Their defence (apart
from the fact it wasnt illegal) - what the hell else can they do? they
dont want him to die.....



So beat him up and chain him in the basement? You can I suppose justify any
cruel treatment, You are full of it!

I didnt justify anything, I merely posed a real scenario and asked a
question. YOU suggested beating & chaining in a basement.

Nuts, you are so irrational it is not possible to have an exchange of ideas.
But anyone who would beat their kids should be publicly shamed!

and yet you are. Hmm.

You clearly have nothing of value to say, and no shame!

OK then Clarence, seeing as you are so rational - how would you prevent
this particular kid (IIRC he was 4 and therefore not amenable to
discussion) from playing chicken in traffic.

Or would you refrain from smacking him, then be surprised when he gets
killed?

Cheers
Terry (who has yet to smack his 9-year old daughter)

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 10:31:24 +1300, Terry Given wrote:

Tom MacIntyre wrote:

Maybe you got caned a few times too many...

Tom

LOL

Nah, I blame the drugs

"They" say there's a correlation between being abused as a kid and
being an abuser.

Or is it just that all the convicted child abusers say, "I couldn't help
it - I was an abused kid!"

Did you know that 99.9% of the rapists in prison have eaten potatoes?

I wonder what % of convicted rapists are circumcised.
(yes, bring on the homo jokes, but I'll pass on the upper-decker-pecker-
checker job.)

;^j
Rich

 

[Clarence]

"Terry Given" <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:gUbjd.4466$op3.170619@news.xtra.co.nz...

Plonk!

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:12:15 -0700, uvcceet wrote:

In <418bd5a5$0$21106$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, on 11/05/04 at 08:34 PM,
"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> said:

"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> schreef in bericht
news:KCMid.45358$G15.36434@fed1read03...

Now, once again, I ask you to tell me what exactly the
9-11 events were supposedly a "righteous" response to.

Bin laded explained that quite clear in his latest video.


Yes, and by all means, we must accept what he said as the truth. No way its
for his own personal agenda. He is the world's fountain of truth, and everyone
else, except every liberal, is lying all the time, and always.

I am pretty sure most of you pretending to be leftists and liberals are really
just conservatives, out for a few jollies in usenet, saying incendiary stuff
just to get a rise out of people. Its a pretty good scam, to a point, but its
getting old. I could rattle off the usernames of half a dozen of you who are
only posting to see if you can get a rise out of others.

Its a good show, but it is probably time to move on, as whining only gets you
so far. To those who are "debating" with these coneheads,

Hey! I'll thank you to refrain from casting such aspersions on us
coneheads.

I, personally, have been told that I give good cone. This was while I was
in work-release and some guy was trying to hypnotize me, but that's
another story.

Cheers!
Rich


I suggest you wake

up and realize they are actually on your side, and just playing with you to
pass the time of day. Unemployed people living off the dole have very little
else to do with their time, so they come to usenet and assume a position they
know with incite arguments. Please don't encourage them. They need to get off
their butts and get jobs and contibute, rather than living off of welfare.

Time to change the channel.

John

 

[Terry Given]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 10:31:24 +1300, Terry Given wrote:


Tom MacIntyre wrote:


Maybe you got caned a few times too many...

Tom


LOL

Nah, I blame the drugs



"They" say there's a correlation between being abused as a kid and
being an abuser.

What is interesting is the correlation between schizophrenia and child
abuse - schizophrenics are 15x more likely to have been abused as
children than non-schizophrenics

Or is it just that all the convicted child abusers say, "I couldn't help
it - I was an abused kid!"

Exactly the sort of critical thinking that social workers are incapable
of. A good statistician ought to ask that question though.

Did you know that 99.9% of the rapists in prison have eaten potatoes?

I wonder what % of convicted rapists are circumcised.
(yes, bring on the homo jokes, but I'll pass on the upper-decker-pecker-
checker job.)

;^j
Rich

Something like 75% of paedophiles are left-handed.

Cheers
Terry

 

[Clarence]

"Terry Given" <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:hqcjd.4478$op3.170260@news.xtra.co.nz...

Clarence wrote:

unsnip

"Terry Given" <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:gUbjd.4466$op3.170619@news.xtra.co.nz...
unsnip

Plonk!

