From: Pramesh Rutaji on
Kofi wrote:
>> As for being a felon in possession, I often wonder how the gun right
>> absolutists, those who claim that owning a gun is an inalienable right
>> (one that cannot be removed under any circumstances) and then support
>> prisoners not being armed. If the right is inalienable, then even they
>> should be carrying. I heard that prison is a dangerous place, with
>> lots of criminals.
>
> This is just false on its face. People have an inalienable right to
> life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - but you can be executed
> with due process of the law when convicted for certain crimes. A
> murderer alienates himself from that right to life by his actions *and*
> since he is a citizen with a right to vote for the government who made
> the laws he broke, those laws have been legitimately constituted. You
> may not agree with those laws, but as a citizen you are still bound by
> them. You can also lose the right to vote for similar reasons - or the
> right to possess a gun. People often confuse procedural due process
> with substantive due process.
>
> Frankly, there is no absolute right to own a gun. The Second Amendment
> deals with the defense of states by militias. For an individual to have
> any chance at victory in a fight with the federal military - which is
> why the NRA suggests we still need guns - frankly, you'd need to have
> anthrax, tanks and atom bombs.

In the absence of government, one would have a natural right to own any
weapon one desired and to defend their life and property by any means
necessary from the use of fraud or force. Ownership of weapons or
property in general, especially self-ownership, is a natural right. The
only purpose of government is to protect natural rights, not to force
one group to serve the will of another in part or in full, not to
confiscate their property, not to confiscate their labor, not to
confiscate their life (limiting drugs, supplements, foods, medical
treatments, draft, etc.), not to limit their relationships, contractual
or not, and not to create a set of "entitlements" to which one group is
enslaved to pay for another. If you don't want to own a gun, don't buy
one. Rights don't come from government, rights come from individuals.
The right to posses any means of self defense is not a right granted by
government. If rights came from government, then governments could
grant me the right to round up my neighbors, place them in a gas
chamber, and turn it on.

The phrase "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" was a compromise
where the original phrase was "life, liberty, and property", a phrase
designed to be inclusive of natural rights. The word "property" was
changed since non-slave states didn't agree with slave states that
people could be property. A state that doesn't subvert the natural
right to defend oneself including ownership of weapons would be a state
in which the rise of slavery could not occur except under the natural of
one person to indenture themselves to another in exchange for any
agreeable benefits. Being employed for wages is a form of indentured
servitude.

--

Pramesh Rutaji

p297tongue6221(a)newsguy.com - remove tongue to reply
From: Kofi on
> In the absence of government, one would have a natural right to own any
> weapon one desired and to defend their life and property by any means
> necessary from the use of fraud or force.

In the absence of government, we're all living in caves using clubs and
arrows.

Who decides if the "means" were necessary?

Who defines "fraud?"

People have to reach basic agreements about certain issues or they quite
literally can't occupy the same geography.

The issue of justice is also not a kind of non-exclusive economic good.
One person getting justice doesn't prevent me from getting justice; in
fact, just the opposite. One killer off the street leaves us all safer
- and, who, by the way is going to secure justice for a victim who's
dead? Uhhhhh, could it be... *the government*?

> Ownership of weapons or
> property in general, especially self-ownership, is a natural right. The
> only purpose of government is to protect natural rights, not to force
> one group to serve the will of another in part or in full, not to
> confiscate their property, not to confiscate their labor, not to
> confiscate their life (limiting drugs, supplements, foods, medical
> treatments, draft, etc.), not to limit their relationships, contractual
> or not, and not to create a set of "entitlements" to which one group is
> enslaved to pay for another.

Entitlements and enslavement are two different things. They are most
certainly not equivalent. Entitlements are a transfer of funds from one
group to another through the tax code. Everyone involved has a chance
to vote. Since that's the case, entitlements are perfectly legitimate
in a free society. Enslavement, on the other hand, deprives people of
the right to vote on anything. They're transformed from people to
property (which, ultimately, is incompatible with liberty or property -
but whoever said all these ideas have to be non-contradictory for people
to use them).

What the libertarians fail to understand is that all forms of property
flow from the state. Property rights are defined by the state and
regulated by the state and you go to government sanctioned courts to get
those rights enforced. It's simply too expensive for people to try to
do all this on their own and the modern economy is too complex for these
simplistic ideas. For instance, you could assert that if you buy up all
the property surrounding mine, you have the right to prevent me from
getting to mine - but you don't. I have a "right of way." The
government enforces that - otherwise we would all be victims of rich
people. In a similar fashion, people have a right to quote from
copyrighted works - even though they don't "own" the underlying text. I
don't owe George Lucas a royalty if I tell the Republicans their health
care excuses smell like Chewbacca three days into a bender.

Liberty in a republic isn't just your right to do something, it's your
obligation to do it well on behalf of others. You don't simply have the
right to speak your mind freely, you're also obliged to form your
opinions well using accurate information and then to share said opinions.

> If you don't want to own a gun, don't buy
> one. Rights don't come from government, rights come from individuals.

Rights come from God and go to the individual under natural law. Man
isn't a source of his own sovereignty. The Constitution is a vehicle
where individuals vest some of their capacity to act in a government.
They haven't "given up" these rights. They're relying on
representatives to help secure them.

The only checks on abuses of liberty - which you seem concerned with -
come from individuals acting in their capacity as citizens and from
government itself (e.g., separation of powers, ambition counteracting
ambition, etc.).

By trying to focus on "man" as a source of his own sovereignty, you're
losing sight of the fact that man is flawed, a sinner who can never
redeem himself. The purpose of government isn't to provide that source
of redemption. Utopia on Earth is not possible, whether through
Communism, Libertarianism or any other -ism (especially Pragmatism).
The things you hate about government happen not because of "government"
per se but because all governments are made up of flawed men. All
companies are made up of flawed men. All consumers are flawed men. By
destroying the capacity of government to act, all you would do transfer
all the sin to private market relationships. You wouldn't get rid of it.

> The right to posses any means of self defense is not a right granted by
> government.

This "right" doesn't exist. If Bill Gates wants to stock his basement
with atomic weapons because he's worried about France, he doesn't have a
natural law right to do it. He can't operate private armies. It's not
compatible with democracy.

> If rights came from government, then governments could
> grant me the right to round up my neighbors, place them in a gas
> chamber, and turn it on.

Rights may be "inalienable" but people often have to rely on government
to help better secure the benefits of these rights. You can't do
everything on your own or through private enterprise. It's simply not
economical. How am I going to audit the credit quality of a thousand
mortgages held in an instrument in a bank in another country? The
libertarian gloss on politics really can't deal with modern economic
concepts like network effects, information asymmetry, agent loss,
transaction costs and institutional evolution.

>
> The phrase "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" was a compromise
> where the original phrase was "life, liberty, and property", a phrase
> designed to be inclusive of natural rights. The word "property" was
> changed since non-slave states didn't agree with slave states that
> people could be property. A state that doesn't subvert the natural
> right to defend oneself including ownership of weapons would be a state
> in which the rise of slavery could not occur except under the natural of
> one person to indenture themselves to another in exchange for any
> agreeable benefits.

This is a non sequitur. The slave states had "democracy" for those
people deemed to be "people" (enough so that plenty of whites who hated
slavery fought on the side of the South). It's one of the reasons
slavery came to be redefined over the centuries in terms of race (plenty
of whites came to America from England as "indentured servants," a
leftover of old feudal relationships) - otherwise, what kind of
democracy is it for whites when even whites can be sold into slavery.
By the time there was a civil war over slavery, slavery had almost
entirely been redefined from a pure property issue to racial
relationships.

> Being employed for wages is a form of indentured
> servitude.

No, it's simply a rational response to transaction costs. It's cheaper
for a bank to hire a salaried secretary - even if she doesn't have work
to do every minute - than it is for them to contract every little piece
of work they have her do on the open market for the best possible price.
The best possible price is hiring a secretary on a salary. This isn't
my idea, by the way. I didn't come up with it. Coase established all
this mathematically back in the early part of the 20th century around
the same time Keynes was doing his work.

