On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:38:01 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:38:30 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:03:04 -0500, flipper wrote:

You have a problem with absurdities, like comparing physically addictive
substances to free will choices.

And you seem just plain mean.

You sound like a spoiled brat, a self-righteous one at that.

"I wanna ban gambling, because somebody might lose money!"
[opponent points out absurdity and unconstitutionality of premise]
"You're mean! Waah! Waah! Waah!"

Grow up, and quit trying to make rules that override adults' free will.

Feh.
Rich

I make no rules about gambling; how could I do that? I don't even
object to The Brat gambling, because I know she's not addictive.

I just think it's harmful to a lot of people, and I'd vote against it
given the opportunity.

John

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:51:08 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:45:28 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:38:01 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:38:30 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:03:04 -0500, flipper wrote:

You have a problem with absurdities, like comparing physically addictive
substances to free will choices.

And you seem just plain mean.

You sound like a spoiled brat, a self-righteous one at that.

"I wanna ban gambling, because somebody might lose money!"
[opponent points out absurdity and unconstitutionality of premise]
"You're mean! Waah! Waah! Waah!"

Grow up, and quit trying to make rules that override adults' free will.

Feh.
Rich

I make no rules about gambling; how could I do that?

You're playing word games.

Not having dictatorial power doesn't mean you aren't "trying." You
are, by means of persuasion and, as you say below, your vote, given
the opportunity.

Well, this is a discussion group. It's my opinion that professional
gambling is harmful to a lot more people than it helps. Are you
objecting to people having opinions?

For the record, I am doing nothing to actively supress any gambling
enterprises.



I don't even
object to The Brat gambling, because I know she's not addictive.

But you would make it illegal anyway.

I would vote that way, yes.


I just think it's harmful to a lot of people, and I'd vote against it
given the opportunity.

This is where I have the biggest problem: your argument that, in your
opinion, it's "harmful to a lot of people." Setting aside whether your
opinion is even right (and you give no numbers or anything else
besides your 'opinion'), Where does the 'help' end because virtually
anything can be judged, by someone, to be 'harmful' in one way or the
other. Shall we pass laws requiring people to exercise? Dictate what
foods we can eat, for our own good of course. And surely most sports
should be banned since people can get hurt for nothing more than a
little entertainment. And people should wear proper clothing. Do we
ban clogs, boots, or sneakers? I dunno. Maybe we should take a 'vote'
on what's the best and then mandate everyone else wear the 'right
thing'.

I have not argued for laws against any individual behavior. But a
casino is a business, and businesses are regulated by government and
supressed if they do harm.


Once you start down that road it never ends.

Way, way too late.

John

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:51:08 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:45:28 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:38:01 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:38:30 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:03:04 -0500, flipper
wrote:

You have a problem with absurdities, like comparing physically
addictive substances to free will choices.

And you seem just plain mean.

You sound like a spoiled brat, a self-righteous one at that.

"I wanna ban gambling, because somebody might lose money!"
[opponent points out absurdity and unconstitutionality of premise]
"You're mean! Waah! Waah! Waah!"

Grow up, and quit trying to make rules that override adults' free
will.

Feh.
Rich

I make no rules about gambling; how could I do that?

You're playing word games.

Not having dictatorial power doesn't mean you aren't "trying." You
are, by means of persuasion and, as you say below, your vote, given
the opportunity.

Well, this is a discussion group. It's my opinion that professional
gambling is harmful to a lot more people than it helps. Are you
objecting to people having opinions?

For the record, I am doing nothing to actively supress any gambling
enterprises.



I don't even
object to The Brat gambling, because I know she's not addictive.

But you would make it illegal anyway.

I would vote that way, yes.


I just think it's harmful to a lot of people, and I'd vote against
it given the opportunity.

This is where I have the biggest problem: your argument that, in your
opinion, it's "harmful to a lot of people." Setting aside whether
your opinion is even right (and you give no numbers or anything else
besides your 'opinion'), Where does the 'help' end because virtually
anything can be judged, by someone, to be 'harmful' in one way or the
other. Shall we pass laws requiring people to exercise? Dictate what
foods we can eat, for our own good of course. And surely most sports
should be banned since people can get hurt for nothing more than a
little entertainment. And people should wear proper clothing. Do we
ban clogs, boots, or sneakers? I dunno. Maybe we should take a 'vote'
on what's the best and then mandate everyone else wear the 'right
thing'.

I have not argued for laws against any individual behavior. But a
casino is a business, and businesses are regulated by government and
supressed if they do harm.


Once you start down that road it never ends.

Way, way too late.

