Re: List administrivia (Re: Whom, specifically, is our greatest ally? - (spoiler: Australia)) - [PEACE]
On 11/3/19 22:54, jim bell wrote: > Writable CD's presumably held 640 megabytes. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_disc Actually, 650 or 700 for full size 12cm discs, with a couple of those possibly taken up by file system overhead. -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
Re: Whom, specifically, is our greatest ally? - (spoiler: Australia) - [PEACE]
On Sunday, November 3, 2019, 05:18:25 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness wrote: >I confirm that I received no earlier version of the below email. EXCELLENT! I didn't receive a return from the server which contained the first version of that message, (earlier than the one I deliberately made to be "forwarded", to I suspected that Razer was lying (and certainly misleading) when he very strongly implied that I had done something wrong, >Now Jim, a simple request is all that's needed for most folks who would ordinarily, go out of their way to spend a little of their own time, to verify something for you, at your request. Yes, but I was expecting at least a few spontaneous responses, from people other than you, too. Even if I could not necessarily 'trust' each such reply, if I'd gotten a number of replies, each claiming they HAD received my previous message, that would have given me confidence that I was somehow alone in failing to receive it back. Altenatively, if a number of people had responded, claiming that they hadn't received it, likewise that would have alerted me to the likely facts. >Anyway, I have posted a few examples of when I have experienced my own emails, sent to this list, completely disappearing "into a black hole", one very recently in fact. Oh, I don't doubt that this happens occasionally, and in most cases quite innocently. The issue wasn't really the lack of a response by the server: The issue was Razer's lie. Remember, Razer said: Razer To:CypherPunksNov 3 at 12:06 PMJust because you haven't received your copy yet (or at all) doesn't mean we haven't. Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice Ps. Get psychiatric help - And Razer hasn't yet admitted that he hasn't received that earlier email. At the time I sent the second copy, by means of forwarding, 74 minutes had elapsed. Since I conclude Razer also didn't get the original of that email, his misleading response was obviously trollish. Jim Bell >So this is a known problem. I certainly understood that. That is why I merely re-sent the original email. It was Razer who made an ass out of himself by suggesting that I had done something wrong by re-sending that message, even though I had waited 74 minutes for a return. I'd say I did the right thing. Jim Bell On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 07:53:27PM +, jim bell wrote: > I'm going to re-send this, because after over a hour it doesn't seem to have >appeared on the list. > Jim Bell > - Forwarded Message - From: jim bell To: >Steven Schear Cc: cypherpunks >; Razer Sent: Sunday, November >3, 2019, 10:30:21 AM PSTSubject: Re: Whom, specifically, is our greatest ally? >- (spoiler: Australia) - [PEACE] > On Sunday, November 3, 2019, 01:52:45 AM PDT, Steven Schear > wrote: > > > >>"I think that in America, gun laws cannot Constitutionally be any stricter >that they were in 1789, when the Bill of Rights of voted, and 1791, when it >was ratified by states." > >Of course they are more strict. > > I will try to be clearer. In virtually any environment, there is "the way > things are supposed to be" and there is "the way things actually are". One > major source of this discrepancy, in the American gun-rights situation, is > that until 2010, in the Supreme Court decision McDonald v. Chicago > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago the Bill of > Rights had continued to be only selectively enforced on the States > themmselves. There was a very long period of the practice called > "incorporation" > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights So, for > essentially over 200 years, states didn't necessarily feel bound by the > wording of the Second Amendment. > I never thought that this "incorporation" concept made any sense. It > effectively amount to "exclusion" of the principles of the BOR to the States, > despite the fact the requisite 3/4s of the then-existing states had ratified > the relevant Amendment. What, exactly, did their "ratifications" actually > mean, if not to comply with the wording of the Amendments they had just > ratified. If those Amendments could be interpreted to apply to those > States, of course. > It's further illogically applied: Notice that the 1st Amendment begins, > "Congress shall make no law...". Apparently, the Federal Congress, that is. > Not the State legislatures, it seems. So,if any Amendment is written so as > to seem to apply only to the Federal Government, it must be the First! Yet, > there has long been essentially no dispute that the 1st Amendment ALSO > applies to the States themselv
Re: List administrivia (Re: Whom, specifically, is our greatest ally? - (spoiler: Australia)) - [PEACE]
On Sunday, November 3, 2019, 06:22:07 PM PST, Greg Newby wrote: >1. MISSING MESSAGES THIS WEEK >Jim: I set your list options to select "ACK" and unselected "nodupes." The >impact is that you should get an email acknowledgment whenever a message is >accepted and (presumably) distributed and archived. The "nodupes" might have >no impact, but it is supposed to quash multiple copies of messages when >selected. Yes, I noticed the change before I noticed your mention of it. Thank you. >Because you sent multiple emails to the list today, I don't have an easy way >to check whether there was some sort of problem (like a spam-type rejection) >from one of them. If you are ever suspicious that something got blocked or >didn't make it, AND can tell me the specific time, I can check the logs. Okay, I hope that service doesn't become necessary, As I think I said today, I don't recall a prior time (in the last few weeks, at least) where it appeared that one of my postings to CP never eventually appeared or was unusually delayed, although I admit that I don't typically pay close attention since the system has usually