"Dynamite Bob" wrote:
> Get a load of this lawyer's physics:
>
> "Geostationary satellites sit above
> the equator in a fixed position;
> they do not rotate around the Earth.
Maybe he was making a very sophisticated argument about "frame of reference"
(or maybe not). :-D
S a n d y
So the tr
Ray Dillinger wrote:
> Now, if Sri Lanka wanted to charge
> property taxes for some prime
> orbital real estate, it might be
> able to make a better case -- it
> actually *has* prime orbital real
> estate.
Only in Arthur C. Clarks science fiction. The equator does not cross Sri
Lanka. Now Ecua
Peter Trei wrote:
> Expatriate US citizens have to pay
> income tax on foreign earned income
> to the US...If you don't pay up,
> they might not be able to extradite
> you if you're now a foreigner, but
> they'll go after your assets in the
> US, or arrest you if you set foot
> on US soil.
>
> (1
Jon Beets wrote:
> police should not have the same
> standards as regular citizens
> when performing their public
> duties...They work for the people
> and therefore should be accountable
> for the people just like any boss
> should be able to monitor their
> employees
Some of you know Hugh
David Honig wrote:
> I believe Calif. has crossbow restrictions.
>
> What a surprise.
>
> No sword-canes or nunchucks, either.
The VERY poorly designed California Statutes site can be found at:
http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
Just click on "All," put your favorite weapon in the search window
Any Cypherpunks interested in being "spies" for glory and cash prizes?:
http://abc.go.com/primetime/spy/spy_casting.html
S a n d y
Isn't it interesting that all three of the Condit boys went bad? One's a
freelance criminal, one's a cop and one's a congressman. Bad parenting or
heredity? You be the judge.
S a n d y
Tim May wrote:
> WHY AREN'T THE OWNERS OF THESE
> PROPERTIES DEFENDING THEIR
> PROPERTY?
>
> Why are't shop owners spraying the
> looters with automatic weapons fire?
>
> Because, of course, Europeans are
> disarmed.
Not entirely true. If the G8 folks really wanted to avoid "collateral
damage"
Tim May wrote:
> And even in Switzerland, my
> understanding is that the rifles
> issued to each male head of
> household (maybe single moms, but
> I doubt it) are kept IN THE HOUSES,
> not in shops and businesses and
> factories. Some of them might have
> carried their rifles to their
> business
Inchoate sputtered:
> ...The real reason they're not
> sensitive to these particular
> 'anarchist' is that they aren't
> motivated by the alure of money.
> They aspire to a higher calling
> than crass commercialism or
> puritanical ego fulfillment...
Oh boy! If Jim REALLY believes this crap (wh
John Young wrote:
> But, to repeat, why the worker and
> not his bosses? Is this a way for
> Adobe/FBI/DoJ to signal the interest
> of its own bosses?
Maybe, but the reason to go after the underling is simple: He's far less
likely to have the personal resources to do much about it. Cowardly?
"Anonymous" wrote:
> "Collateral damage" occurs in any
> battle. If you hold the battle in
> Switzerland the "collateral damage"
> would simply include a higher "loss
> of human life" content...
>
> The real issue is the fact that the
> battle takes place.
*IF* the battle takes place. What if t
Matthew Gaylor wrote:
> There is little difference [between
> the two major parties]. Just
> continuations of the police state.
Last night, I attended a talk by science fiction writer and 2nd amendment
activist, J. Neil Schulman. To distinguish between the two major parties,
he refers to them
C'punks,
Here's an excellent opportunity for our favorite resident buffoon to strut
his lawyer-wannabe chops. The next LSAT (Law School Aptitude Test) will be
administered on October 6, 2001.
Jim, PLEASE take the test. I'd love to see your test score. And, hey,
maybe you'll get a high enough
Chicken?
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Jim Choate
> Sent: 22 July, 2001 22:23
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: THE INCHOATE LAWYER
>
>
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
>
>
J.A. Terranson wrote:
> Fucking trolls
Thank you sir. May I have another?
S a n d y
Petro wrote:
> Willing to make me the same offer?
No thanks, you're neither a horse's ass nor an intellectual lightweight like
Jimbo. No fun there. :-D
S a n d y
Inchoate blurted:
> I couldn't give a shit less what
> your score was on any test. Don't
> care what your IQ is either.
