 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / December 2007Obey the highwaymen or be tased.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMaMYL_shxc Apparently the cop decided to pull the guy over IMMEDIATELY after a drastic reduction in speed limit. In other words, an illegal stop for revenue purposes. (usually the vehicle code specifies a distance after the sign where enforcement of the new limit is not allowed) When he objected to this treatment the cop decided to use force and intimidation. When he considered the cop crazy and operating outside proper law (not this post-9-11 insanity) he gets tazed. His offense? Still thinking he was a citizen with rights and not obeying the slave masters' thug. Topped off with an illegal search of the vehicle. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMaMYL_shxc One comment by a person posting under "stylishu" makes an excellent point. That incompetent officer could have easily been shot by either the driver or his passenger had they been armed (since he turned his back on the driver after asking him to get out of the vehicle). Even jaybird couldn't disagree with that. On Nov 21, 3:13 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMaMYL_shxc > > Apparently the cop decided to pull the guy over IMMEDIATELY after a > drastic reduction in speed limit. Duh. You have no idea of the speed limit before the sign, and no idea where the actual speed measurement took place. Radar will work to the rear, too, genius. > In other words, an illegal stop for > revenue purposes. (usually the vehicle code specifies a distance > after the sign where enforcement of the new limit is not allowed) Really? Cite one. > When he > objected to this treatment the cop decided to use force and intimidation. Since you have started building upon a false premise, there no stopping you now, is there? > When he considered the cop crazy and operating outside proper law (not > this post-9-11 insanity) he gets tazed. Attaboy, go for it! > His offense? Still thinking he was a citizen with rights and not obeying > the slave masters' thug. Woo Hoo! (His first alleged offense was speeding. After that I think it was impersonating a lawyer, of the television variety.) > Topped off with an illegal search of the vehicle. You like to play lawyer too, huh...? Thanks for the hoots. ----- - gpsman (You can't arrest me without reading me my rights... unless you have a badge, and a gun, and a tazer, and a baton, and handcuffs.) On Nov 21, 1:13 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMaMYL_shxc > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Topped off with an illegal search of the vehicle. I didn't watch the video (on dial-up) but from the other thread, if it is accurate, the guy refused to obey orders. Whether the order was valid or not, the side of the road is _not_ the place to discuss it or refuse. Very simple rule - don't want to be tased, obey the orders and see a lawyer later. From that other thread it sounds like it was not a good stop but again, the side of the road is not a place to debate it. Object politely there but if the cop insists, drop it. Lawyer time. Harry K > On Nov 21, 1:13 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >> Topped off with an illegal search of the vehicle. > I didn't watch the video (on dial-up) but from the other thread, if it > is accurate, the guy refused to obey orders. Whether the order was > valid or not, the side of the road is _not_ the place to discuss it or > refuse. It's our duty not to obey their invalid orders. They are cops, not our masters. > Very simple rule - don't want to be tased, obey the orders and see a > lawyer later. The police state still wins that way. The only way to turn back the police state is to refuse to obey it. People need to refuse to obey. When millions of people refuse to obey they are powerless. If we obey them but get a lawyer later.... so what? > From that other thread it sounds like it was not a good stop but > again, the side of the road is not a place to debate it. Object > politely there but if the cop insists, drop it. Lawyer time. That's the game they want us to play. It's their game. They still got people obeying the thugs of the state. No. What we need is people refusing to follow orders immediately. An example Prince george's county in MD. People summoned to the court to be forcibly vacinated. Against the law, damn right. Right there in the courthouse. The courts don't offer any justice as they are more of the same machine that scams us and cheats us every day. On Nov 22, 12:58 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <26cae4c2-8a99-421b-b128-eae7b02c4...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Harry K wrote: > > On Nov 21, 1:13 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's our duty not to obey their invalid orders. They are cops, not our > masters. And by "our" duty you mean, of course, everyone's but your own. > > Very simple rule - don't want to be tased, obey the orders and see a > > lawyer later. > > The police state still wins that way. Uh huh. And how do they lose by tazing you...? > The only way to turn back > the police state is to refuse to obey it. People need to refuse to obey. Uh huh. With all your reported dealings with cops I can't recall a single act of disobedience on your part. > When millions of people refuse to obey they are powerless. If we obey > them but get a lawyer later.... so what? Hmm. Best case scenario? No tazing. > > From that other thread it sounds like it was not a good stop but > > again, the side of the road is not a place to debate it. Object > > politely there but if the cop insists, drop it. Lawyer time. > That's the game they want us to play. It's their game. They still got > people obeying the thugs of the state. No. What we need is people > refusing to follow orders immediately. Uh huh... people other than yourself, you mean. When you got your last ticket you just let that prime opportunity slip right through your fingers... Didn't you report you went to court and paid your fine like a good little sheeple because you couldn't convince the judge that it was the fault of the intersection? Cop caught you cutting through a parking lot to avoid a light, IIRC. > An example Prince george's county in MD. People summoned to the court to > be forcibly vacinated. Against the law, damn right. Right there in the > courthouse. The courts don't offer any justice as they are more of the same > machine that scams us and cheats us every day. Uh huh. So... you know exactly as much about communicable disease among school age children as driving, as law, as traffic code, ad infinitum. What a f.cking surprise. I mean, you'd figger a guy who was completely ignorant of the turn signal code in his own state might get a hint that he doesn't know sh.t from apple butter about anything, but not you. ----- - gpsman >I mean, you'd figger a guy who was completely ignorant of the turn >signal code in his own state might get a hint that he doesn't know >sh.t from apple butter about anything, but not you. Well, it is hard to listen to the "wisdom" of a "driving instructor" who believes one must unconditionally stop their vehicles beside parked school buses. Then there's your inability to distinguish the difference between trivial terms such as "time" and "chance," and more icing for the cake is that your dumb a.s believes electrical engineers design traffic intersections! Ah well, at least when you lose your arguments, you do the "manly" thing and try to change the subject by showing pictures of houses you don't own, and accusing the victor of the debate to be a liar. You know, I wrote earlier that I'm glad I'm not as stupid as you. I'd also like to add that I'm also glad I'm not a pussy like you are. Happy Thanksgiving, loser! -- Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people. - Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy On Nov 21, 9:58 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <26cae4c2-8a99-421b-b128-eae7b02c4...