AND A top poster!
You ARE REALLY low!
But I do not discuss discipline with anyone who approves of beating children!
You did say Corporal, didn't you?

I take it that means you have no answer. Hardly surprising.

Terry

DO YOU have any shame?

I didn't think so!

 

[Clarence]

"Terry Given" <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:Sscjd.4479$op3.170260@news.xtra.co.nz...

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:


Something like 75% of paedophiles are left-handed.
Cheers
Terry

So your left handed too? Figures!

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 11:04:58 +1300, Terry Given wrote:

Clarence wrote:

"Terry Given" <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:7objd.4452$op3.170282@news.xtra.co.nz...
snip
If you have to use corporal punishment, you are an unfit parent!


blanket statements are easy to make but inevitably fail the real-world
test. Just what do you do with the child who insists on running across
the road in front of cars? I ask that because we had an interesting case
publicised in NZ a few years back - a parent was walloping their kids
arse in public, and a neighbour called the police (it is still legal to
smack your kids here). Turns out the kid runs across roads. They fenced
& locked their property, and in this case had locked him inside his
room, but he smashed the window, escaped and was playing chicken with
cars when his mum found him and gave him a hiding. Their defence (apart
from the fact it wasnt illegal) - what the hell else can they do? they
dont want him to die.....



So beat him up and chain him in the basement? You can I suppose justify any
cruel treatment, You are full of it!

I didnt justify anything, I merely posed a real scenario and asked a
question. YOU suggested beating & chaining in a basement.


Nuts, you are so irrational it is not possible to have an exchange of ideas.
But anyone who would beat their kids should be publicly shamed!

and yet you are. Hmm.


You clearly have nothing of value to say, and no shame!

OK then Clarence, seeing as you are so rational - how would you prevent
this particular kid (IIRC he was 4 and therefore not amenable to
discussion) from playing chicken in traffic.

Or would you refrain from smacking him, then be surprised when he gets
killed?

I'd get him inside before smacking him, if I was going to smack him

at all, but all that would teach him is that he lets himself get
captured and dragged inside, he's going to get smacked.

I'd wonder, this whole scenario is a little bizarre. Fenced and locked the
yard, locked his room, yet at 4 Years old, he escapes, and goes and does
what he wants anyway. What's wrong with that picture in the first place?

It sounds to me like what the kid needs is medical attention. And his
parents, probably even more so.

Thanks,
Rich

Cheers
Terry (who has yet to smack his 9-year old daughter)

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 22:28:21 +0000, Clarence wrote:

"Terry Given" <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:gUbjd.4466$op3.170619@news.xtra.co.nz...

Plonk!

Uh-oh! Bad boy! You're being punished by Clarence!

Call if you need any moral support. Like if that makes you want a drink
or anything, I'll join you.

;^j
Rich

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

What a lying sack of shit.

You claimed that you plonked him.

When they were handing out brains, you said "Stuff 'em up your ass."

It'd be laughable, if it wasn't so fucking pathetic.

 

[Tim Wescott]

Terry Given wrote:

Robert Monsen wrote:

Terry Given wrote:


What is interesting is the correlation between schizophrenia and
child abuse - schizophrenics are 15x more likely to have been abused
as children than non-schizophrenics



Where does this statistic come from?


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/latestnewsstory.cfm?storyID=3589352&thesection=news&thesubsection=general&thesecondsubsection=latest


to quote the amazingly brief article:
"Dutch and British studies have confirmed New Zealand findings of high
levels of child abuse among people diagnosed with psychotic disorders
such as schizophrenia. The September edition of the British Journal of
Psychiatry says a study of 8580 people has found that those with
psychotic disorders are three times more likely than people with less
severe disorders, and 15 times more likely than those with no disorder,
to have been sexually abused"

I seem to recall reading more on the new scientist website, but I cant
get to it right now.

IIRC what they are basically saying is that it seems these severe
psychotic conditions can be caused by sufficiently nasty childhood
experiences.

