Tony wrote:
There's a black in the White House that's stealing
my lunch money every damn day!

LOL!

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 22:12:55 -0000, SeaNymph wrote:

On 3/17/2016 3:53 PM, Aardvark wrote:
SeaNymph Wrote in message:
On 3/17/2016 2:26 PM, Aardvark wrote:
SeaNymph Wrote in message:
On 3/16/2016 7:02 PM, Aardvark wrote:
SeaNymph Wrote in message:
On 3/16/2016 2:03 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:21:16 -0000, 83LowRider wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:07:19 -0000, 83LowRider wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:
One day America will grow up....

How about you google the phrase 'homeowner shoots intruder'?

Do you have a point? At least our intruders aren't armed.

My point is that if and intruder comes into my home, it doesn't
matter if he is carrying a knife or a gun or a big stick. I have
the right to be armed against that intruder. The very act of him
coming into my home tells me he has some sort of malicious
intent. I want him in the hospital, or dead.

So maybe you have no family, maybe you live in a safe
little gated community... howz about you google 'store owner
shoots robber'. Ten million results. Same point as above.
HTH.

You completely ignored what I just said. Our intruders are not armed.

And yet another stupid statement. Get your head out of the sand why
don't you?



For the most part, SN, he's right.

Is that similar to being a little bit pregnant or sort of dead?


Nope.

He made a statement, and that statement is false. There were no
qualifiers to the statement, just something posted as if it was fact.
The statement cannot be proven or verified as it's written. The onus for
clarity lies with the poster.


Please allow me to explain anecdotally. Personally, I've heard of
burglaries in the UK in which the offenders were in possession of
a firearm. Vaguely- I couldn't tel you of a specific case
offhand.

I know of many Instances of homes having been burgled -I was
burgled once myself (that's an amusing story),- but none of those
instances included use of a firearm, or any weapon at
all.

The guy most probably has the same anecdotal experience which
tells both of us that if we came across a burglar in our home,
the likelihood of that person being armed is very
low.

The likelihood of that person having a firearm is so remote that
it isn't worth considering.

Do you understand now?



And that's fine, but it doesn't change what I said, which I believe to
be perfectly logically and correct. And I'm not suggesting that a
firearm is the only way for a criminal to arm themselves.



The thing is that, in this country, criminals tend to have
demarcation in their endeavours. A burglar simply burgles (or, in
Americanese, burglarizes).

A mugger mugs, a killer kills.

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals hardly
ever do.

Our culture has then well trained to be much more civilised.

Well, for criminals.


Criminals are criminals in my book and I have little empathy for them.

His statement is still false though

My statement was "our intruders are not armed", Aardvark backed this up. You agreed with him and not me. FFS grow up.

--
Paddy calls Easyjet to book a flight.
The operator asks "How many people are flying with you?"
Paddy replies "I don't know! Its your flipping plane!"

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 22:46:03 -0000, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:53:08 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals hardly
ever do.

3 of 5 convicted felons surveyed, using guns. say would not target a
person if they thought the intended victim had a gun. They prey upon
the weak, not the well armed. Fact.

So you think it's ok that everyone has to be armed to protect themselves against criminals that are armed, and can't understand why neither side being armed would be better? It might be ok for someone like you who is able to operate a firearm and defend themselves, but what you're saying is you don't give a **** about someone who can't fire a gun well, perhaps because they're older and frail. You're a selfish arse.

--
Little Tony was staying with his grandmother for a few days.. He'd been playing outside with the other kids for a while when he came into the house and asked her, "Grandma, what's that called when 2 people sleep in the same room and one is on top of the other?"

She was a little taken, but she decided to just tell him the truth. "It's called sexual intercourse, darling".

Little Tony just said, "Oh, OK," and went back outside to play with the other kids.

A few minutes later he came back in and said angrily, "Grandma, it isn't called sexual intercourse. It's called "Bunk Beds". And Jimmy's mom wants to talk to you."

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:55:41 -0000, Aardvark wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 23:14:20 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:53:08 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals hardly
ever do.

3 of 5 convicted felons surveyed, using guns. say would not target a
person if they thought the intended victim had a gun. They prey upon
the weak, not the well armed. Fact.


In this country they generally don't use weapons and prey on those
they *hope* are weak.

That's why the criminals have chocolate delivered to their cells and
placed on the pillows.


People are sent to prison *as* punishment in this country, not
*for* punishment. Such is the case in all civilised
countries.

Those two statements mean precisely the same to me. What is the difference?

--
Basic Flying Rules: "Try to stay in the middle of the air. Do not go near the edges of it. The edges of the air can be recognized by the appearance of ground, buildings, sea, trees and interstellar space. It is much more difficult to fly there."

