Newsgroup: it.discussioni.litigi
Titolo: In my humble opinion

IMHO, you of TPD  are all idiots !
You are not able of to sensibly express your opinions and not respect
the netiquette. Moreover you are all drug addicts.
That's all.


gli orizzonti cominciano a farsi piccoli...

 wrote:

Thank you. How long have you been hanging around? Did you observe netiquette
by waiting before chiming in, so you don't make yourself look like a fool?
Why are we all addicts? Because we oppose the drug war?
And guy's like Eddy? He is an addict, too?
You sound like a drug addict to me.
ej

You sound like a drug addict to me.
I don't speak of evanescent and deprived matters of concrete tests
instead as you do you.
Bye.

 Bye.
Can you give a concrete example or two?
Is William F. Buckley an addict? He is outspoken and opposed to prohibition.
How old are you, Jr.?
Curious,
ej

Curious,
This detail is not important for the conversation; or are you a type
that discriminates the others according to the age?

 examples of thing?
Lo stato dell'arte dei traduttori automatici, lascia ancora spazi a migliorie
significative...
S:>>>
-- 
*HIC* SUNT BEONES

 drugs. Or not ?
Check him out in National Review, the conservative magazine he began 50
years ago.

 examples of thing? of the fact that you are all drug addicts for me ?
Yes. That is what I asked you to relate.
ej

years ago.
Do you know how many people make use of drugs without nobody knows 
nothing?

ej
Simple.  When a person opposes to prohibition, it means he makes use
of drugs. Even if it seems a hasty reasoning, it's  the truth.

>> Is William F. Buckley an addict? He is outspoken and opposed to prohibition.
ma chi cazzo e' sto William F. Buckley ?

 ma chi cazzo e' sto William F. Buckley ?
Un autorevole giornalista
S:>>>
-- 
*HIC* SUNT BEONES
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 drugs. Or not ?
Only in international waters, outside of the long arm of jurisdiction.
But as Rush Limbaugh said "we need to put more white drug users in 
jail.  Now excuse me, I'm just waiting for my man, 26 dollars
in my hand.  He's never early; he's always late.  First thing you
learn is that you always have to wait."  Is it true that all 
prohibitionists are addicted to drugs?

of drugs. Even if it seems a hasty reasoning, it's  the truth.
Illogical.
-Pete Zakel
 (p...@seeheader.nospam)
		How good is life, the mere living!
		How fit to employ all the heart
		and the soul and the senses
		forever in joy        
			    - Browning

Illogical.
Deduce.

Deduce.
Deduce what?  That you're an idiot and a troll?  I already did.
-Pete Zakel
 (p...@seeheader.nospam)
Anthony's Law of Force:
	Don't force it; get a larger hammer.

	Don't force it; get a larger hammer.
ROTFL

 

I'm opposed to anti-choice legislation (banning abortion).
Does that mean I get abortions?
I believe in freedom of religion.  Does that mean I'm religious?
I believe in the right to bear arms.  Does that mean I own a gun?
I believe in capital punishment.  Does that mean I execute people?
I believe gays should be allowed to marry, even if it's just called
"civil union" and not "marriage".  Does that mean I'm gay?  
I believe in equal rights.  Does that mean I'm not white?
--
I'm Mike Z. Helm and I approve this message.  
Thank you very much.
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday

 I believe in freedom of suicide
There you go


S:>>>
--


 wrote:

Yes, but this isn't just anyone.
ej

 wrote:

Really?
How did you come to this conclusion?
Is prohibition working so well where you are teaching?
It is very hasty reasoning, if it can be called reasoning at all.
This is an assumption based upon personal opinion of yours.
This is the most base begin point for people who don't know much about drugs
or drug politics.
The fact is that -you- simply cant believe anyone could oppose prohibition
unless they have an ulterior motive: to use drugs.
About 7 years ago I addressed this subject in long form in my home town
paper the Reno Gazette Journal.  Please read it below, and see if you can
see yourself and your alleged reasoning anywhere:
EJ
Friday, September 12, 1997
(Published Tuesday, September 16, 1997.)
Eric Johnson
xxxxxxxxxx
Reno, NV 89509
Bruce Bledsoe
Reno Gazette-Journal
P.O. Box 22000
Reno, NV 89520
\
Dear Mr. Bledsoe:
Below is a submission for the its your turn column for your consideration.
Lo these many years have I argued with heart and soul against our countryąs
policy of drug prohibition, AKA the war on (some) drugs. Though these
arguments have taken place in many fora with differing people, one main
characteristic usually appears. My motivation for advocating drug law reform
is questioned.
This questioning usually takes the form of an accusation (re: The Teacher,
Steve Forbes and Rush Limbaugh) that all I want is to be able to use drugs
without going to jail. This accusation is usually accompanied by some
ad-hominem label such as "druggie," or  łpothead,˛ or Rush Limbaughąs
favorite, łlong-haired, maggot-infested dope-smoking FM type.˛
This is the prohibitionistsą attempt to grab the moral high ground on this
issue. By giving drug law reform advocates these labels, prohibitionists
hope to discredit any information disseminated by reform advocates.
In order to return the favor, and perhaps restore the moral high ground to a
more balanced proposition, I have analyzed the possible motivations to
support prohibition. These are more complex to categorize than the above
simplifications. Thus:
A person (the teacher) supports prohibition because he/she:
            1. Has not seen the evidence (Most prohibitionists).
            2. Refuses to examine the evidence(G-J Editorial Staff).
            3. Examines the evidence in an irrational manner due to the
               influence of politics or religion (Rush Limbaugh).
            4. Benefits from the status quo (Criminals, Criminal Justice
               System players, Politicians)
            5. Has a psychological need to control the behavior of others
               (Bullies, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Mao Tse Deng, Saddam
               Hussein, etcetera ad infinitum).
In the ad-hominem terms which prohibitionists (and the Teacher) use so
frequently, if one supports prohibition as public policy, one is likely
ignorant, or  closed-minded, or irrational, or corrupt, or psychologically
unbalanced or perhaps any combination of the above. Thus the credibility of
the average prohibitionist seems also to be severely restricted.
Now that we have spent a decade expressing our mutual disdain and exchanging
increasingly bitter and divisive invective, would it be possible to begin an
honest, open public debate in Nevada (and the world) as to whether or not
prohibition is sound public policy?
In my opinion, support for which copious evidence exists, the American
experiment with prohibition, in whichever phase or epoch referenced, has
been and continues to be a total failure, even to reach its own stated
goals. This experiment in social engineering has been destructive and costly
to both individual lives and to the quality of life generally, as it is a
morally and intellectually bankrupt concept from its very inception.
Further, copious evidence exists to show that other rational methods of drug
control policy exist, namely the Harm Reduction Model, and that this model
has produced vastly better results than the U. S. policy of strict
prohibition.
As to the issue of drug use in our society, if a person uses drugs, it is
reason to call the priest or minister, not the police or the executioner
(Newt Gingrich is quoted recently saying, łif you deal, we will kill you˛).
There is an enormous difference between the two actions. I continue to be
surprised at the number of people, responsible and otherwise, who advocate
violent solutions to this łproblem.˛
The challenge, then, is to the Teacher and those who continue to support
prohibition. It is your experiment, you defend it. Produce the results which
show it has been effective. Enter into debate and communicate these results
to the public at large. Stop using ad-hominem attacks against opponents of
prohibition in place of substantive, affirmative arguments inclusive of
evidence to support your position.
Is your position so vapid, so utterly worthless as to be indefensible?
Best regards,
Eric Johnson


Just as Buckley says, "post pot ergo propter pot."
This pretty much sums up the teacher's no-so-humble opinion.
ej

 wrote:

Incorrect deduction. You have done nothing to eliminate those who oppose
prohibition who do not use drugs.
Sorry.
What do you teach? Hope it isn't math.
ej


imho se non ti rispondi imbecille...

