Re: Teens and their cell phones

[Guest guest]

>

> 10. I believe it is illogical for me to apologize for stating

something that someone might

> follow and draw incorrect conclusions because of #6 when accepted

convention of #3 is in

> effect while engaging in #1, #2, #3, even if I post anything

referring to my sense of

> humor, in whatever warped form I do so.

>

>

I didn't think you needed to apologise, I liked your 10 points and that

tells me more about you than the humor. I like yoour warped form and

liked the devil in the blue dress corrilary. I have a warped sense of

humor too. mimi

[Guest guest]

" ... <snip> ... Yes, I recognize the illegality that

> exists in various jurisdictions, but were you aware, that until 1977,

> it was legal to kill someone of the LDS faith in the state of

Missouri?

> Just more food for thought as to how valid laws that are passed

really

> are, and how it is society that judges them differently in different

> times and places ... <snip> ... "

>

> I didn't know that about Missouri. Wow!

>

> Raven

> Co-Administrator

>

mimi says I had to read it twice because I saw LSD faith. Now that

would be some religion

[Guest guest]

>

> I think that mimi and strict may have mis-heard and/or misinterpreted

> each other.

>

> strict, I understand what you are saying and agree.

>

> mimi, I understand what you are saying and agree.

>

> Both of you make very valid points and as such, your contributions to

> the discussion are both warranted and welcome.

>

> Raven

> Co-Administrator

>

mimi adds if I seemed harsh please excuse me it was not my intention.

I was just saying you could be " naked " here. How is that for bad humor

(bad huh?)

I have been having some rough days and am glad to have an exchange to

engage in that isn't charged.

[Guest guest]

" I didn't think you needed to apologise, I liked your 10 points and that

tells me more about you than the humor. I like yoour warped form and

liked the devil in the blue dress corrilary. I have a warped sense of

humor too. mimi "

Mimi and Strict, sitting in a tree. Kay Eye Ess Ess Eye En Gee.

(Only kidding. Just my warped sense of humor presenting itself.)

Administrator

[Guest guest]

mimi wrote: " I had to read it twice because I saw LSD faith. Now that

would be some religion. "

It certainly would be a far out religion. :-o

Raven

Co-Administrator

[Guest guest]

My thoughts on what the problem is with most laws.

It is not so much the law (or rule or whatever) that is flawed but the

persons who enforce it or interpret it that can cause the most problems.

However I consider some laws to be very poorly written such as California's

Medical Marijuana law.

Say a " no tolerance " rule in a school that just says " no weapons in school " .

It may even clearly spell it out like " knives with a sharp edge longer than

1 inch " for example. But the teachers and principles of the school may

" interpret " it as *anything* that looks like a knife like a plastic one in a

lunch box. The rule as written did not state " any " knife or plastic

utensils. It's the extremism of the person " enforcing " the rule or law that

is flawed but doesn't get punished for doing something wrong.

Yet LOTS of actual weapons are missed out on because the real dangerous ones

are not out in the open like food knives and such but hidden to not be found

and the enforcers just won't make an intelligent effort to find the hidden

ones. It hurts their head to think so they only do the 'easy' ones!

Like a over the top employee of the school hauling in " certain " students

with what they exaggerate into something bad like the plastic knife. Oddly

enough it's that 'enforcer' or principle who *is* acting like a bully!

Randy Garrett

Antioch, CA USA

-----<---{(@

Re: Teens and their cell phones

>

snip:

> Without laws, there would be anarchy.

>

> Getting to my main point though, what these kids are doing ought to

be

> stopped for their own good, and I could care less who makes arguments

> to the contrary and what they cite as their support. I am fairly sure

> that the majority of society -dare I say the MORAL MAJORITY- would

> agree.

>

>

> Administrator

>

That is the issue, and even the issue of laws. When people cannot

respect that others have rights to (they must make a law to protect

innocence) It is likely the abuse of these laws " their blanketness "

which mucks up others. Time, consideration, thought. Courts don'y

like these, and seedy lawyers get the guilty free and some innocent pay

for lawfulness. Did I mention I favored a reorganization. mimi

------------------------------------

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG.

Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1378 - Release Date: 4/15/2008

9:12 AM

[Guest guest]

That's funny, I didn't realize we'd suddenly become a couple

But, what about you and Raven?

