http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/ The Volvo owner's resource since 1997. en Copyright 1997-2009, Jarrod Stenberg Sat, 7 Nov 2009 17:48 GMT Sat, 7 Nov 2009 17:48 GMT brickadmin@denizen.net brickadmin@denizen.net volvo 15 http://www.brickboard.com/images/logo_b_25.gif http://www.brickboard.com/ 25 25 The Volvo owner's resource since 1997. My complaints are complaints of degree not of kind. Sport and games are very human and I have no issue with that fact. In ancient societies physical games served a practical purpose in keeping the young physically and mentally fit and training them for when the time came when they would have to defend their city/state, village or whatever from invasion or otherwise engage in battle. Sport was a means to an end the end being the continued strength and longevity of a society and culture. Games have also served as a political bridge between societies and possibly even served as a surrogate for warfare. I have no issue with any of that or with sport itself I only take issue with what we modern people have done with it, mostly what we have allowed the market place to do with it. Take the money and the excess out of it and we would be left with only the "good" inherent in the idea of sport and competition. Remove the "way of life" factor and we would be left with only the best of motives and the most noble of intentions and outcomes instead of the beer-swilling, shoe-selling exercise in anything goes self indulgent nonsense that ESPN pumps up our collective ass 24/7 under the deceptive guise of "competitive values". Like most things that our economic system gets its tentacles around the promise of vast amounts of profit has perverted the noble aspects of sport and competition and created a monolithic abomination in its place. The good and the meaning has been wrong completely out of the original idea and been replaced with utter absurdity of mammoth proportions and for what? No real good for the players or the spectators that I can discern. Gee, I guess those Phillies could have won the series if only they had spent more money than the Yankees importing top notch players from anywhere on the globe who have no connection to or concern with Philadelphia whatsoever but since they didn't I guess that makes New York "better". Either that or the whole frigging thing is a completely meaningless exercise in well-funded masturbatory non-sense. %0D%0A--%0D%0AThere's nothing worse than a reformed anything http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384703/america_drinks_goes_home.html?rss=1 Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:05 GMT I don't have a t.v., I do watch things online but that is a much less "passive" way to do it and not as much of my time is wasted with ads. Also, there is zero time wasted on channel surfing or just passively watching dumb shit because it is the easy thing to do.%0D%0A--%0D%0AThere's nothing worse than a reformed anything http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384711/ticker_tape_parades_athletes.html?rss=1 Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:20 GMT Mighty Right about that. %0D%0AAnd the same sentiment applies to the shmucks out in Hollywood. %0D%0AKill your TV. Imagine what the world would be like, if all that time we spend on TV were used constructively. %0D%0AMike http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384656/ticker_tape_parades_athletes.html?rss=1 Sat, 7 Nov 2009 13:46 GMT I'm sorry but I don't get it.%0D%0AThees athletes make more money in 2 years then I will ever see in my lifetime. %0D%0AAlthough it is their job, it is a Game. They are doing a function just like every other working person in the world.%0D%0AWhat gives them entitlement to a Tax Dollar Paid parade? In a time when New York is creating new fees to charge and new taxes for us to pay to compensate for their unwillingness to run the City more efficiently. I just don't get it.%0D%0AIf the ball players want this... I think they or the entire baseball League should have gotten involved in a lot of fun raises to pay for it. %0D%0AIt snarls the roads that aren't closed for it, no one has the day off to see it.. My memory may be failing but I don't remember ever getting a parade for doing what I'm paid to do.%0D%0ARole models? I don't think so. Allegence to a team? I don't think so. So why the parade? %0D%0A%0D%0A--%0D%0A'75 Jeep CJ5 345Hp ChevyPwrd, two motorcycles, '85 Pickup: The '89 Volvo is the newest vehicle I own. it wasn't Volvos safety , it was Longevity that sold me http://home.no.net/ebrox/Tony's%20cars.htm http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384446/ticker_tape_parades_athletes.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 13:21 GMT The, "Information" as you call it (the photograph) is copyrighted, and is not free for him to use as he sees fit. That is one point that you are missing.%0D%0A%0D%0AThank you for proving what I said earlier this morning about who joins forces on this forum. You have just removed all doubt. http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384710/just_dont_understand_ok_sticky_03v_bully_people_private_stuff_seen_victims.html?rss=1 Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:19 GMT I'm not a hypocrite, so I don't like what was done by Snoot. I live the ' What goes on in Vegas' sort of world, and I don't spend my time doing searches. I do respect people' s privacy, even if technically I have public access to it somewhere else. %0D%0A%0D%0AHowever, I expect the same respect to be given to me, and Stickbuilder and 03V have not allowed for that. In fact, they - untruthfully - stated they didn't care in attempt to humiliate us into giving them information we didn't wish to divulge, after making up all sorts of thigns about us. Snoot's reaction was the result of ignoring the type of harassment that has gone on for months.