Thank you very much.
Before I respond you, tell me, are you a political?

What do you teach? Hope it isn't math.
I teach theology in an Italian university. I'm here in usenet to
convince the young people not to make use of drug.

 []
    Your english is 24 karat crap.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
I'm the cat, man.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (
http://www.grisoft.com
).
Version: 6.0.728 / Virus Database: 483 - Release Date: 27/07/2004

    Your english is 24 karat crap.
Also you make use of drugs? And you oppose to the prohibitionism,
bets.

 wrote:

What exactly is a political?
ej

 convince the young people not to make use of drug.
You will have to come up to speed on the debate then.
Simply calling everyone who does not support prohibition an addict is silly,
and simply untrue.
You can stick with this viewpoint, but you will have lots of upstanding
citizens and 100 years of failure to deal with.
In one of my posts, the long one, to you, I have said that drug use is
reason to call the minister or priest, not the police.
ej

 wrote:

He is apparently Italian, which makes his English fairly good.
ej

ej
He has to be the brother of Britney. Who knows how much cocaine they
sniff together!

ej
Pardon. I intended a diplomatic.

 wrote:

I hadn't heard that Ms. Spears was into drugs.
If you have evidence, the LA county prosecutor's office would like to hear
it, I'll bet. But I guess that makes me a gambling addict, right?
ej

 wrote:

What is a diplomatic?
No, I am not a diplomat.
Have you read the long post to you?
ej

 

They were rhetorical questions; there is no need for you to respond.
You've been schooled, Teach


I guess the teacher couldn't keep up.
He is probably out molesting some kids somewhere, keeping them occupied so
they won't do drugs.
ej

 years ago.
and he's been railing against the drugwar since at least the mid to late
1980's
b
-- 
citizen, patriot, stoner
Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want you to think.
truth: the Anti-drugwar 
http://www.briancbennett.com
Nothing will ever change if we don't stand up for ourselves:
http://cannabisconsumers.org
"Cops say legalize drugs" ask them why:
http://www.leap.cc

     Your english is 24 karat crap.
and how's *your* italian?



instead you want them to take *your* drug: religion?


 them.
that one always cracks me up, because the prohibs like to claim that the
law is *lowering* the number of people trying drugs, while
simultaneously *increasing* the number due to the 'forbidden fruit'
hypothesis.  nothing like covering both sides at once ;^)
perhaps there is balance between those who use drugs to be *bad* (the
forbidden fruit users) and the ones who *don't* use drugs to be "good"
('cause it's "against the law"). 


convince the young people not to make use of drug.
So young people should taking cough suppressants for a cold?  They shouldn't
drink coffee if they are tired?  They shouldn't take aspirin or acetominaphen
or ibuprofin for pain?
And isn't limited alcohol use by young people pretty much accepted in most of
Europe (for example, drinking diluted wine at dinner)?
Personally, the biggest drug problem I've seen among youth in Europe is
tobacco use.  When I was in Germany, there were cigarette dispensers on street
corners that any young person passing by had access to.  This was a number of
years ago, though, so I don't know if it is still like that there.
-Pete Zakel
 (p...@seeheader.nospam)
Micro Credo:
	Never trust a computer bigger than you can lift.

    Your english is 24 karat crap.
So how good is your Italian?  Mine sucks, so I'm not about to criticize a
native Italian speaker who types far better English than I can type my second
language (German).
-Pete Zakel
 (p...@seeheader.nospam)
Maier's Law:
	If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be
	disposed of.
Corollaries:
	1.  The bigger the theory, the better.
	2.  The experiment may be considered a success if no more than
	    50% of the observed measurements must be discarded to
	    obtain a correspondence with the theory.

...

If they do not make use of drug, will the trains run on time?

 years ago, though, so I don't know if it is still like that there.
I noticed this too in 1986 on my first trip.
I was utterly scandalized.
ej


ever been to japan?  they sell just about *everything* in vending
machines accessible to all -- including porn and beer.