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Harry K wrote: > > On Nov 21, 1:13 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > - Show quoted text - What part of arguing with an armed officer do you not get? You are _not_ going to win. Obey and then lawsuit has a chance of improving things. Your way is into a pine box only. Harry K > What part of arguing with an armed officer do you not get? You are > _not_ going to win. > > Obey and then lawsuit has a chance of improving things. Your way is > into a pine box only. So in other words kiss the thug's a.s, then get f.cked over in the government's courts where the thug's word is considered equal to the word of God in a church. The problem is there has been way too much obeying, that's why things are the way they are. We're slaves now. On Nov 22, 6:53 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <74cfd2ad-f9f9-4b21-a60c-0e58dde08...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Harry K wrote: > > What part of arguing with an armed officer do you not get? You are [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The problem is there has been way too much obeying, that's why things are > the way they are. We're slaves now. Don't need to kiss anyone's a.s. Just obey then take it to a court where you can (maybe) make a change. Any "discussion" you have with an officer at the side of the road is a loss for you before you even begin it. I pick my fights where there is some chance of me coming out on top. With a cop on the road it isn't even a snowballs's chance. Harry K > On Nov 22, 6:53 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > an officer at the side of the road is a loss for you before you even > begin it. Funny, I've found that standing my ground with the cop is better, the court is a machine. If a cop thinks that trying to run over you to make his numbers is going to cause him more work, then he picks another target. Once the court is involved, it's about making the money. They'll get the money one way or another. > I pick my fights where there is some chance of me coming out on top. > With a cop on the road it isn't even a snowballs's chance. I'm not talking about picking a fight. It's not picking a fight to refuse to grovel to these thugs. On Nov 22, 7:24 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <27ac8a8f-8b53-442c-b0b6-f65476b1d...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Harry K wrote: > > On Nov 22, 6:53 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - So now complying with a legal order is 'groveling'? Harry K > So now complying with a legal order is 'groveling'? There wasn't anything legal here. There was pure force of the state's thug. But beyond that, I question the very nature of giving some people guns and badges and then saying the others have to obey them. To me, that is the end of a free society and the begining of a police state. >On Nov 22, 6:53 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Harry K and you see nothing wrong with that state of affairs. How sad. > On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:57:51 -0800 (PST), Harry K > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - How sad that you can't understand plain English. Harry K >> <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >On Nov 22, 6:53 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >Harry K Maybe our experiences are different but I have come out on top or no worse then I went in, every time I confronted them. Twice they changed their mind about citing. An officer who is unwilling to discuss what he is doing during a traffic stop should not be wearing a badge. It's that simple. > On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 07:37:50 -0800 (PST), Harry K > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > - Show quoted text - There is a difference between a polite discussion and an argument. What was happening in that clip was an argument. Harry K In article <52d48a66-e7b0-4627-97d0-566c8290fa95@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, > > <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:57:51 -0800 (PST), Harry K [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Harry K Absolutely. And you still don't get to taser someone for arguing with you.  SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > In article > <52d48a66-e7b0-4627-97d0-566c8290f...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > - Show quoted text - And you still don't get how stupid it is to argue with a cop. Harry K In article <5bccc6d2-3ad0-44b9-938b-0cd957b963be@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > > In article > > <52d48a66-e7b0-4627-97d0-566c8290f...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > > Harry K No. I get it fine. But what you don't get is that that shouldn't be important. SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." >On Nov 22, 6:53 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Don't need to kiss anyone's a.s. Just obey then take it to a court >where you can (maybe) make a change. There's no such court. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >> What part of arguing with an armed officer do you not get? You are >> _not_ going to win. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >government's courts where the thug's word is considered equal to the word >of God in a church. Better than getting shot, innit? >>> What part of arguing with an armed officer do you not get? You are >>> _not_ going to win. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Better than getting shot, innit? Short term. Long term no. >>> What part of arguing with an armed officer do you not get? You are >>> _not_ going to win. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Better than getting shot, innit? Lucky for you our founding fathers weren't such craven cowards. > On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:22:20 -0800, Scott in SoCal > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Let us know the next time you get in an argument with a cop. Harry K >> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:22:20 -0800, Scott in SoCal >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Let us know the next time you get in an argument with a cop. Yeah - be sure to capture some videotape of it, Ashton, so we can see what a REAL MAN you are - as opposed to the standard "talks tough from behind his keyboard" USENET macho man. >>> <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >what a REAL MAN you are - as opposed to the standard "talks tough from >behind his keyboard" USENET macho man. Twice I've read them the riot act and in both those cases they decided not to cite. Another time a cop was going to cite me in a traffic accident till I had him hand me his book of traffic laws and I looked up the appropriate law and explained why he should be citing the other driver (which he did instead of me). One time a cop pissed me off with his attitude so I signed my signature on the ticket and ran it over onto the hood of his car leaving a pen mark (he put the ticket book on the hood, not me). "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. " Lord Acton What do you think would be the result if everyone just let the cops walk all over them no matter what, as you suggest we should all do?? How do you and your kids relate? Do that NEVER question your commands? Would you want your children to be so meek that they were NEVER willing to challenge those in authority no matter what the authority was telling them to do? If your daughter was told she was going to be strip searched by some male police officer would your advice to her be to just let him do it and argue about it in court? >> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:22:20 -0800, Scott in SoCal >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Harry K I'll keep your phone number handy. >On Nov 21, 9:58 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >What part of arguing with an armed officer do you not get? You are >_not_ going to win. 1) You are right 2) why do you not see a problem with the fact that you are right? How did the US come to the point where a citizen must fear EVERY officer he comes in contact with if that citizen so much as questions ANY arbitrary command by these jackbooted thugs? If you don't jump high enough on command citizens are regularly charged with resisting arrest for doing nothing more then ASKING "what's going on" or "why are you stopping me". It's sad that so many people have the attitude you show of meek acquiescence to any and all of these thugs with a badge. The guy who was stopped in this video could have handled it differently but why should he have to? Why, in the USA, can't he have a discussion with this officer of the state without fear of being tasered and arrested simply because he want's more info before signing the ticket? Do you think it's asking too much of this cops precious time to discuss the situation for more then two minutes? Cops think nothing of wasting half an hour of a citizens time just because they feel like it, but if a citizen want's to discuss a ticket for some reason that's considered inappropriate and often leads to one of these trumped up resisting arrest charges. And you could hear this thug talking to the other officer at the end and claiming that the citizen was trying to take off and that's why he had to tazer him. What a bald faced lie. The citizen was pointing to the sign down the road and asking the officer to look at it. There was zero indication he was trying to get away. >Obey and then lawsuit has a chance of improving things. Your way is >into a pine box only. > >Harry K >How did the US come to the point where a citizen must fear EVERY >officer he comes in contact with if that citizen so much as questions >ANY arbitrary command by these jackbooted thugs? The creation of a "professional" police force was the first misstep; everything else follows from that. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >What part of arguing with an armed officer do you not get? You are >_not_ going to win. But you won't have capitulated quietly and without objection. To some of us, that matters. >Obey and then lawsuit has a chance of improving things. No, it doesn't. That's a lie the state maintains to keep order. >Your way is into a pine box only. Better to be a dead lion than a live jackal, if live lion isn't an option. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. In article <26cae4c2-8a99-421b-b128-eae7b02c4454@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > On Nov 21, 1:13 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > valid or not, the side of the road is _not_ the place to discuss it or > refuse. Refusal to obey orders is not sufficient grounds to be assaulted. > Very simple rule - don't want to be tased, obey the orders and see a > lawyer later. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Harry K The officer had not told him he was under arrest, therefore there was no grounds to escalate the issue. SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > In article > <26cae4c2-8a99-421b-b128-eae7b02c4...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > - Show quoted text - He told him to turn around. That is the usual procedure before telling him he is under arrest. That the guy seems to have thought he could win an argument absolutely floors me. Harry K In article <f4201aee-6991-4b84-8e5c-0318164d5880@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > > In article > > <26cae4c2-8a99-421b-b128-eae7b02c4...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Harry K Whether or not it's usual procedure doesn't make it right for the officer to assault someone whom he has not placed under arrest. SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." >> In article >> <26cae4c2-8a99-421b-b128-eae7b02c4...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > >Harry K Did it ever occur to you that the guy might have been right? And that if the cop had listened to him for two minutes he might have understood what he was trying to say OR be able to show him that he wasn't right? Why doesn't a citizen have a right to discuss anything with a cop? It absolutely floors me that so many citizens are so eager to bend over and grab their ankles at the sight of a badge and DEFEND the notion that a cop has the RIGHT to treat you like a child with the IQ of a moron. When did you decide you were owned by the state and that every thug with a badge was your better? > It absolutely floors me that so many citizens are so eager to bend > over and grab their ankles at the sight of a badge and DEFEND the > notion that a cop has the RIGHT to treat you like a child with the IQ > of a moron. When did you decide you were owned by the state and that > every thug with a badge was your better? I think it starts in the schools. I was in school in the 80s when this zero-tolerance crap and the parallel bettween school and prison was just getting started. I didn't understand it but I knew something was wrong. From everything I've read and seen it's far worse today. I also now understand the purpose of government schools is not free thinking educated people, but an easy to control, ignorant, unthinking docile work force. This is why home-schooled children are targeted, why groups of people who form their own communities are targeted, etc and so forth. It's about the government stomping out pockets of resistance. That aside, police are going to get far worse in the near future as their ranks fill with Iraq war vets. Men who have been busting up people's homes, running checkpoints, and generally running roughshod over a civilian population. >> It absolutely floors me that so many citizens are so eager to bend >> over and grab their ankles at the sight of a badge and DEFEND the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >form their own communities are targeted, etc and so forth. It's about the >government stomping out pockets of resistance. That's it - Brent has finally gone off the deep end. >>> It absolutely floors me that so many citizens are so eager to bend >>> over and grab their ankles at the sight of a badge and DEFEND the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >That's it - Brent has finally gone off the deep end. Hardly. I suppose you think it's just coincidence that most school bond elections are held on weird non-standard voting days and rarely when anything else is being voted on? Having been on a bond committee I can tell you that the administrators, who assumed we all wanted to see the bonds pass, was not at all shy about talking strategy. Right from their lips I heard the classic "we need to pick a day with low turnout and make sure all the teachers and parents are aware of the election but not publicize it to the public.". This was a six figure upper official with the county community college district and all the other staffers were on the same wavelength. You can be sure they are adamantly opposed to charter schools for reasons having to do with POWER, not quality of education. I'm against charter schools but not for that reason. >>>the purpose of government schools is not free thinking >>>educated people, but an easy to control, ignorant, unthinking docile work [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >bond elections are held on weird non-standard voting days and rarely >when anything else is being voted on? Holy Non-Sequiturs, Batman!!! >Having been on a bond committee >I can tell you that the administrators, who assumed we all wanted to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >upper official with the county community college district and all the >other staffers were on the same wavelength. OK, so these guys understand how to work the political system. That's hardly proof of Brent's ridiculous claim that public schools are indoctrination centers for the "docile work force" of tomorrow. >>>>the purpose of government schools is not free thinking >>>>educated people, but an easy to control, ignorant, unthinking docile work [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >hardly proof of Brent's ridiculous claim that public schools are >indoctrination centers for the "docile work force" of tomorrow. Set aside the question of whether that was a conscious intent, the fact is, you could hardly have designed a better "school system" to indoctrinate people into believing the state owns their bodies then what we now have as a public school system - arbitrary and ludicrous rules, no effective review authority, Gestapo like powers, almost no rights for the inmates, oops, I mean students.... > OK, so these guys understand how to work the political system. That's > hardly proof of Brent's ridiculous claim that public schools are > indoctrination centers for the "docile work force" of tomorrow. I cited my sources. You choose to ignore them gpstroll style. >OK, so these guys understand how to work the political system. That's >hardly proof of Brent's ridiculous claim that public schools are >indoctrination centers for the "docile work force" of tomorrow. Brent's right about that, but wrong that it's part of a big master plan. The schools teach children to kowtow to authority because the teachers and administrators want to be kowtowed to, not because they want the kids to grow up into equally obedient adults. That's just a side effect. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>OK, so these guys understand how to work the political system. That's >>hardly proof of Brent's ridiculous claim that public schools are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > want the kids to grow up into equally obedient adults. That's just a > side effect. Matt, you need to get the full story of how that system got into place. See "The deliberate Dumbing Down of America" and "The underground History of American Education". It is an entire imported system that was designed with an express purpose. On Dec 5, 10:47 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <nltjk35p033dbukbskubfnnhu4rdm4e...@4ax.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > want the kids to grow up into equally obedient adults. That's just a > side effect. Duh. Teachers need obedience and conformance in order to teach. Disobedient and disruptive children, as children tend to be, disrupt the learning process for the entire class. In the public education system of today and according to NCLB disruptive behavior has few remedies, and all of them take months of psychological evaluations that often have to begin again at square one the next year. Who is to blame for the poor test scores? Teachers, of course. Because they can't teach a class comprised of 10% wild monkeys who have no interest in school, because their parents have no interest in education and consider teachers free babysitters... because the system has turned teachers into little more than that. Oops. </rant> ----- - gpsman > That's it - Brent has finally gone off the deep end. Read the books I refered you to. Both are written by people of the highest qualifications to write on the topic. http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/ Charlotte Iserbyt is the consummate whistleblower! Iserbyt served as Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first Reagan Administration, where she first blew the whistle on a major technology initiative which would control curriculum in America's classrooms. Iserbyt is a former school board director in Camden, Maine and was co-founder and research analyst of Guardians of Education for Maine (GEM) from 1978 to 2000. She has also served in the American Red Cross on Guam and Japan during the Korean War, and in the United States Foreign Service in Belgium and in the Republic of South Africa. Iserbyt is a speaker and writer, best known for her 1985 booklet Back to Basics Reform or OBE: Skinnerian International Curriculum and her 1989 pamphlet Soviets in the Classroom: America's Latest Education Fad which covered the details of the U.S.-Soviet and Carnegie-Soviet Education Agreements which remain in effect to this day. She is a freelance writer and has had articles published in Human Events, The Washington Times, The Bangor Daily News, and included in the record of Congressional hearings. http://www.rit.edu/~cma8660/mirror/www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/ John Taylor Gatto http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/aboutus/john.htm Read the books Scott, you won't see the education system or the government in the same light afterwards. > On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 19:01:03 -0800 (PST), Harry K > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Did it ever occur to you to actually think about what I have written. I have never said the guy wasn't right...or wrong for that matter. The fact is, and I have said this repeatedly, that whether he is right or wrong, arguing with the cop is NOT the way to handle the problem. To say it again. Yes, I consider the cop being an a-hole. I said that once before in those same terms. Harry K >> <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> In article [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > >Harry K If NO ONE argued with cops they would get even worse then they are. As I said earlier, any cop who is unwilling to engage in discussion during a traffic stop and to listen to the concerns of the citizen should not be wearing a badge. For this particular case, if the cop had just gotten a "hot call" and needed to leave, sure, then he wouldn't be expected to discuss things. But clearly that was not the case, he just had the typical attitude of too many cops of "I'm right, you're wrong, and do NOT challenge me in anyway or I'll put the hurt on you." You heard him say as much at the end when he is talking to the second cop would shows up. These bullies know most people don't have time to waste in kangaroo traffic court and if no one challenged them ever, as you suggest, they would almost never get a clue that they have the wrong temperament for their job. > Did it ever occur to you to actually think about what I have written. > I have never said the guy wasn't right...or wrong for that matter. > The fact is, and I have said this repeatedly, that whether he is right > or wrong, arguing with the cop is NOT the way to handle the problem. Yet, by arguing with cops I've had things begin and end with them instead of the much tougher fight in court. The deck is far more stacked against you in the courts and a lot more expensive. >He told him to turn around. That is the usual procedure before >telling him he is under arrest. That the guy seems to have thought he >could win an argument absolutely floors me. I consider a cop telling me to "turn around" after I've told him off to be a likely prelude to a blow delivered from behind (because said cop is too cowardly to deliver it up front) SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > In article > <26cae4c2-8a99-421b-b128-eae7b02c4...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Refusal to obey orders is not sufficient grounds to be assaulted. Assume you are an officer. You issue a legal order that is refused. What do you propose to do about it? Not having seen the clip or having been there, I don't know if the tasign was justified but the cop cannot just shrug his shoulders and walk away much as people here seem to think he should. Harry K In article <31d06339-5a07-410f-a3b6-021234c9c31c@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > > In article > > <26cae4c2-8a99-421b-b128-eae7b02c4...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Assume you are an officer. You issue a legal order that is refused. > What do you propose to do about it? What legal order did he issue? > Not having seen the clip or having been there, I don't know if the > tasign was justified but the cop cannot just shrug his shoulders and > walk away much as people here seem to think he should. An officer has no special privileges with regard to assault. > Harry K SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > In article > <31d06339-5a07-410f-a3b6-021234c9c...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I see you didn't answer the question. Harry K In article <f1fd0c84-7be1-459b-bbc0-e934159034fc@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > In article > > <31d06339-5a07-410f-a3b6-021234c9c...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > Harry K You didn't answer mine. SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > In article > <f1fd0c84-7be1-459b-bbc0-e93415903...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > - Show quoted text - "turn around": Issued three times. Harry K In article <bdd66a4a-1a38-4c7c-ab1b-3f78c6d30442@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > > In article > > <f1fd0c84-7be1-459b-bbc0-e93415903...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > > Harry K What law makes that a legal order? SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > In article > <bdd66a4a-1a38-4c7c-ab1b-3f78c6d30...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Well, let us assume that it wasn't a legal order. Do you think you will win the argument with the cop? Reality is that: a. You will lose and b. There is high likelyhood of you getting at least tased if not seriously hurt while losing. What do you have to gain by resisting? As I said repeatedly in this thread. Comply even if you think he is wrong and then complain to the cop's supervisor or get a lawyer. At least that way you have a chance to win. Your way, you lose. Harry K In article <0d78e462-b929-4554-b15d-8bada71876f8@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > In article > > <bdd66a4a-1a38-4c7c-ab1b-3f78c6d30...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] > > a. You will lose In other words, you'll be assaulted. What's sad is that you don't appear to have any problem with that. > and > > b. There is high likelyhood of you getting at least tased if not > seriously hurt while losing. So you've gone from justifying the cop's action as right to just saying you should give in to a bully. > What do you have to gain by resisting? Self-respect? Dignity? > As I said repeatedly in this thread. Comply even if you think he is > wrong and then complain to the cop's supervisor or get a lawyer. At > least that way you have a chance to win. Your way, you lose. I never said it was my way. I was discussing what was *right*. SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." >> > > "turn around": Issued three times. >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >What's sad is that you don't appear to have any problem with that. Whether he has a problem with it is irrelevant. That's the reality. Kinda like driving your brand new Escalade to a 7-Eleven in Compton and leaving the engine running while you run inside for a Slurpee - yeah, what's about to happen is WRONG, but common sense suggests that you not willingly place yourself into that situation. >> What do you have to gain by resisting? > >I was discussing what was *right*. You can be right... And you can be DEAD right. >>> Well, let us assume that it wasn't a legal order. Do you think you >>> will win the argument with the cop? Reality is that: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > yeah, what's about to happen is WRONG, but common sense suggests that > you not willingly place yourself into that situation. It is quite different. You don't know what you happen to you if you submit to the cop. He might handcuff you, then tase you for spite. One of the recent tasing stories was of a man who was tased repeatedly in his own home including AFTER producing proof he was in his own home. We now live in a nation where because of 'the war on terror', all crime can be terrorism, and one can simply be disappeared. If you don't believe me read the legislation. (something most of our so called representitives didn't bother doing) And don't say it doesn't apply because it is federal law, because local police departments suck at the federal tit and thusly are federalized. >>> What do you have to gain by resisting? >>I was discussing what was *right*. > You can be right... And you can be DEAD right. Even if you submit 100% you can be dead. Cops are simply bigger bullies with the government behind them. Ultimately still bullies and I will treat as such when they act as such. >>>> What do you have to gain by resisting? >>>I was discussing what was *right*. > >> You can be right... And you can be DEAD right. > >Even if you submit 100% you can be dead. So your strategy is to fight with the cops and make SURE they f.ck you up? >Cops are simply bigger bullies with the government behind them. >Ultimately still bullies and I will treat as such when they act as such. And go from "you MIGHT get tazed" to "you WILL get tazed." >>>>> What do you have to gain by resisting? >>>>I was discussing what was *right*. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So your strategy is to fight with the cops and make SURE they f.ck you > up? What I am saying is that licking their boots isn't the way. >>Cops are simply bigger bullies with the government behind them. >>Ultimately still bullies and I will treat as such when they act as such. > And go from "you MIGHT get tazed" to "you WILL get tazed." Funny, I haven't been tased. If you encounter the kind of cop that is going to tase you, it doesn't matter if you lick his boots or not. He enjoys hurting people, and he will hurt you if you lick his boots or not. Probably hurt you more if you do because he knows there is no risk to him. In this video the cop knew there was no risk to him. He wanted to inflict pain. He would have caused that guy pain one way or the other regardless of his actions. Look at how the cop behaved, if there was a real threat to him he did everything wrong and would have been easily killed by criminals. In the schools they try to get children to simply give in to the bullies. They do this with punishments for fighting regardless if you were the one attacked or not amungst other 'just let them do it' teachings. This IMO is the training to get people to submit to the bullies of government later on under the same theories that they will hurt you more if you resist them, that you will be punished for resisting them, etc and so forth. >>>>>> What do you have to gain by resisting? >>>>>I was discussing what was *right*. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Funny, I haven't been tased. Funny, neither have I, and yet I "lick their boots" as you call it (i.e. I obey their instructions as required by law). >If you encounter the kind of cop that is >going to tase you, it doesn't matter if you lick his boots or not. OTOH, if you encounter a cop who *might* taze you, but hasn't yet made up his mind, being uncooperative and belligerent is a good way to help him decide. :) >He enjoys hurting people, and he will hurt you if you lick his boots or not. >Probably hurt you more if you do because he knows there is no risk to >him. I hope I never have your cynical view of the world. >In the schools they try to get children to simply give in to the >bullies. They do this with punishments for fighting regardless if you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >hurt you more if you resist them, that you will be punished for >resisting them, etc and so forth. So you feel this is an organized effort, and that teachers are secretly government indoctrination officers? > Funny, neither have I, and yet I "lick their boots" as you call it > (i.e. I obey their instructions as required by law). I thought they didn't bother you? Which is it? >>If you encounter the kind of cop that is >>going to tase you, it doesn't matter if you lick his boots or not. > OTOH, if you encounter a cop who *might* taze you, but hasn't yet made > up his mind, being uncooperative and belligerent is a good way to help > him decide. :) Why do you think not licking their boots and standing up for one's self and not allowing his rights to be trampled upon is "uncooperative and belligerent"? Because what you are saying is do as the cop says no matter what he says, no matter what violation of your rights and then hope to fight it later. That's foolish IMO because if they can violate your rights and then declare no wrong doing when they investigate themselves later, what's the point? Further more, it effectively means we have no protection of our rights. So, when the cop wants to tear apart your car are you just going to let him search it? Then hope to recover the costs of the damage he does later? (of course you won't recover them) I'll take the risk of standing up for myself and using the fact that bullies are ultimately cowards who will not take a path of resistance. >>He enjoys hurting people, and he will hurt you if you lick his boots or not. >>Probably hurt you more if you do because he knows there is no risk to >>him. > I hope I never have your cynical view of the world. That is the world, Scott. It has always been the world as far back as we have reliable history of it. Liberty is the aboration, liberty is the exception. Tyranny is the rule. Those who delight in the pain and control of others are those who flock to jobs such a police officers throughout human history. Our aboration of 'protect and serve' police forces that worked for the people is just about at an end as militarized police forces that work for government have replaced them. Pretending that the cops are still the cops of old is just plain denial of the obvious. >>In the schools they try to get children to simply give in to the >>bullies. They do this with punishments for fighting regardless if you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>hurt you more if you resist them, that you will be punished for >>resisting them, etc and so forth. > So you feel this is an organized effort, and that teachers are > secretly government indoctrination officers? The teachers like the cops are 'just doing their job' and few if any question what that job is or bother to see the larger picture. Read "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America" and "The Underground History of American Education". Both are available to be read online for free. >> Funny, neither have I, and yet I "lick their boots" as you call it >> (i.e. I obey their instructions as required by law). > >I thought they didn't bother you? Which is it? It doesn't happen very often - a handful of times over two decades - but I have had interactions with cops. I have never been tazed, nor do I give them any reason to taze me. >>>If you encounter the kind of cop that is >>>going to tase you, it doesn't matter if you lick his boots or not. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >and not allowing his rights to be trampled upon is "uncooperative and >belligerent"? Why do you think that obeying the lawful orders of a peace officer is "licking their boots" and "not standing uo for one's self?" >Because what you are saying is do as the cop says no matter what he >says, no matter what violation of your rights and then hope to fight it >later. [...] >So, when the cop wants to tear apart your car >are you just going to let him search it? Then hope to recover the costs >of the damage he does later? (of course you won't recover them) I'll >take the risk of standing up for myself and using the fact that bullies >are ultimately cowards who will not take a path of resistance. Let's suppose a cop stops you and, after talking to you for a little while, he asks for permission to search your car. You refuse. He proceeds to search your car anyway, a clear violation of your rights. What do you do? Start throwing punches? What Harry and I are saying is the appropriate way to handle this sort of thing is to let him conduct his search, then sue. Assaulting an armed police officer just because he searched your car without probable cause is a strategy that's guaranteed to fail. >> I hope I never have your cynical view of the world. > >That is the world, Scott. That's not my world. >> So you feel this is an organized effort, and that teachers are >> secretly government indoctrination officers? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >History of American Education". Both are available to be read online for >free. URLs? >>> Funny, neither have I, and yet I "lick their boots" as you call it >>> (i.e. I obey their instructions as required by law). [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >proceeds to search your car anyway, a clear violation of your rights. >What do you do? Start throwing punches? Before he searched it you should have locked the doors. If he asked for permission he's already admitted he has no legal right to search it. How do you know he won't plant something in the car? >What Harry and I are saying is the appropriate way to handle this sort >of thing is to let him conduct his search, then sue. Assaulting an >armed police officer just because he searched your car without >probable cause is a strategy that's guaranteed to fail. Why do you jump to the notion of assault of the officer? If you refused to let him search it you can lock it up without assaulting him. Unless he's told you to stand somewhere else, you can get out of your car and go sit on the side of the road. The farther you are from your car, the less reason he can invent to search it. The most typical excuse they use is to make sure you don't have a weapon hidden in the car. If you are nowhere near the car it's a moot point. There should be a law requiring all patrol cars to have video and audio to protect the citizens from police misdeeds. >>> I hope I never have your cynical view of the world. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >URLs? > There > should be a law requiring all patrol cars to have video and audio to > protect the citizens from police misdeeds. Those tapes tend to go missing. People need their own video systems. >> There >> should be a law requiring all patrol cars to have video and audio to >> protect the citizens from police misdeeds. > >Those tapes tend to go missing. People need their own video systems. Concealed, or they'll go missing as well. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>Why do you think not licking their boots and standing up for one's self >>and not allowing his rights to be trampled upon is "uncooperative and >>belligerent"? > Why do you think that obeying the lawful orders of a peace officer is > "licking their boots" and "not standing uo for one's self?" We aren't talking about lawful orders. We are talking about doing whatever it is they say to do or get hurt. >>So, when the cop wants to tear apart your car >>are you just going to let him search it? Then hope to recover the costs >>of the damage he does later? (of course you won't recover them) I'll >>take the risk of standing up for myself and using the fact that bullies >>are ultimately cowards who will not take a path of resistance. > Let's suppose a cop stops you and, after talking to you for a little > while, he asks for permission to search your car. You refuse. He > proceeds to search your car anyway, a clear violation of your rights. > What do you do? Start throwing punches? Maybe. Maybe I'll drive off. It depends. > What Harry and I are saying is the appropriate way to handle this sort > of thing is to let him conduct his search, then sue. Assaulting an > armed police officer just because he searched your car without > probable cause is a strategy that's guaranteed to fail. The cop is not allowed assault me. And the only way he's getting at my property is to do so. >>> I hope I never have your cynical view of the world. >>That is the world, Scott. > That's not my world. Wake up Alice. >>> So you feel this is an organized effort, and that teachers are >>> secretly government indoctrination officers? >>The teachers like the cops are 'just doing their job' and few if any >>question what that job is or bother to see the larger picture. >>Read "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America" and "The Underground >>History of American Education". Both are available to be read online for >>free. > URLs? Google finger broken? See other post. >> Let's suppose a cop stops you and, after talking to you for a little >> while, he asks for permission to search your car. You refuse. He >> proceeds to search your car anyway, a clear violation of your rights. >> What do you do? Start throwing punches? > >Maybe. Maybe I'll drive off. It depends. Oh, now that's brilliant! Launch a huge police chase is a guaranteed way to get yourself arrested and your car impounded (assuming you don't crash it into something while trying to get away). >> What Harry and I are saying is the appropriate way to handle this sort >> of thing is to let him conduct his search, then sue. Assaulting an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The cop is not allowed assault me. And the only way he's getting at my >property is to do so. OK, so he assaults you, tazes you, cuffs you, and stuffs you in the back of his patrol car. Then he searches your car anyway - probably after impounding it. And I bet he does a REAL THOROUGH search, too. What will you do then? Sue, like I said in the previous post? Seems to me the end result is the same; the main difference is how you get there (and how many contusions and broken bones you get along the way). >>>> I hope I never have your cynical view of the world. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Wake up Alice. I'm not the one having the bad dreams here, Franz. >>> Let's suppose a cop stops you and, after talking to you for a little >>> while, he asks for permission to search your car. You refuse. He >>> proceeds to search your car anyway, a clear violation of your rights. >>> What do you do? Start throwing punches? >> >>Maybe. Maybe I'll drive off. It depends. > Oh, now that's brilliant! Launch a huge police chase is a guaranteed > way to get yourself arrested and your car impounded (assuming you > don't crash it into something while trying to get away). Guess the tone is lost on usenet... anyway the point I was trying to make is that cops that act like this, and more seem to be with each passing day, are nothing more than a criminal gang. I am entitled to self defense and defense of my property from the police acting criminally as I would any other criminal gang. It is not my fault that you and others in the population are brainwashed into thinking that you are not allowed to defend yourself against the criminals employed by the government. Or is it criminals in general? The UK idea that if someone busts into your home you don't so much as say boo to them because YOU WILL GO TO PRISON and the HOME INVADER WINS A CIVIL JUDGEMENT AND TAKES ALL YOU OWN? >>> What Harry and I are saying is the appropriate way to handle this sort >>> of thing is to let him conduct his search, then sue. Assaulting an >>> armed police officer just because he searched your car without >>> probable cause is a strategy that's guaranteed to fail. >>The cop is not allowed assault me. And the only way he's getting at my >>property is to do so. > OK, so he assaults