Of course you do Jimbo, but I guess you already know your limits.
> What's my motivation?
$96 bucks and a good har har on poor old Sandy and arrogant young BU.
> Yours and t
Black Unicorn wrote:
> I will refund your registration
> fee in exchange for your valid
> ETS score report.
> ...
> No cost to you. Put up or shut up.
And I'll match that amount if Inchoate's LSAT score exceeds mine. Put up or
shut up, Jimbo.
S a n d y
Dr. Evil wrote:
> Wow, finally some entertainment
> for us on the old c-punk list!
> Maybe they could do a "reality
> TV" show based on this.
Well you know how it is. Every so often that old case of Schaden-freude
kicks in and I've just gotta tease the monkey.
BTW, do you think poor Jimbo ever
Petro wrote:
> I'd bet my wife's next paycheck that
> at least 90% of those bastards are
> appointed.
I wouldn't take that bet because I'm sure you are right. However, that just
begs the question. Ultimately those bastards were appointed by someone who
was elected democratically. (Now don't
Ray Dillinger wrote:
> What I was referring to [by the
> term, "capitalism"] is the
> science of marketing...
Well that's a new one. First, I think referring to the "science" of
marketing is a bit of an overstatement. Sort of what marketeers might like
you to think they do. (Hmm, maybe it's w
Petro wrote:
> Even if one assumes that the
> G8 reps from this country are
> directly appointed by elected
> officials (and it's not a bet
> I'd be willing to take), I'd
> bet that most of the others
> are not.
Maybe yes, maybe no, but the G8 are all nominally democratic. Anything to
back up y
Declan McCullagh wrote:
> But the Feds won't back down as
> readily as Adobe, I wager. They
> don't have to worry about what
> programmers think, they don't
> have to worry about what Wall
> Street thinks (at least DOJ
> doesn't), they don't have to
> worry about slipping revenue
> in a soft econ
Wannabe lawyer Jimbo wrote:
> Does throwing a fire extenguisher
> at a auto window constitution [sic]
> probable cause for lethal force in
> self-defence?
>
> No. Because the fire extenguisher
> won't go through the safety glass.
Oh really? Try that experiment on your own car. Side windows sha
Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Here's a prediction: This case will
> never come close to generating the
> same amount of publicity, by at
> least two orders of magnitude.
>
> Folks on the Net have a bad habit
> of overemphasizing how important
> these cases are. This is not
> important to the people i
Not-a-lawyer wrote:
> Sorry, no backpedaling here...
> I stand behind my previous
> statements on this topic.
Good idea. If you were to stand in front of it, you'd probably lose the
other eye.
> We're not talking about
> 'self-defence' here...
No, we're talking 'self-defense', this is the US,
J.A. Terranson wrote:
> Do you *honestly* think they
> [Federal Baby Incinerators] give
> a shit? Are you really *that*
> naive?
Yeah, guess so. I think the Feebs really don't like to get called on the
carpet. Their power and privilege are at stake. Of course they don't want
that threatened.
C'punks,
Notice how reverently Inchoate argues the minutia of the "extinguisher"
topic? The reason is obvious. That argument boils down to disputed facts
and personal opinion.
It's a lot more comfortable than confronting the objective LSAT challenge.
Funny, how he can argue the relative impact
Declan McCullagh wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 08:47:19AM -0700,
> Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> > It is educational (and it amuses me)
> > to draw him out into parading his
> > ignorance and intransigence for all
> > to see. Of course, he won't admit he is
>
Faustine wrote:
> All free-market principles aside,
> if you're just in it for the
> paycheck, what's the point? I'd
> rather do something I love that's
> meaningful to me than just make a
> pile. Even better not to have to
> choose at all. (Not there yet, so
> #1 it is...)
Have faith. I think
C'punks,
I'm concerned that something terribly wrong has happened to Inchoate. Even
though he has been offered hundreds of dollars to take, and get a good score
on, the LSAT, he hasn't risen to the bai...uh... occasion. It would appear
that Jimbo has been secretly replaced by a random nonsense
WHERE IS DILDO?
The AI suggests Mars. Maybe Dildo has gone there to escape the LSAT
challenge.
