Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
On 29/9/05, E.R.N. Reed, discombobulated, unleashed: klingon smile I don't think I've ever seen a Klingon smile. They do when there's the scent of blood in the air. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
From: Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/09/29 Thu PM 08:21:15 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? Frank Theriault replied to Mark Roberts as follows: Naw, we turned 'em back after they got as far as North Carolina in June... We? He chooses sides depending on which way the wind is blowing. He's gonna have to make a final decision soon. The winds of war are blowing a gale and all disputes will be settled at the Battle of Grandfather Mountain. I've already acquired the water balloon launching apparatus. Tom (Artillery Sargeant) Reese You should be careful about what you start http://www.spudtech.com/ 8-) - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
Mike Wilson wrote: I've already acquired the water balloon launching apparatus. You should be careful about what you start http://www.spudtech.com/ Hey, biological weapons are a violation of international law. If you're gonna play rough then I'll have to up the ante too. Does anyone know which 3 Stooges movie had the pie launcher in it? Tom (Chief of Weapons Research) Reese
Re: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
From: Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/09/30 Fri AM 11:29:12 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? Mike Wilson wrote: I've already acquired the water balloon launching apparatus. You should be careful about what you start http://www.spudtech.com/ Hey, biological weapons are a violation of international law. If you're gonna play rough then I'll have to up the ante too. Does anyone know which 3 Stooges movie had the pie launcher in it? I can see the headline in the GFM local paper next year. 15 injured in shootout at Photo contest. Bugsy Reese on the run from the Feds Who gets to play the Jodie Foster role? - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
On 9/30/05, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can see the headline in the GFM local paper next year. 15 injured in shootout at Photo contest. Bugsy Reese on the run from the Feds Who gets to play the Jodie Foster role? I will. -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/29/05, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Naw, we turned 'em back after they got as far as North Carolina in June... We? LOL I was working under cover for the forces of darkness. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
On 9/30/05, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was working under cover for the forces of darkness. Your accent threw me off... -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
Now that's an image I didn't need this early in the morning. frank theriault wrote: On 9/30/05, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can see the headline in the GFM local paper next year. 15 injured in shootout at Photo contest. Bugsy Reese on the run from the Feds Who gets to play the Jodie Foster role? I will. -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/30/05, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was working under cover for the forces of darkness. Your accent threw me off... That's how I lull people into a false sense of security. I sound like I'm from Pittsburgh so no one ever suspects anything! ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
frank theriault wrote: On 9/30/05, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can see the headline in the GFM local paper next year. 15 injured in shootout at Photo contest. Bugsy Reese on the run from the Feds Who gets to play the Jodie Foster role? I will. -frank why hello, Clarice...
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
Doug Brewer wrote: frank theriault wrote: On 9/30/05, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can see the headline in the GFM local paper next year. 15 injured in shootout at Photo contest. Bugsy Reese on the run from the Feds Who gets to play the Jodie Foster role? I will. -frank why hello, Clarice... I was going to say that, but it was an image I needed even less... -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/09/30 Fri PM 12:13:59 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? On 9/30/05, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can see the headline in the GFM local paper next year. 15 injured in shootout at Photo contest. Bugsy Reese on the run from the Feds Who gets to play the Jodie Foster role? I will. -frank You've got the right build. m - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 9/30/05, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can see the headline in the GFM local paper next year. 15 injured in shootout at Photo contest. Bugsy Reese on the run from the Feds Who gets to play the Jodie Foster role? I will. You've got the right build. Don't know about the ears, though... -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/09/30 Fri PM 02:12:42 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 9/30/05, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can see the headline in the GFM local paper next year. 15 injured in shootout at Photo contest. Bugsy Reese on the run from the Feds Who gets to play the Jodie Foster role? I will. You've got the right build. Don't know about the ears, though... Staple gun. One must suffer for one's art. - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
On 9/30/05, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's how I lull people into a false sense of security. I sound like I'm from Pittsburgh so no one ever suspects anything! ;-) LOL -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
On 28/9/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: We're hoping you'll trade us Florida for Quebec eventually. That so you can be closer to Castro? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
- Original Message - From: Cotty Subject: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? On 28/9/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: We're hoping you'll trade us Florida for Quebec eventually. That so you can be closer to Castro? It's rumoured that Maggie Trudeau and he were lovers. William Robb
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
On 9/29/05, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's rumoured that Maggie Trudeau and [Castro] were lovers. Actually, I believe that was Pierre Trudeau, wasn't it? -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/09/29 Thu PM 01:33:37 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? On 9/29/05, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's rumoured that Maggie Trudeau and [Castro] were lovers. Actually, I believe that was Pierre Trudeau, wasn't it? Margaret Trudeau was alleged to have had an affair with about half of the the humans in the western hemisphere at one time or another. Seperately or all together. I didn't believe a word of it. mike Except maybe for the one about Mick Jagger. - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
I thought it was a monogue(sp. damn I have enough trouble with English) a trois... frank theriault wrote: On 9/29/05, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's rumoured that Maggie Trudeau and [Castro] were lovers. Actually, I believe that was Pierre Trudeau, wasn't it? -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wait a minute, I though the Canadians had already invaded Florida. Naw, we turned 'em back after they got as far as North Carolina in June... -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
On 9/29/05, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Naw, we turned 'em back after they got as far as North Carolina in June... We? LOL -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
Frank Theriault replied to Mark Roberts as follows: Naw, we turned 'em back after they got as far as North Carolina in June... We? He chooses sides depending on which way the wind is blowing. He's gonna have to make a final decision soon. The winds of war are blowing a gale and all disputes will be settled at the Battle of Grandfather Mountain. I've already acquired the water balloon launching apparatus. Tom (Artillery Sargeant) Reese
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
On 29/9/05, Tom Reese, discombobulated, unleashed: I've already acquired the water balloon launching apparatus. klingon smile This will be good! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
Supersoakers for support? Cotty wrote: On 29/9/05, Tom Reese, discombobulated, unleashed: I've already acquired the water balloon launching apparatus. klingon smile This will be good! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
Cotty wrote: klingon smile I don't think I've ever seen a Klingon smile.