I had a strong suspicion that Mimi wasn't quite processing things as

clearly as desired due to voluntary brain cell killing, and I didn't

think what I wrote qualified as an apology so much as full

disclosure Because I hate losing control over my fate and such,

even outside of other factors (medical, probability to becoming

addicted, based on family history in related things, religious

beliefs and practices) that's a large reason why I won't choose to

get drunk/high (unless for medically-necessary reasons) because I've

seen what people may end up doing, willfully or otherwise, and also

how easily they're taken advantage of. As an example of that, I did

take mild advantage of a wrong number caller who was stoned, many

years ago... The story:

The house I grew up in, apparently was one digit off from having the

same phone number of someone very popular with the first name of

Deniece. Well, I think it was my Mom that came up with the reply,

when someone asked (when getting the wrong number) " Hello, is

Deniece there? " her reply would be " No, but I can get you da

nephew! " and that usually ends the call... well, until one weekend

after I'd moved away from home and I was visiting, I hit the

gold/pot mine with someone calling for her. I was talking to some

siblings and my parents at the time, so they all overheard the whole

exchange and had a good laugh, too, because this guy just couldn't

process what was going on, and in a few minutes of weakness, I had

some fun with the guy (I think he had fun, too, though I wonder if

he remembered it later!). I did the standard reply, and when he

paused, I offered, " Or would you like to speak to Da Aunt or Da

Uncle, or Da cousin, or Da Sister or Da Brother... " and it went on

like that. He was slightly... puzzled. After awhile, perhaps in

realizing he'd been royally had, he did his best to sell me some

pot, and I can't remember exactly how the call ended, but I'd like

to think a good time was had by all, including the guy that was

being had I don't believe I could have had such a long

conversation with anyone that wasn't high/drunk like that guy was:

they'd realize too quickly that they'd gotten the wrong number and

were getting nowhere

This Deniece, I believe, was probably an adult for most of the time,

but I don't know: easily 20 years, we had that issue pop up, so that

was my parent's solution to (hopefully) reduce the incidence of late

night calls by partiers who didn't dial correctly. I suspect

Deniece is still at that off-by-one number, but the only thing that

keeps my family from getting anymore of those calls for her is the

fact that my parents died and we sold the house, and no longer had

that phone number after 32 years.

>

> " I didn't think you needed to apologise, I liked your 10 points

and that

> tells me more about you than the humor. I like yoour warped form

and

> liked the devil in the blue dress corrilary. I have a warped

sense of

> humor too. mimi "

>

> Mimi and Strict, sitting in a tree. Kay Eye Ess Ess Eye En Gee.

>

> (Only kidding. Just my warped sense of humor presenting itself.)

>

>

> Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

strict wrote: " That's funny, I didn't realize we'd suddenly become a

couple "

Things happen fast in this forum sometimes. LOL!

strict wrote: " ... <snip> ... But, what about you and Raven? ...

<snip> ... "

Oh there's not of that Kay-Eye-Ess-Ess-Eye-En-Gee-ing going on over

here, strict! is back home in the Chicagoland area and I'm in

Ontario, Canada still. <smiles>

strict wrote: " ... <snip> ... The house I grew up in, apparently was

one digit off from having the same office telephone number of someone

very popular Deniece. Well, I think it was my Mom that came up with

the reply, when someone asked (when getting the wrong number) " Hello,

is

Deniece there? " her reply would be " No, but I can get you da nephew! "

and that usually ends the call ... <snip> ... "

Ah yes, the wrong number situation. My home phone number has the

same numbers as those for a certain medical practitioner in town,

just in a different order.

For nearly 6 years I have received a number of phone calls every day

from people wanting to book an appointment with the doctor even

though I answer my line with my business name. Usually people

apologize and hang up.

Occasionally, I get a very thick headed person who insists that he or

she MUST make an appointment with the doctor despite my attempts to

inform them they have NOT reached the doctor's office.

And so, I have taken to letting these people book an appointment with

the doctor based on my schedule. Since I have call display, I have

loosely kept track of who calls here looking for the doctor.

Yes, there are a handful of seniors who phone regularly looking for

the doctor and I cut those people some slack. Interestingly enough

though is that the rude callers who insist on making a doctor's

appointment through MY office never call back a second time. Hmmmmm,

I wonder why that might be. 8-o

Raven

Co-Administrator

[Guest guest]

It isn't just plastic knives. I have read of cases where students were suspended for drawing army men with guns (including one kids who drew a picture of his dad who was in the Army in Iraq), or bringing a toy soldier with its toy gun to school. Talk about over reacting and looking completely stupid. Then you also have the little first graders getting hauled off by the police in handcuff because they hugged someone on the playground and that violated the sexual harassment policy.