> http://www.marsanarchy.org/MarsPrivSocAnarch.htm
/|
|/ \
/ \ \
/ \ \
/ \ \
/___\/ |
| | |
| o | |
| | |
"Subcommander Bob" wrote:
> >"Dr." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >...
> >> You have some kind of serious
> >> personality problem Sandfort.
> >...
> Don't worry Sandy, he's not using
> cypherpunks as the control
> population...
Yeah, around here, my quirks are lost in the background noise. :-D
"Dr." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What is this pseudo-macho crap?
It's an explanation of why I'm turning down the rhetoric. Where were you
(and your pseudo-psychological crap) when I was turning UP the rhetoric?
> You have some kind of serious
> personality problem Sandfort.
WHAT kind and HOW
Tim May wrote:
> It is utterly irresponsible for
> you to discuss this on a list
> frequented by narcs and informants
> and even prosecutors.
No Tim, what is utterly irresponsible is to make bellicose threats on this
list about what your response will be if masked ninjas invade your home. If
th
Tim May wrote:
> The "law" part is about the above,
> and exhortations by the lawyers
> here (5, by my count) about what
> one mustn't do, how courts will
> react, the need to be scrupulously
> legal in all of one's actions, etc.
>
> "Laws of mathematics, not men."
>
> We risk becoming just a pal
Tim May wrote:
> I know of many arguments that a
> knife can be gotten into a fight
> and used effectively _faster_
> than a gun can, especially in
> very close quarters.
Maybe yes, maybe no, but why not carry both then? A legal knife and a
illegal (misdemeanor) gun rather than just your illega
Eugene Leitl wrote:
> Feds enter houses for whatever
> reasons they deem appropriate
> to invent...
Then my comments won't affect their actions one way or the other.
> Pointing out possible targets
> makes no damn reason at all...
Tim already is a target. My minor comments do nothing to chang
James A. Donald wrote:
> In the case of Black Unicorn, it
> appears to me he was a lawyer who
> used to be in the business of
> finding loopholes in laws.
That's what ALL good lawyers do. Think of it as hacking the law.
By the way, Tim May's secret identity is not "Tim Starr."
S a n d y
James A. Donald wrote:
> He has presented no such
> punishment, therefore no such
> case exists.
>
> Therefore remailer operators
> and the rest of us can in perfect
> comfort fail to keep logs, we can
> circulate thought crimes into
> irrecoverable systems, and so on
> and so forth.
Apparently,
Paul E. Robichaux wrote:
> ...the fact remains that some
> contributors to this list produce
> more valuable material than others.
> Uni, Tim, Peter Trei, JYA, Sandy,
> and a number of other old-school
> c'punks have been making this list
> worth reading since 1993 or so...
Thanks. It's a real
J.A. Terranson wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> ...
> > So by my count it looks as though
> > we are now up to at least THREE
> > village idiots.
>
> Four: You forgot to count yourself in.
Not so, because I am not in arrogant denial of le
Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Talking about alleged victimless
> crimes allegedly committed by
> list members is irresponsible.*
> The reason it is arguably
> irresponsible is that you are
> endangering someone else's safety.
> Big difference.
I don't follow your logic. (At least you admit my alleg
James Donald (Village Idiot #2) wrote:
> I know that for the past several
> hundred years everyone has been
> engaging in what what you call
> "spoilage"...
Pay attention James, I have never discussed "spoilage" (or spoliation, for
that matter) on this list. In the future, please direct your ig
VI2 wrote:
> There is a trend to making
> everything illegal. Your
> qualifications to read tea
> leaves are no better than my own.
Well James, you got it right once. My qualifications for reading tea leaves
are no better than your own. However, my qualifications for reading and
understanding
Poor stupid James wrote:
> If you are making claims about
> what the law might become in
> future, your qualifications for
> undestanding laws and court
> precedents are irrelevant.
No James, as any first year law student could tell you, they way one makes
educated assessments about how laws may
VI2 wrote:
> If Microsoft gets busted for
> "spoilation" in their current
> lawsuit, then I will take Sandy
> and Black Unicorn off my loon
> list. :-)
If Microsoft gets busted for "spoilation" I'll buy James a new house. But
if they get busted for spoliation I don't want to be taken off your
C'punks,
I've just had a flash of insight into the purpose that Village Idiots I-III,
and Jim Bell serve. (Tim May is a special care which I'll treat separately,
below.)