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
It's hard to tell because they usually show their teeth. E.R.N. Reed wrote: Cotty wrote: klingon smile I don't think I've ever seen a Klingon smile. -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
In a message dated 9/27/2005 5:44:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Weren't you the one who, just a while ago, suggested keeping politics out of this discussion. Yet here you are, jumping in with both feet and moving the discussion further towards politics. LOL And yes, I know others are participating, but they didn't make the statement you did. I sure hope this doesn't begin another long winded political bullshit thread. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Liberal still means liberal. It doesn't matter how much some distort it. = Yes, I slipped. My bad. I'll try to keep my own bullshit out of it, however. I just don't like being called a libertarian when I'm not. Or anyone even implying that I am one. Or that I am in a group of people that could be classified that way. Or anything like that. Marnie aka Doe ;-)
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
Marnie wrote: Yes, I slipped. My bad. Actually I hate the term 'my bad'. I know it came from some movie. To me it says Yeah, I made a mistake, so what?... and is designed to rid oneself of any perceived guilt they may feel over their own inadequacy, inaccuracy, or plain old screw up. At work, it comes across as dismissive of other persons feelings. It's a very liberal phrase to spout. :) I'm pulling your leg on most of this rhetoric, though the phrase does bug me, especially when I consider who says it in the work place. OK... very seriously, my post is not meant to offend in the least. :) I'm serious and I really mean it. Don't read anything into these words that I haven't actually typed. I'm serious, OK? :) Tom C. :)
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
In a message dated 9/27/2005 11:20:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's a very liberal phrase to spout. :) I'm pulling your leg on most of this rhetoric, though the phrase does bug me, especially when I consider who says it in the work place. OK... very seriously, my post is not meant to offend in the least. :) I'm serious and I really mean it. Don't read anything into these words that I haven't actually typed. I'm serious, OK? :) Tom C. :) == Actually, I never heard it before Boris said (wrote) it a few weeks ago. Cotty commented on it asking my bad WHAT? So it amused me because it sounded like kid slang. To me it sounded like -- I'm bad. I made a mistake. But you can put any construction on it you want, or on my use of it. shrug Doesn't matter to me. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
That's fine Marnie. :) I'm spouting off myself... on some kind of kick tonight. Last week on this job and starting a new one next week. Tom C. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:24:05 EDT In a message dated 9/27/2005 11:20:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's a very liberal phrase to spout. :) I'm pulling your leg on most of this rhetoric, though the phrase does bug me, especially when I consider who says it in the work place. OK... very seriously, my post is not meant to offend in the least. :) I'm serious and I really mean it. Don't read anything into these words that I haven't actually typed. I'm serious, OK? :) Tom C. :) == Actually, I never heard it before Boris said (wrote) it a few weeks ago. Cotty commented on it asking my bad WHAT? So it amused me because it sounded like kid slang. To me it sounded like -- I'm bad. I made a mistake. But you can put any construction on it you want, or on my use of it. shrug Doesn't matter to me. Marnie aka Doe
RE: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
The fundamental aspect of liberalism is that we are all free to do what we want provided we don't harm other people my right to swing my fists ends where your face begins. It is essentially the same as the Golden Rule. The difficulties arise when you try to define harm. The definition below wouldn't work at all. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Tim Sherburne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 28 September 2005 00:44 To: Pentax Discussion List Subject: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? I recently ran across these working definitions that go beyond politics to one's personal philosophy: conservative: Anything not expressly allowed is prohibited liberal: Anything not expressly prohibited is allowed Tim
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
It's just that words change meaning with languages and geography. Especially in politics were the winner may try to degrade the views of the opponent. Liberal is slightly on the right wing here, but may be understood as left wing in the US, and I've met americans who cant understand how we can have a socialist government in a democracy. They think it is the same thing as communism. DagT fra: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] So an innocent word has been highjacked by the illiberal to mean something else? Perhaps we need language police. John On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 00:19:33 +0100, Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes asked: The word (liberal) comes from Old French, and originally meant pertaining to a free man. Its very root means free. So why is it that in the land of the free, many people seem to like freedom for everything except thought, and consider liberal to be a dirty word? This baffles the rest of us, many of whom tend to accept, more or less, the definition of the Oxford Dictionary (original edition), which states: Of political opinions: Favourable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms tending in the direction of freedom or democracy. Surely this is what all Americans want? Isn't it? So what's wrong with being liberal? It's almost impossible to answer your question without setting off the politics powderkeg. When used as a dirty word, liberal is an accusation that means one who advocates higher taxes and excessive government. That is what the person making the accusation wants the electorate to believe. It can go much deeper. This touches on issues that people are extremely passionate about and it could easily turn ugly. Abortion, guns, separation of church and state and economic policy are some of the issues. I tried to keep this opinion free to avoid setting off the arguments. Tom Reese -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.7/112 - Release Date: 26/09/2005