Like a over the top employee of the school hauling in "certain" studentswith what they exaggerate into something bad like the plastic knife. Oddlyenough it's that 'enforcer' or principle who *is* acting like a bully!Randy GarrettAntioch, CA USA-----<---{(@It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money Finance.

[Guest guest]

I read up a little about that and I think I know where the "its OK to kill Mormons" law came from. Back in the 1830's, Mormons moved in to part of Missouri. They bought a lot of land and set themselves apart from others. They also tended to vote in blocks, which upset the local political balance. Push came to shove, no one is really sure how it started, but there was a riot during an election.

The Mormons and the others took up arms and there were a series of battles fought between the two sides and people were killed. Because of their outsiders ways, the Mormons were driven off and went to Utah. Mind you, this wasn't the first time the Mormons had been run off either.

They settled around the Great Salt Lake, founding Salt Lake City, in Utah. There was some trouble there too in that the Mormons raided a number of wagon trains passing through and also other parties. It is also believed that they attacked smaller wagon trains too, mostly to get women for their polygamous marriages. How much of that is true and how much is propaganda I don't know, but I do know that at least two attacks, called massacres at the time because of the numbers killed, did happen. Just going from memory, I think the Army was sent in at one point, though I don't recall the details.

So, the Mormon Law was in response to an armed conflict. That it stayed on the books was simply a matter that people forgot it was there. I'm sure that within a decade of the Mormons being gone, most people had pretty well forgotten about them. Certainly by the Civil War 30 years later they had much more important things to worry about.

It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money Finance.

[Guest guest]

" Oddly enough it's that 'enforcer' or principle who *is* acting like a

bully! "

A person can use a pen or a pencil as a lethal weapon. Just about

anything can be used as a weapon if people think carefully how to use

it. Specificity is important in my opinion when making up laws.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

>

> That's funny, I didn't realize we'd suddenly become a couple

>

> But, what about you and Raven?

>

> I had a strong suspicion that Mimi wasn't quite processing things

as

> clearly as desired due to voluntary brain cell killing, and I

didn't

> think what I wrote qualified as an apology so much as full

> disclosure

Yes that was how i saw it. I was thinking that I react way to

strongly when it comes to any child issue. I think that comes from

the people in my geographic reagion. I deal with educators and

college kids and my own children's friends and I want to stop them

all from hurting themselves and others.

I don't know how to really be calm. I met some calm people last

night and they blew me away. By my experiences most people are lax

but not calm. Anyway children's issues make be frustrated because it

is usually due to bad experience, misconceptions, missing the real

issues, bad examples to draw from. Well I am sure eveyone here knows

the list and many of us have survived " the wrong way to do it " Our

own parents.

Well I'm not sure I am making sense. I am sure that over time people

have noticed how I jump on children things.

Anyone see that piece on the poligimist group in texas where 416

children were removed from 139 mothers

[Guest guest]

" I don't know how to really be calm. I met some calm people last

night and they blew me away. "

Sometimes they maintain expressions of calm but inside they are

feeling a plethera of emotions. Other times, they are " calm " because

they simply do not care about issues.

I have discovered that if you talk to people about crises facing our

country and our world (hunger, poverty, homelessness, lack of good

medical care, lack of understanding about autism, etc.), they express

the appropriate amount of concern, but these same people can be heard

later on saying to others that they resented my cornering them and

talking to them about " frivolous issues. "

" Anyone see that piece on the poligimist group in texas where 416

children were removed from 139 mothers. "

Yes, and I have two comments on this:

1) In countries around the world (think about countries in the Middle

East and Africa) it is acceptable for a man to have multiple wives,

and, also in countries around the world, the age of consent may be

higher or lower than it is here.

2) Nevertheless, in THIS country, polygamy is illegal and the age of

consent is established at the higher teens in all states. Usually

between 16 and 18.

Personally, I think the age of consent ought to be even higher to

prevent kids from having pregnancies at young ages, but raising the

age won't solve the problem I don't think.

Getting back to the polygamy issue, I think if someone chooses to

live in the US, they are subject to its laws. This is a minus when it

comes to folks want to go against those laws while living in a

plentiful land, but that is the way it goes.

