On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 10:36:31PM -0400, Isaiah Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 10:38:48PM -0400, Paul M Foster wrote:
> > One example doesn't disprove the point. California does have some of the
> > most intrusive, draconian laws around. No contest.
>
> At least I bothered to cite an example. "Most intrustive, draconian
> laws" is about as personal an opinion as you can get. If you'd like to get
> into rational perceptions, I've got some email threads I can use to prove
> my point that [maybe not you, but at least] Smitty is about as irrational
> as they come. ;)
>
What example did you cite? (Sorry, I truly missed it, or forgot.)
Unfortunately, I don't particularly follow California laws. I read about
them, shake my head, and add another tick mark in the "Psychotic
California Laws" column. I'm not trying to be snide-- that's the truth.
Otherwise, I'd cite you chapter and verse. With respect to California
gun laws, I can probably find examples in short order. Other than that,
I'd have to dig around.
And I won't argue that there aren't _good_ laws in California.
California gave the world catalytic converters, which seem to be a good
thing. (Though I really wish they had given us cleaner burning engines
rather than just exhaust scrubbers.) So you can probably cite lots of
examples of good laws. That doesn't mean there aren't some really crappy
ones.
BTW, I take it you don't work for Red Hat anymore?
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:10:59 EDT