PDA

View Full Version : Re: OpenSSL New Trusted Root Certificate PHP/HTML Integration



viza
06-18-08, 10:31 AM
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:55:09 +0000, Peter Anastos wrote:

> I have to disagree with both of you, quite strongly (no offense meant to
> you Jerry.) Your insult (viza) is ironic and unnecessary, but I am going
> to hold my tongue.

I didn't say that you were stupid, I said what you were trying to do was
stupid. If you take that as an insult then I apologise.

> There is no argument that a certificate issued by ANY operational
> certificate authority, that isn't on the website's host machine, as mine
> is (solely to check for revokations), signed for use by my URL, which
> mine is (so they know it is indeed my own certificate,) is any less
> secure than one provided by a "trusted" certificate authority. Why? The
> answer is why not!

You have still misunderstood the purpose of a certificate. As much as I
hate to say it, IE is right and you are wrong. Look it up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_in_the_middle

> Well what if it's some hacker, you say? That makes no sense! If you
> trust the website, quite explicitly by providing your personal details
> to it, then you should trust a certificate provided by that website!

No, no, no.

Suppose I trust https://mybank.com/, because I saw a poster behind the
counter in the high street branch with that address on it.

I go home and try to visit that site. My browser looks up mybank.com in
DNS, but someone is interfering with DNS and I get the wrong IP address,
or perhaps I get the right IP but someone is rerouting my packets to some
other machine that is spoofing that address.

If I accept a root certificate from any machine that offers me one, I
have no way of knowing if I am in communication with my bank or some
other machine.

If I only accept a certificate that is signed by a trusted authority (eg:
one that didn't come over the network, but came on a CD with a difficult
to replicate hologram on it) then I can have some confidence that whoever
can interfere with the network at large, they cannot eavesdrop or
interfere with my connection to the bank.


> (that meets the normal standards - can be checked for revokation, and is
> for the URL it says it is for, which any browser will test for you if
> you actually install the certificate.) Instead IE7 just says "NO!" and
> you don't get to see whether it is a real certificate for the site and
> people go around the single warning, creating a less secure Internet all
> around.
>
> If you wouldn't trust a proper certificate issued as I have described by
> the host's own CA, then you should not be giving your personal details
> to the site. It certainly doesn't create any less of a secure SSL
> connection. Any SSL/PKI issues with the certificate is prominently
> displayed when you go to install the certificate - like it being issued
> for a different website or doesn't provide for enough security - instead
> of saying "only Microsoft's trusted CA list is acceptable" in the
> strongest way possible by IE7. It is a huge money making scheme.
>
> SSL as currently implemented is a huge ball of smoke used to make a
> crapload of money selling "trusted" SSL certificates that cost downright
> *offensive* amounts of money. It is a ludicrously overpriced system
> that, clearly, most people do not understand. It pisses the hell out of
> me, so excuse the rant. I hope a flame war doesn't erupt. And hell, if
> you can tell me why I am wrong, go ahead, I will accept legitimate logic
> in defeat. But I don't think there is any.

Neredbojias
06-18-08, 01:36 PM
On 18 Jun 2008, viza <tom.viza@gmil.com> wrote:

>> There is no argument that a certificate issued by ANY operational
>> certificate authority, that isn't on the website's host machine, as
>> mine is (solely to check for revokations), signed for use by my URL,
>> which mine is (so they know it is indeed my own certificate,) is any
>> less secure than one provided by a "trusted" certificate authority.
>> Why? The answer is why not!
>
> You have still misunderstood the purpose of a certificate. As much as
> I hate to say it, IE is right and you are wrong.

Perhaps in the scope of security per se, but the whole "certificate
program" is just a bunch of crap, -a scam for unscrupulous entreprenuers to
make money, and that alone should obviate any trust related to its
existence.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds

Andy Dingley
06-19-08, 05:58 AM
On 18 Jun, 19:36, Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/
fliam.php> wrote:

> Perhaps in the scope of security per se, but the whole "certificate
> program" is just a bunch of crap, -a scam for unscrupulous entreprenuers to
> make money,

To be fair to Mark Shuttleworth, the deeply-scrupulous entrepreneur
behind Thawte, he's taken this particular pile of money and spent much
of it on Ubuntu distros and spaceflight, two things I heartily
support. I guess the rest of it he just frittered away 8-)

Neredbojias
06-19-08, 10:40 AM
On 19 Jun 2008, Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote:

> On 18 Jun, 19:36, Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/
> fliam.php> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps in the scope of security per se, but the whole "certificate
>> program" is just a bunch of crap, -a scam for unscrupulous
>> entreprenuers to make money,
>
> To be fair to Mark Shuttleworth, the deeply-scrupulous entrepreneur
> behind Thawte, he's taken this particular pile of money and spent much
> of it on Ubuntu distros and spaceflight, two things I heartily
> support. I guess the rest of it he just frittered away 8-)

Sounds like the Robin Hood syndrome. As for Mark Shuttleworth, Ubuntu,
distros, and spaceflight, I am familiar only with the last and then only on
drugs, but ill-gotten gains are still unfair to the ill-gottenees. It's
like the astronomical rise in cigarette prices: yeah, sock it to the old-
timers who are really addicted and have trouble quitting and call it a
"fair" solution contrived by the politians who are, in my opinion, little
better than Satan. Wonderful!

People are such *******s.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds

dorayme
06-19-08, 06:17 PM
In article <Xns9AC2584ED3162neredbojiasnano@194.177.96.78>,
Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php> wrote:

> It's
> like the astronomical rise in cigarette prices: yeah, sock it to the old-
> timers who are really addicted and have trouble quitting and call it a
> "fair" solution contrived by the politians

It is young women who have been taking up fags big time in many western
countries. And overall consumption is price sensitive so it is not a
stupid thing for governments to exercise a little control here.

They must keep it as high a price as possible without causing people to
resort to crime to obtain it.

By the way, Travis, here is a nice example where the zoom feature in
Opera (and I presume FF3 and IE7) comes into its own:

<http://www1.worldbank.org/tobacco/book/html/chapter1.htm>

I needed to zoom the diagram to read it properly. It is a badly made gif
in the first place, not only too small but not sharp. But here the zoom
helps out without having to do some precious Bergamot thing of getting
all in a huff and finding an alternative site.

--
dorayme

Neredbojias
06-19-08, 11:50 PM
On 19 Jun 2008, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article <Xns9AC2584ED3162neredbojiasnano@194.177.96.78>,
> Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php> wrote:
>
>> It's
>> like the astronomical rise in cigarette prices: yeah, sock it to the
>> old- timers who are really addicted and have trouble quitting and
>> call it a "fair" solution contrived by the politians
>
> It is young women who have been taking up fags big time in many
> western countries. And overall consumption is price sensitive so it is
> not a stupid thing for governments to exercise a little control here.

