petro wrote:
Oh come now. You have real recourse against Bill Gates and John Tesh
Bill Gates is a questionable case, but there is no doubt that
John Tesh should die.
if everyone who hates windos puts $10 in a box, you'd need quite a large
box. which makes one wonder why the guy
On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, Tom Vogt wrote:
would most likely cast a couple new protection laws. say, make it
illegal to publish a politician's name. "our president has today..."
Well, I guess that's *one* way to get political types to support
the right to anonymity...
Eric Cordian wrote:
Alan Olsen wrote:
[...snip...]
He seemed to think that the only target of this would be the government.
I think this is a reasonable observation. You really have to be acting
under color of authority to strongly alienate enough people, who have so
litle recourse
Anyway, the distinction between business and politics is less clear than
you make out - or seems less clear to many people in countries outside
America. In most places the government is in the pockets of the people
with the money - and in most places presidents and governors are quick
This is a
Alan Olsen wrote:
I disagree. I don't believe Jim really was willing to consider
the social implications of his scheme.
The implications are that in a society where the government has not made
personal privacy and private communication illegal, you can't be an
asshole to countless millions
Oh come now. You have real recourse against Bill Gates and John Tesh
Bill Gates is a questionable case, but there is no doubt that
John Tesh should die.
It is extremely unlikely it is going to change in the least the "who" or
"why" of contract killing. I really don't think everyone