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:50:23 -0000, Aardvark wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 19:20:41 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:55:41 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

People are sent to prison *as* punishment in this country, not
*for* punishment. Such is the case in all civilised countries.

Excuse me. You are typing to a retired Penologist. I know what is
civilized or not.

So do I. The humane treatment of prisoners is one of those things which
are civilised.

Joe Arpaio represents the antithesis of civilised treatment of prisoners.

Why the **** would you want to be nice to a prisoner? He is the criminal, he has done wrong, he should lose all rights.

--
The longest word in German is DONAUDAMPFSCHIFFAHRTSELEKTRIZITAETENHAUPTBETRIEBSW ERKBAUUNTERBEAMTENGESELLSCHAFT, "the club for subordinate officials of the head office management of the Danube steamboat electrical services" (name of a pre-war club in Vienna), according to 1996 Guinness.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 23:22:24 -0000, SeaNymph wrote:

On 3/17/2016 6:14 PM, Aardvark wrote:
Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:53:08 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals hardly
ever do.

3 of 5 convicted felons surveyed, using guns. say would not target a
person if they thought the intended victim had a gun. They prey upon
the weak, not the well armed. Fact.


In this country they generally don't use weapons and prey on those
they *hope* are weak.

Guess that doesn't work out too well sometimes.

Our country is safer to live in, you lose.

--
Reading while sunbathing makes you well red.

On 23/03/2016 14:04, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:55:41 -0000, Aardvark
wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 23:14:20 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:53:08 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals hardly
ever do.

3 of 5 convicted felons surveyed, using guns. say would not target a
person if they thought the intended victim had a gun. They prey upon
the weak, not the well armed. Fact.


In this country they generally don't use weapons and prey on those
they *hope* are weak.

That's why the criminals have chocolate delivered to their cells and
placed on the pillows.


People are sent to prison *as* punishment in this country, not
*for* punishment. Such is the case in all civilised
countries.

Those two statements mean precisely the same to me. What is the
difference?

Sent to prison *as punishment* ie: being deprived of your liberty, but
not *for further punishment* ie; being deprived of your basic human
rights/ hard labour or any other extra punishment.
Being sent to prison IS your punishment.
--
Bod

On 23/03/2016 14:05, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:50:23 -0000, Aardvark
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 19:20:41 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:55:41 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

People are sent to prison *as* punishment in this country, not
*for* punishment. Such is the case in all civilised countries.

Excuse me. You are typing to a retired Penologist. I know what is
civilized or not.

So do I. The humane treatment of prisoners is one of those things which
are civilised.

Joe Arpaio represents the antithesis of civilised treatment of prisoners.

Why the **** would you want to be nice to a prisoner? He is the
criminal, he has done wrong, he should lose all rights.

Why? If you disrespect prisoners, they are more likely to come out
angrier than when they went in.

--
Bod

On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:16:39 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:04, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:55:41 -0000, Aardvark
wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 23:14:20 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:53:08 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals hardly
ever do.

3 of 5 convicted felons surveyed, using guns. say would not target a
person if they thought the intended victim had a gun. They prey upon
the weak, not the well armed. Fact.


In this country they generally don't use weapons and prey on those
they *hope* are weak.

That's why the criminals have chocolate delivered to their cells and
placed on the pillows.


People are sent to prison *as* punishment in this country, not
*for* punishment. Such is the case in all civilised
countries.

Those two statements mean precisely the same to me. What is the
difference?

Sent to prison *as punishment* ie: being deprived of your liberty, but
not *for further punishment* ie; being deprived of your basic human
rights/ hard labour or any other extra punishment.
Being sent to prison IS your punishment.

Why jail someone in a nice way for 30 years instead of in a cruel way for 15 years?

Don't you find it absurd that in the UK, TV is a human right in jail?

--
Mr Churchill is reputed to have once said
"It will be long, it will be hard, and there'll be no withdrawal"

On 23/03/2016 14:21, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:16:39 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:04, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:55:41 -0000, Aardvark
wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 23:14:20 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:53:08 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals hardly
ever do.

3 of 5 convicted felons surveyed, using guns. say would not target a
person if they thought the intended victim had a gun. They prey
upon
the weak, not the well armed. Fact.


In this country they generally don't use weapons and prey on those
they *hope* are weak.

That's why the criminals have chocolate delivered to their cells and
placed on the pillows.


People are sent to prison *as* punishment in this country, not
*for* punishment. Such is the case in all civilised
countries.

Those two statements mean precisely the same to me. What is the
difference?

Sent to prison *as punishment* ie: being deprived of your liberty, but
not *for further punishment* ie; being deprived of your basic human
rights/ hard labour or any other extra punishment.
Being sent to prison IS your punishment.

Why jail someone in a nice way for 30 years instead of in a cruel way
for 15 years?