The type of market relationships you're trying to force on us with your
ideas would leave us all much poorer, which is ironic when you think
about how much you think you value property. You should actually crack
open an economics textbook sometime.

Or a law book.

Or a political science textbook.

That is, if you're not too busy telling everybody how wrong they are...
From: PeterB - Original on
On Dec 19, 4:47 pm, "Peter B" <origin...(a)frag.com> wrote:
> "PeterB - Original" <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:908aa74d-cab0-47d9-b1c6-c82870608c08(a)s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 19, 12:44 am, "Peter B" <origin...(a)frag.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "PeterB - Original" <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:135886c7-3b93-4e63-8387-cdabf33f107d(a)c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 18, 5:15 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 18, 4:12 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 18, 1:48 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 18, 1:39 pm, Jim <willcox...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Alternative Medicine Pioneer Kidnapped by US Government in
> > > > > > Ecuador
> > > > > > Medical News Comentaries
> > > > > > 17 December 2009 9 Comments
>
> > > > > > Dear IMVA,
>
> > > > > > Yesterday I received a disturbing email from Greg Caton's
> > > > > > wife,
>
> > > > > This the same Gregory James Caton previously convicted of a
> > > > > Felony
> > > > > crime in 1990?
>
> > > > Yes, for selling herbals, which is a crime depending on how
> > > > carefully
> > > > you step (and sometimes regardless) with regard to product
> > > > labeling,
> > > > lest the seller encroach upon FDA's own monopoly of lies, the most
> > > > notable of which is that drugs prevent and cure disease.
> > > > Metagenics
> > > > was once prosecuted for false claims about a calcium supplement,
> > > > for
> > > > example, but they later won the case when the *existing* science
> > > > was
> > > > produced to support their marketing claims.
>
> > > > > The same Gregory James Caton charged with Felon in Possession of
> > > > > firearms in 2003? (A lot of them.)
>
> > > > WOW, a gun owner and herbal medicine advocate all in the same
> > > > body.
> > > > What's next, Bambi holding a Bowie?
>
> > > > > Read the indictment
> > > > > yourself.http://www.meditopia.org/docs/04-20075-01.document1.pdf
>
> > > > FDA's drug claims are the premise for charges against him, which
> > > > means
> > > > it's a pretty safe bet that none of this was based on any science
> > > > whatsoever, but rather on the perceived risk of competitive threat
> > > > by
> > > > FDA's buddies in the drug business.
>
> > > > > He agreed to the prosecution without indictment by the Grand
> > > > > Jury.http://www.meditopia.org/docs/04-20075-01.document2.pdf
>
> > > > > He entered a plea of Guilty and accepted
> > > > > Judgmenthttp://www.meditopia.org/docs/04-20075-01.document3.pdf
>
> > > > > He agreed to a fine of $250k and 5 years
> > > > > minimum.http://www.meditopia.org/docs/04-20075-01.document4.pdf
>
> > > > > And then after he was let out he skipped on his probation, moved
> > > > > to
> > > > > another country with lax laws to do the same thing all over
> > > > > again.
>
> > > > > All of the case docs here:http://www.meditopia.org/docs
>
> > > > What a busy penguin you are these days, Potemkin. You might want
> > > > to
> > > > read the other side of the story on Caton's website,
> > > > athttp://www.altcancer.com/h3o.htm.
>
> > > > > No wonder Mikey Adams supports him.
>
> > > > And you don't, because the rights of citizens in a free society
> > > > mean
> > > > nothing to you.
>
> > > Au contraire. However, there is no question that his marketing
> > > tactics
> > > violarted Federal law.
>
> > Oh? What proof do you have that his company's marketing violated
> > Federal Law?
>
> > > One does not get prosecuted without having
> > > apmple opportunity to prove one's claims with some science.
>
> > Care to provide any documentation on those claims, and how they were
> > false?
>
> > > He skipped that part. Even Hulda's Henchmen saw the wise thing to do
> > > was to stop making unsupportable claims.
>
> > You have only pointed to an indictment, no actual evidence of what was
> > claimed. Typical.
>
> > > As for being a felon in possession, I often wonder how the gun right
> > > absolutists, those who claim that owning a gun is an inalienable
> > > right...
>
> > An "inalienable" right is not the same as one provided for under the
> > US Constitution.
>
> > > (one that cannot be removed under any circumstances) and then
> > > support
> > > prisoners not being armed.
>
> > Non sequitur. Prisoners are incarcerated with many rights suspended.
> > Caton was not in jail.
>
> > > If the right is inalienable, then even they
> > > should be carrying. I heard that prison is a dangerous place, with
> > > lots of criminals.
>
> > You are dangerous but somehow free. Don't tell me, you have an
> > "inalienable" right to practice stupidity without a license.
> > ===========================================
> > There is only one such license, and you bought it. It is a matter of
> > public records.
>
> You can now return to your sandbox, newbie.
> ============================================
> What I love is that you buy into your fears.