Ah, yes, you'd make a banner politician over here in dese States. The sad
thing is that many of the fools east of the Pacific believe it.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds

dorayme
06-19-08, 11:58 PM
In article <Xns9AC2DE2976A61neredbojiasnano@85.214.90.236>,
Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php> wrote:

> On 19 Jun 2008, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > In article <Xns9AC2584ED3162neredbojiasnano@194.177.96.78>,
> > Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php> wrote:
> >
> >> It's
> >> like the astronomical rise in cigarette prices: yeah, sock it to the
> >> old- timers who are really addicted and have trouble quitting and
> >> call it a "fair" solution contrived by the politians
> >
> > It is young women who have been taking up fags big time in many
> > western countries. And overall consumption is price sensitive so it is
> > not a stupid thing for governments to exercise a little control here.
>
> Ah, yes, you'd make a banner politician over here in dese States. The sad
> thing is that many of the fools east of the Pacific believe it.

Did you study, to paraphrase your own words recently, "with both sides
of your brain", the link I gave you in that post you quote:

<http://www1.worldbank.org/tobacco/book/html/chapter1.htm>

?

--
dorayme

Neredbojias
06-20-08, 01:30 AM
On 19 Jun 2008, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>> >> It's
>> >> like the astronomical rise in cigarette prices: yeah, sock it to
>> >> the old- timers who are really addicted and have trouble quitting
>> >> and call it a "fair" solution contrived by the politians
>> >
>> > It is young women who have been taking up fags big time in many
>> > western countries. And overall consumption is price sensitive so it
>> > is not a stupid thing for governments to exercise a little control
>> > here.
>>
>> Ah, yes, you'd make a banner politician over here in dese States.
>> The sad thing is that many of the fools east of the Pacific believe
>> it.
>
> Did you study, to paraphrase your own words recently, "with both sides
> of your brain", the link I gave you in that post you quote:
>
> <http://www1.worldbank.org/tobacco/book/html/chapter1.htm>
>
> ?

I do not deny the problem, it is the ersatz "solution" to which I take
exception. Overtaxing a cheap commodity whose use is officially
frowned-upon is not my idea of an erudite remedy. However, it does
provide a scintillating testiment of the actual intelligence of those
who rule the country. But as I intimated before, probably at least 50%
of the common masses subscribe to this crap as a viable methodology for
curbing what they consider to be nasty indulgences. The trouble is the
curb is inversely proportional to the free income of the indulger. Down
Democracy, up Capitalism!!

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds

dorayme
06-20-08, 02:43 AM
In article <Xns9AC2EF2226F0Dneredbojiasnano@85.214.90.236>,
Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php> wrote:

> I do not deny the problem, it is the ersatz "solution" to which I take
> exception. Overtaxing a cheap commodity whose use is officially
> frowned-upon is not my idea of an erudite remedy. However, it does
> provide a scintillating testiment of the actual intelligence of those
> who rule the country. But as I intimated before, probably at least 50%
> of the common masses subscribe to this crap as a viable methodology for
> curbing what they consider to be nasty indulgences. The trouble is the
> curb is inversely proportional to the free income of the indulger. Down
> Democracy, up Capitalism!!

A reasonable assessment of the intentions behind severe taxes on harmful
products depends on understanding what they are and whether they are
likely to achieve their aims.

I have argued elsewhere that it is a disastrous policy to prohibit
completely or even to make it prohibitively expensive for people to
obtain the means to harm themselves. New home:

<http://dorayme.890m.com/opinion/drugLaws.html>

As for the question of putting a few hurdles in the way of people
obtaining the means to harm themselves, I am fairly confident that a
modern democratic state has some responsibility towards its citizens in
this regard and should be able to go as far as to adopt some price
sensitive controls. It is known from various studies that the take up of
many things like alcohol and cigarettes, on the whole, are price
sensitive.

Perfect justice and perfect equity are not possible and you will never
see the point I am making until you step back and look at things as
whole. Don't let the plight of the less fortunate members of society,
income-wise and otherwise, skew the picture as a whole.

--
dorayme

Neredbojias
06-20-08, 11:58 AM
On 20 Jun 2008, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article <Xns9AC2EF2226F0Dneredbojiasnano@85.214.90.236>,
> Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php> wrote:
>
>> I do not deny the problem, it is the ersatz "solution" to which I take
>> exception. Overtaxing a cheap commodity whose use is officially
>> frowned-upon is not my idea of an erudite remedy. However, it does
>> provide a scintillating testiment of the actual intelligence of those
>> who rule the country. But as I intimated before, probably at least
50%
>> of the common masses subscribe to this crap as a viable methodology
for
>> curbing what they consider to be nasty indulgences. The trouble is
the
>> curb is inversely proportional to the free income of the indulger.
Down
>> Democracy, up Capitalism!!
>
> A reasonable assessment of the intentions behind severe taxes on
harmful
> products depends on understanding what they are and whether they are
> likely to achieve their aims.
>
> I have argued elsewhere that it is a disastrous policy to prohibit
> completely or even to make it prohibitively expensive for people to
> obtain the means to harm themselves. New home:
>
> <http://dorayme.890m.com/opinion/drugLaws.html>
>
> As for the question of putting a few hurdles in the way of people
> obtaining the means to harm themselves, I am fairly confident that a
> modern democratic state has some responsibility towards its citizens in
> this regard and should be able to go as far as to adopt some price
> sensitive controls. It is known from various studies that the take up
of
> many things like alcohol and cigarettes, on the whole, are price
> sensitive.
>
> Perfect justice and perfect equity are not possible and you will never
> see the point I am making until you step back and look at things as
> whole. Don't let the plight of the less fortunate members of society,
> income-wise and otherwise, skew the picture as a whole.