Don't you find it absurd that in the UK, TV is a human right in jail?

No.

--
Bod

On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:22:13 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:21, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:16:39 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:04, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:55:41 -0000, Aardvark
wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 23:14:20 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:53:08 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals hardly
ever do.

3 of 5 convicted felons surveyed, using guns. say would not target a
person if they thought the intended victim had a gun. They prey
upon
the weak, not the well armed. Fact.


In this country they generally don't use weapons and prey on those
they *hope* are weak.

That's why the criminals have chocolate delivered to their cells and
placed on the pillows.


People are sent to prison *as* punishment in this country, not
*for* punishment. Such is the case in all civilised
countries.

Those two statements mean precisely the same to me. What is the
difference?

Sent to prison *as punishment* ie: being deprived of your liberty, but
not *for further punishment* ie; being deprived of your basic human
rights/ hard labour or any other extra punishment.
Being sent to prison IS your punishment.

Why jail someone in a nice way for 30 years instead of in a cruel way
for 15 years?

Well?

Don't you find it absurd that in the UK, TV is a human right in jail?

No.

Why do you want to be nice to someone who has committed a crime serious enough to be jailed?

--
Why is Bin Laden like a pair of tights?
Because he irritates bush!

On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:20:10 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:05, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:50:23 -0000, Aardvark
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 19:20:41 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:55:41 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

People are sent to prison *as* punishment in this country, not
*for* punishment. Such is the case in all civilised countries.

Excuse me. You are typing to a retired Penologist. I know what is
civilized or not.

So do I. The humane treatment of prisoners is one of those things which
are civilised.

Joe Arpaio represents the antithesis of civilised treatment of prisoners.

Why the **** would you want to be nice to a prisoner? He is the
criminal, he has done wrong, he should lose all rights.

Why? If you disrespect prisoners, they are more likely to come out
angrier than when they went in.

As you said, being locked up is already disrespecting them. There is no point in punishing them and being nice to them at the same time.

--
Loose or missing nuts. Spank the monkey (Y/N)?

On 23/03/2016 14:24, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:22:13 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:21, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:16:39 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:04, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:55:41 -0000, Aardvark
wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 23:14:20 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:53:08 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals
hardly
ever do.

3 of 5 convicted felons surveyed, using guns. say would not
target a
person if they thought the intended victim had a gun. They prey
upon
the weak, not the well armed. Fact.


In this country they generally don't use weapons and prey on those
they *hope* are weak.

That's why the criminals have chocolate delivered to their cells and
placed on the pillows.


People are sent to prison *as* punishment in this country, not
*for* punishment. Such is the case in all civilised
countries.

Those two statements mean precisely the same to me. What is the
difference?

Sent to prison *as punishment* ie: being deprived of your liberty, but
not *for further punishment* ie; being deprived of your basic human
rights/ hard labour or any other extra punishment.
Being sent to prison IS your punishment.

Why jail someone in a nice way for 30 years instead of in a cruel way
for 15 years?

Well?

Don't you find it absurd that in the UK, TV is a human right in jail?

No.

Why do you want to be nice to someone who has committed a crime serious
enough to be jailed?

Like for smoking weed or petty thieving etc?

--
Bod

On 23/03/2016 14:25, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:20:10 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:05, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:50:23 -0000, Aardvark
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 19:20:41 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:55:41 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

People are sent to prison *as* punishment in this country, not
*for* punishment. Such is the case in all civilised countries.

Excuse me. You are typing to a retired Penologist. I know what is
civilized or not.

So do I. The humane treatment of prisoners is one of those things which
are civilised.

Joe Arpaio represents the antithesis of civilised treatment of
prisoners.

Why the **** would you want to be nice to a prisoner? He is the
criminal, he has done wrong, he should lose all rights.

Why? If you disrespect prisoners, they are more likely to come out
angrier than when they went in.

As you said, being locked up is already disrespecting them. There is no
point in punishing them and being nice to them at the same time.

That would then be classed as revenge. Treat the prisoners rough and a
lot of warders would get attacked and/ or killed.

--
Bod

On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:26:06 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:24, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:22:13 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:21, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:16:39 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:04, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:55:41 -0000, Aardvark
wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 23:14:20 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:53:08 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals
hardly
ever do.

3 of 5 convicted felons surveyed, using guns. say would not
target a
person if they thought the intended victim had a gun. They prey
upon
the weak, not the well armed. Fact.


In this country they generally don't use weapons and prey on those
they *hope* are weak.

That's why the criminals have chocolate delivered to their cells and
placed on the pillows.


People are sent to prison *as* punishment in this country, not
*for* punishment. Such is the case in all civilised
countries.

Those two statements mean precisely the same to me. What is the
difference?