Huh? The story is about a man I don't personally know, why would I
feel fear regarding his plight? I do find the circumstances
surrounding his ordeal to be sad. You are also sad, but it's a
different kind of sad, as in "pathetic."

From: Peter B on

"PeterB - Original" <pkm(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:c512e992-49b6-42ff-b87b-ced262fc6c45(a)k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 19, 4:47 pm, "Peter B" <origin...(a)frag.com> wrote:
> "PeterB - Original" <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:908aa74d-cab0-47d9-b1c6-c82870608c08(a)s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 19, 12:44 am, "Peter B" <origin...(a)frag.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "PeterB - Original" <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:135886c7-3b93-4e63-8387-cdabf33f107d(a)c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 18, 5:15 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 18, 4:12 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 18, 1:48 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 18, 1:39 pm, Jim <willcox...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Alternative Medicine Pioneer Kidnapped by US Government in
> > > > > > Ecuador
> > > > > > Medical News Comentaries
> > > > > > 17 December 2009 9 Comments
>
> > > > > > Dear IMVA,
>
> > > > > > Yesterday I received a disturbing email from Greg Caton's
> > > > > > wife,
>
> > > > > This the same Gregory James Caton previously convicted of a
> > > > > Felony
> > > > > crime in 1990?
>
> > > > Yes, for selling herbals, which is a crime depending on how
> > > > carefully
> > > > you step (and sometimes regardless) with regard to product
> > > > labeling,
> > > > lest the seller encroach upon FDA's own monopoly of lies, the
> > > > most
> > > > notable of which is that drugs prevent and cure disease.
> > > > Metagenics
> > > > was once prosecuted for false claims about a calcium supplement,
> > > > for
> > > > example, but they later won the case when the *existing* science
> > > > was
> > > > produced to support their marketing claims.
>
> > > > > The same Gregory James Caton charged with Felon in Possession
> > > > > of
> > > > > firearms in 2003? (A lot of them.)
>
> > > > WOW, a gun owner and herbal medicine advocate all in the same
> > > > body.
> > > > What's next, Bambi holding a Bowie?
>
> > > > > Read the indictment
> > > > > yourself.http://www.meditopia.org/docs/04-20075-01.document1.pdf
>
> > > > FDA's drug claims are the premise for charges against him, which
> > > > means
> > > > it's a pretty safe bet that none of this was based on any
> > > > science
> > > > whatsoever, but rather on the perceived risk of competitive
> > > > threat
> > > > by
> > > > FDA's buddies in the drug business.
>
> > > > > He agreed to the prosecution without indictment by the Grand
> > > > > Jury.http://www.meditopia.org/docs/04-20075-01.document2.pdf
>
> > > > > He entered a plea of Guilty and accepted
> > > > > Judgmenthttp://www.meditopia.org/docs/04-20075-01.document3.pdf
>
> > > > > He agreed to a fine of $250k and 5 years
> > > > > minimum.http://www.meditopia.org/docs/04-20075-01.document4.pdf
>
> > > > > And then after he was let out he skipped on his probation,
> > > > > moved
> > > > > to
> > > > > another country with lax laws to do the same thing all over
> > > > > again.
>
> > > > > All of the case docs here:http://www.meditopia.org/docs
>
> > > > What a busy penguin you are these days, Potemkin. You might want
> > > > to
> > > > read the other side of the story on Caton's website,
> > > > athttp://www.altcancer.com/h3o.htm.
>
> > > > > No wonder Mikey Adams supports him.
>
> > > > And you don't, because the rights of citizens in a free society
> > > > mean
> > > > nothing to you.
>
> > > Au contraire. However, there is no question that his marketing
> > > tactics
> > > violarted Federal law.
>
> > Oh? What proof do you have that his company's marketing violated
> > Federal Law?
>
> > > One does not get prosecuted without having
> > > apmple opportunity to prove one's claims with some science.
>
> > Care to provide any documentation on those claims, and how they were
> > false?
>
> > > He skipped that part. Even Hulda's Henchmen saw the wise thing to
> > > do
> > > was to stop making unsupportable claims.
>
> > You have only pointed to an indictment, no actual evidence of what
> > was
> > claimed. Typical.
>
> > > As for being a felon in possession, I often wonder how the gun
> > > right
> > > absolutists, those who claim that owning a gun is an inalienable
> > > right...
>
> > An "inalienable" right is not the same as one provided for under the
> > US Constitution.
>
> > > (one that cannot be removed under any circumstances) and then
> > > support
> > > prisoners not being armed.
>
> > Non sequitur. Prisoners are incarcerated with many rights suspended.
> > Caton was not in jail.
>
> > > If the right is inalienable, then even they
> > > should be carrying. I heard that prison is a dangerous place, with
> > > lots of criminals.
>
> > You are dangerous but somehow free. Don't tell me, you have an
> > "inalienable" right to practice stupidity without a license.
> > ===========================================
> > There is only one such license, and you bought it. It is a matter of
> > public records.
>
> You can now return to your sandbox, newbie.
> ============================================
> What I love is that you buy into your fears.