The are all coal mine canaries. When they succumb, the rest of us know it's
time to get out of the mine (lower our profile)
Black Unicorn wrote:
[masterful summation elided]
> My only regret in pointing this
> out is that I think Mr. Sandfort
> might owe someone a house. (I
> note he never put a dollar figure
> on the house bet though).
My offer (not enforceable under contract due to failure of consideration)
was o
Malpractice Stooge wrote:
> A verbal agreement between two
> parties that dictate how they
> will relate to each other is a
> contract.
Unless it fails to contain all the elements required of a valid contract
(you know those elements, don't you Jimbo?) or it violates the Statute of
Frauds or sim
Jimbo I wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
>
> > Unless it fails to contain all the elements required of a valid contract
> > (you know those elements, don't you Jimbo?)
>
> 1. Capacity of the parties.
>
> 2. Mutual agreement (assent) or meet
ndoubtedly squander) to my
second-most favorite canarypunk. Rock on, dud.
S a n d y
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 August, 2001 17:33
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sandy Sandfort
> Subject: RE: Spoliation
04 August, 2001 18:47
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Sandfort is still an idiot (Was: Re: CDR: JIM DONALD IS A
> CANARYPUNK, was: Spoliation cites)
>
>
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
>
> > dishonesty and co
C'punks,
Coming up with the "canarypunks" concept, has really clarified my thinking.
I'm taking the pledge and will no longer strive to protect the dumbest and
most aggressively ignorant members of this list (the Three Stooges) from the
error or their ways. I finally got it through my head that
Black Unicorn wrote:
> I didn't realize any states but Virginia
> still held this old "burglary" definition.
> Are you certain that's current law?
No, but I'm about to leave town on business so I won't be looking it up. My
recollection is that California law actually IMPROVED from the viewpoint
Jimbo sniveled:
> The desire to get the 'speech' is what drives
> the act.
Nonetheless, they are separate and separable. Outlawing the act does not
require outlawing the speech.
> The images should be taken as evidence of the
> act and then destroyed. They should not in
> and of themselves be
Jimbo sputtered:
> > > The desire to get the 'speech' is what drives
> > > the act.
> >
> > Nonetheless, they are separate and separable. Outlawing the
> act does not
> > require outlawing the speech.
>
> No they are not. You can't make the picture
> without commiting the act.
A not-so-clever s
Dufus gasped:
> > > No they are not. You can't make the picture
> > > without commiting the act.
> >
> > A not-so-clever straw man. "Making" the picture is not the speech in
> > question, Duh. Distributing the picture is. And you can distribute the
> > picture, without committing the underlyin
Heck, I was at Burning Man and just got back. Tim wrote:
> Then we had Sandy Sandfort weighing in with
> his comment that some Cypherpunks are going
> to be in deep trouble with The Man. I think
> Sandy even forecast my death in a shootout.
Well, I was dead-bang right-on about Jim
C'punks,
Here's a thoughtful piece I received from Sean Hastings:
> From: Sean Hastings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 12 September, 2001 20:22
> Subject: FW: "Attack on America" - a Personal Response
>
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>"Attack o
"Nomen Nescio" wrote:
> It is at exactly this time that soul
> searching is most appropriate. Now is
> when you should ask yourself: Am I
> doing the right thing? Am I making the
> world a better place?
>
> You don't have to convince some devil's
> advocate. Just convince yourself.
"Nomen" a
Meyer Wolfsheim wrote:
> Would you trust the Witness Protection
> Program with your life?
In this case, yes. When the program failed in the past it was usually due
to putting formally high rollers into dull middle class new lives. They
were the ones who ended up outing themselves. In contrast
Huh?
Meyer Wolfsheim wrote:
> Assume that you could nearly guarantee a
> profit of $5mil or more by shorting your
> stocks before a terrorist attack on the
> World Trade Center.
>
> Would you perpetrate such a crime, and
> frame the "sand-niggers"?
>
> What's the cost/benefit here?
>
> How much
Nomen Nescio wrote:
> Sandfort:
>
> > I have NO IDEA what this strange post has to do with the
> original question.
> > I'm a libertarian. As such, I see no problem in doing well by
> doing good.