Sent to prison *as punishment* ie: being deprived of your liberty, but
not *for further punishment* ie; being deprived of your basic human
rights/ hard labour or any other extra punishment.
Being sent to prison IS your punishment.

Why jail someone in a nice way for 30 years instead of in a cruel way
for 15 years?

Well?

Don't you find it absurd that in the UK, TV is a human right in jail?

No.

Why do you want to be nice to someone who has committed a crime serious
enough to be jailed?

Like for smoking weed or petty thieving etc?

Smoking weed shouldn't be illegal, but that's beside the point.

If you're in jail, the law has decided you are bad. You are to be punished. Why lock you up, but then give you luxuries? Those are opposites. All you're doing with the luxuries is lessening the punishment. Why not lessen it instead by shortening the sentence, saving money on jail time and on luxuries? The person receives the same effective punishment, but has more of their (hopefully corrected) life ahead of them.

--
Runtime Error 6D at 417A:32CF: Incompetent User.

Mr Macaw wrote:

Why are you worried over our crime? Do you plan
on visiting? Stay outta DC, Detroit and a few other
heavily black areas and you'll be fine! You can even
bring your tea.

No, I just want you guys to admit that your country has failed to
control its people. That everyone would prefer to live over here
without fear of someone shooting them.

That's funny! You've been throwin' out all this stank-bait...
guns, US sucks, southern yokels... and I've enjoyed watching
what you've managed to reel in. If you think I'm jumping in the
water tho - you'd be mistaken.

You don't care any more about guns in the US, than I care
about the massive number of yellow teeth in the UK.

On 23/03/2016 14:30, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:26:06 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:24, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:22:13 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:21, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:16:39 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:04, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:55:41 -0000, Aardvark

wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 23:14:20 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:53:08 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals
hardly
ever do.

3 of 5 convicted felons surveyed, using guns. say would not
target a
person if they thought the intended victim had a gun. They prey
upon
the weak, not the well armed. Fact.


In this country they generally don't use weapons and prey on
those
they *hope* are weak.

That's why the criminals have chocolate delivered to their
cells and
placed on the pillows.


People are sent to prison *as* punishment in this country, not
*for* punishment. Such is the case in all civilised
countries.

Those two statements mean precisely the same to me. What is the
difference?

Sent to prison *as punishment* ie: being deprived of your
liberty, but
not *for further punishment* ie; being deprived of your basic human
rights/ hard labour or any other extra punishment.
Being sent to prison IS your punishment.

Why jail someone in a nice way for 30 years instead of in a cruel way
for 15 years?

Well?

Don't you find it absurd that in the UK, TV is a human right in jail?

No.

Why do you want to be nice to someone who has committed a crime serious
enough to be jailed?

Like for smoking weed or petty thieving etc?

Smoking weed shouldn't be illegal, but that's beside the point.

If you're in jail, the law has decided you are bad. You are to be
punished. Why lock you up, but then give you luxuries? Those are
opposites. All you're doing with the luxuries is lessening the
punishment. Why not lessen it instead by shortening the sentence,
saving money on jail time and on luxuries? The person receives the same
effective punishment, but has more of their (hopefully corrected) life
ahead of them.

Say a prisoner gets half the original sentence, then he's locked up for
say 4 years instead of 8 and you deny him any pleasure (tv etc).
Locked up for 23 a day,that will turn that prisoner into either a loony
or a very angry and violent person and the wardens will have a hell of a
time with him/her.
Think about it.

--
Bod

On 3/23/2016 7:57 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 02:05:20 -0000, 83LowRider wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

Why do you ignore the crime and the problems in your own country
instead of being fixated on something that doesn't concern you?

Because your crime is 100 times higher.

Why are you worried over our crime? Do you plan
on visiting? Stay outta DC, Detroit and a few other
heavily black areas and you'll be fine! You can even
bring your tea.

No, I just want you guys to admit that your country has failed to
control its people. That everyone would prefer to live over here
without fear of someone shooting them.

I don't live in fear of someone shooting me. And I'm pretty certain
that not "everyone" lives that way.

On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 12:57:47 -0000
"Mr Macaw" wrote:

No, I just want you guys to admit that your country has failed to
control its people. That everyone would prefer to live over here
without fear of someone shooting them.

The island is fast becoming nothing but another
middle east refuge. Soon the muslims will rule.

All the really smart Brits left about 300 years ago.
The next most bright left during the last decade.
You know what is left,

On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:37:15 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:30, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:26:06 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:24, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:22:13 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:21, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:16:39 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:04, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:55:41 -0000, Aardvark

wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 23:14:20 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:53:08 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals
hardly
ever do.

3 of 5 convicted felons surveyed, using guns. say would not
target a
person if they thought the intended victim had a gun. They prey
upon
the weak, not the well armed. Fact.


