XPost: talk.politics.guns, alt.law-enforcement   
   From: D-E-M-I-G-O-D@SHAW.CA   
      
   Christie, knowing you as an incorrigible imbecile, I feel like I ought   
   to explain this to you that I'm not "knit picking", "questioning   
   anyone", nor "looking for anything wrong" in this post...   
      
   You see, if one is in position, and determined to make someone pay for   
   "being wrong" according (or rather -"not in accordance" with) his own   
   interests, one is most likely to peruse that "payment"...   
      
   So, you see, it's just a comment, made to give you an idea and a food   
   for thoughts. Don't you think that "right" and "wrong" should be   
   properly defined in their clarity and through visible contrast, just   
   like Black & White, without the "gray" area between them?   
      
   So, when you allowing (certain) people to make important decisions (for   
   you), you better make sure that those people KNOW EXACTLY about their   
   goals.   
      
   But then again, those goals may not be coinciding with the targets   
   (interests, or expectations) of other people... which exactly MY POINT.   
      
   "Chris"  wrote in message   
   news:l2dqb.7080$jW5.162911@twister.tampabay.rr.com...   
   >   
   > "D E M I G O D"  wrote in message   
   > news:gycqb.309132$6C4.291998@pd7tw1no...   
   > > > "It is hard to imagine a more stupid   
   > > > or more dangerous way of making   
   > > > decisions than by putting those   
   > > > decisions in the hands of people who   
   > > > pay no price for being wrong"   
   > > Author Thomas Sowell   
   > >   
   > > "wrong" to whom?   
   >   
   > You couldn't find anything wrong   
   > with his post, so you question a   
   > quote from an author instead?   
   >   
   > Damn you're sad.   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)