been so reliable. I was alerted to recent talk on the list which suggested some failures, and when I made a posting this morning that apparently had not yet appeared 74 minutes later, and the list appeared virtually dead, I concluded that my first attempt had been lost. >As I have mentioned here before, the PGLAF.org server that runs >lists.cpunks.org has graylisting and a few other anti-spam measures. But >clearly most of your messages are being handled correctly. Do you have any idea of what I might inadvertently do to a message that might cause it to be rejected? I have the same message on my computer; I could resend it, but I didn't and don't want to clutter the system with test-junk. >Anyone else who wants to twiddle their list settings can visit >https://lists.cpunks.org/mailman/listinfo/cypherpunks (and Jim can email me to >revert what's above, if desired). For a few days, I'm happy with the new setting. I wish these systems alerted me (or themselves) to failures to accept data. >2. MISSING MESSAGES FROM 1995 >As has already been written, the PGLAF server has only hosted the list since >around August of 2016. Previously, Riad Wahby hosted the list. I first >subscribed in the early 2000s. The archive copies I have at https://www.petascale.org/cypherpunks/ came from a couple of other people. My attempt to access the Archive of the CP list, about 4 days ago, was approximately my first in many years. If I ever accessed it before, I don't even recall why. 4 days ago, I think I just did a google-search for 'cypherpunk archive', and visited that site. I found a file which appeared to be the correct one for 1995, accessed it (by my Chrome browser), and yet I found virtually no instances of "jim bell", "jimb...@pacifier.com", "ap", or "assassination politics". Initially, I sure wondered if I must have done something wrong... >For anyone looking at those copies, note that the mbox files have some >problems (spam, and some messages with bad headers that can confuse or even >crash email clients). I am unaware if such a thing affected my initial viewing or my later viewings, but since other people seem to be observing the same thing, I think we are all confident that we are seeing the same problem. >It is clear in these archives that the messages that Jim says do not exist, do >not exist. There is no obvious evidence of redaction. For example, I wondered >whether there would be responses to messages that Jim posted, but not the >original messages. I didn't find any. Ditto for the messages from Bill Frezza. Well, my current idea is that all messages:1. From me.2. To me.3. Containing references about me. (yet numerous references to 'bell' remain, when that refers to something other than 'jim bell'.4 containing references to "AP", "assassination politics" are missing.5. Very rare instances of the text string 'ap', about 15, seem to exist, but those instances are ones in which the meaning is (mostly) 'associated press'. I recall one reference to 'killer ap', with only one 'p'. I think these instances must have been intentionally retained. I conclude that a very sophisticated tampering has been done, although perhaps it wouldn't have been too difficult. If they had: 1. Erased all threads about AP.2. then Erased all emails from me or to me, with a very small exceptions, or contained 'assassination politics, or 'jim bell'.3. Perhaps hand-searched all emails containing 'ap' (or ' ap ') and removed all those in which 'ap' referred to "assassination politics", or 'bell' or 'jim', where I am a subject. It was a thorough job, although anyone unaware of the events of 1995 would probably not have noticed the omissions,. I have some ideas about why they bothered to do this, but they clearly didn't expect to be able to remove the
List administrivia (Re: Whom, specifically, is our greatest ally? - (spoiler: Australia)) - [PEACE]
1. MISSING MESSAGES THIS WEEK Jim: I set your list options to select "ACK" and unselected "nodupes." The impact is that you should get an email acknowledgment whenever a message is accepted and (presumably) distributed and archived. The "nodupes" might have no impact, but it is supposed to quash multiple copies of messages when selected. Because you sent multiple emails to the list today, I don't have an easy way to check whether there was some sort of problem (like a spam-type rejection) from one of them. If you are ever suspicious that something got blocked or didn't make it, AND can tell me the specific time, I can check the logs. As I have mentioned here before, the PGLAF.org server that runs lists.cpunks.org has graylisting and a few other anti-spam measures. But clearly most of your messages are being handled correctly. Anyone else who wants to twiddle their list settings can visit https://lists.cpunks.org/mailman/listinfo/cypherpunks (and Jim can email me to revert what's above, if desired). 2. MISSING MESSAGES FROM 1995 As has already been written, the PGLAF server has only hosted the list since around August of 2016. Previously, Riad Wahby hosted the list. I first subscribed in the early 2000s. The archive copies I have at https://www.petascale.org/cypherpunks/ came from a couple of other people. For anyone looking at those copies, note that the mbox files have some problems (spam, and some messages with bad headers that can confuse or even crash email clients). It is clear in these archives that the messages that Jim says do not exist, do not exist. There is no obvious evidence of redaction. For example, I wondered whether there would be responses to messages that Jim posted, but not the original messages. I didn't find any. Ditto for the messages from Bill Frezza. ** IF YOU FIND OTHER (different) COPIES of the archive, please get them to me and I'll add them to what's above. In the early 2000s, the list existed via a series of "cypherpunks distributed remailers" (CDRs). It is absolutely true that the content from each CDR was different: different headers, different time stamps, and different spam. I do not know the provenance of the copies above. I can tell you that I didn't edit/redact them (a README tells what I did to eventually ingest alongside lists.cpunks.org archives). I agree with Jim's suggestion that we seek other copies of archives, or individuals who might have a