In this country they generally don't use weapons and prey on
those
they *hope* are weak.

That's why the criminals have chocolate delivered to their
cells and
placed on the pillows.


People are sent to prison *as* punishment in this country, not
*for* punishment. Such is the case in all civilised
countries.

Those two statements mean precisely the same to me. What is the
difference?

Sent to prison *as punishment* ie: being deprived of your
liberty, but
not *for further punishment* ie; being deprived of your basic human
rights/ hard labour or any other extra punishment.
Being sent to prison IS your punishment.

Why jail someone in a nice way for 30 years instead of in a cruel way
for 15 years?

Well?

Don't you find it absurd that in the UK, TV is a human right in jail?

No.

Why do you want to be nice to someone who has committed a crime serious
enough to be jailed?

Like for smoking weed or petty thieving etc?

Smoking weed shouldn't be illegal, but that's beside the point.

If you're in jail, the law has decided you are bad. You are to be
punished. Why lock you up, but then give you luxuries? Those are
opposites. All you're doing with the luxuries is lessening the
punishment. Why not lessen it instead by shortening the sentence,
saving money on jail time and on luxuries? The person receives the same
effective punishment, but has more of their (hopefully corrected) life
ahead of them.

Say a prisoner gets half the original sentence, then he's locked up for
say 4 years instead of 8 and you deny him any pleasure (tv etc).
Locked up for 23 a day,that will turn that prisoner into either a loony
or a very angry and violent person and the wardens will have a hell of a
time with him/her.
Think about it.

No, it'll make him think about what he's done.

And imagine it was you. You've maybe had a rougher time for 4 years, but it's only 4 years. The next 4 years you are free instead of being locked up. I'd take the 4 without TV.

--
The Royal Family have been declared bankrupt after receiving Richard III's parking fine.

On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:27:54 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:25, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:20:10 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:05, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:50:23 -0000, Aardvark
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 19:20:41 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:55:41 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

People are sent to prison *as* punishment in this country, not
*for* punishment. Such is the case in all civilised countries.

Excuse me. You are typing to a retired Penologist. I know what is
civilized or not.

So do I. The humane treatment of prisoners is one of those things which
are civilised.

Joe Arpaio represents the antithesis of civilised treatment of
prisoners.

Why the **** would you want to be nice to a prisoner? He is the
criminal, he has done wrong, he should lose all rights.

Why? If you disrespect prisoners, they are more likely to come out
angrier than when they went in.

As you said, being locked up is already disrespecting them. There is no
point in punishing them and being nice to them at the same time.

That would then be classed as revenge. Treat the prisoners rough and a
lot of warders would get attacked and/ or killed.

Why have the wardens in the same place as the prisoners? Food should be passed through a grate.

--
We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart -- H. L. Mencken

On 23/03/2016 18:47, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:37:15 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:30, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:26:06 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:24, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:22:13 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:21, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:16:39 -0000, Bod
wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:04, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:55:41 -0000, Aardvark

wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 23:14:20 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:53:08 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals
hardly
ever do.

3 of 5 convicted felons surveyed, using guns. say would not
target a
person if they thought the intended victim had a gun. They
prey
upon
the weak, not the well armed. Fact.


In this country they generally don't use weapons and prey on
those
they *hope* are weak.

That's why the criminals have chocolate delivered to their
cells and
placed on the pillows.


People are sent to prison *as* punishment in this country, not
*for* punishment. Such is the case in all civilised
countries.

Those two statements mean precisely the same to me. What is the
difference?

Sent to prison *as punishment* ie: being deprived of your
liberty, but
not *for further punishment* ie; being deprived of your basic human
rights/ hard labour or any other extra punishment.
Being sent to prison IS your punishment.

Why jail someone in a nice way for 30 years instead of in a cruel
way
for 15 years?

Well?

Don't you find it absurd that in the UK, TV is a human right in
jail?

No.

Why do you want to be nice to someone who has committed a crime
serious
enough to be jailed?

Like for smoking weed or petty thieving etc?

Smoking weed shouldn't be illegal, but that's beside the point.

If you're in jail, the law has decided you are bad. You are to be
punished. Why lock you up, but then give you luxuries? Those are
opposites. All you're doing with the luxuries is lessening the
punishment. Why not lessen it instead by shortening the sentence,
saving money on jail time and on luxuries? The person receives the same
effective punishment, but has more of their (hopefully corrected) life
ahead of them.

Say a prisoner gets half the original sentence, then he's locked up for
say 4 years instead of 8 and you deny him any pleasure (tv etc).
Locked up for 23 a day,that will turn that prisoner into either a loony
or a very angry and violent person and the wardens will have a hell of a
time with him/her.
Think about it.

