🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov12.221616.18578@news.eng.convex.com>, gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner) writes:
> In article <1992Nov12.121422.49@nsrvan.vanc.wa.us> sysevm@nsrvan.vanc.wa.us writes:
>>What would you do to a monster who takes YOUR son/daughter and rapes
>>them and beats them and kills them over 3 days. Would you go a buy a gun and
>>wait for them to be released 120 days into their cypher charge then BLOW them
>>away?
> 	Is there a point here?   I'm lost.  Are you for or against the
> 	government forcing the registration of PKC keys?
> 

	The point is that existing laws do not keep the dangerous off the
street for any length of time and therefore your argument for the registration
of PKC keys is moot. You are lost because you are thinking in a detached from
the problem mode. Some kind of an intelectual game not the deeply insightfull
modde of thought that is required for this issue. (see my next followup for
more details)

> 
>>Sorry for rambling, This stupid argument just struck too close to home.
>>But really, next time you read about some heinous act see your kids as the
>>victim then let me know if registering keys is at all important compaired to
>>early detection and real jail time for the monsters.
> 	"Struck too close to home".  Isn't that just another way of saying:
> 	"I am too emotionally involved here to give a rational answer.
> 	Disregard what I am about to say." ?
> 
> 							smg

	No, it does not mean that. It means to look at the real arguments. It
means that you would have a differient viewpoint if you were looking at this as
a father instead of as an intellectual game.