|
Home > Archive > Architecture > June 2007 > Evidence keeps piling up...
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Evidence keeps piling up...
|
|
|
|
|
| "3D Peruna"> wrote
> For those of you who think governments are presently good...
>
> http://memepunks.blogspot.com/2006/...dupe=with_honor
>
> It went to far years ago.... I wonder how much longer people will put up
> with it all.
From that article:
In Texas, you need to register the purchase of Erlenmeyer flasks or
three-necked beakers.
-------------------------------------------
Why doesn't this sort of thing surprise me anymore?
Here is a prediction, and though it may seem completely illogical to you,
hide and watch and see if it doesn't come true.
(if you think it sounds illogical, then thats because you haven't been
paying attention, I don't me you Paul, but readers in general)
I hereby predict that within the next 10 years, by the year 2017, it will be
illegal to wear a mechanical/electrical watch in public and further, it may
require state permission to even own a private time keeping device.
Now what circumstances could arise that the state would outlaw all private
time keeping devices?
Think.
| |
| RicodJour 2007-06-17, 3:25 am |
| On Jun 16, 10:51 pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
>
> Here is a prediction, and though it may seem completely illogical to you,
> hide and watch and see if it doesn't come true.
> (if you think it sounds illogical, then thats because you haven't been
> paying attention, I don't me you Paul, but readers in general)
Hide and watch...? Can't I just watch?
> I hereby predict that within the next 10 years, by the year 2017, it will be
> illegal to wear a mechanical/electrical watch in public and further, it may
> require state permission to even own a private time keeping device.
You didn't mention a bet, money or odds, but regardless, I'd take the
bet.
> Now what circumstances could arise that the state would outlaw all private
> time keeping devices?
> Think.
So all PDAs, cell phones, MP3 players (they all have clock functions),
many calculators, bicycle computers, etc. would lose clock functions.
In other words "they" would essentially outlaw timekeeping. Senators
and other assorted rich people would have to give up their Rolexs,
Patek Philippes and Piagets? Not no way, not no how.
A time keeping device can be easily made that's half the size of a
penny, and would have very little metal in it, so how are they
supposed to enforce the prohibition? Unless you're of the belief that
everyone will be required to walk around naked and have cavity
searches every 100 feet, it's impossible. Not illogical -
impossible. Don't get me wrong, it's also illogical.
R
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2007-06-17, 3:25 am |
| On Jun 16, 10:02 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 10:51 pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hide and watch...? Can't I just watch?
>
>
> You didn't mention a bet, money or odds, but regardless, I'd take the
> bet.
>
>
> So all PDAs, cell phones, MP3 players (they all have clock functions),
> many calculators, bicycle computers, etc. would lose clock functions.
> In other words "they" would essentially outlaw timekeeping. Senators
> and other assorted rich people would have to give up their Rolexs,
> Patek Philippes and Piagets? Not no way, not no how.
>
> A time keeping device can be easily made that's half the size of a
> penny, and would have very little metal in it, so how are they
> supposed to enforce the prohibition? Unless you're of the belief that
> everyone will be required to walk around naked and have cavity
> searches every 100 feet, it's impossible. Not illogical -
> impossible. Don't get me wrong, it's also illogical.
>
> R
I think 3D and Don are Nutz, grabbing some blog and
taking what it says at face value, screaming the internut
is right, I meant internet.
Some dork posts something people want to believe and
these fella's fall for it, it's snake oil again.
Ken
| |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1182059918.014399.189580@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 16, 10:02 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
> I think 3D and Don are Nutz, grabbing some blog and
> taking what it says at face value, screaming the internut
> is right, I meant internet.
> Some dork posts something people want to believe and
> these fella's fall for it, it's snake oil again.
LOL
They said Gallileo was nutz too, and a host of other people that simply
*observed things going on around them* that other people were, for whatever
reason, unable to see.
I could type out 100 things that are illegal today that weren't so 10 years
ago, but it would be pointless.
I can turn on the faucet and hand you the bar of soap but you have to wash
the mud from your eyes.
BTW: In the year 2017 you'll be able to have a electrical/mechanical
timekeeping device but you'll have to pay a fee and jump through some hoops.
Remember, 50 years ago, in 1957, you could order a gun from the PM magazine
but today you have to ask permission, pay a fee, and jump through some hoops
to purchase a gun.
Same story with cars, houses, etc.
As we go further, it goes faster.........
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2007-06-17, 1:25 pm |
| On Jun 17, 3:51 am, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:1182059918.014399.189580@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> LOL
> They said Gallileo was nutz too, and a host of other people that simply
> *observed things going on around them* that other people were, for whatever
> reason, unable to see.
> I could type out 100 things that are illegal today that weren't so 10 years
> ago, but it would be pointless.
> I can turn on the faucet and hand you the bar of soap but you have to wash
> the mud from your eyes.
> BTW: In the year 2017 you'll be able to have a electrical/mechanical
> timekeeping device but you'll have to pay a fee and jump through some hoops.
> Remember, 50 years ago, in 1957, you could order a gun from the PM > >magazine
Lee Harvey Oswald did that.
> but today you have to ask permission, pay a fee, and jump through some hoops
> to purchase a gun.
> Same story with cars, houses, etc.
> As we go further, it goes faster.........
At 16 with a driver's license we could do anything,
buy gunpowder, nitric acid, 30# of Potassium Nitrate
all for rocket experiments.
I went to my friendly pharmacist, $2 for a a pint of
HNO3, he copied some stuff off my license, gave me
a 2 minute lecture on the cautions of HNO3, red fuming
Nitric Acid and off I go.
About needing a license to buy a flask is misleading.
What I was given was a corporate chemical acquistion
card, and with that I could purchase anything the
company sold, but I couldn't purchase a flask from them
without the card, but I could purchase a 1000 drums
of nitric acid with the card and a flask :-).
Personally I like that procedure. It's stricter now, but
that's ok.
I dislike the new US passport rules, they're nutzy.
a license is adequate, even better, cuz it's harder
to forge.
We'd drive down to the good-ole US of A, and the
fella at the border was friendly. Now we get the 3rd
degree, it not just terrorism (a few muslimes) it's
drug smuggling too from canuckistan, well things
change so we try to help them best we can.
Obviously suspicion and paranoia are up, not just
9/11 but McVeigh, Waco etc. ugh.
Ken
| |
|
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:f533qd02upl@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:1182059918.014399.189580@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> LOL
> They said Gallileo was nutz too, and a host of other people that simply
> *observed things going on around them* that other people were, for
> whatever reason, unable to see.
> I could type out 100 things that are illegal today that weren't so 10
> years ago, but it would be pointless.
> I can turn on the faucet and hand you the bar of soap but you have to wash
> the mud from your eyes.
> BTW: In the year 2017 you'll be able to have a electrical/mechanical
> timekeeping device but you'll have to pay a fee and jump through some
> hoops.
> Remember, 50 years ago, in 1957, you could order a gun from the PM
> magazine but today you have to ask permission, pay a fee, and jump through
> some hoops to purchase a gun.
> Same story with cars, houses, etc.
> As we go further, it goes faster.........
>
>
At least Galileo observed everything, he didn't restrict his observations to
only the things that agreed with his findings.
--
Edgar
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
|
|
"Edgar" <ecamacho4_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4676a295$0$16375$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:f533qd02upl@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> At least Galileo observed everything, he didn't restrict his observations
> to only the things that agreed with his findings.
Its just a calculated guess, Edgar, I have no insight into the future, no
crystal ball.
I think the US will be a much more restricted environment in the future,
based on the restrictions that have occurred over the past 30 years.
| |
|
| > Senators
> and other assorted rich people would have to give up their Rolexs,
> Patek Philippes and Piagets? Not no way, not no how.
Government is always exempt from its laws.
> penny, and would have very little metal in it, so how are they
> supposed to enforce the prohibition?
That doesn't really seem to stop them anymore.
| |
|
| > They said Gallileo was nutz too, and a host of other people that simply
And they say Old Jimmy down the corner is nutz.
|
|
|
|
|