complete personal archive from them. Some of the long-departed CDR admins like Jim Chote and John Gilmore might have such records. If anyone knows who was running CDRs in the 1992-1997 period, I will be happy to reach out to them. Best, Greg On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 12:49:22AM +, jim bell wrote: > On Sunday, November 3, 2019, 01:34:48 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness > wrote: > > > >What I do when I'm unsure and want to check, is check the cp archives here: > > > https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/ > > >view by date, and look at the most recent emails. > > > Unfortunately, your response is (un-?)intentionally hilarious. It wouldn't > have been so a week ago, before I started exposing the most huge scandal of > corruption tampering that Cypherpunks archives has ever seen, a massive > fabrication of some of the CP archives, Back then, there was at least the > illusion that the CP archives had a minimal level of credibility. > And here, above, you ask me to "check the CP archives". > Worse, you don't even bother to explain if you actually received the first > attempt of my morning email, a claim which at least in principle would have > provided a bit of further indication whether my first attempt had actually > succeeded, or had failed. That is obviously the first, most immediate piece > of information that you could have done. > And you didn't. Remember what 'they' say, "if you're not part of the > solution, you're part of the problem". > Jim Bell > >
Re: Whom, specifically, is our greatest ally? - (spoiler: Australia) - [PEACE]
On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 12:49:22AM +, jim bell wrote: > On Sunday, November 3, 2019, 01:34:48 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness > wrote: > > > >What I do when I'm unsure and want to check, is check the cp archives here: > > > https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/ > > >view by date, and look at the most recent emails. > > > Unfortunately, your response is (un-?)intentionally hilarious. It > wouldn't have been so a week ago, before I started exposing the > most huge scandal of corruption tampering that Cypherpunks archives > has ever seen, a massive fabrication of some of the CP archives, > Back then, there was at least the illusion that the CP archives had > a minimal level of credibility. Jim, corruption and tampering of email archives from 1995, when you were stalked and ultimately jailed for ~13 years pursuant to the paper you wrote, which (per kindly and recently provided information) involved, at the least, a grand jury, is not surprising. > And here, above, you ask me to "check the CP archives". Yes Jim, checking the official CP archives is basic due diligence if an email you have recently sent, does not appear back to you as a subscriber, via the CP list. And yes, of course it is humorous in the face of your 1995 missing emails :) > Worse, you don't even bother to explain if you actually received "don't even bother" implies I had the thought to do so, and intentionally discarded that thought, which suggests you are speaking to my intentions in relation to you. In general, it is unwise to speak to the intentions of another. Instead, speak specifically just to the actions of another, and refrain from postulating their intentions - in this way, less folks inclined to emotional reactivity, react emotionally thus causing the discussion to descend into non constructive territory of ad homs, defensiveness, baseless accusations etc. It's not necessarily an easy rule to follow, but it does at least on the surface appear a wise rule to attempt to follow... > the first attempt of my morning email, a claim which at least in > principle would have provided a bit of further indication whether > my first attempt had actually succeeded, or had failed. That is > obviously the first, most immediate piece of information that you > could have done. > > And you didn't. Remember what 'they' say, "if you're not part of the > solution, you're part of the problem". > Jim Bell >
Re: Fw: Whom, specifically, is our greatest ally? - (spoiler: Australia) - [PEACE]
I confirm that I received no earlier version of the below email. Now Jim, a simple request is all that's needed for most folks who would ordinarily, go out of their way to spend a little of their own time, to verify something for you, at your request. Anyway, I have posted a few examples of when I have experienced my own emails, sent to this list, completely disappearing "into a black hole", one very recently in fact. So this is a known problem. One possible explanation is spam filtering, especially for an example ISP as I use such as Telstra which is the incumbent, thus large and must handle millions of emails on a daily basis - it is at least conceivable that they somewhat aggressively filter for "spam" emails, and in doing so unfortunately black hole a few of the emails I draft ... not surprising given how many times I use the word "snowflake" in my emails. Good luck, On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 07:53:27PM +, jim bell wrote: > I'm going to re-send this, because after over a hour it doesn't seem to have > appeared on the list. > Jim Bell >- Forwarded Message - From: jim bell To: > Steven Schear Cc: cypherpunks > ; Razer Sent: Sunday, November > 3, 2019, 10:30:21 AM PSTSubject: Re: Whom, specifically, is our greatest > ally? - (spoiler: Australia) - [PEACE] > On Sunday, November 3, 2019, 01:52:45 AM PDT, Steven Schear > wrote: > > > >>"I think that in America, gun laws cannot Constitutionally be any stricter > that they were in 1789, when the Bill of Rights of voted, and 1791, when it > was ratified by states." > >Of course they are more strict. > > I will try to be clearer. In virtually any environment, there is "the way > things are supposed to be" and there is "the way things actually are". One > major source of this discrepancy, in the American gun-rights situation, is > that until 2010, in the Supreme Court decision McDonald v. Chicago > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago the Bill of > Rights had continued to be only selectively enforced on the States > themmselves. There was a very long period of the practice called > "incorporation" > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights So, for > essentially over 200 years, states didn't necessarily feel bound by the > wording of the Second Amendment. > I never thought that this "incorporation" concept made any sense. It > effectively amount to "exclusion" of the principles of the BOR to the States, > despite the fact the requisite 3/4s of the then-existing states had ratified > the relevant Amendment. What, exactly, did their "ratifications" actually > mean, if not to comply with the wording of the Amendments they had just > ratified. If those Amendments could be interpreted to apply to those > States, of course. > It's further illogically applied: Notice that the 1st Amendment begins, > "Congress shall make no law...". Apparently, the Federal Congress, that is. > Not the State legislatures, it seems. So,if any Amendment is written so as > to seem to apply only to the Federal Government, it must be the First! Yet, > there has long been essentially no dispute that the 1st Amendment ALSO > applies to the States themselves. That is certainly a good idea, but I dare > you to try to find out the actual, Constitutional justification for deciding > that's the way things have to be done. > And when the Second Amendment declares that it "shall not be infringed", > there is no indication at all that the ratifying States immediately intended > to exclude themselves from this obligation, Where did that idea come from? > > > >When these Amendments were written each state had militias controlled by > their governors, > > I don't think that's precisely true. Saying that "each state had militias" > can be interpeted in at least two ways:1. There are militias acting within > the territory of each state. OR2. [The Government] of each state owns > or controls [some of?] the militias acting within each respective state. > These are distinctly different concepts. I think State Constitutions > generally give such Governors power "to call out the militia". But the way > law works, that does not automatically mean that those militias become > obliged to obey that call. I realize that might seem to be a fine > distinction, especially to a non-lawyer, but the way American Constitutions > are interpreted, the absence of a explicit reference to an power has (at > least used to be!) interpereted as the ABSENCE of that power. When States > wrote their Constitution
Re: Whom, specifically, is our greatest ally? - (spoiler: Australia) - [PEACE]
On Sunday, November 3, 2019, 01:34:48 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness wrote: >What I do when I'm unsure and want to check, is check the cp archives here: > https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/ >view by date, and look at the most recent emails. Unfortunately, your response is (un-?)intentionally hilarious. It wouldn't have been so a week ago, before I started exposing the most huge scandal of corruption tampering that Cypherpunks archives has ever seen, a massive fabrication of some of the CP archives, Back then, there was at least the illusion that the CP archives had a minimal level of credibility. And here, above, you ask me to "check the CP archives". Worse, you don't even bother to explain if you actually received the first attempt of my morning email, a claim which at least in principle would have provided a bit of further indication whether my first attempt had actually succeeded, or had failed. That is obviously the first, most immediate piece of information that you could have done. And you didn't. Remember what 'they' say, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem". Jim Bell
Re: Whom, specifically, is our greatest ally? - (spoiler: Australia) - [PEACE]
What I do when I'm unsure and want to check, is check the cp archives here: https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/ view by date, and look at the most recent emails. If the email is the archives already, obviously it was received by the list server, and most likely sent out to all subscribers... On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 08:38:12PM +, jim bell wrote: > Well, people (?) have been speaking quite recently about apparent problems > with the Cypherpunks list email-acceptance reliability. Do we (or you?) have > any reason to believe such reports are deliberately phony? I think the large > majority of comments I've made recently to CP (days, weeks) have proceeded > promptly. So when I see an aberration, I identify it as such. > After about 74 minutes of non-appearance of that message, at least failing to > return back to me in a virtually comment free list (indicating that the > server can't possibly be 'busy'), I think any logical person familiar with > the working of email lists (and specifically CP) would suspect that the sent > message had simply been "lost", and the logical response would have been to > re-post it, as I did. > Yet, you are strongly implying that my interpretation of events was somehow > wrong or even illogical. > On Sunday, November 3, 2019, 12:06:56 PM PST, Razer > wrote: > > >Just because you haven't received your copy yet (or at all) doesn't mean we > haven't. > Just because you MAY have received your copy (you might be lying; presumably, > we'll hear from others soon enough to determine if my first attempt to send > the message actually got through to anyone else) doesn't mean you have a > correct position.) You MIGHT have only seen the second message, which > included the original header, and decided to muddy the water and 'score > points' by implying that I interpreted events incorrectly.) > And, I note, nobody else responded (yet) to my recent first attempt to > send that message. Had I received even one such answer, that would have > suggested that the CP server had successfully posted my message. The absence > of any response, to me, even 74 minutes later, at least doesn't contradict > the idea that the CP server had somehow coughed and failed, at least on one > email. > > > >Rr > >Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice > >Ps. Get psychiatric help > > Your illogical reactions, could also reflect YOUR need for such psychiatric > help. I, at least, can actually justify my actions and reasoning. Put > simply, I'm believable, and you are not.
Re: Whom, specifically, is our greatest ally? - (spoiler: Australia) - [PEACE]
Well, people (?) have been speaking quite recently about apparent problems with the Cypherpunks list email-acceptance reliability. Do we (or you?) have any reason to believe such reports are deliberately phony? I think the large majority of comments I've made recently to CP (days, weeks) have proceeded promptly. So when I see an aberration, I identify it as such. After about 74 minutes of non-appearance of that message, at least failing to return back to me in a virtually comment free list (indicating that the server can't possibly be 'busy'), I think any logical person familiar with the working of email lists (and specifically CP) would suspect that the sent message had simply been "lost", and the logical response would have been to re-post it, as I did. Yet, you are strongly implying that my interpretation of events was somehow wrong or even illogical. On Sunday, November 3, 2019, 12:06:56 PM PST, Razer wrote: >Just because you haven't received your copy yet (or at all) doesn't mean we >haven't. Just because you MAY have received your copy (you might be lying; presumably, we'll hear from others soon enough to determine if my first attempt to send the message actually got through to anyone else) doesn't mean you have a correct position.) You MIGHT have only seen the second message, which included the original header, and decided to muddy the water and 'score points' by implying that I interpreted events incorrectly.) And, I note, nobody else responded (yet) to my recent first attempt to send that message. Had I received even one such answer, that would have suggested that the CP server had successfully posted my message. The absence of any response, to me, even 74 minutes later, at least doesn't contradict the idea that the CP server had somehow coughed and failed, at least on one email. >Rr >Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice >Ps. Get psychiatric help Your illogical reactions, could also reflect YOUR need for such psychiatric help. I, at least, can actually justify my actions and reasoning. Put simply, I'm believable, and you are not.
Re: Fw: Whom, specifically, is our greatest ally? - (spoiler: Australia) - [PEACE]
Just because you haven't received your copy yet (or at all) doesn't mean we haven't. Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice Ps. Get psychiatric help
Fw: Whom, specifically, is our greatest ally? - (spoiler: Australia) - [PEACE]
I'm going to re-send this, because after over a hour it doesn't seem to have appeared on the list. Jim Bell - Forwarded Message - From: jim bell To: Steven Schear Cc: cypherpunks ; Razer Sent: Sunday, November 3, 2019, 10:30:21 AM PSTSubject: Re: Whom, specifically, is our greatest ally? - (spoiler: Australia) - [PEACE] On Sunday, November 3, 2019, 01:52:45 AM PDT, Steven Schear wrote: >>"I think that in America, gun laws cannot Constitutionally be any stricter >>that they were in 1789, when the Bill of Rights of voted, and 1791, when it >>was ratified by states." >Of course they are more strict. I will try to be clearer. In virtually any environment, there is "the way things are supposed to be" and there is "the way things actually are". One major source of this discrepancy, in the American gun-rights situation, is that until 2010, in the Supreme Court decision McDonald v. Chicago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago the Bill of Rights had continued to be only selectively enforced on the States themmselves. There was a very long period of the practice called "incorporation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights So, for essentially over 200 years, states didn't necessarily feel bound by the wording of the Second Amendment. I never thought that this "incorporation" concept made any sense. It effectively amount to "exclusion" of the principles of the BOR to the States, despite the fact the requisite 3/4s of the then-existing states had ratified the relevant Amendment. What, exactly, did their "ratifications" actually mean, if not to comply with the wording of the Amendments they had just ratified. If those Amendments could be interpreted to apply to those States, of course. It's further illogically applied: Notice that the 1st Amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law...". Apparently, the Federal Congress, that is. Not the State legislatures, it seems. So,if any Amendment is written so as to seem to apply only to the Federal Government, it must be the First! Yet, there has long been essentially no dispute that the 1st Amendment ALSO applies to the States themselves. That is certainly a good idea, but I dare you to try to find out the actual, Constitutional justification for deciding that's the way things have to be done. And when the Second Amendment declares that it "shall not be infringed", there is no indication at all that the ratifying States immediately intended to exclude themselves from this obligation, Where did that idea come from? >When these Amendments were written each state had militias controlled by their governors, I don't think that's precisely true. Saying that "each state had militias" can be interpeted in at least two ways:1. There are militias acting within the territory of each state. OR2. [The Government] of each state owns or controls [some of?] the militias acting within each respective state. These are distinctly different concepts. I think State Constitutions generally give such Governors power "to call out the militia". But the way law works, that does not automatically mean that those militias become obliged to obey that call. I realize that might seem to be a fine distinction, especially to a non-lawyer, but the way American Constitutions are interpreted, the absence of a explicit reference to an power has (at least used to be!) interpereted as the ABSENCE of that power. When States wrote their Constitutions, they (I think correctly) recognized that if "the Government" was to EVER have the authority to "call out" a militia, that power had to be listed in the Constitution itself. And it was. "and these rights were linked to militia membership." That reasoning is excluded by the 2008 Heller and the 2010 McDonald decisions. Sure, that was long the position of "the powers that be", and the chattering leftist political classes especially, but the Heller decision destroyed that concept forever. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#tab-opinion-1962738 >From the Heller decision: "Logic demands that there be a link between the >stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if >it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free >State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not >be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory >clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause (“The separation of >church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall >have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the >operati
Re: Whom, specifically, is our greatest ally? - (spoiler: Australia) - [PEACE]
On November 3, 2019 1:52:31 AM PDT, Steven Schear opined: > >Since then the restrictions have only gotten tighter. Today, there are >effectively no militias. > > The REPUBLIC of California's National Guard is a militia... Some states DO NOT relegate full control of their National Guard to the pentagram. They are technically state militias. California actually refers to them as such. The state also has a naval militia. https://en.wikipedia.org Ps. Take your metal peckers, ram them up your collective asses, and PULL! -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: Whom, specifically, is our greatest ally? - (spoiler: Australia) - [PEACE]
"I think that in America, gun laws cannot Constitutionally be any stricter
that they were in 1789, when the Bill of Rights of voted, and 1791, when it
was ratified by states."
Of course they are more strict. When these Amendments were written each
state had militias controlled by their governors, and these rights were
linked to militia membership. This which dramatically changed in 1903, when
Congress became Dicks.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
Since then the restrictions have only gotten tighter. Today, there are
effectively no militias.
https://mises.org/wire/when-state-governors-tried-take-back-control-national-guard
I interpret this change to mean these rights originally conferred to the
states now Constitutionally belong to the nation's individuals.
On Sun, Nov 3, 2019, 5:13 AM jim bell wrote:
> On Saturday, November 2, 2019, 08:11:34 PM PDT, Razer
> wrote:
>
>
> On November 2, 2019 5:28:58 AM PDT, Zenaan Harkness
> wrote:
> >>For those who missed the memo, in Australia, "cunt" is the most
> >>endearing term used between two blokes who are great friends and have
> >>been for a long time.
> >
> >Between absolutely anyone else at all, the word is one of, if not
> >>the, worst possible slurs.
> >
> >>When in polite company, it is strongly advisable to not use the term
> >>at all, even when your best long term friend rocks up, since others
> >>may not take so kindly to such colloquial speach in such situations.
>
>
> >Aussie Thomas Violence says:
>
> >"I love little cultural differences, like how Americans are super
> offended by the word cunt but here in Australia we're super offended by
> school children being slaughtered with automatic weapons"
>
> Sure he said that! The current difference between America and Australia
> is that the latter generally banned guns a few years ago, and mostly
> America hasn't done that. It's called the "Second Amendment", and my
> interpretation fairly closely agrees with the 2008 Supreme Court case D.C.
> v. Heller. I think that in America, gun laws cannot Constitutionally be
> any stricter that they were in 1789, when the Bill of Rights of voted, and
> 1791, when it was ratified by states. That's the meaning of the term
> "infringed", with its root-word "fringe".
>
> I assert that this means that the RTKBA cannot be further limited, even
> around the "fringed". Why this wording? Well, if the wording had says,
> "the right to keep and bear a gun shall not be denied", some slick
> politician some day would decide that if 'they' banned any gun with more
> power than 1/4 of a 0.22 pistol, they still hadn't actually DENIED people's
> rights to own a gun, used singular. Slick.
>
> I can remember about 1966, when "Texas Tower Shooter" Charles Whitman shot
> people. It shocked the nation, not merely due to the violence, but
> because at that time it seemed to be such an astonishing act. "What has
> changed", we should ask? America doesn't have that many more people (and
> guns) than we did in 1966.
>
>
> >Later, on twitter: "heaps of replies i'd like to get to here but i have
> to turn off the notifications, i'm too busy denying christ, implementing
> white genocide, making christmas illegal, kneeling during the anthem, and
> reading up on the automatic gun known as the Assault Rifle 15"
>
> Would we know if that email barrage was actually just a 'false-flag' flood
> by people simulating some other group of people harassing somebody? "Fake
> hate crimes" are extremely common, primarily because they are easy to
> simulate, and if the person doing that is halfway intelligent, he or she
> probably won't get caught. ("Hide the noose in your pocket, walk to the
> door, look around to make sure nobody is looking and there are no security
> cameras, and then drop the noose! Try not to leave any DNA!")