No, it'll make him think about what he's done.

And imagine it was you. You've maybe had a rougher time for 4 years,
but it's only 4 years. The next 4 years you are free instead of being
locked up. I'd take the 4 without TV.

Fortunately civilised countries treat their prisoners with respect.

--
Bod

On 23/03/2016 18:48, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:27:54 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:25, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:20:10 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:05, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:50:23 -0000, Aardvark
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 19:20:41 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:55:41 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

People are sent to prison *as* punishment in this country, not
*for* punishment. Such is the case in all civilised countries.

Excuse me. You are typing to a retired Penologist. I know what is
civilized or not.

So do I. The humane treatment of prisoners is one of those things
which
are civilised.

Joe Arpaio represents the antithesis of civilised treatment of
prisoners.

Why the **** would you want to be nice to a prisoner? He is the
criminal, he has done wrong, he should lose all rights.

Why? If you disrespect prisoners, they are more likely to come out
angrier than when they went in.

As you said, being locked up is already disrespecting them. There is no
point in punishing them and being nice to them at the same time.

That would then be classed as revenge. Treat the prisoners rough and a
lot of warders would get attacked and/ or killed.

Why have the wardens in the same place as the prisoners? Food should be
passed through a grate.

If only you had a brain that worked properly.

--
Bod

On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 18:54:40 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 18:48, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:27:54 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:25, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:20:10 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:05, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:50:23 -0000, Aardvark
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 19:20:41 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:55:41 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

People are sent to prison *as* punishment in this country, not
*for* punishment. Such is the case in all civilised countries.

Excuse me. You are typing to a retired Penologist. I know what is
civilized or not.

So do I. The humane treatment of prisoners is one of those things
which
are civilised.

Joe Arpaio represents the antithesis of civilised treatment of
prisoners.

Why the **** would you want to be nice to a prisoner? He is the
criminal, he has done wrong, he should lose all rights.

Why? If you disrespect prisoners, they are more likely to come out
angrier than when they went in.

As you said, being locked up is already disrespecting them. There is no
point in punishing them and being nice to them at the same time.

That would then be classed as revenge. Treat the prisoners rough and a
lot of warders would get attacked and/ or killed.

Why have the wardens in the same place as the prisoners? Food should be
passed through a grate.

If only you had a brain that worked properly.

State why you think they should be out of their cells?

--
Gardening Rule:
When weeding, the best way to make sure you are removing a weed and not a valuable plant is to pull on it.
If it comes out of theground easily, it is a valuable plant.

On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 18:51:23 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 18:47, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:37:15 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:30, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:26:06 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:24, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:22:13 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:21, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:16:39 -0000, Bod
wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:04, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:55:41 -0000, Aardvark

wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 23:14:20 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:53:08 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals
hardly
ever do.

3 of 5 convicted felons surveyed, using guns. say would not
target a
person if they thought the intended victim had a gun. They
prey
upon
the weak, not the well armed. Fact.


In this country they generally don't use weapons and prey on
those
they *hope* are weak.

That's why the criminals have chocolate delivered to their
cells and
placed on the pillows.


People are sent to prison *as* punishment in this country, not
*for* punishment. Such is the case in all civilised
countries.

Those two statements mean precisely the same to me. What is the
difference?

Sent to prison *as punishment* ie: being deprived of your
liberty, but
not *for further punishment* ie; being deprived of your basic human
rights/ hard labour or any other extra punishment.
Being sent to prison IS your punishment.

Why jail someone in a nice way for 30 years instead of in a cruel
way
for 15 years?

Well?

Don't you find it absurd that in the UK, TV is a human right in
jail?

No.

Why do you want to be nice to someone who has committed a crime
serious
enough to be jailed?

Like for smoking weed or petty thieving etc?

Smoking weed shouldn't be illegal, but that's beside the point.

If you're in jail, the law has decided you are bad. You are to be
punished. Why lock you up, but then give you luxuries? Those are
opposites. All you're doing with the luxuries is lessening the
punishment. Why not lessen it instead by shortening the sentence,
saving money on jail time and on luxuries? The person receives the same
effective punishment, but has more of their (hopefully corrected) life
ahead of them.

Say a prisoner gets half the original sentence, then he's locked up for
say 4 years instead of 8 and you deny him any pleasure (tv etc).
Locked up for 23 a day,that will turn that prisoner into either a loony
or a very angry and violent person and the wardens will have a hell of a
time with him/her.
Think about it.

No, it'll make him think about what he's done.

And imagine it was you. You've maybe had a rougher time for 4 years,
but it's only 4 years. The next 4 years you are free instead of being
locked up. I'd take the 4 without TV.

Fortunately civilised countries treat their prisoners with respect.

These people have broken the law. They do not deserve respect.