Cheers
Terry

Of course it can't possibly by that insanity runs in families, and
psychotic parents are much more to abuse their kids.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:53:23 -0800, Tim Wescott wrote:

Terry Given wrote:
Robert Monsen wrote:
Where does this statistic come from?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/latestnewsstory.cfm?storyID=3589352&thesection=news&thesubsection=general&thesecondsubsection=latest

to quote the amazingly brief article:
"Dutch and British studies have confirmed New Zealand findings of high
levels of child abuse among people diagnosed with psychotic disorders
such as schizophrenia. The September edition of the British Journal of
Psychiatry says a study of 8580 people has found that those with
psychotic disorders are three times more likely than people with less
severe disorders, and 15 times more likely than those with no disorder,
to have been sexually abused"

I seem to recall reading more on the new scientist website, but I cant
get to it right now.

IIRC what they are basically saying is that it seems these severe
psychotic conditions can be caused by sufficiently nasty childhood
experiences.

Of course it can't possibly by that insanity runs in families, and
psychotic parents are much more to abuse their kids.

I was going to say something marginally similar, just more along the
lines of it's a correlation, which doesn't imply causation. They
could both be things that are caused by something else, like they're
symptoms of some underlying thing, or something.

But Smoking doesn't cause Cancer either, but almost everybody blames
it anyway.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Robert Monsen]

Terry Given wrote:

Robert Monsen wrote:

Terry Given wrote:


What is interesting is the correlation between schizophrenia and
child abuse - schizophrenics are 15x more likely to have been abused
as children than non-schizophrenics



Where does this statistic come from?


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/latestnewsstory.cfm?storyID=3589352&thesection=news&thesubsection=general&thesecondsubsection=latest


to quote the amazingly brief article:
"Dutch and British studies have confirmed New Zealand findings of high
levels of child abuse among people diagnosed with psychotic disorders
such as schizophrenia. The September edition of the British Journal of
Psychiatry says a study of 8580 people has found that those with
psychotic disorders are three times more likely than people with less
severe disorders, and 15 times more likely than those with no disorder,
to have been sexually abused"

I seem to recall reading more on the new scientist website, but I cant
get to it right now.

IIRC what they are basically saying is that it seems these severe
psychotic conditions can be caused by sufficiently nasty childhood
experiences.

Cheers
Terry

Thanks. They appear to be talking about sexual abuse, not physical abuse
such as spanking.

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[Terry Given]

Robert Monsen wrote:

Terry Given wrote:

Robert Monsen wrote:

Terry Given wrote:


What is interesting is the correlation between schizophrenia and
child abuse - schizophrenics are 15x more likely to have been abused
as children than non-schizophrenics




Where does this statistic come from?


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/latestnewsstory.cfm?storyID=3589352&thesection=news&thesubsection=general&thesecondsubsection=latest


to quote the amazingly brief article:
"Dutch and British studies have confirmed New Zealand findings of high
levels of child abuse among people diagnosed with psychotic disorders
such as schizophrenia. The September edition of the British Journal of
Psychiatry says a study of 8580 people has found that those with
psychotic disorders are three times more likely than people with less
severe disorders, and 15 times more likely than those with no
disorder, to have been sexually abused"

I seem to recall reading more on the new scientist website, but I cant
get to it right now.

IIRC what they are basically saying is that it seems these severe
psychotic conditions can be caused by sufficiently nasty childhood
experiences.

Cheers
Terry


Thanks. They appear to be talking about sexual abuse, not physical abuse
such as spanking.

yeah, "sexually abused" was a dead giveaway. I thought the correlation
was interesting, and quite marked.

And of course the whole argument about physically disciplining children
hinges on what, exactly, constitutes physical abuse. Anti-smacking
advocates tend to highlight horrendous child abuse (usually murder)
cases to make their point that smacking should be banned. They seem to
forget that murder already is, and I have yet to see a kid murdered by
smacking. OTOH I have witnessed plenty of stupid parents hitting their
kids because they cant control themselves. Most common scenario:

mum at a cafe having lunch/coffee with friends, sprogs abound. Adults
talking, kid comes up and says "mum, mum..." mum ignores kid for 5
minutes or so, then screams at kid to be quiet, and gives kid a wallop.

The problem with legislating against things not because they are
inherently bad but because stupid people misuse them, is that it
unnecessarily deprives non-stupid people of options. For example many
stupid people drive drunk & maim others (the US kills what, about 17
9/11's worth of people every year in car crashes - 50,000 or so), so
alcohol should be illegal. Hey, come to think of it, what about
firearms.....surely the number of gun deaths far, far outweighs spanking
deaths...

Cheers
Terry