CM>   laws that protect the innocent are fine, but there should be a
  >   limit on some of these law like forcing people to ware seat belts
  >   etc.
First of all, I would like to say that I'm glad you have continued this
conversation with me through all our yelling back and forth.  I think
that took a lot of courage on your part, and I admire courage.  And it
does look like we're beginning to develop some common grounds for
talking now, which is always a great thing to have happen.
CM>     nothing wrong with good laws, common law etc ...
OK, we're in agreement here.  We might not have total agreement on what
the good laws and the bad laws are, but we are in agreement that we want
laws that limit the activities of bad people, without putting too many
"dampers" on good people.  If we keep that in mind when we discover the
specific laws we disagree on, we will probably be able to talk about
those laws without either of us getting hurt.
CM> SB> OK, Charles, I think we are in agreement here.  It's just that our
  > SB> words have been meaning different things, and so we haven't been
  > SB> understanding each other. I believe each person should be judged on
  > SB> their individual merits also, and when *I* use the term "level 
laying
  > SB> field," that's what I mean. I mean each person is judged by their
  > SB> individual merits. Apparently, when you use the term "level playing
  > SB> field", you mean a government controlled situation in which some 
people
  > SB> are given more freedom or more rights than another, so that people 
re
  > SB> no longer judged on their individual merits.
CM>     you have it here !
OK, good!  I'm glad I've finally gotten it.  I'll tell you what.  I
won't use the term "level playing field" anymore.  I will find other
words to express the same concept.  That should limit confusion in our
conversations in the future.
                         Sondra
-*-
 þ SLMR 2.1a þ If you hear an onion ring, please answer it!
--- Opus-CBCS 1.7x via O_QWKer 1.1
---------------