--
Gardening Rule:
When weeding, the best way to make sure you are removing a weed and not a valuable plant is to pull on it.
If it comes out of theground easily, it is a valuable plant.

On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 02:02:07 -0000, 83LowRider wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

Which is why I said USA should outlaw guns.

Like we did with drugs? That sure took care of the problem.

Make your country like the UK, and all will be fine.

I believe we fought a war with you to be sure that
such a thing would never happen.

There is no need for it not to happen. Do you think we're all pining for a gun?

That, and the tea
thing... tea sucks.

We don't all drink tea. Hardly any of us do. We drink coffee like you.

Do you think it acceptable that some
old lady in America who isn't able to shoot to defend herself is
liable to be killed? So what if young fit people can protect
themselves, don't you give a **** about the infirm?

Many old ladies have been killed. Those who are armed
and fire first are usually not in that category. The 'young
fit people' are usually the ones doing the killin'.

Thanks for making my point.

--
Intercourse prevents divorce.

On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 04:18:03 -0000, 83LowRider wrote:

Mr Macaw wrote:

How did you get the elephant into your pyjamas?

I lured him with the squirrel.

And what's the point in pyjamas?

The protect my nuts from the squirrel.

Why don't you sleep naked?

Too many wild animals hangin' around.

Don't you own a house?

Yes! Almost every day there are countless squirrels and rabbits in
it. Almost every day I can step out and see deer and turkeys.
A couple times a month we spot a fox or coyote. Still no bears,
tho there are plenty in east TN. My sister recently had one
diggin' around in the dumpsters at her apartment.

How do the rabbits get inside the house?

They use the front door like everyone else. We're
not barbarians here.

Well if you go and eave youyr front door open....

Still, even if I did that, most animals are too timid to go inside a human built enclosure.

--
Harry Carpenter at the Oxford-Cambridge boat race 1977 - "Ah, isn't that nice. The wife of the Cambridge President is kissing the Cox of the Oxford crew."

On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 05:44:18 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 20/03/2016 00:34, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 01:24:29 -0000, 83LowRider wrote:

marcus wrote:
On 03/17/2016 07:19 PM, 83LowRider wrote:
Wally wrote:
I noticed that Stormy's "Square D Electrical Panel Question" thread
has turned into a gun/squirrel thread so I thought maybe we should
switch this "Guns in America" thread into a "Square D Electrical
Panel" thread.
So whadda ya'll think?
A 'D' is not squared. Pi r squared.
YW!


Is it safe to shoot a squirrel while its sitting in your Square D
entrance panel?

I'm not sure on that one, altho I did shoot an elephant once, in my
pajamas.


How did you get the elephant into your pyjamas?

And what's the point in pyjamas? Why don't you sleep naked?

Great idea, that eliminates the elephant problem ;-)

[looks between legs and giggles]

--
Peter is listening to "Pogues with Sinead O'Connor - I'm a man you don't meet every day"

Mr Macaw wrote:

We don't all drink tea. Hardly any of us do. We drink coffee like
you.

I wouldn't touch a cup of coffee.

On 24/03/2016 10:46, Aardvark wrote:
Bod Wrote in message:
On 23/03/2016 14:30, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:26:06 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:24, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:22:13 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:21, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:16:39 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:04, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:55:41 -0000, Aardvark

wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 23:14:20 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:53:08 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals
hardly
ever do.

3 of 5 convicted felons surveyed, using guns. say would not
target a
person if they thought the intended victim had a gun. They prey
upon
the weak, not the well armed. Fact.


In this country they generally don't use weapons and prey on
those
they *hope* are weak.

That's why the criminals have chocolate delivered to their
cells and
placed on the pillows.


People are sent to prison *as* punishment in this country, not
*for* punishment. Such is the case in all civilised
countries.

Those two statements mean precisely the same to me. What is the
difference?

Sent to prison *as punishment* ie: being deprived of your
liberty, but
not *for further punishment* ie; being deprived of your basic human
rights/ hard labour or any other extra punishment.
Being sent to prison IS your punishment.

Why jail someone in a nice way for 30 years instead of in a cruel way
for 15 years?

Well?

Don't you find it absurd that in the UK, TV is a human right in jail?

No.

Why do you want to be nice to someone who has committed a crime serious
enough to be jailed?

Like for smoking weed or petty thieving etc?

Smoking weed shouldn't be illegal, but that's beside the point.

If you're in jail, the law has decided you are bad. You are to be
punished. Why lock you up, but then give you luxuries? Those are
opposites. All you're doing with the luxuries is lessening the
punishment. Why not lessen it instead by shortening the sentence,
saving money on jail time and on luxuries? The person receives the same
effective punishment, but has more of their (hopefully corrected) life
ahead of them.

