It's so nice to see you two boys playing nicely again. It's ever so much more fun this way, isn't it?
cheers, frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Chris Brogden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Very OT: Re: The morality of taking a photograph Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:48:37 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
No worries... happens to the best of 'em.
On a different note, my apologies to the list for bringing up the Patriot Act.
chris
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Bob Blakely wrote:
> You are... Holy. I am... Evil. I'm sorry to have disagreed with you.
>
> Regards,
> Bob...
> ------------------------------------------
> Politically incorrect sig line deleted to prevent
> "socialists, statists, elitists and weekend golfers
> [you know who you are] from receiving
> discomforting enlightenment."
> -Larry Elders
>
> From: "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Bob Blakely wrote:
> >
> > > This all started out as a question of the morality of taking certain
> > > photos - reasonably on topic.
> > >
> > > It quickly evolved to include a question of legality of taking certain
> > > photos - still reasonably on topic.
> > >
> > > With Chris Brogden, it morphed into surveillance and rights - on topic?
> > > Questionable.
> > > but I followed.
> > >
> > > He further introduced the US Patriot Act and the thread went entirely
> off
> > > topic, but again, I followed.
> > >
> > > Now this fellow wants to discuss the 2000 US presidential election!
> > >
> > > Group, I'm sorry I followed Chris down this insipid path. I quit now. If
> > > anyone wants to discuss this or any other off topic subject off-line,
> you've
> > > got my e-mail address.
> >
> > Sorry, Bob. I had no idea my evil Canadian schemes would cause you to
> > stray from your always-on-topic, never-political ways. Looks like I'm The
> > Man Who Corrupted Bob.
> >
> > This whole thing started innocently enough <insert birds chirping> when
> > Bob suggested that people take responsibility for their actions while in
> > public, and that it was ok for photos of them to be circulated. I pointed
> > out that this was a dangerous road, and if it's ok for a member of the
> > general public to record and publish photos of others without their
> > knowledge or permission, then what's to stop the government from doing the
> > same thing? Bob responded by saying, correctly enough, that they already
> > record people without their permission and, often, knowledge. Then he
> > argued that that was ok, since the government doesn't have the right to
> > abuse that power. I called him to task on that statement, as the Patriot
> > Act *does* give the US government increased powers to infringe further on
> > its citizens' civil liberties and rights. US citizens, for example, can
> > be detained indefinitely without being charged because they now can be
> > labelled as "enemy combatants." In any case, I've said most of what I
> > want to say about this topic. If US citizens don't care that their
> > government is granting itself more and more authority to pry into their
> > daily lives, then why should I?
> >
> > Heading out to take photos of snow while the back bacon fries,
>
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