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:54:37 -0700 It's just that words change meaning with languages and geography. Especially in politics were the winner may try to degrade the views of the opponent. Liberal is slightly on the right wing here, but may be understood as left wing in the US, and I've met americans who cant understand how we can have a socialist government in a democracy. They think it is the same thing as communism. DagT Dag, We know that they're not the same. But they are first cousins. In Europe, it seems, Liberal has maintained more of the classic meaning of open minded where in the US it's somewhat mixed between that and socialist. What many of us fear is the constant reduction of freedom from the more serious socialists. The bans on firearms, certain religious speech (Canada and Sweden in particular), a general unwillingness to discuss issues but instead demagogue ideas (like Intelligent Design), restrictions on travel (China), excessive taxation, and so many other problems that, even with our failings, there's no sense in losing even more freedom than we already have. KC8TKA (These letters represent a level of liberty that has been lost in many countries, both socialist and totalitarian. Tiananmen Square and the power of the fax machine [open communication] should never be forgotten. One should not even consider some of this open-minded internet-based discussion in China.) Collin (rejecting both communist socialists and national socialists) Brendemuehl mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
On 9/28/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip The bans on firearms, certain religious speech (Canada and Sweden in particular)snip Can't speak for Sweden, but WRT to Canada: Huh? There is neither a ban on firearms nor any ban on religious speech that I know of... cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/28/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip The bans on firearms, certain religious speech (Canada and Sweden in particular)snip Can't speak for Sweden, but WRT to Canada: Huh? There is neither a ban on firearms nor any ban on religious speech that I know of... Canada had more firearms per capita than the United States. (Of course, the population here is vastly greater, so the total number of firearms is greater than that of Canada. We're probably safe from invasion!) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
On 9/28/05, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Canada had more firearms per capita than the United States. (Of course, the population here is vastly greater, so the total number of firearms is greater than that of Canada. We're probably safe from invasion!) Well, that was the point I was about to make - I just saw Bowling for Columbine again g which reminded me that we have some 7 million firearms. What we do have is firearm ~restrictions~ (especially WRT handguns, which are still available, but much harder to legally own). We in no way have a ban on firearms. I'm still not sure what forms of religious speech we have banned. I eagerly await information about that. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
- Original Message - From: Mark Roberts Subject: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? Canada had more firearms per capita than the United States. (Of course, the population here is vastly greater, so the total number of firearms is greater than that of Canada. We're probably safe from invasion!) I bet that % and number was higher when we razed yer White House too. Don't underestimate us. William Robb
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? The bans oncertain religious speech (Canada in particular), C'est What? William Robb
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
William Robb warned: From: Mark Roberts Subject: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? Canada had more firearms per capita than the United States. (Of course, the population here is vastly greater, so the total number of firearms is greater than that of Canada. We're probably safe from invasion!) I bet that % and number was higher when we razed yer White House too. Don't underestimate us. Bah. Most of your army would quit when they reached the first Milwaukee brewery. Tom Reese
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Mark Roberts Canada had more firearms per capita than the United States. (Of course, the population here is vastly greater, so the total number of firearms is greater than that of Canada. We're probably safe from invasion!) I bet that % and number was higher when we razed yer White House too. Not my white house, pal - I'm a visitor here! Don't underestimate us. Hey, if all Canadians were like you I'd be shaking in my boots! Fortunately there are enough Knarfs in the population to ease my fears ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
From my very limited understanding of it, religious speech is one of the few exceptions to C-250. It's the unreligious hate speech that's illegal. Of course, I'm an American. So what the hell do I know about Canadian law? vbg On 9/28/05, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? The bans oncertain religious speech (Canada in particular), C'est What? William Robb -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- You have to hold the button down -Arnold Newman
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: William Robb warned: From: Mark Roberts Canada had more firearms per capita than the United States. (Of course, the population here is vastly greater, so the total number of firearms is greater than that of Canada. We're probably safe from invasion!) I bet that % and number was higher when we razed yer White House too. Don't underestimate us. Bah. Most of your army would quit when they reached the first Milwaukee brewery. What for? To laugh at it? g -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
I have to say that I thought Intelligent Design (the name is a joke in itself) was an American invention. It certainly seems to have been taken up by Americans in a much bigger way than elsewhere. And as for an unwillingness to discuss issues, I don't think Americans can claim to be better in that regard than Canada or Sweden, which are not countries that many people would lump together with China when discussing restrictions on liberties. As for bans on firearms: would you still want a handgun if nobody else had one? And if so, why? John On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:52:45 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:54:37 -0700 It's just that words change meaning with languages and geography. Especially in politics were the winner may try to degrade the views of the opponent. Liberal is slightly on the right wing here, but may be understood as left wing in the US, and I've met americans who cant understand how we can have a socialist government in a democracy. They think it is the same thing as communism. DagT Dag, We know that they're not the same. But they are first cousins. In Europe, it seems, Liberal has maintained more of the classic meaning of open minded where in the US it's somewhat mixed between that and socialist. What many of us fear is the constant reduction of freedom from the more serious socialists. The bans on firearms, certain religious speech (Canada and Sweden in particular), a general unwillingness to discuss issues but instead demagogue ideas (like Intelligent Design), restrictions on travel (China), excessive taxation, and so many other problems that, even with our failings, there's no sense in losing even more freedom than we already have. KC8TKA (These letters represent a level of liberty that has been lost in many countries, both socialist and totalitarian. Tiananmen Square and the power of the fax machine [open communication] should never be forgotten. One should not even consider some of this open-minded internet-based discussion in China.) Collin (rejecting both communist socialists and national socialists) Brendemuehl mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
John Forbes As for bans on firearms: would you still want a handgun if nobody else had one? And if so, why? I'd want mine. I love target shooting with it. Tom Reese
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
On 9/28/05, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I bet that % and number was higher when we razed yer White House too. Don't underestimate us. William Robb Just to clarify, Mr. Robb, the burning of our White House was a symbollic victory over a mostly deserted, undefended town of less than 10,000. (The Secretary of War assumed the British forces would turn toward Baltimore.) The White House was named before any President ever lived there because a previous owner had painted it white. It was simply his home, and not a center of government. Furthermore, the only worthwhile target in Washington was the naval munitions store, which was destroyed by Americans before the British arrived with their torches. Most history books published in the U.S. fail to mention the fact that Canadians made up a significant chunk of the British forces which burned Washington. That's too bad. This advance guard was soundly defeated a week later when it arrived in Baltimore. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- You have to hold the button down -Arnold Newman
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
As every good American knows, Canada's ability to invade the US was thoroughly analyzed in a recent episode of South Park. I don't remember exactly how it ends. I think the Canadians decide they don't want it after all. Kenny, of course, dies in defense of his country. But then Kenny dies in every episode. Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: William Robb warned: From: Mark Roberts Canada had more firearms per capita than the United States. (Of course, the population here is vastly greater, so the total number of firearms is greater than that of Canada. We're probably safe from invasion!) I bet that % and number was higher when we razed yer White House too. Don't underestimate us. Bah. Most of your army would quit when they reached the first Milwaukee brewery. What for? To laugh at it? g -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
John opined: As for a ban on firearms...(snip) Oh, oh, this is going over to guns. Time to stop boys and girls. Remember the last one? It got really, really ugly, blazed on for several weeks.
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
On 9/28/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John opined: As for a ban on firearms...(snip) Oh, oh, this is going over to guns. Time to stop boys and girls. Remember the last one? It got really, really ugly, blazed on for several weeks. You're right - I wasn't intending on getting into a gun debate, or a religious freedom of speech debate, I merely wanted facts to be verified. However, the right or wrong of any bans/non-bans/restrictions/freedoms WRT the foregoing will lead to no good. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
pcn Oh, oh, this is going over to guns. Time to stop boys and girls. pcn Remember the last one? It got really, really ugly, blazed on for several weeks. I second that. Please :) Good light! fra
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
Den 28. sep. 2005 kl. 19.03 skrev frank theriault: On 9/28/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip The bans on firearms, certain religious speech (Canada and Sweden in particular)snip Can't speak for Sweden, but WRT to Canada: Huh? There is neither a ban on firearms nor any ban on religious speech that I know of... I think he is referring to a case in Sweden where someone used citations from the bible to spread hatred against some groups. I will not continue this discussion but just state that any book of this size may be used for that purpose and that this does not necessarily have anything to do with the book. Let´s go back to photography and talk about attempts in the US to stop the free speech of artist like Mapplethorpe, Sally Mann, Jock Sturges, etc, as well as certain differences between European and US versions of movies, music ++.-) DagT
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
On 9/28/05, DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Let´s go back to photography snip I don't want to get into a discussion about religion or guns either. I simply wanted the record to reflect that it is a mis-statement to say that Canada bans firearms or restricts certain religious speech (whatever that means). I have very strong views on both issues, which I have no intention of getting into on this list. Besides, some here already have a pretty good idea how I feel. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
RE: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
Hi, What many of us fear is the constant reduction of freedom from the more serious socialists. The bans on firearms, certain religious speech (Canada and Sweden in particular), a general unwillingness to discuss issues but instead demagogue ideas (like Intelligent Design), restrictions on travel (China), excessive taxation, and so many other problems that, even with our failings, there's no sense in losing even more freedom than we already have. None of the things you mention here are intrinsic features of socialism. The political things you mention are features of totalitarianism, which is not the same thing at all. Excessive (whatever that means) taxes have been imposed by governments of all persuasions when they've felt the need. It certainly is not restricted to socialists or even totalitarians. Every modern society imposes restrictions on personal weapons, even the USA. The entire discussion about firearms boils down to whereabouts on a sliding scale from personal nuclear bombs to GI Joe plastic guns you want your society to be. It's about the harm principle. At what point does the harm caused by allowing people to own a certain class of weapon outweigh the harm caused by not allowing it? Bellowing across the swamp about it like primeval mastodons serves no purpose. Whether or not people choose to discuss so-called Intelligent Design is nothing to do with politics, or should be nothing to do with politics expect that the Christian Right make it so. Intelligent Design is not science, consequently self-respecting scientists won't discuss it in connection with evolution, which is science. In the same way, astronomers won't engage with astrologers. Any attempt to introduce astrological ideas into a class teaching astronomy would be laughed at, as ID deserves to be. Bob
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
Bob W wrote: Bellowing across the swamp about it like primeval mastodons serves no purpose. Mark.