Say a prisoner gets half the original sentence, then he's locked up for
say 4 years instead of 8 and you deny him any pleasure (tv etc).
Locked up for 23 a day,that will turn that prisoner into either a loony
or a very angry and violent person and the wardens will have a hell of a
time with him/her.
Think about it.


You're ascribing an ability to him that he evidently doesn't possess.

Yup, the gearbox is working, but the selector isn't :-)

--
Bod

"Mr Macaw" Wrote in message:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:50:23 -0000, Aardvark wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 19:20:41 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:55:41 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

People are sent to prison *as* punishment in this country, not
*for* punishment. Such is the case in all civilised countries.

Excuse me. You are typing to a retired Penologist. I know what is
civilized or not.

So do I. The humane treatment of prisoners is one of those things which
are civilised.

Joe Arpaio represents the antithesis of civilised treatment of prisoners.

Why the **** would you want to be nice to a prisoner?

Treating humanely and 'being nice' are completely different things.

He is the criminal, he has done wrong, he should lose all rights.


No one ever loses their human rights, they simply have them abused.

--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

"Mr Macaw" Wrote in message:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:20:10 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:05, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:50:23 -0000, Aardvark
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 19:20:41 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:55:41 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

People are sent to prison *as* punishment in this country, not
*for* punishment. Such is the case in all civilised countries.

Excuse me. You are typing to a retired Penologist. I know what is
civilized or not.

So do I. The humane treatment of prisoners is one of those things which
are civilised.

Joe Arpaio represents the antithesis of civilised treatment of prisoners.

Why the **** would you want to be nice to a prisoner? He is the
criminal, he has done wrong, he should lose all rights.

Why? If you disrespect prisoners, they are more likely to come out
angrier than when they went in.

As you said, being locked up is already disrespecting them.

Where did anyone say that?

There is no point in punishing them and being nice to them at the same time.


Their punishment is temporary or permanent loss of freedom,
nothing else. One is sent to prison *AS* punishment, not *FOR*
punishment.

Not too bright, are you?

--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

"Mr Macaw" Wrote in message:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:55:41 -0000, Aardvark wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 23:14:20 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:53:08 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals hardly
ever do.

3 of 5 convicted felons surveyed, using guns. say would not target a
person if they thought the intended victim had a gun. They prey upon
the weak, not the well armed. Fact.


In this country they generally don't use weapons and prey on those
they *hope* are weak.

That's why the criminals have chocolate delivered to their cells and
placed on the pillows.


People are sent to prison *as* punishment in this country, not
*for* punishment. Such is the case in all civilised
countries.

Those two statements mean precisely the same to me.

That statement doesn't surprise me in the least.

What is the difference?


One phrase uses the word 'as', the other the word 'for', thus
making their meanings completely different.



--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Bod Wrote in message:
On 23/03/2016 14:30, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:26:06 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:24, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:22:13 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:21, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:16:39 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:04, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:55:41 -0000, Aardvark

wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 23:14:20 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:53:08 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals
hardly
ever do.

3 of 5 convicted felons surveyed, using guns. say would not
target a
person if they thought the intended victim had a gun. They prey
upon
the weak, not the well armed. Fact.


In this country they generally don't use weapons and prey on
those
they *hope* are weak.

That's why the criminals have chocolate delivered to their
cells and
placed on the pillows.


People are sent to prison *as* punishment in this country, not
*for* punishment. Such is the case in all civilised
countries.

Those two statements mean precisely the same to me. What is the
difference?

Sent to prison *as punishment* ie: being deprived of your
liberty, but
not *for further punishment* ie; being deprived of your basic human
rights/ hard labour or any other extra punishment.
Being sent to prison IS your punishment.

Why jail someone in a nice way for 30 years instead of in a cruel way
for 15 years?

Well?

Don't you find it absurd that in the UK, TV is a human right in jail?

No.

Why do you want to be nice to someone who has committed a crime serious
enough to be jailed?

Like for smoking weed or petty thieving etc?

Smoking weed shouldn't be illegal, but that's beside the point.

If you're in jail, the law has decided you are bad. You are to be
punished. Why lock you up, but then give you luxuries? Those are
opposites. All you're doing with the luxuries is lessening the
punishment. Why not lessen it instead by shortening the sentence,
saving money on jail time and on luxuries? The person receives the same
effective punishment, but has more of their (hopefully corrected) life
ahead of them.

Say a prisoner gets half the original sentence, then he's locked up for
say 4 years instead of 8 and you deny him any pleasure (tv etc).
Locked up for 23 a day,that will turn that prisoner into either a loony
or a very angry and violent person and the wardens will have a hell of a
time with him/her.
Think about it.


You're ascribing an ability to him that he evidently doesn't possess.
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/