%0D%0A%0D%0ANow, if Jarrod wishes to punish Snoot, as you say, it's his site, but I think tort's analogy is a good one. You don't sit back and let two bullies shove on other kids in the sandbox, and then get angry at the one who finally swings back.%0D%0A%0D%0AI have as much of a 'right' to be left alone on my private life as much as Stickbuilder had a 'right' to keep publicly posted information from showing up here.%0D%0A%0D%0A http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384666/just_dont_understand_ok_sticky_03v_bully_people_private_stuff_seen_victims.html?rss=1 Sat, 7 Nov 2009 14:32 GMT Whether or not it's easily found on the internet, this is INAPPROPRIATE and I won't tolerate it.%0D%0A%0D%0AI have been treated this way by others on the net and find it despicable. %0D%0A%0D%0ANo further posts like this will be allowed and I will take action against those who post such material.%0A--%0AThe trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. &#128;&#148;Bertrand Russell http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384467/ill_ban_anyone_site_posts_personal_identity_information_others.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 15:04 GMT ....and we instead seek to improve our society with the same gusto and fervor that we follow the NBA...%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0AInteresting, the idea of the sport of governance. We could all watch CSPAN and root for our "team" of legislators to beat the other guys. All sorts of analogies come to mind. Term Limits/Campaign finance reform = Salary Caps/Parity, Lobbying Interests = Signing Bonuses, etc. Much like sports, most of us don't participate. We're all armchair quarterbacks bitching from our seats about bad calls and the coach's lack of brains.%0D%0A%0D%0AI don't directly support any athletes by buying tickets, or Nike shoes for that matter. I watch the Steelers on TV and that's about the extent of my involvement. I personally spend more time and energy trying to improve society than watch sports, but I don't have any disdain for those who like them. It's certainly not just an American thing, this obsession with athletes, and I don't think it's new either. How much in money and resources did the ancients expend on these things? It's a human thing. Not necessarily good, but I have seen pure joy on faces, if only temporary, when their team wins the big one. So it goes. http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384686/america_drinks_goes_home.html?rss=1 Sat, 7 Nov 2009 15:28 GMT I find it amusingly ironic that Lysander Spooner and Karl Marx, men intellectually on opposite ends of the spectrum of socioeconomic philosophy, should, besides a particular style of facial foliage, share the dubious vision of a withering away of &#128;&#156;The State&#128;&#157;. (It must have been the <i>Zeitgeist</i> of their era. Considering their different geographical locations, it couldn&#128;&#153;t have been the drinking water.)%0D%0A%0D%0ASpooner advocated Individualist Anarchism - something akin to Libertarianism, in modern parlance - to achieve that objective, and Marx thought that man's enlightenment through Socialism would do the trick. Both of them were wrong.%0D%0A%0D%0APerfect hindsight reveals that Socialism, even without its perversion by Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Castro, could never evolve into the Utopian Communist society Marx and Engels envisioned. The proof of that is in the trail of failures and abandonments a variety of implementations of that theory has left behind.%0D%0A%0D%0ASpooner&#128;&#153;s ideal is equally unlikely to come to fruition in the real world. One has only to look to Somalia, Afghanistan, and, perhaps, Colombia and Mexico to find support of that contention.%0D%0A%0D%0AThat is not to say Spooner&#128;&#153;s, like Marx and Engels&#128;&#153;, theories don&#128;&#153;t make entertaining subjects for interminable intellectual debate and a welcome source of income for hordes of political science professors. Personally, I favor Spooner, if only because he is so eminently readable. Marx and Engels with their turgid Teutonic style are a real slog, and Lenin is, of course, a demagogic bore. I do not mean to imply either that Socialism or respect for individualism have no place in the formulation of our rules of governance.%0D%0A%0D%0AIt was Marx&#128;&#153;s misfortune that the individualism that Spooner championed is basically what makes perfect Communism unachievable. On the other hand, anarchy is not in our blood either. Like most other mammals, we are social animals who must have an ordered society to survive. Anarchism gives us the antithesis of that.