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
Actually it confirms to the primeval mastadons on one side of the swamp, that there are indeed primeval mastadons on the other side. Tom C. From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 22:10:11 +0100 Bob W wrote: Bellowing across the swamp about it like primeval mastodons serves no purpose. Mark.
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
1. There was a comma after the gun statement. It was not a designation regarding Canada. But to that point, consider Australia. 2. Regarding certain religious speech, here's a Canada example. http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05060808.html The problem is that the apparent exemption is a generalized statement, the interpretation of which is at the whim of the enforcer. And also consider that independent religious broadcasting is illegal in Canada. Many put their transmitters on the US border so to avoid government intrusion. = KC8TKA mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
RE: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
That one belongs to PG Wodehouse, not to me. ...aunt calling to aunt like mastodons bellowing across the primeval swamp. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 28 September 2005 22:10 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? Bob W wrote: Bellowing across the swamp about it like primeval mastodons serves no purpose. Mark.
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
On 9/28/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. There was a comma after the gun statement. It was not a designation regarding Canada. But to that point, consider Australia. 2. Regarding certain religious speech, here's a Canada example. http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05060808.html Having read the article, and not wanting to debate the issue here, I'll just say that we disagree on whether this is an issue of religious speech - I think it's not, you think it is, and in this particular forum, I'm leaving it at that. The problem is that the apparent exemption is a generalized statement, the interpretation of which is at the whim of the enforcer. I'm not sure what you mean by that, but really, it's not an important enough issue for me to care - and again, not the forum here to do so. And also consider that independent religious broadcasting is illegal in Canada. Many put their transmitters on the US border so to avoid government intrusion. I can think of several Christian broadcasters in Canada. I am guessing that you and I may have different definitions of independant and Christian but we have Crossroads Broadcasting: http://www.crossroads.ca/index.html whose network is CTS and broadcasts a full network schedule both on the air and on cable. As far as I know, they're independant (from the government, at least). We also have Vision TV, which is multifaith, but is mostly Christian. I'm sure there are others that I don't know of, but those are among two of the biggest. Again, not arguing the right or wrong, but rather the accuracy of your statement. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
Older handguns are beautiful machines, as worthy of collecting as any other well made object. Additionally Government agents will always have handguns, or worse. Right now they are on the side of the angels, mostly. That could change. Even if I don't need a handgun, for that reason, I won't foreclose on the future. John Forbes wrote: I have to say that I thought Intelligent Design (the name is a joke in itself) was an American invention. It certainly seems to have been taken up by Americans in a much bigger way than elsewhere. And as for an unwillingness to discuss issues, I don't think Americans can claim to be better in that regard than Canada or Sweden, which are not countries that many people would lump together with China when discussing restrictions on liberties. As for bans on firearms: would you still want a handgun if nobody else had one? And if so, why? John On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:52:45 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:54:37 -0700 It's just that words change meaning with languages and geography. Especially in politics were the winner may try to degrade the views of the opponent. Liberal is slightly on the right wing here, but may be understood as left wing in the US, and I've met americans who cant understand how we can have a socialist government in a democracy. They think it is the same thing as communism. DagT Dag, We know that they're not the same. But they are first cousins. In Europe, it seems, Liberal has maintained more of the classic meaning of open minded where in the US it's somewhat mixed between that and socialist. What many of us fear is the constant reduction of freedom from the more serious socialists. The bans on firearms, certain religious speech (Canada and Sweden in particular), a general unwillingness to discuss issues but instead demagogue ideas (like Intelligent Design), restrictions on travel (China), excessive taxation, and so many other problems that, even with our failings, there's no sense in losing even more freedom than we already have. KC8TKA (These letters represent a level of liberty that has been lost in many countries, both socialist and totalitarian. Tiananmen Square and the power of the fax machine [open communication] should never be forgotten. One should not even consider some of this open-minded internet-based discussion in China.) Collin (rejecting both communist socialists and national socialists) Brendemuehl mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
Because they are fun to shoot. Because they can be used conveniently in indoor ranges. Because they are nifty mechanical gizmos, which is the same reason lots of folks buy cameras, or watches for that matter. People who buy them primarily as weapons need to be watched closely, in my opinion. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- John Forbes wrote: As for bans on firearms: would you still want a handgun if nobody else had one? And if so, why?