Huh? The story is about a man I don't personally know, why would I
feel fear regarding his plight? I do find the circumstances
surrounding his ordeal to be sad. You are also sad, but it's a
different kind of sad, as in "pathetic."
==============================================
You no doubt would find sympathy for a child molester.

As to buying into your fears it was in relationship to the sandbox
comment. You see a spook behind every post.

Run!

RUN!

RUN PETER, RUN!

Yeah, don't get caught with your pants down again!


From: PeterB - Original on
On Dec 20, 3:02 am, "Peter B" <origin...(a)frag.com> wrote:
> "PeterB - Original" <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:c512e992-49b6-42ff-b87b-ced262fc6c45(a)k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 19, 4:47 pm, "Peter B" <origin...(a)frag.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "PeterB - Original" <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:908aa74d-cab0-47d9-b1c6-c82870608c08(a)s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 19, 12:44 am, "Peter B" <origin...(a)frag.com> wrote:
>
> > > "PeterB - Original" <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote in
> > > messagenews:135886c7-3b93-4e63-8387-cdabf33f107d(a)c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Dec 18, 5:15 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 18, 4:12 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 18, 1:48 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 18, 1:39 pm, Jim <willcox...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Alternative Medicine Pioneer Kidnapped by US Government in
> > > > > > > Ecuador
> > > > > > > Medical News Comentaries
> > > > > > > 17 December 2009 9 Comments
>
> > > > > > > Dear IMVA,
>
> > > > > > > Yesterday I received a disturbing email from Greg Caton's
> > > > > > > wife,
>
> > > > > > This the same Gregory James Caton previously convicted of a
> > > > > > Felony
> > > > > > crime in 1990?
>
> > > > > Yes, for selling herbals, which is a crime depending on how
> > > > > carefully
> > > > > you step (and sometimes regardless) with regard to product
> > > > > labeling,
> > > > > lest the seller encroach upon FDA's own monopoly of lies, the
> > > > > most
> > > > > notable of which is that drugs prevent and cure disease.
> > > > > Metagenics
> > > > > was once prosecuted for false claims about a calcium supplement,
> > > > > for
> > > > > example, but they later won the case when the *existing* science
> > > > > was
> > > > > produced to support their marketing claims.
>
> > > > > > The same Gregory James Caton charged with Felon in Possession
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > firearms in 2003? (A lot of them.)
>
> > > > > WOW, a gun owner and herbal medicine advocate all in the same
> > > > > body.
> > > > > What's next, Bambi holding a Bowie?
>
> > > > > > Read the indictment
> > > > > > yourself.http://www.meditopia.org/docs/04-20075-01.document1.pdf
>
> > > > > FDA's drug claims are the premise for charges against him, which
> > > > > means
> > > > > it's a pretty safe bet that none of this was based on any
> > > > > science
> > > > > whatsoever, but rather on the perceived risk of competitive
> > > > > threat
> > > > > by
> > > > > FDA's buddies in the drug business.
>
> > > > > > He agreed to the prosecution without indictment by the Grand
> > > > > > Jury.http://www.meditopia.org/docs/04-20075-01.document2.pdf
