BAN: Photography on USA trains and buses

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.

If you look at the logic of your post that's exactly what you did.

I guess you didn't have logic on school:

No terrorist sympathizer = no a police state.

and thus

police state = terrorist sympathizer

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?

Wilbert

"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.

If you look at the logic of your post that's exactly what you did.

I guess you didn't have logic on school:

You guessed wrong.

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....

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

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.

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

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"

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

"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.

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 ?

"david.mccall" wrote in
news:Ublyc.32558$Sw.23208@attbi_s51:


"Chris Phillipo" wrote in message
.. .

America said "It's not our war" for a full two years after Canada was
in there fighing and would not have joined in at all if the Germans
hadn't taken the bait of a little sacrificial lamb by the name of the
Lusitania. Another war crime by an US president that went
unpunished.

My history book was different than yours. The US was in a very
"dovish" period at the beginning of WWII. It wasn't until after they
had sunk a few of our merchant marine vessels, and had their subs
stationed along our coast that we decided that we had better put an
end to it. I guess we must have decided that the Canadians weren't
doing the job any better a job at ending the war than the Europeans
were. We weren't a world power and didn't have beans for a military at
that time, but we were able to build one quick. Many thousands of
Ships, tanks, jeeps, airplanes, etc. The numbers are mind boggling,
not only in equipment, but in trained soldiers. Very little of
which even existed before we entered the war.

Don't forget about all the Lend-Lease stuff we did for Britain while
remaining "neutral". It wasn't really neutral behavior. I don't know
about Canadians not doing a good enough job. I have no problems with
how they fought.



I might add that the Europeans could have handled Hitler very easily
if they had gotten involved a little earlier instead of taking the
same attitude
that they are taking with the terrorist. "Oh he really isn't any
danger to us".

Boy-howdy. You hit the nail on the head here. You'd think France
would know this more than anyone else! If the Allies had stood up to
Germany in the mid-30's, it would have saved many lives. If a skirmish
had broken out, it wouldn't have been anywhere near the size of WWII.


--
Tim.

"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

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

"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.

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 ?

"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.