Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.usage.english > #579502
| From | "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.usage.english, alt.english.usage, misc.writing, soc.culture.usa, talk.politics.misc |
| Subject | Re: 15 million fools |
| Date | 2016-01-05 22:16 +0000 |
| Organization | . |
| Message-ID | <op.yasdikrt86ebyl@red.lan> (permalink) |
| References | (9 earlier) <4i6l8bd8asvt45mp9gsk6o9crligb2hq06@4ax.com> <op.yap45mm086ebyl@red.lan> <hkol8btrps74fkmef1k4mtmln44arvfgb7@4ax.com> <op.yaqml0g286ebyl@red.lan> <tqcm8bpef1t78bnp76t5n7kam36n24gli0@4ax.com> |
Cross-posted to 5 groups.
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 04:12:16 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 23:38:14 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 22:44:47 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 17:21:12 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:56:05 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> [bandwidth snip] >>>> >>>>> Iran no matter HOW much he'd like it to happen. >>>>> >>>>> There are no "pure democracies" in the world. Even >>>>> the classical Athenian experiment with that didn't >>>>> last very long. Plato was correct when he called >>>>> democracy a "degenerate system" - it's is a very >>>>> bad idea to give the uninformed rabble direct >>>>> and detailed control. >>>> >>>> What a stupid viewpoint. >>> >>> No, it's the intellegent - and realistic - viewpoint. >>> >>>> You're basically saying "don't let other peoples' votes count >>>> because they aren't as clever as me". Nobody has the right >>>> to say that. >>> >>> Our Founders said it ... and I think they were correct, >>> at least as far as electing presidents go. "Mob logic" >>> can be a terrible thing - and you don't want it when >>> deciding, or electing someone who can decide, to >>> push the big red button. >>> >>> It's not always an issue of "smartness" either, it's >>> an issue of crowd behavior. There was a line in a >>> movie some years back ... "A person is smart ; >>> PEOPLE are dumb panicky dangerous animals". >>> >>> We may not LIKE to believe this but it's always been >>> true (and exploited). Certain safeguards are necessary >>> and the more money, power and tangible force involved >>> in the equation the stronger the safeguards must be. >>> >>> There are some kinds of people who should never be >>> allowed to become a US president even if 99.99% of >>> the voters absolutely LOVE the guy. "Democracy" ? >>> Nice idea in the abstract, but there are times to be >>> coldly practical. >>> >>> The world has endured meglomaniacs, psychotics, >>> sociopaths and outright lunatics elevated to positions >>> of great power far too often. It was a very bad thing >>> pre-industrial and these days is a literal world-ending >>> threat. >> >> But who gets to decide which people say who is a psychotic? >> It's all about your point of view. > > Uh oh ... now you're getting all philosophical - reality > is what the collective We decide it is. > > Sometimes true, sometimes not. > > And anyone attempting to be objective can spot a loonie > at 50 paces .... yet any large GROUP may not. Interesting. > > Now if you wish to discuss the extended meanings of > Platos allegory of the cave or the Buddhas remark that > reality is illusion, those are the hair-splitting quantum- > mechanics of the universe and our situation within it > and should be in another thread, probably another > group entirely. It's not really stuff humans can use > in their everyday lives anyway ... No, you're the one being philosophical. And you were correct in your first sentence, the collective decides what is wrong. All of them, not just the few that think they're better than the rest. In fact take any group of people and they'll always think they're better than the rest. So you can't pick any group and say they're correct. You must allow everyone an equal vote. >> The ONLY fair way is to allow EVERYONE to vote evenly. > > "Fair" got Hitler into power ... another crowd-pleasing maniac. Hitler was a bloody good leader. If we hadn't stopped him, the world would have been cleaned up quite a bit. > "Fair" IS usually good. Not always good however. You are > looking for an otrhogonal system to govern a species with > decidedly unorthogonal behavior set - just won't work all of > the time. People are just *nuts* sometimes, but that's no > excuse to enshrine it in law, or in actions you can't take back. If most people want to be nuts, then nuts should be the rule. >> What you think is mad someone else may think is sensible. > > Means they're mad too :-) Only in your opinion. >> If more people think a particular thing is sensible than mad, >> then it should be deemed sensible. > > Um ... no ... never. Votes do not create Truths, quantity is > not quality. If more people think X is good, than people (including you) who think X is bad, then you are simply wrong. >>>>> Our respective "representative" systems are intended >>>>> to alleviate the potential problems of "pure" democracy ... >>>>> but I think they introduce new routes of abuse/corruption. >>>>> Also, since the invention of the instant opinion poll, >>>>> representative systems tend to manifest some of the >>>>> problems of "pure" democracy as politicians try to please >>>>> all the people all of the time. >>>>> >>>>>> Who has the right to say the majority of the population >>>>>> isn't clever enough to vote ? >>>>> >>>>> In our case it was the Founders themselves. They >>>>> were very clever men ... and I think honest about >>>>> their citizens and wise about human nature. The >>>>> more power vested in an individual, the more layers >>>>> of insulation required between him and Joe Citizen. >>>> >>>> Hmph! Founders indeed. You wrote a decent constitution, >>>> then completely ignored it by amending it several