A very sophisticated reply; my hat's off to you. However, although
perfect justice and equity may not be possible, when one ceases to strive
for same, even traditional justice and equity become lost to the myths of
the deluded. It's been said, and rightly so, that freedom is not free;
rights must be fought for to survive intact, not just taken for granted.
I'm willing to bet that at least half the people in the United States are
so complacent and/or dense that they have no idea what a true right
actually is to begin with and this applies to those of any developed
country as well. In other words, people are just plain stupid. -Not in
all ways, no, but in ways that are most meaningful and important. Ergo,
if you wish to believe that governments have the right to unequally tax
its citizens for their supposed good, have at it. There is no surprise
in this at all.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds

dorayme
06-20-08, 06:50 PM
In article <Xns9AC3656A3416Dneredbojiasnano@85.214.90.236>,
Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php> wrote:

> On 20 Jun 2008, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > In article <Xns9AC2EF2226F0Dneredbojiasnano@85.214.90.236>,
> > Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php> wrote:
> >
> >> I do not deny the problem, it is the ersatz "solution" to which I take
> >> exception. Overtaxing a cheap commodity whose use is officially
> >> frowned-upon is not my idea of an erudite remedy.
...
> > I have argued elsewhere that it is a disastrous policy to prohibit
> > completely or even to make it prohibitively expensive for people to
> > obtain the means to harm themselves. New home:
> >
> > <http://dorayme.890m.com/opinion/drugLaws.html>
> >
> > As for the question of putting a few hurdles in the way of people
> > obtaining the means to harm themselves, I am fairly confident that a
> > modern democratic state has some responsibility towards its citizens in
> > this regard and should be able to go as far as to adopt some price
> > sensitive controls. It is known from various studies that the take up
> > of many things like alcohol and cigarettes, on the whole, are price
> > sensitive.
> >
> > Perfect justice and perfect equity are not possible and you will never
> > see the point I am making until you step back and look at things as
> > whole. Don't let the plight of the less fortunate members of society,
> > income-wise and otherwise, skew the picture as a whole.
>
> A very sophisticated reply; my hat's off to you.

You are sending me a hat? All I have ever wanted from you is hard cash
and a scoop from your brain.

> However, although
> perfect justice and equity may not be possible, when one ceases to strive
> for same, even traditional justice and equity become lost to the myths of
> the deluded. ...
> if you wish to believe that governments have the right to unequally tax
> its citizens for their supposed good, have at it. There is no surprise
> in this at all.

Read the article above to see I don't sympathise with nanny government.

What you are missing almost for sure is cold hard things like it is in
the interests of everyone that they are not carrying people in society
that do not pay their way, so policies that discourage people from
ruining their health makes economic good sense. Since taxes on fags and
alcohol do have an effect on this (perhaps rather surprisingly to some
observers - mainly cynical ones that do not have faith in the good sense
of many human beings), it is prima facie, wise Govt policy.

Remember, governments collect our taxes and I am saying here that if
they do not collect these taxes on these products, they will end up
collecting more tax from other sources (like income tax) to pay for the
trouble caused by the over use of harmful substances. To pay for the
hospitals needed, the loss of productive capacity of it population and
so on.

I also believe there are some moral obligations on the community as a
whole to look out for its weaker members but you can leave this one out
for quite a while.

--
dorayme

Neredbojias
06-20-08, 11:20 PM
On 20 Jun 2008, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>> > Perfect justice and perfect equity are not possible and you will
>> > never see the point I am making until you step back and look at
>> > things as whole. Don't let the plight of the less fortunate members
>> > of society, income-wise and otherwise, skew the picture as a whole.
>>
>> A very sophisticated reply; my hat's off to you.
>
> You are sending me a hat? All I have ever wanted from you is hard cash
> and a scoop from your brain.
>
>> However, although
>> perfect justice and equity may not be possible, when one ceases to
>> strive for same, even traditional justice and equity become lost to
>> the myths of the deluded. ...
>> if you wish to believe that governments have the right to unequally
>> tax its citizens for their supposed good, have at it. There is no
>> surprise in this at all.
>
> Read the article above to see I don't sympathise with nanny
> government.
>
> What you are missing almost for sure is cold hard things like it is in
> the interests of everyone that they are not carrying people in society
> that do not pay their way, so policies that discourage people from
> ruining their health makes economic good sense.

But who's more likely to "pay their way", a dependable, working person
who can well-afford the price of cigarettes or someone who for some
reason has trouble holding jobs and resultantly has less free income?
What I'm supposedly "missing" seems to be a non-sequitur.

> Since taxes on fags
> and alcohol do have an effect on this (perhaps rather surprisingly to
> some observers - mainly cynical ones that do not have faith in the
> good sense of many human beings), it is prima facie, wise Govt policy.

Damn, more dogma! Sure, higher prices have an effect on demand, -duh,
but "this" applied inordinately to cigarettes makes it wise govt policy?
-My ass. What'll be for sale next, -human rights?

> Remember, governments collect our taxes and I am saying here that if
> they do not collect these taxes on these products, they will end up
> collecting more tax from other sources (like income tax) to pay for
> the trouble caused by the over use of harmful substances. To pay for
> the hospitals needed, the loss of productive capacity of it population
> and so on.
>
> I also believe there are some moral obligations on the community as a
> whole to look out for its weaker members but you can leave this one
> out for quite a while.

My position has nothing to do with "looking out for" indigents and semi-
indigents. It has everything to do with improper and amoral leadership
and "looking out for" _every_ human being justly and equitably.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds

dorayme
06-21-08, 02:23 AM
In article <Xns9AC3D915272FFneredbojiasnano@85.214.90.236>,
Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php> wrote:

> On 20 Jun 2008, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> > Perfect justice and perfect equity are not possible and you will
> >> > never see the point I am making until you step back and look at
> >> > things as whole. Don't let the plight of the less fortunate members
> >> > of society, income-wise and otherwise, skew the picture as a whole.
> >>
> >> A very sophisticated reply; my hat's off to you.
> >
> > You are sending me a hat? All I have ever wanted from you is hard cash
> > and a scoop from your brain.
> >
> >> However, although
> >> perfect justice and equity may not be possible, when one ceases to
> >> strive for same, even traditional justice and equity become lost to
> >> the myths of the deluded. ...
> >> if you wish to believe that governments have the right to unequally
> >> tax its citizens for their supposed good, have at it. There is no
> >> surprise in this at all.
> >
> > Read the article above to see I don't sympathise with nanny
> > government.
> >
> > What you are missing almost for sure is cold hard things like it is in
> > the interests of everyone that they are not carrying people in society
> > that do not pay their way, so policies that discourage people from
> > ruining their health makes economic good sense.
>
> But who's more likely to "pay their way", a dependable, working person
> who can well-afford the price of cigarettes or someone who for some
> reason has trouble holding jobs and resultantly has less free income?
> What I'm supposedly "missing" seems to be a non-sequitur.
>

The point you are missing now is that on average, a person who is
variously incapacitated by legally obtainable substances (to limit the
scope of this little discussion) is more of a cost on everyone else than
someone who does not suffer such harm. If there is a way to reduce
consumption of such substances without hugely unwanted effects, then it
is a rational thing for a society to enact.

You might dispute all sorts of things in this, but it would be nice if
you could understand the point being made.

