2010/2/27 Cotty <[email protected]>: > On 27/2/10, Subash, discombobulated, unleashed: > >>if governments thrive by creating paranoia, on a first reading at >>least, Cotty's post appeared to me as evidence of the fact that they've >>succeeded quite well. > > I do not read the same out of what I wrote as you do Subers. I am not > paranoid - I perceive the situation and arrive at a conclusion I am > happy with. I guess that might be paranoia in your books?
Hey Cotty, The element of paranoia in your story was the woman who reported you to the police for not understanding what she saw. As people get more skittish, they're more likely to do so for ever more whimsical reasons, aren't they. Then if that sort of report reach the wrong sort of cop, you get the bad kind of story out of it. I fully endorse your POV that this doesn't happen most of the time because the police is reasonable. I have a good story about private security guards on the Canary Wharf to the same tune. However I do think there's something wrong, somewhere, when mistakes happen as often as they do, without any visible and measurable positive effect in how the police actually protects us from the real bad guys. Up here in this frostpit, it is maintained that intelligence and undercover work is the only way to root out and stop the bad guys. Experience says that there are always some bad guys flying under that radar too, but raising the issue draws weight away from arguments for searching the ordinary bloke with a camera. Jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