>
>
> thomas violence on Twitter
>
>
> Rr
> Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail
>
> thomas violence on Twitter
>
> “I love little cultural differences, like how Americans are super offended
> by the word cunt but here in Australi...
>
>
>
>
Re: Whom, specifically, is our greatest ally? - (spoiler: Australia) - [PEACE]
On Saturday, November 2, 2019, 08:11:34 PM PDT, Razer wrote:
On November 2, 2019 5:28:58 AM PDT, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>>For those who missed the memo, in Australia, "cunt" is the most
>>endearing term used between two blokes who are great friends and have
>>been for a long time.
>
>Between absolutely anyone else at all, the word is one of, if not
>>the, worst possible slurs.
>
>>When in polite company, it is strongly advisable to not use the term
>>at all, even when your best long term friend rocks up, since others
>>may not take so kindly to such colloquial speach in such situations.
>Aussie Thomas Violence says:
>"I love little cultural differences, like how Americans are super offended by
>the word cunt but here in Australia we're super offended by school children
>being slaughtered with automatic weapons"
Sure he said that! The current difference between America and Australia is
that the latter generally banned guns a few years ago, and mostly America
hasn't done that. It's called the "Second Amendment", and my interpretation
fairly closely agrees with the 2008 Supreme Court case D.C. v. Heller. I think
that in America, gun laws cannot Constitutionally be any stricter that they
were in 1789, when the Bill of Rights of voted, and 1791, when it was ratified
by states. That's the meaning of the term "infringed", with its root-word
"fringe".
I assert that this means that the RTKBA cannot be further limited, even around
the "fringed". Why this wording? Well, if the wording had says, "the right to
keep and bear a gun shall not be denied", some slick politician some day would
decide that if 'they' banned any gun with more power than 1/4 of a 0.22 pistol,
they still hadn't actually DENIED people's rights to own a gun, used singular.
Slick.
I can remember about 1966, when "Texas Tower Shooter" Charles Whitman shot
people. It shocked the nation, not merely due to the violence, but because at
that time it seemed to be such an astonishing act. "What has changed", we
should ask? America doesn't have that many more people (and guns) than we did
in 1966.
>Later, on twitter: "heaps of replies i'd like to get to here but i have to
>turn off the notifications, i'm too busy denying christ, implementing white
>genocide, making christmas illegal, kneeling during the anthem, and reading up
>on the automatic gun known as the Assault Rifle 15"
Would we know if that email barrage was actually just a 'false-flag' flood by
people simulating some other group of people harassing somebody? "Fake hate
crimes" are extremely common, primarily because they are easy to simulate, and
if the person doing that is halfway intelligent, he or she probably won't get
caught. ("Hide the noose in your pocket, walk to the door, look around to
make sure nobody is looking and there are no security cameras, and then drop
the noose! Try not to leave any DNA!")
thomas violence on Twitter
Rr
Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
| |
thomas violence on Twitter
“I love little cultural differences, like how Americans are super offended by
the word cunt but here in Australi...
|
|
|
Re: Whom, specifically, is our greatest ally? - (spoiler: Australia) - [PEACE]
On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 08:10:39PM -0700, Razer wrote: > > > On November 2, 2019 5:28:58 AM PDT, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > >For those who missed the memo, in Australia, "cunt" is the most > >endearing term used between two blokes who are great friends and have > >been for a long time. > > > >Between absolutely anyone else at all, the word is one of, if not > >the, worst possible slurs. > > > >When in polite company, it is strongly advisable to not use the term > >at all, even when your best long term friend rocks up, since others > >may not take so kindly to such colloquial speach in such situations. > > Aussie Thomas Violence says: > > "I love little cultural differences, like how Americans are super > offended by the word cunt but here in Australia we're super > offended by school children being slaughtered with automatic > weapons" HA! Gold :D > Later, on twitter: "heaps of replies i'd like to get to here but i > have to turn off the notifications, i'm too busy denying christ, > implementing white genocide, making christmas illegal, kneeling > during the anthem, and reading up on the automatic gun known as the > Assault Rifle 15" > > https://twitter.com/thomas_violence/status/1002373759167107073?s=19 > > Rr > Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail
Re: Whom, specifically, is our greatest ally? - (spoiler: Australia) - [PEACE]
On November 2, 2019 5:28:58 AM PDT, Zenaan Harkness wrote: >For those who missed the memo, in Australia, "cunt" is the most >endearing term used between two blokes who are great friends and have >been for a long time. > >Between absolutely anyone else at all, the word is one of, if not >the, worst possible slurs. > >When in polite company, it is strongly advisable to not use the term >at all, even when your best long term friend rocks up, since others >may not take so kindly to such colloquial speach in such situations. Aussie Thomas Violence says: "I love little cultural differences, like how Americans are super offended by the word cunt but here in Australia we're super offended by school children being slaughtered with automatic weapons" Later, on twitter: "heaps of replies i'd like to get to here but i have to turn off the notifications, i'm too busy denying christ, implementing white genocide, making christmas illegal, kneeling during the anthem, and reading up on the automatic gun known as the Assault Rifle 15" https://twitter.com/thomas_violence/status/1002373759167107073?s=19 Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail
Re: Whom, specifically, is our greatest ally? - (spoiler: Australia) - [PEACE]
On Saturday, November 2, 2019, 05:29:33 AM PDT, Zenaan Harkness wrote: >For those who missed the memo, in Australia, "cunt" is the most endearing term used between two blokes who are great friends and have been for a long time. >Between absolutely anyone else at all, the word is one of, if not the, worst possible slurs. >When in polite company, it is strongly advisable to not use the term at all, even when your best long term friend rocks up, since others may not take so kindly to such colloquial speach in such situations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_and_Honorable_Order_of_Turtles "you bet your sweet ass I am!" Jim Bell
Re: Whom, specifically, is our greatest ally? - (spoiler: Australia) - [PEACE]
For those who missed the memo, in Australia, "cunt" is the most endearing term used between two blokes who are great friends and have been for a long time. Between absolutely anyone else at all, the word is one of, if not the, worst possible slurs. When in polite company, it is strongly advisable to not use the term at all, even when your best long term friend rocks up, since others may not take so kindly to such colloquial speach in such situations.
