If you actually read what I say you will notice that I wasnt making it a hard and fast rule. I was making it a general observation which means there are exceptions and differences in the application of this observation as well as times when it is absolutely true. You dont seem to see the inconsistency in replacing one erroneous absolutism with another. In general terms, that which we fail to restrict or penalize we give implicit licence to. In your example you DO give licence to Communism and drinking while personally supporting neither. Clear enough or do you want another round on the pendatry merry-go-round?
-----Original Message----- From: profox-boun...@leafe.com [mailto:profox-boun...@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Ricardo Aráoz Sent: Friday, 9 April 2010 9:12 AM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] You picked a fine time to lead us... geoff wrote: > || I'm not saying it's similar nor dissimilar, I'm saying the equation "not > penalize = support" is really stupid.|| > > actually what YOU are saying is quite silly. In very general terms we DO > support what we fail to restrict or penalise Really? Prove it! I don't support communism, but I don't think communism should be penalized in my country. I don't support drinking, but I don't think drinking should be penalized. Now, just prove both my assertions are false. Christ, these people! [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/002401cad777$1ccce2f0$5666a8...@com.au ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