> > Since taxes on fags
> > and alcohol do have an effect on this (perhaps rather surprisingly to
> > some observers - mainly cynical ones that do not have faith in the
> > good sense of many human beings), it is prima facie, wise Govt policy.
>
> Damn, more dogma! Sure, higher prices have an effect on demand, -duh,
> but "this" applied inordinately to cigarettes makes it wise govt policy?
> -My ass. What'll be for sale next, -human rights?
>

Is your point that if a course of action is reasonable (taxing fags to
reduce consumption) and it looks a bit like another unreasonable course
of action (taxing the amount of air breathed), then that is sufficient
to make the reasonable course of action unreasonable?

--
dorayme

Neredbojias
06-21-08, 03:24 AM
On 21 Jun 2008, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article <Xns9AC3D915272FFneredbojiasnano@85.214.90.236>,
> Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php> wrote:

>> But who's more likely to "pay their way", a dependable, working
>> person who can well-afford the price of cigarettes or someone who for
>> some reason has trouble holding jobs and resultantly has less free
>> income? What I'm supposedly "missing" seems to be a non-sequitur.
>>
>
> The point you are missing now is that on average, a person who is
> variously incapacitated by legally obtainable substances (to limit the
> scope of this little discussion) is more of a cost on everyone else
> than someone who does not suffer such harm.

I really don't dispute that (-at least where there are the appropriate
social programs.)

> If there is a way to
> reduce consumption of such substances without hugely unwanted effects,
> then it is a rational thing for a society to enact.

It depends on the "way", which is what we are discussing.

> You might dispute all sorts of things in this, but it would be nice if
> you could understand the point being made.

_My_ point is...well, see below.

>> > Since taxes on fags
>> > and alcohol do have an effect on this (perhaps rather surprisingly
>> > to some observers - mainly cynical ones that do not have faith in
>> > the good sense of many human beings), it is prima facie, wise Govt
>> > policy.
>>
>> Damn, more dogma! Sure, higher prices have an effect on demand,
>> -duh, but "this" applied inordinately to cigarettes makes it wise
>> govt policy? -My ass. What'll be for sale next, -human rights?
>>
>
> Is your point that if a course of action is reasonable (taxing fags to
> reduce consumption) and it looks a bit like another unreasonable
> course of action (taxing the amount of air breathed), then that is
> sufficient to make the reasonable course of action unreasonable?

That's it! My point is that taxing cigarettes (or anything else)
excessively to reduce consumption is NOT a reasonable action. Flat taxes
place an undue burden upon the lower-income members of society; why do
you think they have sliding-scale income tax? In short, the cigarette
tax is just another black mark on the democratic spirit of western
culture. It favors the rich man beyond the norm, which, of course, is
probably just what the politicians who promoted it intended.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds

dorayme
06-21-08, 06:00 AM
In article <Xns9AC4E59DB150neredbojiasnano@194.177.96.78>,
Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php> wrote:

> On 21 Jun 2008, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > In article <Xns9AC3D915272FFneredbojiasnano@85.214.90.236>,
> > Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php> wrote:
>
> >> But who's more likely to "pay their way", a dependable, working
> >> person who can well-afford the price of cigarettes or someone who for
> >> some reason has trouble holding jobs and resultantly has less free
> >> income? What I'm supposedly "missing" seems to be a non-sequitur.
> >>
> >
> > The point you are missing now is that on average, a person who is
> > variously incapacitated by legally obtainable substances (to limit the
> > scope of this little discussion) is more of a cost on everyone else
> > than someone who does not suffer such harm.
>
> I really don't dispute that (-at least where there are the appropriate
> social programs.)
>

As long as you count non-government help too. People do not stand
completely aside when fellow citizens need help just because the state
does not provide it. This help is still a cost to society even if an
aggregate of private action.

> > If there is a way to
> > reduce consumption of such substances without hugely unwanted effects,
> > then it is a rational thing for a society to enact.
>
> It depends on the "way", which is what we are discussing.

> > You might dispute all sorts of things in this, but it would be nice if
> > you could understand the point being made.
>
> _My_ point is...well, see below.
>
> >> > Since taxes on fags
> >> > and alcohol do have an effect on this (perhaps rather surprisingly
> >> > to some observers - mainly cynical ones that do not have faith in
> >> > the good sense of many human beings), it is prima facie, wise Govt
> >> > policy.
> >>
> >> Damn, more dogma! Sure, higher prices have an effect on demand,
> >> -duh, but "this" applied inordinately to cigarettes makes it wise
> >> govt policy? -My ass. What'll be for sale next, -human rights?
> >>
> >
> > Is your point that if a course of action is reasonable (taxing fags to
> > reduce consumption) and it looks a bit like another unreasonable
> > course of action (taxing the amount of air breathed), then that is
> > sufficient to make the reasonable course of action unreasonable?
>
> That's it!

It is hard discussing something like this with someone who will simply
accept reductio ad absurdums. <g>

If a course of action is reasonable, then it is reasonable. Full stop.
Nothing else can make it unreasonable under the assumption that it is
reasonable. You do programming. You must understand scope.

> My point is that taxing cigarettes (or anything else)
> excessively to reduce consumption is NOT a reasonable action.

Why would you bother to make such a point or claim it for yourself, it
being simply tautological. If something is excessive, of course it is
unreasonable. That is what excessive means: unreasonably large.

I am talking reasonable taxes. Are you denying there are any reasonable
taxes for the express purpose of reducing consumption and using the
money to help pay for the services that such consumption will require?


> Flat taxes
> place an undue burden upon the lower-income members of society; why do
> you think they have sliding-scale income tax? In short, the cigarette
> tax is just another black mark on the democratic spirit of western
> culture. It favors the rich man beyond the norm, which, of course, is
> probably just what the politicians who promoted it intended.

Yes, this is a concern. But you need to know two things that may
alleviate your concern on this to some extent. The state does have an
option to tune the progressive taxes that already exist to counteract
this. And second, it is the poorer sections of the community who smoke
and drink more and so on. The richer folk that do, have the means to
make themselves not so much a burden. They have spare capacity to be
degenerate on the inside.

It may seem a bit unfair to you that some people should be able to more
easily be bad to themselves. But, let's face it, its damnable to be poor
in many ways.

--
dorayme

BootNic
06-21-08, 10:54 AM
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 10:24:39 +0200 (CEST)
Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php> wrote in:
Xns9AC4E59DB150neredbojiasnano@194.177.96.78

[snip]
>
> That's it! My point is that taxing cigarettes (or anything else)
> excessively to reduce consumption is NOT a reasonable action.
[snip]

They don't taxing cigarettes to encourage a smoker to stop smoking.
They tax cigarettes because it's an addition and they know that most
will pay more in order to get their fix.