John

Have you noticed that no civilization on the face of the earth meets these
guys' standards of "freedom?" lol

You can't talk sensible policy with people who would refuse to pay for any
policy.

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:56:41 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:51:08 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:45:28 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:38:01 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:38:30 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:03:04 -0500, flipper
wrote:

You have a problem with absurdities, like comparing physically
addictive substances to free will choices.

And you seem just plain mean.

You sound like a spoiled brat, a self-righteous one at that.

"I wanna ban gambling, because somebody might lose money!"
[opponent points out absurdity and unconstitutionality of premise]
"You're mean! Waah! Waah! Waah!"

Grow up, and quit trying to make rules that override adults' free
will.

Feh.
Rich

I make no rules about gambling; how could I do that?

You're playing word games.

Not having dictatorial power doesn't mean you aren't "trying." You
are, by means of persuasion and, as you say below, your vote, given
the opportunity.

Well, this is a discussion group. It's my opinion that professional
gambling is harmful to a lot more people than it helps. Are you
objecting to people having opinions?

For the record, I am doing nothing to actively supress any gambling
enterprises.



I don't even
object to The Brat gambling, because I know she's not addictive.

But you would make it illegal anyway.

I would vote that way, yes.


I just think it's harmful to a lot of people, and I'd vote against
it given the opportunity.

This is where I have the biggest problem: your argument that, in your
opinion, it's "harmful to a lot of people." Setting aside whether
your opinion is even right (and you give no numbers or anything else
besides your 'opinion'), Where does the 'help' end because virtually
anything can be judged, by someone, to be 'harmful' in one way or the
other. Shall we pass laws requiring people to exercise? Dictate what
foods we can eat, for our own good of course. And surely most sports
should be banned since people can get hurt for nothing more than a
little entertainment. And people should wear proper clothing. Do we
ban clogs, boots, or sneakers? I dunno. Maybe we should take a 'vote'
on what's the best and then mandate everyone else wear the 'right
thing'.

I have not argued for laws against any individual behavior. But a
casino is a business, and businesses are regulated by government and
supressed if they do harm.


Once you start down that road it never ends.

Way, way too late.

John

Have you noticed that no civilization on the face of the earth meets these
guys' standards of "freedom?" lol

You can't talk sensible policy with people who would refuse to pay for any
policy.



Rugged Individualists don't need no stinkin' government. They grow
their own food and load their own ammo.

John

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:07:05 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:56:41 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:51:08 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:45:28 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:38:01 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:38:30 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:03:04 -0500, flipper
wrote:

You have a problem with absurdities, like comparing physically
addictive substances to free will choices.

And you seem just plain mean.

You sound like a spoiled brat, a self-righteous one at that.

"I wanna ban gambling, because somebody might lose money!"
[opponent points out absurdity and unconstitutionality of premise]
"You're mean! Waah! Waah! Waah!"

Grow up, and quit trying to make rules that override adults' free
will.

Feh.
Rich

I make no rules about gambling; how could I do that?

You're playing word games.

Not having dictatorial power doesn't mean you aren't "trying." You
are, by means of persuasion and, as you say below, your vote, given
the opportunity.

Well, this is a discussion group. It's my opinion that professional
gambling is harmful to a lot more people than it helps. Are you
objecting to people having opinions?

For the record, I am doing nothing to actively supress any gambling
enterprises.



I don't even
object to The Brat gambling, because I know she's not addictive.

But you would make it illegal anyway.

I would vote that way, yes.


I just think it's harmful to a lot of people, and I'd vote against
it given the opportunity.

This is where I have the biggest problem: your argument that, in your
opinion, it's "harmful to a lot of people." Setting aside whether
your opinion is even right (and you give no numbers or anything else
besides your 'opinion'), Where does the 'help' end because virtually
anything can be judged, by someone, to be 'harmful' in one way or the
other. Shall we pass laws requiring people to exercise? Dictate what
foods we can eat, for our own good of course. And surely most sports
should be banned since people can get hurt for nothing more than a
little entertainment. And people should wear proper clothing. Do we
ban clogs, boots, or sneakers? I dunno. Maybe we should take a 'vote'
on what's the best and then mandate everyone else wear the 'right
thing'.

I have not argued for laws against any individual behavior. But a
casino is a business, and businesses are regulated by government and
supressed if they do harm.


Once you start down that road it never ends.

Way, way too late.

John

Have you noticed that no civilization on the face of the earth meets these
guys' standards of "freedom?" lol

You can't talk sensible policy with people who would refuse to pay for any
policy.



Rugged Individualists don't need no stinkin' government. They grow
their own food and load their own ammo.

John

Thanks so much for providing ample data for a troll-feeder filter.

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |