Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!hoptoad!ptsfa!pyramid!lll-winken!ncsuvx!mcnc!rutgers!princeton!udel!burdvax!sdcrdcf!ism780c!mikep From: mikep@ism780c.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.flame Subject: Re: More misinformation about pot Message-ID: <7665@ism780c.UUCP> Date: Thu, 29-Oct-87 18:09:19 EST Article-I.D.: ism780c.7665 Posted: Thu Oct 29 18:09:19 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 31-Oct-87 16:36:29 EST References: <2015@gryphon.CTS.COM> <7627@ism780c.UUCP> <1005@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> Reply-To: mikep@ism780c.UUCP (Michael A. Petonic) Distribution: na Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica CA Lines: 172 Keywords: Almost serious, though not when it would disturb the flow In article <1005@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> ahwatson@phoenix.UUCP (Arthur H. Watson) writes: >(Sorry, Michael, but some articles just cry out to be written at 6:30 am :-) >In article <7627@ism780c.UUCP> mikep@ism780c.UUCP I write: >>Ah, but, when I was living in Arizona, I heard you could buy a tax >>stamp for pot. I heard this in high school about 4 years ago. > >Well, that settles it for me! Please followup posting the name >of your home town. I for one will immediately send away to your >School Committe for the stamp. BTW: The town is called Sierra Vista, AZ. Located next to the Army base, Ft. Huachuca. If you had a modicum of intelligence, you wouldn't have infered from my paragraph above as me saying that you could get the tax stamp from school. I'd heard the rumor (fact?) in HS, I didn't hear that you could buy it in HS. >>thought, I decided that buying a stamp would probably affect all >>future chances of getting a security clearance. > >You idiot! Having a security clearance is A Bad Thing. If you have >a security clearance, people might think you know something useful >and torture you for it. Do I detect a bit of paranoia in this??? Yeah, working as an engineer is sure a risky job. You never know when those damn ruskies might come over and torture you for what you know! Come off of it, most security clearances are only given out because the guy needs some info to work on a project and that's it. The Rooshians could probably get most of the info from Newsweek, or a technical trade magazine. >Well >why don't you just write to David Letterman and explain? I'm sure he'd >love your story and would let you on his show as a guest. (Is his show >still on the air? Shit, you're so screwed up I don't know what year >it is, just from responding to your article! If indeed Dave has moved >on, you could try Those Amazing Animals). Aurthur, I just think *YOU* are just plain screwed up. Your article covers every subject from Drugs (starting point) to David Letterman with hints of Olly North in it. Get a FUCKING clue. Anyone can write a paper that doesn't center around one topic. As I've posted on the net before, it's also very easy to show how one thing can lead to another through a series of unlikeley events, such as what you have done. Here's an example: >You can name any *inaction* as a crime having a victim too. You see, >since we all are God, any suffering in the world is OUR FAULT, because >we aren't preventing it. Thus we must, for instance, take drugs away >from people, because drugs are bad for them. Yup, that position is >only slightly more stupid. What a stupid piece of shit reasoning. Let me grant some respectability to your absurd posting by shooting it down with logic. First, you have to suppose that we are all God. That's a theological point, and I don't intend on arguing against it since we'd never come to a mutual agreement or conclusion. Second, we only accept fault when we accept responsibility. I don't accept responsibility for it (and if you did, you can suffer the consequences of your own guilty conscience). Your logic doesn't flow in the sentances after that (as if it ever did) so I won't bother shooting the rest down. >>But, unlike most "let anyone smoke or shoot what they want" type >>people, I do beleive there is a difference between certain substances. >Like piss is liquid, while shit is solid. But no, diarrhea is liquid, and >it is certainly shit. Sorry, you're wrong. All substances are the same. Yeah, right. I'm talking about drugs and you're talking about shit and piss. Aurthur, what went wrong during your childhood? Did you get stuck in the oral or anal phase? That last bit, "All substances are the same" cracks me up. If you're being global about things, meaning that wood is the same as steel is the same as shit is the same as dirt ..., then you're obviously not living in the same universe that I am. Oh, I guess you *could* say that they are composed of the same subatomic particles, but this isn't what we meant, was it Arthur??? > >>I guess "survival of the fittest" would weed out those too stupid >>to realize that PCP (and other major biggie killers) are bad news. >That's right! Those people too stupid to lock themselves in a concrete >bunker when people near them are users of PCP (and other major biggie >killers) are far too stupid to live. You've twisted my statement. Not surprising, considering how twisted you are. >So by your reasoning, (dangerous) drugs are a good thing, because they >help improve the gene pool. (Except of course drugs which cause genetic >damage. Well we'll ignore those, because they don't agree with us). But >a quick digression to victimless/victimmore crimes -- you should also try >to kill everyone you meet, because that certainly improves the gene pool >too. Evidently, you don't have the foggiest notion of what I'm talking about. Or, perhaps I should consider you a genius and I'm so far below your plane of reasoning that it makes no sense to me. BTW: I thought your whole post was a digression on reality. >Even more so if they kill YOU in self-defense. Good. You see, lots >of people use stupid arguments to show that we can't do anything right >(and thus must give lots of money to the Theocrats), not realizing that >the same arguments *really* show that we can't do anything wrong. It just >takes one little contradiction, and POOF! Everything becomes true. I think you're hinting on the age old ``Free will vs. Determinism'' argument. Don't ask me where I got that. I think after reading your posts, I got a little warped myself. >The essense of most "doing drugs is not a victimless crime" arguments: >ARGUMENT: > ... > >I offer the following two phases of enlightenment thereupon: > >Phase 1: (A counterargument such as might find favor on the Lunatic Fringe) > People are by nature irresponsible. Thus doing drugs brings us closer > to our true nature. Thus the only people who would call it a crime are > those people who believe that people are basically bad. Guess who they > are? Yes, you can hear them on TV warning about the evils of Secular > Humanism (a doctrine which believes people are basically OK). They are > THE THEOCRACY. Do drugs. Vote. I don't see where you come from ``People are by nature irresponsible'' (which I don't see as a fact, but a perception of yours caused by your own pathetic existance) to ``Thus, the only people who would call it a crime are those who beleive that people are basically bad.'' Can anyone else out there in net-land see the (no doubt crystal clear) logic behind his argument? >Phase 2: (An interesting fact) > The same ARGUMENT was once quite popular (and may still be in some > places) with the phrase "doing drugs" replaced by "reading books", > or even "thinking". I don't suppose you'd care to guess who said > it then? Hmmm? Well, actually it's not just the Theocracy, it's > all sorts of repressive -ocracies. The people who want to hose us. So, you think that doing drugs, reading books and thinking are the same thing? To use an argument against censorship and intellectual censorship, but now you throw in "doing drugs" instead of those abovementioned, and you can ride on the righteousnous of those arguments. Pretty cheap. I think we all pretty much agree that censorship (both forms) are bad. I'm not sure if everyone agrees that restriction of drugs is a bad idea. >Now something which genuinely has nothing whatsoever to do with anything: Nothing you posted has anything whatsoever to do with anything. > >Exercise: What's wrong with the following statement? > In the wake of the stock crash, everyone should sell stock to > eachother, all taking a loss this year, paying no taxes. Then > the government will go broke and we'll be a free country. >(If you didn't get it right away, consider yourself flamed). More inane ramblings. >-Arthur Watson >"I don't want to rule the world" Well, who would vote for Arthur Watson for president, the great intellectual of all time?