times >>> >>> The amendments, the first 10 anyway, were part of >>> the deal. No constitition without explicitly spelling out >>> certain rights. I think that's the only thing that kept >>> the USA from becoming another Russia or another >>> Reich. Our 'leaders' labor endlessly to find ways of >>> reasoning around those enumerated rights - showing >>> us what the USA would have become if nobody had >>> bothered writing them down. The will to absolute >>> power is ALWAYS there. >> >> WTF are you on about "part of the deal"? > > Just as I said ... without those amendments the delegation > would not have signed the constitution and there would have > been many "states of America" - probably emulating europe > and constantly at war with each other - rather than one > balanced union. So it's a watered down compromise. >> Obviously an amendment means you changed it. > > Yes, and also in this case no. The main body of the document > was written and presented - and then amended - but strictly > speaking there was no constitution UNTIL everybody signed > on the line. So the original 10 amendments weren't to the > constitution, only to the proposed draft. Still get CALLED > "amendments" of course, but actually #11 was the first > true amendment to the US constitution :-) Ok, so 11 onwards are wrong. >> The whole point of the constitution is that it should never be >> tampered with. Why have laws if they only work until >> somebody deletes them? > > The US constitution contains a protocol for amending the > constitution. The Founders understood that they could > not anticipate EVERY important future issue. Let's take "freedom of speech". Where has that gone? You deleted it. > Especially the one big thing they intentionally left OUT > of the constitution ... the issue of slaves. Just as they > had to make those 10 amendments to the draft to > get everyone to sign they also had to leave OUT any > end to slavery even though they KNEW it would > crop up more and more as time passed. Slavery is a bloody good idea, I'd love a slave. > However they made it very DIFFICULT to amend the > constitution ... and the first 10 "amendments" are > considered to be root basic civil rights for free men > in a free republic and thus pretty much off-limits. > The integrity of the document lies in the difficulty of > changing it. It isn't perfect protection - there was > that amendment banning boooze, followed by one > about ten years later un-banning booze, so extreme > instances of righteous zeal CAN mar the document - > and a later return to sanity can fix it. Now you're better than the UK, allowing weed. >>>>> Now in the UK style of government the position of >>>>> the PM is not anything the citizens get to vote on >>>>> directly, if I understand correctly. They elect reps >>>>> from their favorite parties and the reps of the >>>>> majority party select a PM from their ranks. This >>>>> makes those party reps somewhat equivalent >>>>> to our "electors" ... an extra layer of indirection >>>>> between citizen and highest executive. >>>> >>>> Yip, a right farce. What's worse is the number of representatives >>>> (MPs) is often nothing like the number of people that voted for that >>>> party. For example UKIP got three times the number of votes as >>>> SNP, yet SNP got fifty times more MPs! >>> >>> Ok ... that's really weird ............ >>> >>> How do they justify that ? Size of represented area ? >>> Sheer number of voters per area ? Traditional >>> importance of area ? Nothing to do with area or >>> population ? Average penis dimensions ??? >> >> "First past the post", the stupidest voting system ever. The UK is >> divided into sections, and an MP is voted in by residents of each section. > > Ok ... so far like a US "voting district", or individual states > when it comes to voting for president .... > >> The party that gets in is the one with the most MPs. > > Pretty much like our Republicans -vs- Democrats. > >> So if as in the case of UKIP, they have a decent vote >> throughout the whole country, but spread out, then they >> get fuck all MPs. > > Sounds like our "3rd parties" like the Libertarians or > Tea Party .... a decent number nationwide but not > enough in any ONE place to win an election. VERY > rare for 3rd-party candidates to be seen in the > federal legislature, Rand Paul may be the only one > at present. So your system is completely unfair too. >> But SNP has them all concentrated in one area, so they >> get more MPs with less votes. > > Understood. > > The by-population -vs- by-state issue plagued our Founders > as well. It is why we have a Senate and Congress - the fix > was to do it both ways :-) > > However elections for both are STILL regional ... so widely- > dispersed 3rd party adherents don't add up to butts in the > seats. > > This MAY have been intentional - a "stabilizing" function > to ensure change didn't come TOO quickly. We need lots of change. There are so many things wrong with the government (in the UK and the US). >> If an area has a small number of votes for party X, then that >> party doesn't get their MP there, and those votes are completely >> wasted. > > Mine would be completely wasted if I voted for an obscure > candidate. And that's another thing, you get people "tactically voting". There may be for sake of example 100,000 people in a voting area. The last election saw 50,000 Conservative, 40,000 Labour, and 10,000 Green. So this time nobody votes Green because they won't get in. Of course they won't get in, because the 50,000 tactical voters who could have voted Green didn't! There was some kind of plan to stop tactical voting by having TWO votes. In the first one you vote for who you really want, then we all get to see the numbers, and can change or minds to pick one that will be more likely to get in. > Sounds like you want a whole-country proportional