[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > <URL:http://www.progressive.org/webex/wxmc120801.html> > > What exactly is the problem here?
Frell. The first problem is that the frellin' Progressive changed the article to which the URL pointed. The one on which I was commenting had nothing to do with stamps. As for this stamp article (who knows what the link will have to-morrow?).. The second problem: > They did something (paying for a large number of stamps with > cash) that was at the least, out of the ordinary. They then > made another request (no American flags) which is also, to say > the least, out of the ordinary [opinion snippage]. This > caused the postal worker to be, naturally, suspicious. I > would certainly have been suspicious. Sorry, but to put it in a word I think they were hassled. They were prevented from completing a perfectly legal transaction until the following day, and nearly an hour of their time was additionally consumed to apparently no point. > These are difficult times. I consider that a dangerous sentiment, and a cop-out IMHO. 'Inalienable' means 'not situational'. The times are *always* difficult; changing principles day to day hardly affirms your belief in them. Let's try a couple of ideas: 'Presumed innocent until proven guilty.' 'A government of laws, not of men.' Opinion doesn't enter into it, and for very good reason. > Had some people been a little _more_ suspicious on September > 10th, 3000+ people would still be alive today. Oh? What activities would such heightened suspicion have identified? -- #ken P-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "All right everyone! Step away from the glowing hamburger!"
