-=> Quoting Rod Speed to John Tserkezis <=-

Hello Rod,

 JT> The papers are supposed to provide an unbiased view of the news in
 JT> question

 RS> Crap, most of them, particularly Ruperts rags, are supposed to make
 RS> money. Part of the way they do that is by providing a very superficial
 RS> commentary that the stupids will buy coz it doesnt strain their tiny
 RS> little 'brains' 

 That explains why I ignore it anyway.  And the TV news.  Actually, all the
news.

 JT> In some stories that I happened to know about and what
 JT> really happened, the paper story is worded so the literal
 JT> message is just an unbiased view, but is worded so that it may
 JT> imply other things, or neglect to mention other points, or change
 JT> the importance of some of the points to imply something else.

 RS> Sure, no argument that whenever they do cover a story that you
 RS> do know quite a bit about, they have very obviously mangled the
 RS> story, often obscenely mangled it. BUT its an entirely separate
 RS> issue whether they have mangled it ON PURPOSE or the exigencys
 RS> of how things have to be done produce that result.

 I dunno, some stories have been mangled in a way that is quite amusing.

 RS> Point being, we can change our law to whatever we like on that any
 RS> time we want 

 Nice that you claim that, but I don't see it happening.

 JT> The law won't change to have an exception to the rule on who gets killed.
 
 RS> We can change it to anything we like John.
 
 JT> And how may that happen?

 RS> Have a look at how laws get changed.
 
 JT> Vote?  Doesn't that mean that you get to agree or
 JT> disagree on points that have already been made?

 RS> It ALSO means that if enough people want the law changed to that, it
 RS> can be changed to that. I think thats called democracy or something
 RS> funky like that. 

 Interesting concept.  Take the gun fiasco for instance,  guns don't affect
the majority.  They go through their day to day lives and never get to see
any gun let alone be involved in a situation where they are standing at the
bussiness end of one.   Yet they have the most opinions and yell the loudest.

 Take that dude who killed his wife with a steering wheel lock and then hung
himself.  Whether he had a gun or not makes no difference to his mental state.
If he had a gun, he would have shot his wife, and then shot himself.  And
those who use guns in their work or as a sport, would have an even harder time
getting one or keeping the one they have.
 What difference did that make to his wife?   She is still dead.  Taking guns
away from the mentally unstable doesn't change the fact they are mentally
unstable.
 But, since everyone says guns are bad, the pollies ban them and get more
votes, and stay in power longer and enjoy the perks.
 Yep, you're right, it works.  This funky democracy thing works fine.

 JT> But first you have to stop to evaluate the situation and see
 JT> if you can prove that you really believed you were in danger.

 RS> Crap. Your original claim on 'They say that no-one should get killed
 RS> for any reason' is a complete dud, and this later claim is even worse.
 RS> Its up to THEM to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that you DIDNT John.
 
 Innocent until proven guilty?  Interesting concept, it works well for the
innocent, shame it also works for the guilty.  Better kill the guilty just to
be on the safe side.  In self-defence of course, you understand.

 RS> True, but thats almost entirely the
 RS> current state of the law, not the media
 
 JT> The media doesn't help the situation BTW.
 
 RS> Its not THERE to 'help the situation' John.
 
 JT> You got that right.

 RS> I got all the rest right too |-)

 You're a legend in your own mind.

John Tserkezis, Sydney, Oz. Fidonet: 3:712/610  Internet: jt{at}suburbia.com.au

... Jesus paid for our sins. Let's get our money's worth
---