You can't even take pictures at a public city beach anymore?

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:05:27 -0700, "Mark M"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 04:18:29 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Mark M writes:


And you feel that responding at their low level will somehow lead to
a
more
productive exchange?


No, I feel that defending my rights will allow me to keep them.


It may also make you prone to hospital stays and obnoxiousness.

So you hold avoiding a punch in the face as more precious than
your civil rights? How courageous.

There is courageous wisdom, and then there courageous stupidity.

Be boldly state...bravely defend, but don't be stupid.
Being wisely brave doesn't necessarily mean cowardice, or a lack of
resolve.
You must not only pick your battles, but choose the extent of physical
damage each indidual battle is worth. To some, violence is ALWAYS their
alternative of choice. -But then, we have over two million people in
prison
in the US as a result of that attitude...

Like bilong yu...

I'm sure Butterfly will meditate long on the fruits of your
beatific wisdom, O Master.

Ummm... Thanks??? No-thanks???
???

Butterfly?
Isn't that... "Grasshopper"??
-Or more accurately, "Gross-hoppah."

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:50:08 -0700, Big Bill wrote:

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 03:32:25 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Mark M writes:

Be boldly state...bravely defend, but don't be stupid.

In other words, talk big, but immediately submit in the face of any kind
of real or imagined threat?

You seem to have this rqather amusing habit of taking things to the
extreme right away.
Considering the incident that the OP described, are you saying that
you'd go to a fight to prevent your 'right' to be left alone in that
situation?
Just how far do you think you'd go to protect your rights?
Take another situation: let's say you catch someone taking
pohotographs through your bedroom window; would you go to physical
lengths to stop this person?

SHades?

You wimp pacifist!!

Big Bill writes:

What are you trying to say?

That a life with no freedom may be worse than no life at all.

Does thast mean you think
the desire to live should only be within those who live a life you
consider somehow good?

No.

Does this mean you think those who live poor lives either don't or
shouldn't want to continue living?

No.

I await your explanation of your rather cryptic pronouncement.

See above.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Big Bill writes:

You seem to have this rqather amusing habit of taking things to the
extreme right away.

I'm not very good at it or fond of it compared to most people. In any
case, this example is not extreme.

Considering the incident that the OP described, are you saying that
you'd go to a fight to prevent your 'right' to be left alone in that
situation?

It depends on the circumstances.

Just how far do you think you'd go to protect your rights?

See above.

Take another situation: let's say you catch someone taking
pohotographs through your bedroom window; would you go to physical
lengths to stop this person?

I'd just cover the window.

Doesn't he have a right to *not* be physically assaulted by you?

Yes, he does. But there is no reason to assault him to begin with. See
above.

How about if your family were being assaulted, and you happened upon
the scene? Would you call 911, then jump inot the fray to protect your
family's rights. Or would you call 911, then step away, and let the
government defend your rights?

It depends on the circumstances. If I could intervene effectively, I
would. Otherwise I would call for help.

Tell me again about the amusing habit of carrying things to extremes. Do
you not find scenarios of families being attacked a bit extreme in
comparison to the incident described by the original poster?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 05:02:23 GMT, wrote:

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:48:11 -0700, Big Bill wrote:

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:26:27 GMT, wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:02:51 GMT, Atreju
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 08:42:22 GMT, wrote:


If some drunken ******* in a truck kills you, that doesn't
make him right.

But it makes you dead. I think his point is, regardless of who has
what 'rights' simply being confrontational because you're technically
'right' is not the only way to approach a situation.

Do as you will.

Sheep live longer, eh?

I always thought that was the point of the whole exersize - to live as
long as possible.

Not as a slave to thugs.

Who's a slave?
Are you trying to say that these particular people would follow the OP
arounbd, and make him work fo rthem?

All the rest is only to attempt to make the experience more enjoyable.

Horse**** -- it's not that simple.

So let's see you boil it down to the essentials.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Mxsmanic wrote:
Big Bill writes:

You seem to have this rqather amusing habit of taking things to the
extreme right away.

I'm not very good at it or fond of it compared to most people. In any
case, this example is not extreme.

Considering the incident that the OP described, are you saying that
you'd go to a fight to prevent your 'right' to be left alone in that
situation?

It depends on the circumstances.

Just how far do you think you'd go to protect your rights?

See above.

Take another situation: let's say you catch someone taking
pohotographs through your bedroom window; would you go to physical
lengths to stop this person?

I'd just cover the window.

Doesn't he have a right to *not* be physically assaulted by you?

Yes, he does. But there is no reason to assault him to begin with.
See above.

How about if your family were being assaulted, and you happened upon
the scene? Would you call 911, then jump inot the fray to protect
your family's rights. Or would you call 911, then step away, and let
the government defend your rights?

It depends on the circumstances. If I could intervene effectively, I
would. Otherwise I would call for help.

Tell me again about the amusing habit of carrying things to extremes.
Do you not find scenarios of families being attacked a bit extreme in
comparison to the incident described by the original poster?

You must have a great deal of patience and time, carrying on like this
with a person who has his herky-jerky "Yes, but-" reflex (and not much
else) switched on.

(JohnCM) wrote in
om:

Big snip

it costs to get on the sand at Long Beach during the summer

Now that's something to get upset about.

snip

I tell you, I'm really considering leaving New York or this country
altogether.

Just do it.