>
> > > > > > He entered a plea of Guilty and accepted
> > > > > > Judgmenthttp://www.meditopia.org/docs/04-20075-01.document3.pdf
>
> > > > > > He agreed to a fine of $250k and 5 years
> > > > > > minimum.http://www.meditopia.org/docs/04-20075-01.document4.pdf
>
> > > > > > And then after he was let out he skipped on his probation,
> > > > > > moved
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > another country with lax laws to do the same thing all over
> > > > > > again.
>
> > > > > > All of the case docs here:http://www.meditopia.org/docs
>
> > > > > What a busy penguin you are these days, Potemkin. You might want
> > > > > to
> > > > > read the other side of the story on Caton's website,
> > > > > athttp://www.altcancer.com/h3o.htm.
>
> > > > > > No wonder Mikey Adams supports him.
>
> > > > > And you don't, because the rights of citizens in a free society
> > > > > mean
> > > > > nothing to you.
>
> > > > Au contraire. However, there is no question that his marketing
> > > > tactics
> > > > violarted Federal law.
>
> > > Oh? What proof do you have that his company's marketing violated
> > > Federal Law?
>
> > > > One does not get prosecuted without having
> > > > apmple opportunity to prove one's claims with some science.
>
> > > Care to provide any documentation on those claims, and how they were
> > > false?
>
> > > > He skipped that part. Even Hulda's Henchmen saw the wise thing to
> > > > do
> > > > was to stop making unsupportable claims.
>
> > > You have only pointed to an indictment, no actual evidence of what
> > > was
> > > claimed. Typical.
>
> > > > As for being a felon in possession, I often wonder how the gun
> > > > right
> > > > absolutists, those who claim that owning a gun is an inalienable
> > > > right...
>
> > > An "inalienable" right is not the same as one provided for under the
> > > US Constitution.
>
> > > > (one that cannot be removed under any circumstances) and then
> > > > support
> > > > prisoners not being armed.
>
> > > Non sequitur. Prisoners are incarcerated with many rights suspended.
> > > Caton was not in jail.
>
> > > > If the right is inalienable, then even they
> > > > should be carrying. I heard that prison is a dangerous place, with
> > > > lots of criminals.
>
> > > You are dangerous but somehow free. Don't tell me, you have an
> > > "inalienable" right to practice stupidity without a license.
> > > ===========================================
> > > There is only one such license, and you bought it. It is a matter of
> > > public records.
>
> > You can now return to your sandbox, newbie.
> > ============================================
> > What I love is that you buy into your fears.
>
> Huh?  The  story is about a man I don't personally know, why would I
> feel fear regarding his plight?  I do find the circumstances
> surrounding his ordeal to be sad.  You are also sad, but it's a
> different kind of sad, as in "pathetic."
> ==============================================
> You no doubt would find sympathy for a child molester.

Not even for you.

> As to buying into your fears it was in relationship to the sandbox
> comment. You see a spook behind every post.

The "sandbox" comment was a reference to you being an idiot child, not
an idiot spook. But if you like, I'll start referring to you as the
idiot spook. I kinda like it to.

> Run!
>
> RUN!
>
> RUN PETER, RUN!
>
> Yeah, don't get caught with your pants down again!

Okay Forrest!!