--
BootNic Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:54 AM
I had a monumental idea this morning, but I didn't like it.
*Samuel Goldwyn*


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkhdJEkACgkQylMUzZO6jeI3FwCfRFhI9FzfLLbw/SjQojlbseQG
zYAAn1hxe952XYcwBlBeEgqYB9U7MeRF
=dnDJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Neredbojias
06-21-08, 05:51 PM
On 21 Jun 2008, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>> > The point you are missing now is that on average, a person who is
>> > variously incapacitated by legally obtainable substances (to limit
>> > the scope of this little discussion) is more of a cost on everyone
>> > else than someone who does not suffer such harm.
>>
>> I really don't dispute that (-at least where there are the
>> appropriate social programs.)
>>
>
> As long as you count non-government help too. People do not stand
> completely aside when fellow citizens need help just because the state
> does not provide it. This help is still a cost to society even if an
> aggregate of private action.

Okay... So "Joe Blowitoff" who's pretty loose and can't hold a job gets
a small stipend from welfare. He spends it all on overpriced cigarettes
then goes out on the street begging for vegemite or whatever. Now how
does this illustrate that raising the price of cigs alleviates the burden
on society?

>> > If there is a way to
>> > reduce consumption of such substances without hugely unwanted
>> > effects, then it is a rational thing for a society to enact.
>>
>> It depends on the "way", which is what we are discussing.
>
>> > You might dispute all sorts of things in this, but it would be nice
>> > if you could understand the point being made.
>>
>> _My_ point is...well, see below.
>>
>> >> > Since taxes on fags
>> >> > and alcohol do have an effect on this (perhaps rather
>> >> > surprisingly to some observers - mainly cynical ones that do not
>> >> > have faith in the good sense of many human beings), it is prima
>> >> > facie, wise Govt policy.
>> >>
>> >> Damn, more dogma! Sure, higher prices have an effect on demand,
>> >> -duh, but "this" applied inordinately to cigarettes makes it wise
>> >> govt policy? -My ass. What'll be for sale next, -human rights?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Is your point that if a course of action is reasonable (taxing fags
>> > to reduce consumption) and it looks a bit like another unreasonable
>> > course of action (taxing the amount of air breathed), then that is
>> > sufficient to make the reasonable course of action unreasonable?
>>
>> That's it!
>
> It is hard discussing something like this with someone who will simply
> accept reductio ad absurdums. <g>
>
> If a course of action is reasonable, then it is reasonable. Full stop.
> Nothing else can make it unreasonable under the assumption that it is
> reasonable. You do programming. You must understand scope.

What you label as reasonable isn't reasonable, though. That's the core
of this argument.

>> My point is that taxing cigarettes (or anything else)
>> excessively to reduce consumption is NOT a reasonable action.
>
> Why would you bother to make such a point or claim it for yourself, it
> being simply tautological. If something is excessive, of course it is
> unreasonable. That is what excessive means: unreasonably large.
>
> I am talking reasonable taxes. Are you denying there are any
> reasonable taxes for the express purpose of reducing consumption and
> using the money to help pay for the services that such consumption
> will require?

That's a compound question consisting of 2 diverse parts. I _do_ pretty
much deny that any reasonable taxes are levied expressly to reduce
demand/consumption whether they are promoted as such or not. OTOH,
helping to pay for any services entailed, such as auto license fees
supporting the making of license plates, does follow.

The taxes on cigs are _far_ from reasonable, and while they may reduced
consumption, they do so illegitimately.

>> Flat taxes
>> place an undue burden upon the lower-income members of society; why
>> do you think they have sliding-scale income tax? In short, the
>> cigarette tax is just another black mark on the democratic spirit of
>> western culture. It favors the rich man beyond the norm, which, of
>> course, is probably just what the politicians who promoted it
>> intended.
>
> Yes, this is a concern. But you need to know two things that may
> alleviate your concern on this to some extent. The state does have an
> option to tune the progressive taxes that already exist to counteract
> this. And second, it is the poorer sections of the community who smoke
> and drink more and so on. The richer folk that do, have the means to
> make themselves not so much a burden. They have spare capacity to be
> degenerate on the inside.

So the rich can indulge but the poor can't? -And by government sanction?
Wow, you'd fit right in with the most progressive cliques of 3 or 4
hundred years ago...

> It may seem a bit unfair to you that some people should be able to
> more easily be bad to themselves. But, let's face it, its damnable to
> be poor in many ways.

Okay, so let's give up and call it hopeless. The poor are going to be
abused no matter what anyone does so why bother ourselves about it? You
have such heart...

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds

Neredbojias
06-21-08, 05:54 PM
On 21 Jun 2008, BootNic <bootnic.bounce@gmail.com> wrote:

> Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php> wrote in:
>> That's it! My point is that taxing cigarettes (or anything else)
>> excessively to reduce consumption is NOT a reasonable action.
> [snip]
>
> They don't taxing cigarettes to encourage a smoker to stop smoking.
> They tax cigarettes because it's an addition and they know that most
> will pay more in order to get their fix.

Yes. I might even dare to say "Precisely". It's a source of income, and
one easily levied. It is also (currently) politically-correct. There is
no altruism about it.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds

dorayme
06-21-08, 06:48 PM
In article <20080621115441.6f83e635@bootnic.motzarella.org>,
BootNic <bootnic.bounce@gmail.com> wrote:

> They don't taxing cigarettes to encourage a smoker to stop smoking.
> They tax cigarettes because it's an addition and they know that most
> will pay more in order to get their fix.

Who is "they". When governments discuss this issue, not only treasury
but health, and when they seek advice from experts in various fields,
the issue I have been explaining comes up and is used. I can understand
folk can be cynical about it, they are about revenue from speed cameras
too, but it does not change the fact that the consumption of some
things, taken society wide, is price sensitive. So your remark that most
will pay for their fix needs to be seen in much richer context. More
people will also have less of whatever they are using or doing that is
bad for them, more will give up totally.

--
dorayme

dorayme
06-21-08, 07:10 PM
In article <Xns9AC4A159E76C4neredbojiasnano@85.214.90.236>,
Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php> wrote:

> On 21 Jun 2008, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> > As long as you count non-government help too. People do not stand
> > completely aside when fellow citizens need help just because the state
> > does not provide it. This help is still a cost to society even if an
> > aggregate of private action.
>
> Okay... So "Joe Blowitoff" who's pretty loose and can't hold a job gets
> a small stipend from welfare. He spends it all on overpriced cigarettes
> then goes out on the street begging for vegemite or whatever. Now how
> does this illustrate that raising the price of cigs alleviates the burden
> on society?
>

It does not illustrate the benefit. You cannot illustrate the benefits
by looking at some unwanted effects. Perhaps you suppose that good
government policy cannot have bad side effects. Happy dreaming of
another less real world than this!