you, tazes you, cuffs you, and stuffs you in the > back of his patrol car. Then he searches your car anyway - probably > after impounding it. And I bet he does a REAL THOROUGH search, too. > What will you do then? Sue, like I said in the previous post? > Seems to me the end result is the same; the main difference is how you > get there (and how many contusions and broken bones you get along the > way). The cops bust into your home in the middle of night. They are wearing all black and you don't know they are cops. Do you flee or fight? Let's say you have a gun in your bedroom and go and get it before venturing out of the bedroom to see wtf is going on. Do you shoot the intruders? What if they fire first? When police behave as criminals and begin their assualts on us we have every right to defend ourselves and our property from them. The fact that they have a badge from the government does not change that fact. They are behaving as criminals. All I am saying is that I depending I will either have to flee or fight, to submit is just as good as submitting to street gang. Once captured you don't know what will happen to you. Remember scott, haebus corpus, and various other key aspects to the rule of law have been dismantled so they are only done when the government feels like it. Waiting for it to be sorted out later, hoping that courts which as of recent years are accepting more and more by siding with the government to fix it later could be very foolish. As foolish as police chase. And I am not even getting to the old school stuff cops to a person who isn't accustomed to the jail/prison environment. >>>>> I hope I never have your cynical view of the world. >>>>That is the world, Scott. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I'm not the one having the bad dreams here, Franz. It's not a dream. Those with political views similiar to mine have been labeled 'terrorists' by the mainstream media. How long before the government picks up on that? Read S.1959 (HR.1959 as passed overwhelmingly by the house, who knows being in favor of 85th percentile speed limits might be declared a terrorist activity) >>>>>>> What do you have to gain by resisting? >>>>>>I was discussing what was *right*. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >So you feel this is an organized effort, and that teachers are >secretly government indoctrination officers? Put aside the question of whether it is organized or not. What would you expect the outcome to be... if you put citizens of a country thru a mandatory program where they have to be there 6 hours a day, while they are there they have essentially NO rights, their lockers, purses, pants, papers, their cars are all subject to search without any showing of cause and without a warrant, they have no right against self incrimination, they have no right to counsel, they can be questioned without counsel, they can be stripped searched under circumstances that would be illegal if the same thing was attempted on the person doing the strip search, they have their future livelihood taken away without benefit of judicial review, they can be penalized in various ways merely for expressing an opinion and the opinion need not violate any law. And the facility this takes place in is fenced and sealed with on one allowed in or out without approval of the authorities. The place is patrolled by armed guards. What do you think you are "teaching" anyone who would go thru 6 hours a day of that, 9 months a year, for over a decade? >>So you feel this is an organized effort, and that teachers are >>secretly government indoctrination officers? > >Put aside the question of whether it is organized or not. What would >you expect the outcome to be... I think you and Brent have been reading too much Kafka. You think everyone in this country is Josef K. >>>So you feel this is an organized effort, and that teachers are >>>secretly government indoctrination officers? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I think you and Brent have been reading too much Kafka. You think >everyone in this country is Josef K. As in most discussions with you, you refuse to engage in discussion. Why are you not able to offer an opinion of what the outcome is from putting people in a prison like environment, which is what schools have become? It's not Kafka, it's reality in today's schools in many parts of the country. Why do you deny it? Have you been to any schools lately and seen what they are like? The security fencing, the closed campus's, the roving police patrols and drug sniffing dogs, the zero tolerance policies where kids are expelled for drawing a picture that has a sword in it??? >>I think you and Brent have been reading too much Kafka. You think >>everyone in this country is Josef K. > >As in most discussions with you, you refuse to engage in discussion. I guess I have trouble operating on your level of k00kiness. :) >Why are you not able to offer an opinion of what the outcome is from >putting people in a prison like environment, which is what schools [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >zero tolerance policies where kids are expelled for drawing a picture >that has a sword in it??? I haven't seen any schools like that around here. >>>I think you and Brent have been reading too much Kafka. You think >>>everyone in this country is Josef K. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I haven't seen any schools like that around here. Police chases filling your news hours that you haven't noticed the news stories of kids suspended for doodles? You haven't noticed the prison terms like 'lockdown' being applied to schools? I can say for a fact this crap was going on in a small way in the 1980s. It is easy to believe the news media that it is much bigger now. And it's not like the media is trying to find an outrage, the stories are usually quite positive. >>>I think you and Brent have been reading too much Kafka. You think >>>everyone in this country is Josef K. >> >>As in most discussions with you, you refuse to engage in discussion. > >I guess I have trouble operating on your level of k00kiness. :) No, you have trouble defending your views. This is not the first time you have taken a position, ridiculed those who don't agree with it, and then when asked to defend your position with logic you just pretend you don't know what's going on. >>Why are you not able to offer an opinion of what the outcome is from >>putting people in a prison like environment, which is what schools [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >I haven't seen any schools like that around here. So if you haven't seen it personally it must not exist huh? > I think you and Brent have been reading too much Kafka. You think > everyone in this country is Josef K. I don't know what you are refering to. >> I think you and Brent have been reading too much Kafka. You think >> everyone in this country is Josef K. > >I don't know what you are refering to. "Google finger broken?" >>> I think you and Brent have been reading too much Kafka. You think >>> everyone in this country is Josef K. >> >>I don't know what you are refering to. > > "Google finger broken?" Did I ask you what it was? No. I was stating a fact, hence what you thought is wrong. If I cared to k |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message