system > instead of the regional structuring. We keep trying to, but the problem is the party in power got in through the seats system and won't change it because it'll ruin their chances of getting in next time. > I think you'd find though > that regions are regions because the people there share > common history, traditions, beliefs. They are "special" and > want a system that recognizes their specialness. I doubt it, they're just geographical areas, and in fact the party in power is allowed to move the borders to suit themselves! > Our Senate gives equal power to each individual state, thus > adding clout to their "specialness" - which many states > are very proud of. We are the "United STATES" after > all ... not the "State of America". Your system of State laws and Federal laws would confuse the hell out of me. You can be doing something legal, drive 2 miles, then be breaking the law. Or you could be breaking a Federal law but not a State one etc. > So, despite differences in titles and names, the current > UK system isn't THAT much different from the USAs. > You DO seem to get a lot more "3rd parties" in there > than we do however I think the US system requires lots more money to stand for election. > ... a "coalition government" of > cooperating small parties is nothing we are familiar with. That coalition was a bloody stupid idea. The Liberals are left wing and the Conservatives are right wing. The Liberals didn't have much influence on the Conservative Government, they just shot themselves in the foot and helped them to get in. Needless to say nobody votes Liberal any more. > As I said somewhere, Americans like things black & white ... > two clear choices. The only big change was LONG ago > when the Republicans displaced the Whigs. We used to have a party called Whigs, they were the predecessors of the Conservatives. Before I was born though. Wikipedia has an article on it somewhere. >>>>>> Those people "inserting a layer of smarter people" >>>>>> just THINK they're smarter. >>>>> >>>>> In the 1780s "electors" really WOULD have been >>>>> choosen from the "smarter", better-educated, >>>>> subportion of the population. With a broader, >>>>> more worldly view and likely training in "liberal >>>>> arts" - including logic, philosophy and maybe >>>>> theology - when it came to running a country >>>>> properly, they would be the better choice. >>>>> >>>>> In the 2000s ... um .... I still too often see where >>>>> Joe Citizen is lacking. Even worse it's become a >>>>> much "bigger world", a much more politically and >>>>> economically complicated world, since the 1700s. >>>>> Joe Citizen has not risen to the challenge. Even >>>>> the internet hasn't helped ... simply added a larger >>>>> volume of mis/dis-information. >>>>> >>>>> Alas the "better" people you would want to be your >>>>> representatives, presidents and electors also have >>>>> fallen behind the proverbial curve. Statesmen are >>>>> few ... self-serving, self-absorbed, myopic pinheads >>>>> are far more common. There is little difference >>>>> now between "better" and the rabble and thus >>>>> bad decisions have increased. >>>>> >>>>> Thinking about it all, clearly there IS NO "perfect" >>>>> system, no "perfect" form or shape of government. >>>>> Nothing even close to "perfect". We get a choice >>>>> between "horrible" and "not QUITE so horrible". >>>>> A large part of this problem is inescapable - it >>>>> is *people* - 8 billion constantly-mutating notions >>>>> of the way things ought to be. We are a species >>>>> that actually enjoys congitive dissonance and >>>>> believing six impossible things before breakfast. >>>>> >>>>> So, until the Robot Overlords arrive, we're just stuck. >>>> >>>> The "masses" must have more choice, it's that simple. >>> >>> I'd back more choice for *some* things ... "lifestyle >>> issues" and other minimally-dangerous individual- >>> centered items. *Dangerous* things however - big >>> money, military force, international relations - better >>> to leave things as they are. >> >> Bullshit! We are currently throwing away money bombing >> countries when most of us don't want to! > > Maybe "most" in the UK .... but most Americans COULD > be convinced to send waves of B-52s across the entire > middle east until nothing was left. A few more ISIL-related > terror incidents is all it would take. It doesn't bother us too > much if our poor folks and gangsters kill each other ... but > if some OUTSIDE entity does it then we get seriously > bent out of shape and vengance crusades get authorized. Well if most Americans want to, then you should. But most UK citizens don't want to spend all that money doing it. We're a smaller country remember, it hits our economy worse to bomb the same amount. >>> Joe Citizen doesn't have the time nor inclination to >>> study the facts and details of almost anything the >>> State is doing. He doesn't have the resources to >>> do a good job of it even if he was so-inclined. He >>> cannot be a chemist and physicist and engineer >>> and biologist and ecologist and geologist and >>> economist and foreign-policy insider and .... well ... >>> if he voted correctly it would be by pure accident. >>> >>> So instead he gets to vote for people who "seem >>> trustworthy" (often aren't), more of a "gut" reaction, >>> personality-appraisal - can be done with fewer >>> resources/info/training. Besides, all his "choices" >>> will have been vetted by the Big Money people, >>> not much difference between them. >> >> Those "trustworthy" folk have biases. Putting it to the vote of the masses would be way better. > > Everybody has biases ... and so can "the masses". But since there are so many of them, the biasses will average out. -- Pat Glenn, weightlifting commentator - "And this is Gregoriava from Bulgaria. I saw her snatch this morning and it was amazing!"