> >> > If there is a way to
> >> > reduce consumption of such substances without hugely unwanted
> >> > effects, then it is a rational thing for a society to enact.
....

>
> ... I _do_ pretty
> much deny that any reasonable taxes are levied expressly to reduce
> demand/consumption whether they are promoted as such or not. OTOH,
> helping to pay for any services entailed, such as auto license fees
> supporting the making of license plates, does follow.
>
> The taxes on cigs are _far_ from reasonable, and while they may reduced
> consumption, they do so illegitimately.
>

> >> Flat taxes
> >> place an undue burden upon the lower-income members of society; why
> >> do you think they have sliding-scale income tax? In short, the
> >> cigarette tax is just another black mark on the democratic spirit of
> >> western culture. It favors the rich man beyond the norm, which, of
> >> course, is probably just what the politicians who promoted it
> >> intended.
> >
> > Yes, this is a concern. But you need to know two things that may
> > alleviate your concern on this to some extent. The state does have an
> > option to tune the progressive taxes that already exist to counteract
> > this. And second, it is the poorer sections of the community who smoke
> > and drink more and so on. The richer folk that do, have the means to
> > make themselves not so much a burden. They have spare capacity to be
> > degenerate on the inside.
>
> So the rich can indulge but the poor can't? -And by government sanction?

A reasonable government should not sanction the rich, a reasonable govt
should do what it can. And the only thing i have been saying is that it
seems reasonable to me that if the consumption of some things are price
sensitive and that we do not go down the road of prohibition, there is a
middle way to limit the damage that society suffers in this matter.

What this middle road is will naturally be a matter of controversy. One
must take a whole of society look at it. You have to ask yourself the
question, should there be any flat tax on anything at all.

I rather favour the idea of it all being flat and there being no income
tax at all and that redistribution be made on the welfare side rather
the taxation side. But don't get me going on that. <g>

--
dorayme

BootNic
06-21-08, 08:11 PM
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 09:48:01 +1000
dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in:
doraymeRidThis-9DB6A8.09480122062008@news-vip.optusnet.com.au

> In article <20080621115441.6f83e635@bootnic.motzarella.org>,
> BootNic <bootnic.bounce@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> They don't taxing cigarettes to encourage a smoker to stop smoking.
>> They tax cigarettes because it's an addition and they know that most
>> will pay more in order to get their fix.
>
> Who is "they".

BRANSON, Mo. -- A Branson man has put a face to the anonymous
references people often make to "they" by changing his name to just
that: "They."


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/archive/2004/09/23/namechange.DTL


> When governments discuss this issue, not only treasury but health,
> and when they seek advice from experts in various fields, the issue I
> have been explaining comes up and is used. I can understand folk can
> be cynical about it, they are about revenue from speed cameras too,
> but it does not change the fact that the consumption of some things,
> taken society wide, is price sensitive. So your remark that most will
> pay for their fix needs to be seen in much richer context. More
> people will also have less of whatever they are using or doing that
> is bad for them, more will give up totally.

Live is a silly little thing that some endure longer then others. The
really good thing about life in general is that it's fatal. As far as
anyone really knows, the purpose of life is to fail.

Another thing about life, the longer something is alive, the chance of
the next moment being fatal increases.

The bottom line is that anyone that reads this will now know for sure
who They is.




--
BootNic Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:11 PM
"Do not trust your memory; it is a net full of holes; the most
beautiful prizes slip through it."
*Georges Duhamel, The Heart's Domain*


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkhdptoACgkQylMUzZO6jeJWvACeJPnAUHw6QTztWocrnxw9mGKq
tlIAn2JEVYZ3Q/i5VnrhkELoZLncILBc
=jQNC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

dorayme
06-21-08, 08:56 PM
In article <20080621211147.2276f47d@bootnic.motzarella.org>,
BootNic <bootnic.bounce@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 09:48:01 +1000
> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in:
> doraymeRidThis-9DB6A8.09480122062008@news-vip.optusnet.com.au
>
> > In article <20080621115441.6f83e635@bootnic.motzarella.org>,
> > BootNic <bootnic.bounce@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> They don't taxing cigarettes to encourage a smoker to stop smoking.
> >> They tax cigarettes because it's an addition and they know that most
> >> will pay more in order to get their fix.
> >
> > Who is "they".
>
> BRANSON, Mo. -- A Branson man has put a face to the anonymous
> references people often make to "they" by changing his name to just
> that: "They."
>
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/archive/2004/09/23/namechang
> e.DTL
>

I am surprised he were able to get their application approved.

>
> Another thing about life, the longer something is alive, the chance of
> the next moment being fatal increases.
>

Maybe, it depends. The chances for tiger and lion and other wild animal
cubs goes counter to this.

--
dorayme

Neredbojias
06-22-08, 12:09 AM
On 21 Jun 2008, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article <Xns9AC4A159E76C4neredbojiasnano@85.214.90.236>,
> Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php> wrote:
>
>> On 21 Jun 2008, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> > As long as you count non-government help too. People do not stand
>> > completely aside when fellow citizens need help just because the
>> > state does not provide it. This help is still a cost to society
>> > even if an aggregate of private action.
>>
>> Okay... So "Joe Blowitoff" who's pretty loose and can't hold a job
>> gets a small stipend from welfare. He spends it all on overpriced
>> cigarettes then goes out on the street begging for vegemite or
>> whatever. Now how does this illustrate that raising the price of
>> cigs alleviates the burden on society?
>>
>
> It does not illustrate the benefit. You cannot illustrate the benefits
> by looking at some unwanted effects. Perhaps you suppose that good
> government policy cannot have bad side effects. Happy dreaming of
> another less real world than this!
>
>> >> > If there is a way to
>> >> > reduce consumption of such substances without hugely unwanted
>> >> > effects, then it is a rational thing for a society to enact.
> ...
>
>>
>> ... I _do_ pretty
>> much deny that any reasonable taxes are levied expressly to reduce
>> demand/consumption whether they are promoted as such or not. OTOH,
>> helping to pay for any services entailed, such as auto license fees
>> supporting the making of license plates, does follow.
>>
>> The taxes on cigs are _far_ from reasonable, and while they may
>> reduced consumption, they do so illegitimately.
>>
>
>> >> Flat taxes
>> >> place an undue burden upon the lower-income members of society;
>> >> why do you think they have sliding-scale income tax? In short,
>> >> the cigarette tax is just another black mark on the democratic
>> >> spirit of western culture. It favors the rich man beyond the
>> >> norm, which, of course, is probably just what the politicians who
>> >> promoted it intended.
>> >
>> > Yes, this is a concern. But you need to know two things that may
>> > alleviate your concern on this to some extent. The state does have
>> > an option to tune the progressive taxes that already exist to
>> > counteract this. And second, it is the poorer sections of the
>> > community who smoke and drink more and so on. The richer folk that
>> > do, have the means to make themselves not so much a burden. They
>> > have spare capacity to be degenerate on the inside.
>>
>> So the rich can indulge but the poor can't? -And by government
>> sanction?
>
> A reasonable government should not sanction the rich, a reasonable
> govt should do what it can. And the only thing i have been saying is
> that it seems reasonable to me that if the consumption of some things
> are price sensitive and that we do not go down the road of
> prohibition, there is a middle way to limit the damage that society
> suffers in this matter.
>
> What this middle road is will naturally be a matter of controversy.
> One must take a whole of society look at it. You have to ask yourself
> the question, should there be any flat tax on anything at all.
>
> I rather favour the idea of it all being flat and there being no
> income tax at all and that redistribution be made on the welfare side
> rather the taxation side. But don't get me going on that. <g>