> > Just because I would jump at $5 million (plus Witness
> Relocation) to finger
> > Bin Laden does
Incognito Innominatus wrote:
> Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> > Nonsense. Targeting innocents is evil according to EVERY human culture.
> > The fact that people do it, does not make it "relative." It
> just makes them
> > evil. Period.
>
> Not according to Ti
Meyer Wolfsheim wrote:
> My point is that such an attack could occur
> with nothing more than economic factors as
> motivation.
Of course, but I don't see how that advances any discussion of what ACTUALLY
happened on the 11th. I don't think there is any reason to engage in a
theoretical discuss
C'punks,
I haven't had much luck in researching something. Several years back,
Donald Trump proposed a high-rise complex for New York City that would
feature a kilometer-high skyscraper. Does anyone have a URL about that
plan?
I'd love to see the WTC replaced with a building over twice as tall
"Nomen Nescio" wrote:
> Tim May writes:
> > Funny, I notice how many of the critics of Cypherpunks and
> supporters of
> > this express train approach to repealing the Bill of Rights are
> > themselves hiding behind Cypherpunks remailers, Hushmail aliases, and
> > Ziplip nyms.
>
> If you're
John Young wrote:
> High rises taller than about about 70
> stories for office buildings and 50
> stories for housing are extremely
> dangerous.
As were buildings above 5 stories in ancient Rome. Technology moves on.
The question is not, "Can 250-story buildings be made safe?" The only
questio
John Young wrote:
> Yes, Sandy, how do you do that? Sincerely,
> I'm not being a wiseass... High rise
> engineers now admittedly design to the limits
> of failure under economic pressure and
> aesthetic ambition.
Granted, but they will be built. My only hope is that safety is a high
priority an
Tim wrote:
> * Let the builders pay _all_ costs for a structure; taxpayers should not
> "bail out" either the insurance industry or the builders (or the
> airlines, on a different note)
Of course, that should go without saying. Having said that, though, they
will be built.
> * I think the noti
Anonymous lain wrote:
> I have three talks in New York and one in
> Washington in the next 90 days.
Ha, ha, ha.
> I'm sure you would like to, but I doubt you
> have gotten an invitation to any of the three
> invitation only events.
Yes, it is difficult to get invitations to anonymous lectures.
C'punks,
Phil Zimmermann asked me to post this. He would like it freely
disseminated, so feel free to post it wherever you wish.
S a n d y
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
No Regrets About Developing PGP
The Friday September 21st Washington Post carried an article by
Ariana Ch
Spineless "Anonymous" or "lain" or whomever wrote:
> Grow a spine, Phil, you jellyfish.
a) Anonymous fell for the oldest trick in book, he uncritically believed
what he read in the newspaper. Missed my forwarded message from Phil, did
you?
b) Anyone who knows anything about what Phil has done
C'punks,
I just wrote Phil about the Washington Post interview. The following is his
response:
> The journalist slightly misinterpreted my remarks, and missed the
> shades of grey in some of what I said. I did *not* say that I
> was overwhelmed with guilt over PGP. I told her about my crying,
Inchoate simpered:
> These people aren't afraid to die.
Nonsense. Just because they are willing to die for their cause in no way
speaks to their inner state. Also, while they seem willing to die for
something that advances their cause (e.g., a SUCCESSFUL mission), this does
not mean that they
"Dr. Evil" wrote:
> One interesting point is that you could
> make your own [smallpox] vaccine in
> various ways. One is to infect yourself
> with cowpox, a related disease which is
> not harmful to humans, but which confers
> immunity...
Sounds like a market opportunity for some enterprising C
Doh!
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 26 September, 2001 12:53
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Smallpox?
>
>
> On 26 Sep 2001, at 9:09, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
>
C'punks,
Fox News had a retired general on to discuss the purported billion dollar
bounty on Bin Laden. His take was predictable. He was afraid that
mercenaries would get in the way of government efforts to get OBL. Of
course, he never consider that the government efforts might get in the way
C'punks,
I ran into a western version of "hawala" about 15 years ago. It was a
"blocked currency" service offered by a financial group. Here's how it
worked:
If you live in a currency-blocked country (South African was one, I think it
still might be) you couldn't legally move more than a certa
"John Doe Number Two" wrote:
> John shouldn't have been walking inside
> the crime scene.
Why not?
> The cops treated him better than they
> should have.
How should they have treated him?
