Pink Kate
#881
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
"Nathan W. Collier" <Nathan@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:NLW2g.103$KO6.19081@news.uswest.net...
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
> news:efCdnXXlk546t9HZnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> First:
>>
>> > ive stated that i do not break written law,
>>> i simply support the efforts of some who do.
>>
>> Then:
>>
>>> i never suggested that laws should not be followed.
>>
>> Am I the only one who sees the irony?
>
> no irony there at all. you should always follow the law. if you choose
> not to for what i deem a worthy cause i will support your efforts, but i
> still recognize that you are performing a criminal act.
>
>
>> How about that little trademark dispute you had with D-C a few years ago?
>
> thats horsehit matt. that was a CIVIL matter and we are discussing
> CRIMINAL matters. try again.
Trademark disputes are based on trademark law. Yes it was a civil matter but
that's how trademark cases are handled. You use someone else's trademark,
that's a violation of the law.
How about your admitted theft of intellectual property?
#885
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: the reported bear attack
"Nathan W. Collier" <Nathan@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:oxU2g.81$KO6.14763@news.uswest.net...
> you have to look at the expected quality of life. if i were told that our
> child to be was expected to be severely retarded it wouldnt make any
> difference to me. i would bring it into our home and raise it with as
much
> love as any of my other children and do my damndest to ensure his quality
of
> life. brain dead (assuming we're referencing the same thing) is
conciously
> dead anyway.
Some people do not want that sort of burden and there is definitely an
argument to be made for the termination of a pregnancy that has no chance of
providing an eventually useful member of society... No matter how you look
at it, raising such a child is a drain on resources that could be better
used elsewhere... If you choose to do it, fine -- more power to you -- but
don't try to prevent someone who is not as altruistic from cutting their
losses when the test show that their future kid will have a significant
handicap...
With regards to braindead, I'm referring to individuals who because of an
accident, stroke, or whatever have managed to cease brain activity even
though the heart and other organs might still be operating...
I suspect that the issue boils down to a religious issue... If you don't
believe in the concept of a soul, you are probably more likely to believe in
the right of a woman to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy... If you
do believe in the concept of a soul, it then becomes an issue of at what
point does the soul enter the potential offspring and at what time does it
leave... If you believe that it is acceptable to withhold life support from
someone who is braindead, it seems to indicate to me that you believe that
the soul is no longer there when there is no brain activity... This would
imply to me that there might be a point during the gestation period when
consciousness is achieved and as such, you should not have a problem with
the pregnancy being terminated prior to that point... If you use one
definition for the end of life, is it totally unreasonable to use the same
definition for the start of life?
Personally, my philosophy is that life begins at birth... It's a nice and
easy definition that anyone, no matter how stupid, can figure out... Hell,
it's not like the kids going to crawl back up in there and you'll have to
revise the time of birth, right?
--
"Man spends the first 9 months of his life in the womb and then spends the
rest of his life trying to eat his way back up in there."
news:oxU2g.81$KO6.14763@news.uswest.net...
> you have to look at the expected quality of life. if i were told that our
> child to be was expected to be severely retarded it wouldnt make any
> difference to me. i would bring it into our home and raise it with as
much
> love as any of my other children and do my damndest to ensure his quality
of
> life. brain dead (assuming we're referencing the same thing) is
conciously
> dead anyway.
Some people do not want that sort of burden and there is definitely an
argument to be made for the termination of a pregnancy that has no chance of
providing an eventually useful member of society... No matter how you look
at it, raising such a child is a drain on resources that could be better
used elsewhere... If you choose to do it, fine -- more power to you -- but
don't try to prevent someone who is not as altruistic from cutting their
losses when the test show that their future kid will have a significant
handicap...
With regards to braindead, I'm referring to individuals who because of an
accident, stroke, or whatever have managed to cease brain activity even
though the heart and other organs might still be operating...
I suspect that the issue boils down to a religious issue... If you don't
believe in the concept of a soul, you are probably more likely to believe in
the right of a woman to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy... If you
do believe in the concept of a soul, it then becomes an issue of at what
point does the soul enter the potential offspring and at what time does it
leave... If you believe that it is acceptable to withhold life support from
someone who is braindead, it seems to indicate to me that you believe that
the soul is no longer there when there is no brain activity... This would
imply to me that there might be a point during the gestation period when
consciousness is achieved and as such, you should not have a problem with
the pregnancy being terminated prior to that point... If you use one
definition for the end of life, is it totally unreasonable to use the same
definition for the start of life?
Personally, my philosophy is that life begins at birth... It's a nice and
easy definition that anyone, no matter how stupid, can figure out... Hell,
it's not like the kids going to crawl back up in there and you'll have to
revise the time of birth, right?
--
"Man spends the first 9 months of his life in the womb and then spends the
rest of his life trying to eat his way back up in there."
#886
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: the reported bear attack
"Nathan W. Collier" <Nathan@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:oxU2g.81$KO6.14763@news.uswest.net...
> you have to look at the expected quality of life. if i were told that our
> child to be was expected to be severely retarded it wouldnt make any
> difference to me. i would bring it into our home and raise it with as
much
> love as any of my other children and do my damndest to ensure his quality
of
> life. brain dead (assuming we're referencing the same thing) is
conciously
> dead anyway.
Some people do not want that sort of burden and there is definitely an
argument to be made for the termination of a pregnancy that has no chance of
providing an eventually useful member of society... No matter how you look
at it, raising such a child is a drain on resources that could be better
used elsewhere... If you choose to do it, fine -- more power to you -- but
don't try to prevent someone who is not as altruistic from cutting their
losses when the test show that their future kid will have a significant
handicap...
With regards to braindead, I'm referring to individuals who because of an
accident, stroke, or whatever have managed to cease brain activity even
though the heart and other organs might still be operating...
I suspect that the issue boils down to a religious issue... If you don't
believe in the concept of a soul, you are probably more likely to believe in
the right of a woman to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy... If you
do believe in the concept of a soul, it then becomes an issue of at what
point does the soul enter the potential offspring and at what time does it
leave... If you believe that it is acceptable to withhold life support from
someone who is braindead, it seems to indicate to me that you believe that
the soul is no longer there when there is no brain activity... This would
imply to me that there might be a point during the gestation period when
consciousness is achieved and as such, you should not have a problem with
the pregnancy being terminated prior to that point... If you use one
definition for the end of life, is it totally unreasonable to use the same
definition for the start of life?
Personally, my philosophy is that life begins at birth... It's a nice and
easy definition that anyone, no matter how stupid, can figure out... Hell,
it's not like the kids going to crawl back up in there and you'll have to
revise the time of birth, right?
--
"Man spends the first 9 months of his life in the womb and then spends the
rest of his life trying to eat his way back up in there."
news:oxU2g.81$KO6.14763@news.uswest.net...
> you have to look at the expected quality of life. if i were told that our
> child to be was expected to be severely retarded it wouldnt make any
> difference to me. i would bring it into our home and raise it with as
much
> love as any of my other children and do my damndest to ensure his quality
of
> life. brain dead (assuming we're referencing the same thing) is
conciously
> dead anyway.
Some people do not want that sort of burden and there is definitely an
argument to be made for the termination of a pregnancy that has no chance of
providing an eventually useful member of society... No matter how you look
at it, raising such a child is a drain on resources that could be better
used elsewhere... If you choose to do it, fine -- more power to you -- but
don't try to prevent someone who is not as altruistic from cutting their
losses when the test show that their future kid will have a significant
handicap...
With regards to braindead, I'm referring to individuals who because of an
accident, stroke, or whatever have managed to cease brain activity even
though the heart and other organs might still be operating...
I suspect that the issue boils down to a religious issue... If you don't
believe in the concept of a soul, you are probably more likely to believe in
the right of a woman to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy... If you
do believe in the concept of a soul, it then becomes an issue of at what
point does the soul enter the potential offspring and at what time does it
leave... If you believe that it is acceptable to withhold life support from
someone who is braindead, it seems to indicate to me that you believe that
the soul is no longer there when there is no brain activity... This would
imply to me that there might be a point during the gestation period when
consciousness is achieved and as such, you should not have a problem with
the pregnancy being terminated prior to that point... If you use one
definition for the end of life, is it totally unreasonable to use the same
definition for the start of life?