Jesus Christ!!

Okay, look; let's drop it. I've stated my position and given what I
consider are good reasons in support of same. If you're not having any,
so be it. I know you are an intelligent person and can work things out
for yourself. If nothing else, though, you should feel at least a little
guilty for promulgating an off-topic subject at length while I was
earnestly trying to bring about a neat and tidy resolution. For shame,
girl!

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds

dorayme
06-22-08, 05:24 PM
In article <Xns9AC4E1771758Bneredbojiasnano@85.214.90.236>,
Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php> wrote:

> Jesus Christ!!
>
> Okay, look; let's drop it. I've stated my position and given what I
> consider are good reasons in support of same. If you're not having any,
> so be it. I know you are an intelligent person and can work things out
> for yourself. If nothing else, though, you should feel at least a little
> guilty for promulgating an off-topic subject at length while I was
> earnestly trying to bring about a neat and tidy resolution. For shame,
> girl!

I can see you tire easily. And don't patronise me, you are the poor
schmuck here needing help. <g>

--
dorayme

Neredbojias
06-22-08, 09:56 PM
On 22 Jun 2008, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article <Xns9AC4E1771758Bneredbojiasnano@85.214.90.236>,
> Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php> wrote:
>
>> Jesus Christ!!
>>
>> Okay, look; let's drop it. I've stated my position and given what I
>> consider are good reasons in support of same. If you're not having
>> any, so be it. I know you are an intelligent person and can work
>> things out for yourself. If nothing else, though, you should feel at
>> least a little guilty for promulgating an off-topic subject at length
>> while I was earnestly trying to bring about a neat and tidy
>> resolution. For shame, girl!
>
> I can see you tire easily. And don't patronise me, you are the poor
> schmuck here needing help. <g>

Hey, I'm a cut-up; I admit it. It's more fun, and, besides, serious topics
are never resolved, anyway. They're ultimately boring, too.

As for patronizing you, I didn't even know you were open for business.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds

dorayme
06-22-08, 10:28 PM
In article <Xns9AC5CAD164D3Eneredbojiasnano@194.177.96.78>,
Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php> wrote:

> On 22 Jun 2008, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > In article <Xns9AC4E1771758Bneredbojiasnano@85.214.90.236>,
> > Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php> wrote:
> >
> >> Jesus Christ!!
> >>
> >> Okay, look; let's drop it. I've stated my position and given what I
> >> consider are good reasons in support of same. If you're not having
> >> any, so be it. I know you are an intelligent person and can work
> >> things out for yourself. If nothing else, though, you should feel at
> >> least a little guilty for promulgating an off-topic subject at length
> >> while I was earnestly trying to bring about a neat and tidy
> >> resolution. For shame, girl!
> >
> > I can see you tire easily. And don't patronise me, you are the poor
> > schmuck here needing help. <g>
>
> Hey, I'm a cut-up; I admit it. It's more fun, and, besides, serious topics
> are never resolved, anyway. They're ultimately boring, too.
>
> As for patronizing you, I didn't even know you were open for business.

Oh yes, I am always open for business, do you want your beating with
bare knuckles or with a nice tight leather glove as in the service
provided to the psychopath in the sports stadium in Dirty Harry?

--
dorayme

Neredbojias
06-23-08, 12:37 AM
On 22 Jun 2008, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>> > I can see you tire easily. And don't patronise me, you are the poor
>> > schmuck here needing help. <g>
>>
>> Hey, I'm a cut-up; I admit it. It's more fun, and, besides, serious
>> topics are never resolved, anyway. They're ultimately boring, too.
>>
>> As for patronizing you, I didn't even know you were open for
>> business.
>
> Oh yes, I am always open for business, do you want your beating with
> bare knuckles or with a nice tight leather glove as in the service
> provided to the psychopath in the sports stadium in Dirty Harry?

Surprise, surprise. I didn't know you were into S & M. That really isn't
my shtick although spanking a wayward wench now 'n ag'in is satisfying
beyond the mere righteousness of the exercise.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds

Neredbojias
06-23-08, 01:00 AM
On 22 Jun 2008, Neredbojias
<me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php> wrote:

>> Oh yes, I am always open for business...

> Surprise, surprise...

Forgot what I really wanted to tell ya, -found a _great_ song, best I heard
in years. "See You Again" - my site. (Hi or Lo speed)

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds

dorayme
06-23-08, 03:00 AM
In article <Xns9AC5E6206E835neredbojiasnano@85.214.90.236>,
Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php> wrote:

> On 22 Jun 2008, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> > I can see you tire easily. And don't patronise me, you are the poor
> >> > schmuck here needing help. <g>
> >>
> >> Hey, I'm a cut-up; I admit it. It's more fun, and, besides, serious
> >> topics are never resolved, anyway. They're ultimately boring, too.
> >>
> >> As for patronizing you, I didn't even know you were open for
> >> business.
> >
> > Oh yes, I am always open for business, do you want your beating with
> > bare knuckles or with a nice tight leather glove as in the service
> > provided to the psychopath in the sports stadium in Dirty Harry?
>
> Surprise, surprise. I didn't know you were into S & M.

Be more surprised. I'm not. It is just a business for me. Look, if you
don't want personal service, I could ask my mate Russell Crowe to see if
the guy who beat up the Scorpio Killer in Dirty Harry is looking for
work these days. I doubt it, he was not exactly that young in 1971 when
he did such a fine job on Andy Robinson.

--
dorayme

Neredbojias
06-23-08, 04:32 PM
On 23 Jun 2008, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>> > Oh yes, I am always open for business, do you want your beating with
>> > bare knuckles or with a nice tight leather glove as in the service
>> > provided to the psychopath in the sports stadium in Dirty Harry?
>>
>> Surprise, surprise. I didn't know you were into S & M.
>
> Be more surprised. I'm not. It is just a business for me.

