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.
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: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Chris,
>
> I'd be most interested in your perspective (as an American voter) on Bob's
> interesting statement quoted below, given the 2000 Florida voter roles
scam and
> the decision of the US Supreme Court, both of which I have followed with
some
> interest. It certainly seems that, given the available information, the
claim
> that the last presidential "election" constituted meaningful public
> consultation is another "extraordinary claim" that requires "extraordinary
> evidence".
>
> Obviously, someone (three guesses who) is soon going to object to this
thread,
> so you may respond by email if you like.
>
> Quoting Chris Brogden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >
> > I have to leave for work now, but I'll answer your points later.
> >
> > On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Bob Blakely wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Your "meaningful public consultation" occurred at the ballot box.