Personally, my philosophy is that life begins at birth... It's a nice and
easy definition that anyone, no matter how stupid, can figure out... Hell,
it's not like the kids going to crawl back up in there and you'll have to
revise the time of birth, right?
--
"Man spends the first 9 months of his life in the womb and then spends the
rest of his life trying to eat his way back up in there."
#887
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: the reported bear attack
"Nathan W. Collier" <Nathan@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:oxU2g.81$KO6.14763@news.uswest.net...
> you have to look at the expected quality of life. if i were told that our
> child to be was expected to be severely retarded it wouldnt make any
> difference to me. i would bring it into our home and raise it with as
much
> love as any of my other children and do my damndest to ensure his quality
of
> life. brain dead (assuming we're referencing the same thing) is
conciously
> dead anyway.
Some people do not want that sort of burden and there is definitely an
argument to be made for the termination of a pregnancy that has no chance of
providing an eventually useful member of society... No matter how you look
at it, raising such a child is a drain on resources that could be better
used elsewhere... If you choose to do it, fine -- more power to you -- but
don't try to prevent someone who is not as altruistic from cutting their
losses when the test show that their future kid will have a significant
handicap...
With regards to braindead, I'm referring to individuals who because of an
accident, stroke, or whatever have managed to cease brain activity even
though the heart and other organs might still be operating...
I suspect that the issue boils down to a religious issue... If you don't
believe in the concept of a soul, you are probably more likely to believe in
the right of a woman to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy... If you
do believe in the concept of a soul, it then becomes an issue of at what
point does the soul enter the potential offspring and at what time does it
leave... If you believe that it is acceptable to withhold life support from
someone who is braindead, it seems to indicate to me that you believe that
the soul is no longer there when there is no brain activity... This would
imply to me that there might be a point during the gestation period when
consciousness is achieved and as such, you should not have a problem with
the pregnancy being terminated prior to that point... If you use one
definition for the end of life, is it totally unreasonable to use the same
definition for the start of life?
Personally, my philosophy is that life begins at birth... It's a nice and
easy definition that anyone, no matter how stupid, can figure out... Hell,
it's not like the kids going to crawl back up in there and you'll have to
revise the time of birth, right?
--
"Man spends the first 9 months of his life in the womb and then spends the
rest of his life trying to eat his way back up in there."
news:oxU2g.81$KO6.14763@news.uswest.net...
> you have to look at the expected quality of life. if i were told that our
> child to be was expected to be severely retarded it wouldnt make any
> difference to me. i would bring it into our home and raise it with as
much
> love as any of my other children and do my damndest to ensure his quality
of
> life. brain dead (assuming we're referencing the same thing) is
conciously
> dead anyway.
Some people do not want that sort of burden and there is definitely an
argument to be made for the termination of a pregnancy that has no chance of
providing an eventually useful member of society... No matter how you look
at it, raising such a child is a drain on resources that could be better
used elsewhere... If you choose to do it, fine -- more power to you -- but
don't try to prevent someone who is not as altruistic from cutting their
losses when the test show that their future kid will have a significant
handicap...
With regards to braindead, I'm referring to individuals who because of an
accident, stroke, or whatever have managed to cease brain activity even
though the heart and other organs might still be operating...
I suspect that the issue boils down to a religious issue... If you don't
believe in the concept of a soul, you are probably more likely to believe in
the right of a woman to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy... If you
do believe in the concept of a soul, it then becomes an issue of at what
point does the soul enter the potential offspring and at what time does it
leave... If you believe that it is acceptable to withhold life support from
someone who is braindead, it seems to indicate to me that you believe that
the soul is no longer there when there is no brain activity... This would
imply to me that there might be a point during the gestation period when
consciousness is achieved and as such, you should not have a problem with
the pregnancy being terminated prior to that point... If you use one
definition for the end of life, is it totally unreasonable to use the same
definition for the start of life?
Personally, my philosophy is that life begins at birth... It's a nice and
easy definition that anyone, no matter how stupid, can figure out... Hell,
it's not like the kids going to crawl back up in there and you'll have to
revise the time of birth, right?
--
"Man spends the first 9 months of his life in the womb and then spends the
rest of his life trying to eat his way back up in there."