I cannot see the advantage in polygamy. I think it makes more sense

to pour all your love into and onto one person then divvy it out to a

bunch. Additionally, there may be all sorts of conflicts as the

result of such relationships (making one wife compete against another

for affection, or paying more attention to one wife than another, or

the financial deprivation that comes with having to spread the wealth

over a larger family).

I think polygamy is something that can be dispensed with. As far as I

know, the main Mormon Church no longer condones it. Surely this sect

can easily give it up. Chances are the leaders are trying to

perpetuate polygamy as part of the religion while many of the

underlings are simply faithfully believing what the leaders say.

As for the state taking away all the kids, I think they can treat

them as a blanket case. Abused kids ought to be kept away from those

who abused them or those who let them be abused. If there were

children who were NOT abused nor exposed to abuse, I would normally

say they shoud be kept away from their parents just because their

parents were part of this sect, but in this case, surely the parents

knew about the abuse going on with other families, and that they knew

about it and did nothing means in my mind that they are dangerous to

their children.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

My former roommate and friend (I've lost contact) was a Mormon (LDS is the

preferred name) so I investigated that religion as I was trying to decide

what to get involved in and to say I " was " .

My current roommate and landlord is a Mormon too. Um, LDS. Anyway.

When I talked with their people they would say most all of that didn't

happen and those persons even in the early 1800's were not a part of the

church!

Yet most were never officially excommunicated or in this day and age sued

for falsely using the Latter Day Saints name. At least according to

statements made in various places about them.

You just never can know the truth then or now. But I have a good guess

about the culture of them and find it odd to be so different without an

apparent root cause.

Fortunately they are not as radical as a couple of others I've heard about!

;-)

Randy Garrett

Antioch, CA USA

-----<---{(@

Re: Re: Teens and their cell phones

I read up a little about that and I think I know where the " its OK to kill

Mormons " law came from. Back in the 1830's, Mormons moved in to part of

Missouri. They bought a lot of land and set themselves apart from others.

They also tended to vote in blocks, which upset the local political balance.

Push came to shove, no one is really sure how it started, but there was a

riot during an election.

The Mormons and the others took up arms and there were a series of battles

fought between the two sides and people were killed. Because of their

outsiders ways, the Mormons were driven off and went to Utah. Mind you, this

wasn't the first time the Mormons had been run off either.

They settled around the Great Salt Lake, founding Salt Lake City, in Utah.

There was some trouble there too in that the Mormons raided a number of

wagon trains passing through and also other parties. It is also believed

that they attacked smaller wagon trains too, mostly to get women for their

polygamous marriages. How much of that is true and how much is propaganda I

don't know, but I do know that at least two attacks, called massacres at the

time because of the numbers killed, did happen. Just going from memory, I

think the Army was sent in at one point, though I don't recall the details.

So, the Mormon Law was in response to an armed conflict. That it stayed on

the books was simply a matter that people forgot it was there. I'm sure that

within a decade of the Mormons being gone, most people had pretty well

forgotten about them. Certainly by the Civil War 30 years later they had

much more important things to worry about.

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG.

Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.0/1381 - Release Date: 4/16/2008

9:34 AM

[Guest guest]

"You just never can know the truth then or now. But I have a good guess about the culture of them and find it odd to be so different without an apparent root cause.

"Fortunately they are not as radical as a couple of others I've heard about!"

Guess what? We have at least one Mormon in this forum.

And no, that person is not me. I am Christian and Lutheran.

As with any person, each person ought to be looked at individually. There are aspects of the Jesus Christ Church of Latter Day Saints that are mutually exclusive of my own denomination. These differences are theological, and while I question how ANYONE of ANY other religion can think differently from how I do about my own religion, that's a natural thought that I am sure people of other religions are having about ME. I do not judge a person on their religion per se unless they are slaughtering people or something along those lines.

We've got folks here who are Christian (Catholic and Protestant) LDS people, Bhuddists, Jews, a bunch of folks from religions I am leaving out I am sure, atheists and agnostics.

I think religion and person are integral and symbiotic, but I don't think that one's religious views ought to be the sole bais for judging anyone. Further, I think in matters of religion, we must take people at their word until we have reason not to.

It's hard to know who is telling the truth about what they believe or about what their religions say if we are ignorant of those religions. But taking people at their word at first builds bridges. Suspicion makes bridges weaker.

Administrator