Back to alt.usage.english | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2015-12-30 18:42 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-12-30 19:12 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2015-12-30 19:21 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Simon Grushka <s.grushka83@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 14:14 -0800
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2015-12-30 22:19 -0500
Re: 15 million fools James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com> - 2015-12-31 09:22 +0100
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-31 04:31 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2015-12-31 17:13 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2015-12-31 17:12 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2015-12-31 22:00 -0500
Re: 15 million fools Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-01 17:47 +1100
Re: 15 million fools musika <mUs1Ka@NOSPAMexcite.com> - 2016-01-01 08:16 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-01 19:30 +1100
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-01 06:41 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 14:59 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-01 19:44 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 19:48 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-01 22:24 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 22:46 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-02 12:28 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Janet <nobody@home.org> - 2016-01-02 15:04 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 12:03 -0500
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-02 20:51 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-02 20:58 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-04 09:02 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 19:14 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2016-01-03 19:14 +0100
Re: 15 million fools the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 19:19 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-04 09:02 +1100
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 19:57 +0000
Re: 15 million fools pensive hamster <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> - 2016-01-01 12:10 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 20:18 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-01 22:27 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 22:47 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-01 20:17 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-02 20:48 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-01 12:55 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 21:05 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 21:09 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-01 22:29 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 22:51 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-02 12:29 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-02 20:53 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-04 09:03 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 19:14 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-05 10:31 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 07:12 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-06 00:14 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-06 00:14 +0000
Re: 15 million fools bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2016-01-01 17:02 -0800
Re: 15 million fools musika <mUs1Ka@NOSPAMexcite.com> - 2016-01-02 01:43 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-02 20:42 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 14:58 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-01 21:52 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-02 20:42 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-02 21:54 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-03 16:09 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-01 21:47 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-02 20:42 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 14:57 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-01 21:54 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-02 20:44 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-02 21:55 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-03 16:10 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 11:09 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-03 19:27 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-03 17:32 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 00:25 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-04 11:56 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 17:21 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-04 17:44 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 23:38 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-04 23:12 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-05 22:16 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-05 22:04 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-06 20:09 +0000
Re: 15 million fools pensive hamster <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> - 2016-01-06 11:10 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2015-12-31 17:11 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2015-12-31 22:36 -0500
Re: 15 million fools Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-01 18:12 +1100
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-01 06:48 -0800
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-01 22:17 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 11:00 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-01 19:46 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 19:54 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Richard Yates <richard@yatesguitar.com> - 2016-01-01 12:27 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 20:34 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-01 12:57 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 21:05 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-01 22:41 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-02 20:46 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-02 21:52 -0500
Re: 15 million fools RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2016-01-02 22:03 -0700
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-02 21:48 -0800
Re: 15 million fools Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-03 17:34 +1100
Re: 15 million fools Janet <nobody@home.org> - 2016-01-03 11:31 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-03 17:40 -0500
Re: 15 million fools Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-04 10:13 +1100
Re: 15 million fools Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 16:15 -0800
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-05 16:43 -0500
Re: 15 million fools Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 17:36 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-03 18:36 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 11:11 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-03 19:28 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 13:47 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <mail@peterduncanson.net> - 2016-01-04 00:07 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 00:31 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 00:29 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-04 09:13 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 04:17 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 19:16 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 19:15 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-05 10:24 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-06 00:13 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 13:42 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-06 19:04 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 04:19 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 19:16 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 11:58 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 23:30 +0000
Re: 15 million fools charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> - 2016-01-04 20:02 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Peter Young <pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> - 2016-01-04 20:10 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 13:17 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 23:31 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Reinhold {Rey} Aman <aman@sonic.net> - 2016-01-03 18:18 -0800
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-03 17:54 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 00:27 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-04 17:58 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 23:40 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-04 09:06 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 19:15 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Charles Bishop <ctbishop@earthlink.net> - 2016-01-02 17:29 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-03 16:09 +0000
Re: 15 million fools CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 08:31 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2015-12-31 16:46 +0000
csiph-web