A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

BAN: Photography on USA trains and buses



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 24th 04, 04:01 PM
Wilbert Dijkhof
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default BAN: Photography on USA trains and buses



FLY135 wrote:

"Wilbert Dijkhof" wrote in message
...


FLY135 wrote:

"Any Moose Poster" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"FLY135" FLY_135(@hot not not)notmail.com wrote:

"Any Moose Poster" wrote in

message
...
In article ,
Rata Rioja wrote:

Anyone with half a brain, doesn't want to go to a
police-state anymore.

Anyone with half a brain wouldn't say it was a police state.
Anyone who wasn't terrorist sympathizer wouldn't say it was
a police state.

Damn Moose, didn't you recently castigate me for saying as much?

No you called him a terrorist sympathizer. At least that's the way

your
posting sounds.


No terrorist sympathizer = no a police state.

and thus

police state = terrorist sympathizer


Let's try again...

"Anyone who wasn't terrorist sympathizer wouldn't say it was a police state"

Remove the redundant "nots", which cancel each other out....


They don't. They cancel out if you reverse the assumption and the
conclusion.

a - b = !b - !a

Anyone who was (a) terrorist sympathizer would say it was a police state


? Are you saying that terrorist sympathizers claim that America is a
police state? I don't think terrorists care about that, so why would
they think that?

I'd say it would be a good guess to assume English isn't your first
language, so the error is understandable.


Except it's not an error. And yes, English is not my native language.

May I ask you what measures do you think should be taken to turn a
country (America, Canada or in Europe) into a police state?


Sure you can ask.... "None"


So, you think they can't become a police state, no matter what
measures they take? Or, all of them are already police states?

Wilbert
  #22  
Old June 24th 04, 04:38 PM
FLY135
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default BAN: Photography on USA trains and buses


"Wilbert Dijkhof" wrote in message
...


FLY135 wrote:

"Wilbert Dijkhof" wrote in message
...


FLY135 wrote:

"Any Moose Poster" wrote in

message
...
In article . net,
"FLY135" FLY_135(@hot not not)notmail.com wrote:

"Any Moose Poster" wrote in

message
...
In article ,
Rata Rioja wrote:

Anyone with half a brain, doesn't want to go to a
police-state anymore.

Anyone with half a brain wouldn't say it was a police state.
Anyone who wasn't terrorist sympathizer wouldn't say it was
a police state.

Damn Moose, didn't you recently castigate me for saying as much?

No you called him a terrorist sympathizer. At least that's the way

your
posting sounds.


No terrorist sympathizer = no a police state.

and thus

police state = terrorist sympathizer


Let's try again...

"Anyone who wasn't terrorist sympathizer wouldn't say it was a police

state"

Remove the redundant "nots", which cancel each other out....


They don't. They cancel out if you reverse the assumption and the
conclusion.

a - b = !b - !a


Yes they do, and this example is irrelevant. In fact your previous "and
thus" completely supported my contention, but was obtuse because it removed
any context surrounding the assertion.

Anyone who was (a) terrorist sympathizer would say it was a police state


? Are you saying that terrorist sympathizers claim that America is a
police state? I don't think terrorists care about that, so why would
they think that?


Where do you get that? I clearly was translating (by removing redundant
"nots") a statement made by someone else.


I'd say it would be a good guess to assume English isn't your first
language, so the error is understandable.


Except it's not an error. And yes, English is not my native language.


Yes it was an error.

May I ask you what measures do you think should be taken to turn a
country (America, Canada or in Europe) into a police state?


Sure you can ask.... "None"


So, you think they can't become a police state, no matter what
measures they take? Or, all of them are already police states?


The real answer to your question is not clearly black and white. Marshall
law has been invoked when the security of a nation cannot be maintained by
conventional policing. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's simply the
result of conditions beyond our ability to maintain security. I would call
a nation under Marshall law a police state. But I would advocate that be
only a temporary condition and not an ideology.

I don't believe that the US is a police state by any stretch of the
imagination. Although some measures that are characteristic of a police
state have been taken because of security issues. It's a matter of scope
and scale. To claim that the US is a police state is a bombastic
exageration.


  #23  
Old June 24th 04, 08:04 PM
Any Moose Poster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default BAN: Photography on USA trains and buses

In article .net,
"FLY135" fly_135(@ hot not not)notmail.com wrote:

To claim that the US is a police state is a bombastic
exageration.


Which was my intial reason to say what I said. To
imply that Rata think about the implication of the
"Police State" statement made. I don't think Rata
is a Terrorist sympathizer, however I leave that answer up
to him.
--
Duzz that A moose you ?
  #24  
Old June 24th 04, 11:42 PM
Rata Rioja
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default BAN: Photography on USA trains and buses

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:02:28 GMT, Any Moose Poster
wrote:

Vigilance is a requirement at this point, a better tact would be refinements of
the Patriot act. Who comes into this country we need to know
who they are whether they have good intentions. You don't suggest otherwise, do you?