Whom, specifically, is our greatest ally? - (spoiler: Australia) - [PEACE]
There is one particularly notable nation which "has NEVER ONCE, in its entire history, fought along side American troops, in any major conflict. Not in Korea, not in Vietnam, not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan." US: Would that, kind and informative Sir, be Israel? AU: 'At's riiight maaate! 'At's fookin' riiight! AU: Now which muffas out there are ya bloody mates, cunt ?!@?! AU: 'At's riiight maaate, fookin Austraya mate! Fookin Aus-stray-ya!! And to highlight the comparison, chad-monger DSBBS stormer bro "anon" high lites up the rite royal right for ya, punk! : "This cliche is up there with “this zioshill fought for your freedumbs by slaughtering a million Iraqi civilians, over the WMD hoax.” Israel has NEVER ONCE in its entire history fought along side American troops in any major conflict. Not in Korea, not in Vietnam, not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan. You know who did fight alongside us in those wars, and in both world wars? Australia. Australia is our greatest ally. Israel is our most insidious parasite." [Some song ya prolly member the tune of but not the name, freel free to insert the name of the actual song if you 'member it and can be fooked.] Yep-pi dee doo dah, yes sir I ay! Australia's a won-der-ful, matey you say? Yay! Stan-din be-side us, on ev-ver-ry day! Wonderful feelz, in, every way! Hey :D Lookin' for a matey there, cunt? Look this way an' 'ave no fear - we's ya mate - but ya bloody knew that already didncha cunt? [nods vigorously, slightly embarrassed] Glad to see y'all waking the fook up :) 'Bout bloody time too ya bloody nigger :D Youse all goin' bloody crazy over there - prolly 'cause every bloody bastard out there tryin' stab a fookin knife in ya back, grab ya sheilas by the pussy, take ya fookin jobs and outsource all ya fookin industry! No, fookin, wonder, that youse are goin' fookin insane! Fook me cunt, dunno how ya holdin' up as well as y'are - bloody miracle I tell ya, bloody miracle already! Don't worry mate, we'll watch the fook out for ya!! Knives in the back and thieves in the night? Not us, mate! Not fookin' us mate - but ya knew that already, we know. And we know we all just need that friendly pat on the back 'casionly, we know - life's tough sometimes - right royal fookin bitch yeah? - and that's when ya call on ya bloody mates! ( Least ya fookin' 'membered us, cunt :D ) No love lost ya silly cunts - love yer all the same ya hear? Bloody muffas :D Let's get this shit sorted eh? Heh heh, cunts gone wild I tell ya :D Peace, cunts! Let's create our fookin' world alright ... Who is Our Actual Greatest Ally? http://dstormer6em3i4km.onion/who-is-our-actual-greatest-ally/ ... Along with backing us up in every war, Australia has never gotten caught spying on us, they’ve never attacked our ships, and they’ve never sent Australian dual citizens to take over our foreign policy and send us to fight wars against New Zealand or Indonesia. I would also feel much more comfortable sending billions of dollars to Australia, if we’re going to send billions of dollars to someone. At least they might use it for something good, or at the very least, not use it to harm America and Europe. Plus, Australia has given us some of the greatest culture. Nick Cave, Steve Irwin – just to name a couple. [ heartwarming pics not attached ] And to name another one – the one: Saint Mel himself. [ anuddah heartwarming pic of a grinning shit kicking chuckling cunt also not attached ] (Although I guess Mel’s dad was American, so he is like, the master race result of mixing of the blood of the two greatest allies.) ...