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
Wait a minute, I though the Canadians had already invaded Florida. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As every good American knows, Canada's ability to invade the US was thoroughly analyzed in a recent episode of South Park. I don't remember exactly how it ends. I think the Canadians decide they don't want it after all. Kenny, of course, dies in defense of his country. But then Kenny dies in every episode. Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: William Robb warned: From: Mark Roberts Canada had more firearms per capita than the United States. (Of course, the population here is vastly greater, so the total number of firearms is greater than that of Canada. We're probably safe from invasion!) I bet that % and number was higher when we razed yer White House too. Don't underestimate us. Bah. Most of your army would quit when they reached the first Milwaukee brewery. What for? To laugh at it? g -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
They invaded GFM last year. GRIN graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- P. J. Alling wrote: Wait a minute, I though the Canadians had already invaded Florida. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As every good American knows, Canada's ability to invade the US was thoroughly analyzed in a recent episode of South Park. I don't remember exactly how it ends. I think the Canadians decide they don't want it after all. Kenny, of course, dies in defense of his country. But then Kenny dies in every episode. Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: William Robb warned: From: Mark Roberts Canada had more firearms per capita than the United States. (Of course, the population here is vastly greater, so the total number of firearms is greater than that of Canada. We're probably safe from invasion!) I bet that % and number was higher when we razed yer White House too. Don't underestimate us. Bah. Most of your army would quit when they reached the first Milwaukee brewery. What for? To laugh at it? g -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
- Original Message - From: Tom Reese Subject: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? Bah. Most of your army would quit when they reached the first Milwaukee brewery. Amarican beer? FEH!! WW
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? 1. There was a comma after the gun statement. It was not a designation regarding Canada. But to that point, consider Australia. 2. Regarding certain religious speech, here's a Canada example. http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05060808.html The problem is that the apparent exemption is a generalized statement, the interpretation of which is at the whim of the enforcer. We do have laws against inciting hatred against others. Mr. Whatcott is a misguided zealot who uses passages in the Bible in an attempt to justify his idiocy. And also consider that independent religious broadcasting is illegal in Canada. That's not correct, Collin. William Robb
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
- Original Message - From: P. J. Alling Subject: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? Wait a minute, I though the Canadians had already invaded Florida. We're hoping you'll trade us Florida for Quebec eventually. WW
RE: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
-Original Message- From: P. J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 28 September 2005 23:13 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? Older handguns are beautiful machines, as worthy of collecting as any other well made object. Additionally Government agents will always have handguns, or worse. Right now they are on the side of the angels, mostly. That could change. Even if I don't need a handgun, for that reason, I won't foreclose on the future. That argument doesn't really work very well. If the nature of the government changed to the extent that you felt you really needed a gun as a weapon (rather than for sports or to protect yourself against ordinary criminals), then the chances are that that government would already have made guns illegal. So you would need to obtain them illegally anyway. In situations like that it never seems difficult to find someone to sell you the weapons - look at Northern Ireland as an example. Bob
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
DagT wrote: Let´s go back to photography and talk about attempts in the US to stop the free speech of artist like Mapplethorpe, Sally Mann, Jock Sturges, etc, as well as certain differences between European and US versions of movies, music ++.-) The Mapplethorpe controversy was about whether public funds should be spent (through the National Endowment for the Arts) on what he was producing. It wasn't a free speech issue. It was a public funding of the arts issue. Tom Reese
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
Quite so. By the same token, we should also watch that small minority of people who buy lenses to take pictures, rather than to fondle them as well-made objects. John On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:09:02 +0100, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because they are fun to shoot. Because they can be used conveniently in indoor ranges. Because they are nifty mechanical gizmos, which is the same reason lots of folks buy cameras, or watches for that matter. People who buy them primarily as weapons need to be watched closely, in my opinion. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- John Forbes wrote: As for bans on firearms: would you still want a handgun if nobody else had one? And if so, why? -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
I should have thought any port in a storm. William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Tom Reese Subject: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? Bah. Most of your army would quit when they reached the first Milwaukee brewery. Amarican beer? FEH!! WW -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
Sorry, even we're not that stupid. William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: P. J. Alling Subject: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? Wait a minute, I though the Canadians had already invaded Florida. We're hoping you'll trade us Florida for Quebec eventually. WW -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
Much easier to have the weapons available before hand. Have fun buying one in England if you decide you need one... Bob W wrote: -Original Message- From: P. J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 28 September 2005 23:13 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? Older handguns are beautiful machines, as worthy of collecting as any other well made object. Additionally Government agents will always have handguns, or worse. Right now they are on the side of the angels, mostly. That could change. Even if I don't need a handgun, for that reason, I won't foreclose on the future. That argument doesn't really work very well. If the nature of the government changed to the extent that you felt you really needed a gun as a weapon (rather than for sports or to protect yourself against ordinary criminals), then the chances are that that government would already have made guns illegal. So you would need to obtain them illegally anyway. In situations like that it never seems difficult to find someone to sell you the weapons - look at Northern Ireland as an example. Bob -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