Yep. It is the right of every country to deny access to a person, if
they feel threatened by this person. But the draconinc measures it
takes, makes travelling for those with good intentions difficult too,
and the system is not bulletproof. America has a very very long
border, and your coastguard and customs-officials can't be
everywhere. IMHO you would be better off making your country a less
likely target for terrorism.

rr

  #25  
Old June 25th 04, 01:31 AM
Gary P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default BAN: Photography on USA trains and buses

"FLY135" fly_135(@ hot not not)notmail.com wrote in message
link.net...

"Wilbert Dijkhof" wrote in message
...

Let's try again...

"Anyone who wasn't terrorist sympathizer wouldn't say it was a police

state"

Since when is a double negative an example of adequate logical argument?
It's not even terrific English. Nor are you developing a logical argument
from a proven premise as "logic" would require.

Since Rata said that the US is a police state, the logic of Moose's post
dictates that he is a terrorist sympathizer. That is of course predicated
on the correctness of Moose's logic.


In this instance, a big predicate.


  #26  
Old June 25th 04, 01:46 AM
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default BAN: Photography on USA trains and buses

Rata Rioja wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:02:28 GMT, Any Moose Poster
wrote:


Vigilance is a requirement at this point, a better tact would be refinements of
the Patriot act. Who comes into this country we need to know
who they are whether they have good intentions. You don't suggest otherwise, do you?



Yep. It is the right of every country to deny access to a person, if
they feel threatened by this person. But the draconinc measures it
takes, makes travelling for those with good intentions difficult too,
and the system is not bulletproof. America has a very very long
border, and your coastguard and customs-officials can't be
everywhere. IMHO you would be better off making your country a less
likely target for terrorism.

rr

followup set
  #27  
Old June 25th 04, 02:28 AM
Any Moose Poster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default BAN: Photography on USA trains and buses

In article ,
Rata Rioja wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:02:28 GMT, Any Moose Poster
wrote:

Vigilance is a requirement at this point, a better tact would be refinements of
the Patriot act. Who comes into this country we need to know
who they are whether they have good intentions. You don't suggest otherwise, do you?


Yep. It is the right of every country to deny access to a person, if
they feel threatened by this person. But the draconinc measures it
takes, makes travelling for those with good intentions difficult too,
and the system is not bulletproof. America has a very very long
border, and your coastguard and customs-officials can't be
everywhere. IMHO you would be better off making your country a less
likely target for terrorism.


With that I agree.
--
Duzz that A moose you ?
  #28  
Old June 25th 04, 03:50 PM
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [OT] BAN: Photography on USA trains and buses

Any Moose Poster wrote:

In article ,
Rata Rioja wrote:


On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:02:28 GMT, Any Moose Poster
wrote:


Vigilance is a requirement at this point, a better tact would be refinements of
the Patriot act. Who comes into this country we need to know
who they are whether they have good intentions. You don't suggest otherwise, do you?


Yep. It is the right of every country to deny access to a person, if
they feel threatened by this person. But the draconinc measures it
takes, makes travelling for those with good intentions difficult too,
and the system is not bulletproof. America has a very very long
border, and your coastguard and customs-officials can't be
everywhere. IMHO you would be better off making your country a less
likely target for terrorism.



With that I agree.

Good. TID! TID!
  #29  
Old June 25th 04, 07:24 PM
Deathwalker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default BAN: Photography on USA trains and buses


"Rata Rioja" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:02:28 GMT, Any Moose Poster
wrote:

Vigilance is a requirement at this point, a better tact would be

refinements of
the Patriot act. Who comes into this country we need to know
who they are whether they have good intentions. You don't suggest

otherwise, do you?

Yep. It is the right of every country to deny access to a person, if
they feel threatened by this person. But the draconinc measures it
takes, makes travelling for those with good intentions difficult too,
and the system is not bulletproof. America has a very very long
border, and your coastguard and customs-officials can't be
everywhere. IMHO you would be better off making your country a less
likely target for terrorism.



Fine. So let every minority pressure group get their way. Pull back all
financial aide for everyone. And let everything outside of your own shores
turn to ****. Then another set of terrorists will be doing god knows what
until someone does something to help them. You can't please all of the
people all of the time. Somebody somewhere will always be disatisfied.
Somehow they will reason that all the problems they face are your fault.
Especially if you are a particularly well off country and the disgruntled
bloke comes from an obscure **** ant little country who are slaughtering
each other cos they disagree over how they should worship god.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BAN: Photography on USA trains and buses Rata Rioja Digital Photography 19 June 25th 04 07:24 PM
BAN: Photography on USA trains and buses Rata Rioja 35mm Photo Equipment 1 June 15th 04 04:11 PM
BAN: Photography on USA trains and buses FLY135 35mm Photo Equipment 1 June 15th 04 02:15 PM
BAN: Photography on USA trains and buses Rata Rioja 35mm Photo Equipment 0 June 15th 04 01:34 PM
BAN: Photography on USA trains and buses Mike 35mm Photo Equipment 0 June 14th 04 03:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.