S a n d y
C'punks,
Tim May wrote:
> Both of you [Declan McCullagh and "Nomen
> Nescio"] are using my comments out of
> context...
He further wrote:
> However, I continue to be amused that
> Sandy, Seth, John, and poor Nomen are
> all predicting that I'm about to be
> arrested.
As long as we are setting
Ken Brown wrote:
> I think I'm coming to believe the canard
> about Americans having no sense of irony.
Perhaps MY use of irony is too subtle for someone raised on Monty Python to
detect and appreciate. Perhaps this will help:
When it comes to florid writing, that John Young is a real goer, he
Aimee wrote quoting Jim:
> > If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution
> > not the final precedence since it's the primary authority?
>
> You gnaw at a branch and call it a root. You have common law (the law of
> common men, lex communis), and legislative law (bringing the law of
Folks,
I will be having a massive costume party right after the RSA conference on
13 April (Good Friday the 13th) in San Francisco. If you would like to get
on my party invitation list, drop me a note.
S a n d y
More Inchoate reasoning. Jimbo wrote:
> The reality is that these sweatshops do
> exist, that they do exploit the workers...
Gee, I wonder why these workers chose to be exploited instead of taking a
job somewhere else in their benighted non-capitalist countries where the
opportunities were bett
ading, spelling AND economics
courses.
S a n d y
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Jim Choate
> Sent: 20 October, 2001 16:07
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Retribution not enough
>
>
> On Sat, 2
Now HERE is where you need that microwave.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer
> Sent: 20 October, 2001 13:16
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: New kind of FUD :-)
>
>
> Got this junk mail:
Hear, hear.
This sort of crap is the inevitable outcome of an unmoderated list. All the
loons come out to play because there are no real negative consequences for
being a loon. And filtering does not do anything besides bury one's head in
the sand.
I have an solution... (no, it's not AP). :'D
J.A. Terranson wrote:
> And the inevitable outcome of a _moderated_
> list is that free expression (loon-like or
> not) is sacrificed.
Nonsense. You don't understand the marketplace of ideas. Free expression
is "sacrificed" only if other outlet for expression are silenced. I cannot
and would
Harmon Seaver wrote:
> Of course you're ignoring the fact that
> sometimes the reason that they are
> "starving on their own retched little
> plots of land." is because of NAFTA and
> huge multinational corporations importing
> so much US factory farmed corn and other
> ag products into that coun
Harmon Seaver wrote:
> Sure [with regard to periodic starvation],
> but for the most part, they did alright,
> else we would not be here.
Tell that to the 7th kine. In reality, subsistence (this word means
something) farmers were mostly chronically malnourished--even in the good
times--and died
C'punks,
Penn says Copperfield's trick is "Right out of the books." He goes on to
say that it's just a matter of presentation. But we all knew that, right?
S a n d y
C'punks,
Penn suggests reading Joseph Dunniger if you want to know how magic works.
One of Dunninger's books listed on Amazon.com is, Dunninger's Complete
Encyclopedia of Magic.
S a n d y
Lucky wrote:
> It would have been more impressive had
> Copperfield revealed the numbers he
> predicted an hour /before/ the drawing...
Yes, but that would have required REAL magic (or time travel).
Incidentally, Penn sent a further reading suggestion on the subject of
"mentalism." The book is
"Onin wal-a bin Hakkin" wrote:
> but in all candor, dont ya think
> that if a guy is there who SHOULDNT
> be there, he wouldnt be there
> after a decent timeframe of investigation?
If you were innocent of any crime and were thrown in the slammer with bad
people and given no opportunity to contac
A. Melon wrote:
> any suggestions?
Yes, take a remedial reading course and then read Flesch's WRITING PLAIN
ENGLISH.
S a n d y
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of A. Melon
> Sent: 25 October, 2001 14:45
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Duncan Frissell wrote:
> Besides, "Prison is not punishment to the literate."
'Course being buggered by your cellmate is. Also, jail/prison libraries are
woefully lacking in the sort of books you REALLY need.
S a n d y
C'punks,
I heard back from my friend who was recently released from federal prison.
She wrote:
> The libraries in federal prisons are
> hideously inadequate largely because
> of the policy governing donations to
> federal prisons...State prisons,
> however, are a horse of a different
> color
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