OT: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
Can you be an old hippie without being aged? :-) But I'm glad you concede that liberals HAVE souls...! The word comes from Old French, and originally meant pertaining to a free man. Its very root means free. So why is it that in the land of the free, many people seem to like freedom for everything except thought, and consider liberal to be a dirty word? This baffles the rest of us, many of whom tend to accept, more or less, the definition of the Oxford Dictionary (original edition), which states: Of political opinions: Favourable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms tending in the direction of freedom or democracy. Surely this is what all Americans want? Isn't it? So what's wrong with being liberal? John On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 22:22:06 +0100, keith_w [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: A little town like Berkeley! Shel, you make it sound like some dorp in the back of beyond. It is, I believe, one of the top university towns in a country with reputedly the best universities in the world. It would be surprising if it didn't have lots of wonderful things going for it. John It's a small university town, filled to the brim and overflowing, with aged old hippies and *far* left liberal souls... They even made Angela Davis a professor. Go figure. keith whaley On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:29:37 +0100, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Paul ... Your comment reminds me of the time I went into a highly-regarded restaurant in St. Louis. I saw that there were some fish dishes on the menu and I asked the waitress if they prepared fish well. She enthusiastically replied that they sure did! When the fish arrived it was terribly overcooked. They sure did it well. It just boggles my mind how a little town like Berkeley can have so many good labs and technicians (not to say we don't have our share of places that process and print film well LOL) Shel -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.7/112 - Release Date: 26/09/2005
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
- Original Message - From: John Forbes Subject: OT: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? Of political opinions: Favourable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms tending in the direction of freedom or democracy. Surely this is what all Americans want? Isn't it? So what's wrong with being liberal? The USA is a republic, not a liberal democracy? William Robb
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
John Forbes asked: The word (liberal) comes from Old French, and originally meant pertaining to a free man. Its very root means free. So why is it that in the land of the free, many people seem to like freedom for everything except thought, and consider liberal to be a dirty word? This baffles the rest of us, many of whom tend to accept, more or less, the definition of the Oxford Dictionary (original edition), which states: Of political opinions: Favourable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms tending in the direction of freedom or democracy. Surely this is what all Americans want? Isn't it? So what's wrong with being liberal? It's almost impossible to answer your question without setting off the politics powderkeg. When used as a dirty word, liberal is an accusation that means one who advocates higher taxes and excessive government. That is what the person making the accusation wants the electorate to believe. It can go much deeper. This touches on issues that people are extremely passionate about and it could easily turn ugly. Abortion, guns, separation of church and state and economic policy are some of the issues. I tried to keep this opinion free to avoid setting off the arguments. Tom Reese
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
I think the list is 'coughing up' some old posts again. :) Tom C. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:45:52 -0600 - Original Message - From: John Forbes Subject: OT: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? Of political opinions: Favourable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms tending in the direction of freedom or democracy. Surely this is what all Americans want? Isn't it? So what's wrong with being liberal? The USA is a republic, not a liberal democracy? William Robb
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
What many who style themselves liberal expose, must have real liberals spinning in their graves. Though being a Constutional Federal Republic, at least in theory, means we don't have to care what they call themselves. William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: John Forbes Subject: OT: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? Of political opinions: Favourable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms tending in the direction of freedom or democracy. Surely this is what all Americans want? Isn't it? So what's wrong with being liberal? The USA is a republic, not a liberal democracy? William Robb -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: John Forbes Subject: OT: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? Of political opinions: Favourable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms tending in the direction of freedom or democracy. Surely this is what all Americans want? Isn't it? So what's wrong with being liberal? The USA is a republic, not a liberal democracy? William Robb That's what it was established to be ~ a Republic. keith whaley
Re: OT: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
In a message dated 9/27/2005 3:12:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Surely this is what all Americans want? Isn't it? So what's wrong with being liberal? John = Absolutely nothing. There's not a thing wrong with it. I am very liberal in the true meaning of the word. Politically and otherwise. I've also always preferred the liberal political label to that newfangled one, progressive. Because of all the myriad and nice definitions for liberal. But, please, let's keep politics off the list. ;-) Marnie aka Doe
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
John Forbes said: So an innocent word (liberal) has been highjacked by the illiberal to mean something else? Perhaps we need language police. The definition you cited is now pretty much covered by the word libertarian (with a small l). Tom Reese
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
In a message dated 9/27/2005 5:35:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The definition you cited is now pretty much covered by the word libertarian (with a small l). Tom Reese = Liberal still means liberal. It doesn't matter how much some distort it. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
Weren't you the one who, just a while ago, suggested keeping politics out of this discussion. Yet here you are, jumping in with both feet and moving the discussion further towards politics. LOL And yes, I know others are participating, but they didn't make the statement you did. I sure hope this doesn't begin another long winded political bullshit thread. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Liberal still means liberal. It doesn't matter how much some distort it.
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
Actually it seems to be an oligarchy pretending to be a republic and calling itself a democracy. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: John Forbes Subject: OT: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? Of political opinions: Favourable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms tending in the direction of freedom or democracy. Surely this is what all Americans want? Isn't it? So what's wrong with being liberal? The USA is a republic, not a liberal democracy? William Robb
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
So an innocent word has been highjacked by the illiberal to mean something else? Perhaps we need language police. John On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 00:19:33 +0100, Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes asked: The word (liberal) comes from Old French, and originally meant pertaining to a free man. Its very root means free. So why is it that in the land of the free, many people seem to like freedom for everything except thought, and consider liberal to be a dirty word? This baffles the rest of us, many of whom tend to accept, more or less, the definition of the Oxford Dictionary (original edition), which states: Of political opinions: Favourable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms tending in the direction of freedom or democracy. Surely this is what all Americans want? Isn't it? So what's wrong with being liberal? It's almost impossible to answer your question without setting off the politics powderkeg. When used as a dirty word, liberal is an accusation that means one who advocates higher taxes and excessive government. That is what the person making the accusation wants the electorate to believe. It can go much deeper. This touches on issues that people are extremely passionate about and it could easily turn ugly. Abortion, guns, separation of church and state and economic policy are some of the issues. I tried to keep this opinion free to avoid setting off the arguments. Tom Reese -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.7/112 - Release Date: 26/09/2005
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
Tim Sherburne wrote: I recently ran across these working definitions that go beyond politics to one's personal philosophy: conservative: Anything not expressly allowed is prohibited liberal: Anything not expressly prohibited is allowed Anything not expressly prohibited is required, is more like it. Tim On 9/27/05 16:34, John Forbes wrote: So an innocent word has been highjacked by the illiberal to mean something else? Perhaps we need language police. John On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 00:19:33 +0100, Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes asked: The word (liberal) comes from Old French, and originally meant pertaining to a free man. Its very root means free. So why is it that in the land of the free, many people seem to like freedom for everything except thought, and consider liberal to be a dirty word? This baffles the rest of us, many of whom tend to accept, more or less, the definition of the Oxford Dictionary (original edition), which states: Of political opinions: Favourable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms tending in the direction of freedom or democracy. Surely this is what all Americans want? Isn't it? So what's wrong with being liberal? It's almost impossible to answer your question without setting off the politics powderkeg. When used as a dirty word, liberal is an accusation that means one who advocates higher taxes and excessive government. That is what the person making the accusation wants the electorate to believe. It can go much deeper. This touches on issues that people are extremely passionate about and it could easily turn ugly. Abortion, guns, separation of church and state and economic policy are some of the issues. I tried to keep this opinion free to avoid setting off the arguments. Tom Reese -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
I recently ran across these working definitions that go beyond politics to one's personal philosophy: conservative: Anything not expressly allowed is prohibited liberal: Anything not expressly prohibited is allowed Tim On 9/27/05 16:34, John Forbes wrote: So an innocent word has been highjacked by the illiberal to mean something else? Perhaps we need language police. John On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 00:19:33 +0100, Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes asked: The word (liberal) comes from Old French, and originally meant pertaining to a free man. Its very root means free. So why is it that in the land of the free, many people seem to like freedom for everything except thought, and consider liberal to be a dirty word? This baffles the rest of us, many of whom tend to accept, more or less, the definition of the Oxford Dictionary (original edition), which states: Of political opinions: Favourable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms tending in the direction of freedom or democracy. Surely this is what all Americans want? Isn't it? So what's wrong with being liberal? It's almost impossible to answer your question without setting off the politics powderkeg. When used as a dirty word, liberal is an accusation that means one who advocates higher taxes and excessive government. That is what the person making the accusation wants the electorate to believe. It can go much deeper. This touches on issues that people are extremely passionate about and it could easily turn ugly. Abortion, guns, separation of church and state and economic policy are some of the issues. I tried to keep this opinion free to avoid setting off the arguments. Tom Reese
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
liberals... libertarians... ... libertins! mishka
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
I visited the statue of liberty once -- maybe twice. That was in the days when I was still shooting film. Hope that answers everyone's questions :-). Paul
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
What a tempting question...for another list. Hopefully!! Jack --- Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the list is 'coughing up' some old posts again. :) Tom C. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:45:52 -0600 - Original Message - From: John Forbes Subject: OT: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? Of political opinions: Favourable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms tending in the direction of freedom or democracy. Surely this is what all Americans want? Isn't it? So what's wrong with being liberal? The USA is a republic, not a liberal democracy? William Robb __ Yahoo! for Good Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
- Original Message - From: John Forbes Subject: OT: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film? Of political opinions: Favourable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms tending in the direction of freedom or democracy. Surely this is what all Americans want? Isn't it? So what's wrong with being liberal? Labels for people don't necessarily match dictionary definitions.
Re: Liberty. Was: anybody still shoot film?
John Forbes wrote: So an innocent word has been highjacked by the illiberal to mean something else? Perhaps we need language police. Heck, we can't stay civil around here when discussing the correct spelling of lens and you want to talk about a political label??? ERNR