Oh, muscle-for-hire, huh?

> Look, if you
> don't want personal service,

Who said I didn't want personal service?

> I could ask my mate Russell Crowe to see if
> the guy who beat up the Scorpio Killer in Dirty Harry is looking for
> work these days. I doubt it, he was not exactly that young in 1971 when
> he did such a fine job on Andy Robinson.

-1971? Ah, I'm sure I kicked his ass a long time ago. Besides, in
astrology Scorpio is considered an introvert, "feminine" negative sign so
anyone killing such pathetic creatures is hardly worth taking note of.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds

dorayme
06-23-08, 09:31 PM
In article <Xns9AC693F0FC581neredbojiasnano@85.214.90.236>,
Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php> wrote:

> On 23 Jun 2008, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> > Oh yes, I am always open for business, do you want your beating with
> >> > bare knuckles or with a nice tight leather glove as in the service
> >> > provided to the psychopath in the sports stadium in Dirty Harry?
> >>
> >> Surprise, surprise. I didn't know you were into S & M.
> >
> > I'm not. So be more surprised. It is just a cash business for me.
>
> > Look, if you
> > don't want personal service,
>
> Who said I didn't want personal service?
>

I can't tell you what a pleasure it would be. Why don't you stop messing
about on this and send some $US along with - never mind that scoop of
your brain - your whole head. I promise I will return it scathed to suit.

> > I could ask my mate Russell Crowe to see if
> > the guy who beat up the Scorpio Killer in Dirty Harry is looking for
> > work these days. I doubt it, he was not exactly that young in 1971 when
> > he did such a fine job on Andy Robinson.
>
> -1971? ... in
> astrology Scorpio is considered an introvert, "feminine" negative sign so
> anyone killing such pathetic creatures is hardly worth taking note of.

This suggests you have not seen the original Dirty Harry or can't
remember it. You should get out more.

--
dorayme

Neredbojias
06-24-08, 12:42 AM
On 23 Jun 2008, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>> > Look, if you
>> > don't want personal service,
>>
>> Who said I didn't want personal service?
>>
>
> I can't tell you what a pleasure it would be. Why don't you stop
> messing about on this and send some $US along with - never mind that
> scoop of your brain - your whole head. I promise I will return it
> scathed to suit.

Okay, my head is on the way. However, I took the liberty of sending it COD
because, since it's my head, I just couldn't see paying for it...

>> > I could ask my mate Russell Crowe to see if
>> > the guy who beat up the Scorpio Killer in Dirty Harry is looking
>> > for work these days. I doubt it, he was not exactly that young in
>> > 1971 when he did such a fine job on Andy Robinson.
>>
>> -1971? ... in
>> astrology Scorpio is considered an introvert, "feminine" negative
>> sign so anyone killing such pathetic creatures is hardly worth taking
>> note of.
>
> This suggests you have not seen the original Dirty Harry or can't
> remember it. You should get out more.

Seen it but don't remember it, -perfectly at any rate. Actually, when I
went to the show, I thought I was going to see "Dirty & Hairy" and it was
about either a caveman clan or a porno kink thing.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds

Kyle T. Jones
06-24-08, 01:16 PM
Neredbojias wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2008, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>>>> It's
>>>>> like the astronomical rise in cigarette prices: yeah, sock it to
>>>>> the old- timers who are really addicted and have trouble quitting
>>>>> and call it a "fair" solution contrived by the politians
>>>> It is young women who have been taking up fags big time in many
>>>> western countries. And overall consumption is price sensitive so it
>>>> is not a stupid thing for governments to exercise a little control
>>>> here.
>>> Ah, yes, you'd make a banner politician over here in dese States.
>>> The sad thing is that many of the fools east of the Pacific believe
>>> it.
>> Did you study, to paraphrase your own words recently, "with both sides
>> of your brain", the link I gave you in that post you quote:
>>
>> <http://www1.worldbank.org/tobacco/book/html/chapter1.htm>
>>
>> ?
>
> I do not deny the problem, it is the ersatz "solution" to which I take
> exception. Overtaxing a cheap commodity whose use is officially
> frowned-upon is not my idea of an erudite remedy. However, it does
> provide a scintillating testiment of the actual intelligence of those
> who rule the country. But as I intimated before, probably at least 50%
> of the common masses subscribe to this crap as a viable methodology for
> curbing what they consider to be nasty indulgences. The trouble is the
> curb is inversely proportional to the free income of the indulger. Down
> Democracy, up Capitalism!!
>

You talk funny. 0000-> Wittgenstein, spinning in his grave.

Uhh, so which half of the country/"common masses" doesn't live "east of
the Pacific"?

Cheers.

Neredbojias
06-24-08, 02:47 PM
On 24 Jun 2008, "Kyle T. Jones" <pleaseemailme!@realdomain.net> wrote:

> Neredbojias wrote:
>> On 19 Jun 2008, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> It's
>>>>>> like the astronomical rise in cigarette prices: yeah, sock it to
>>>>>> the old- timers who are really addicted and have trouble quitting
>>>>>> and call it a "fair" solution contrived by the politians
>>>>> It is young women who have been taking up fags big time in many
>>>>> western countries. And overall consumption is price sensitive so it
>>>>> is not a stupid thing for governments to exercise a little control
>>>>> here.
>>>> Ah, yes, you'd make a banner politician over here in dese States.
>>>> The sad thing is that many of the fools east of the Pacific believe
>>>> it.
>>> Did you study, to paraphrase your own words recently, "with both
sides
>>> of your brain", the link I gave you in that post you quote:
>>>
>>> <http://www1.worldbank.org/tobacco/book/html/chapter1.htm>
>>>
>>> ?
>>
>> I do not deny the problem, it is the ersatz "solution" to which I take
>> exception. Overtaxing a cheap commodity whose use is officially
>> frowned-upon is not my idea of an erudite remedy. However, it does
>> provide a scintillating testiment of the actual intelligence of those
>> who rule the country. But as I intimated before, probably at least
50%
>> of the common masses subscribe to this crap as a viable methodology
for
>> curbing what they consider to be nasty indulgences. The trouble is
the
>> curb is inversely proportional to the free income of the indulger.
Down
>> Democracy, up Capitalism!!
>>
>
> You talk funny. 0000-> Wittgenstein, spinning in his grave.
>
> Uhh, so which half of the country/"common masses" doesn't live "east of
> the Pacific"?

The common masses of the United States to which I was referring all live
east of the Pacific but only some of them are fools. Unfortunately the
number is large and the majority of those seem to believe illogical
dogma.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds