🚀 go-pugleaf

	Dave,

	I'm not flaming you.  Unfortunately, I got back to this discussion
in mid-stream.

In article <PA146008.500.721592942@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.071135.2216@netcom.com> gurgle@netcom.com (Pete Gontier) writes:
>
>>sjo@cci632.cci.com (Steve Owens) writes:
>>>Please state an example
>>>of something that is legal to do, that you do not do, and still feel
>>>your right to participate in such activity should be banned.
>>
>>Smoking tobacco. Drinking alcohol. 
>
>       I suppose this would come under the "parental" theory of government 
>like the drug laws.

	I guess the idea of "to each his own" is lost on some people.
As long as the people that participate in these activities do not effect
you or society, what difference does it make whether or not they
participate in a that activity?

	I guess the idea of self reliance is lost on some people, too.  
I already have a parent.  I don't need another.

>>>It would keep the law-abiding
>>>citizen from participating in a very satisfying form of recreation.
>>
>>True. But what's recreational satisfaction compared to the blood
>>of innocents?
>
>       Nice emotional appeal.

	First, I'd like to know if Mr. Gontier thinks the "blood of
innocents" includes crack dealers or gang members who are blown away
because they trespass on someone else's turf.

	More to the point, if people were oblidged to intercede on
behalf of the victim of a crime, instead of fearing legal retribution
and not getting involved, the "blood of innocents" may not have to be
spilled, but, again, the idea seems to be lost on some people.

(NOTE: I'm not condoning vigilantism, but I think far too many people
 "turn the other cheek" when they see a crime being committed.)

>>>"Patching the system" simply adds kludge on top of
>>>kludge until you have a system that is so huge noone can understand it
>>>and noone can support it.  If that's the case, it's time for a new system.
>>
>>Ah, now we've gotten to crux of the problem, haven't we?
>>
>>Programmers refer to an old, creaky, patched up system as "mature",
>>at least when they're trying to hire new blood. "Mature" is the way
>>I'd describe our system. Hell, it's just about the oldest government
>>on the planet.

	You can call it "mature" if you want.  Most of the programmers
I know worth their weight typically call them "junk".  I've had to
work with some of these "mature" systems myself, and tend to agree with
their impressions.  Rewriting large sections of the system is typically
the only way to get them to function efficiently.

	Wait a minute, are we talking about computers or governments?

:-)

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
>                         Information Services Group
>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)