#888
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:lu2dnfFHec2S2dHZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Trademark disputes are based on trademark law.
we arent discussing trademak law. we are discussing CRIMINAL law. there is
a distinct difference. earle labelled me a "criminal" which requires a
violation of CRIMINAL law.
>Yes it was a civil matter but that's how trademark cases are handled. You
>use someone else's trademark, that's a violation of the law.
>
> How about your admitted theft of intellectual property?
show me any case anywhere that a person was prosecuted for downloading
music. otherwise youre blowing hot air. hell yes ive downloaded music off
the internet. show me where that is CRIMINAL, or admit to your mistake.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://InlineDiesel.com
http://BighornRefrigeration.com
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
news:lu2dnfFHec2S2dHZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Trademark disputes are based on trademark law.
we arent discussing trademak law. we are discussing CRIMINAL law. there is
a distinct difference. earle labelled me a "criminal" which requires a
violation of CRIMINAL law.
>Yes it was a civil matter but that's how trademark cases are handled. You
>use someone else's trademark, that's a violation of the law.
>
> How about your admitted theft of intellectual property?
show me any case anywhere that a person was prosecuted for downloading
music. otherwise youre blowing hot air. hell yes ive downloaded music off
the internet. show me where that is CRIMINAL, or admit to your mistake.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://InlineDiesel.com
http://BighornRefrigeration.com
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
#889
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:lu2dnfFHec2S2dHZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Trademark disputes are based on trademark law.
we arent discussing trademak law. we are discussing CRIMINAL law. there is
a distinct difference. earle labelled me a "criminal" which requires a
violation of CRIMINAL law.
>Yes it was a civil matter but that's how trademark cases are handled. You
>use someone else's trademark, that's a violation of the law.
>
> How about your admitted theft of intellectual property?
show me any case anywhere that a person was prosecuted for downloading
music. otherwise youre blowing hot air. hell yes ive downloaded music off
the internet. show me where that is CRIMINAL, or admit to your mistake.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://InlineDiesel.com
http://BighornRefrigeration.com
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
news:lu2dnfFHec2S2dHZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Trademark disputes are based on trademark law.
we arent discussing trademak law. we are discussing CRIMINAL law. there is
a distinct difference. earle labelled me a "criminal" which requires a
violation of CRIMINAL law.
>Yes it was a civil matter but that's how trademark cases are handled. You
>use someone else's trademark, that's a violation of the law.
>
> How about your admitted theft of intellectual property?
show me any case anywhere that a person was prosecuted for downloading
music. otherwise youre blowing hot air. hell yes ive downloaded music off
the internet. show me where that is CRIMINAL, or admit to your mistake.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://InlineDiesel.com
http://BighornRefrigeration.com
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
#890
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Off Topic: the reported bear attack
"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:lu2dnfFHec2S2dHZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Trademark disputes are based on trademark law.
we arent discussing trademak law. we are discussing CRIMINAL law. there is
a distinct difference. earle labelled me a "criminal" which requires a
violation of CRIMINAL law.
>Yes it was a civil matter but that's how trademark cases are handled. You
>use someone else's trademark, that's a violation of the law.
>
> How about your admitted theft of intellectual property?
show me any case anywhere that a person was prosecuted for downloading
music. otherwise youre blowing hot air. hell yes ive downloaded music off
the internet. show me where that is CRIMINAL, or admit to your mistake.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://InlineDiesel.com
http://BighornRefrigeration.com
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com
news:lu2dnfFHec2S2dHZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Trademark disputes are based on trademark law.
we arent discussing trademak law. we are discussing CRIMINAL law. there is
a distinct difference. earle labelled me a "criminal" which requires a
violation of CRIMINAL law.
>Yes it was a civil matter but that's how trademark cases are handled. You
>use someone else's trademark, that's a violation of the law.
>
> How about your admitted theft of intellectual property?
show me any case anywhere that a person was prosecuted for downloading
music. otherwise youre blowing hot air. hell yes ive downloaded music off
the internet. show me where that is CRIMINAL, or admit to your mistake.
--
Nathan W. Collier
http://UtilityOffRoad.com
http://7SlotGrille.com
http://InlineDiesel.com
http://BighornRefrigeration.com
http://ConcealedCarryForum.com