%0D%0A%0D%0AAn ordered society; be it a clan, an empire, or a federal republic; requires governance. So, we create governments, or have governments created for us, and pay tribute or taxes and put limits, or have limits put, on our individual freedoms in exchange for the benefits that ordered societies bring us. The degree to which the benefits compensate for the loss of individual freedoms and the tributes paid is the measure of the success of the society. That, at least to me, is the essence of the &#128;&#156;Social Contract&#128;&#157;. A failed or dysfunctional society is one in which the Social Contract is not being honored by the &#128;&#156;rulers&#128;&#157;, whoever they may be, and is being applied so as to disproportionately benefit one portion of the society at the expense of another. That is what has been happening and, I fear, is still happening in the U.S. %0D%0A%0D%0AA Constitution is merely a formalization of that Social Contract. It is not the Social Contract itself. As such it does not just bind only those alive at the time of its signing, but does so as long as the society continues to exist.%0D%0A%0D%0AThat said, societies change and, although the Social Contract persists, its formalization may no longer meet the current requirements of maintaining the balance between the societal benefits and its members&#128;&#153; obligations. That&#128;&#153;s why there is a lot to be said for Jefferson&#128;&#153;s notion that a revision of the Constitution should take place once every generation. The Supreme Court in a way makes these revisions through interpretation, but, again in my opinion, not in a manner that meets the requirements for keeping our society well-ordered, as evidenced by the discord that currently permeates it.%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384700/treason.html?rss=1 Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:01 GMT No Treason by Lysander Spoon &#091Episode Four&#093%0D%0A%0D%0ANo Treason No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority%0D%0A%0D%0AI.%0D%0AThe Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. &#091This essay was written in 1869.&#093 And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. and the Constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is:%0D%0AWe, the people of the United States (that is, the people then existing in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.%0D%0AIt is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any right or power, to bind their "posterity" to live under it. It does not say that their "posterity" will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquility, liberty, etc.%0D%0ASuppose an agreement were entered into, in this form:%0D%0AWe, the people of Boston, agree to maintain a fort on Governor's Island, to protect ourselves and our posterity against invasion.%0D%0AThis agreement, as an agreement, would clearly bind nobody but the people then existing. Secondly, it would assert no right, power, or disposition, on their part, to compel their "posterity" to maintain such a fort. It would only indicate that the supposed welfare of their posterity was one of the motives that induced the original parties to enter into the agreement.%0D%0AWhen a man says he is building a house for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of binding them, nor is it to be inferred that he is so foolish as to imagine that he has any right or power to bind them, to live in it. So far as they are concerned, he only means to be understood as saying that his hopes and motives, in building it, are that they, or at least some of them, may find it for their happiness to live in it.%0D%0ASo when a man says he is planting a tree for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of compelling them, nor is it to be inferred that he is such a simpleton as to imagine that he has any right or power to compel them, to eat the fruit. So far as they are concerned, he only means to say that his hopes and motives, in planting the tree, are that its fruit may be agreeable to them.%0D%0ASo it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution. Whatever may have been their personal intentions, the legal meaning of their language, so far as their "posterity" was concerned, simply was, that their hopes and motives, in entering into the agreement, were that it might prove useful and acceptable to their posterity; that it might promote their union, safety, tranquility, and welfare; and that it might tend "to secure to them the blessings of liberty." The language does not assert nor at all imply, any right, power, or disposition, on the part of the original parties to the agreement, to compel their "posterity" to live under it. If they had intended to bind their posterity to live under it, they should have said that their objective was, not "to secure to them the blessings of liberty," but to make slaves of them; for if their "posterity" are bound to live under it, they are nothing less than the slaves of their foolish, tyrannical, and dead grandfathers.%0D%0AIt cannot be said that the Constitution formed "the people of the United States," for all time, into a corporation. It does not speak of "the people" as a corporation, but as individuals. A corporation does not describe itself as "we," nor as "people," nor as "ourselves." Nor does a corporation, in legal language, have any "posterity." It supposes itself to have, and speaks of itself as having, perpetual existence, as a single individuality.%0D%0AMoreover, no body of men, existing at any one time, have the power to create a perpetual corporation. A corporation can become practically perpetual only by the voluntary accession of new members, as the old ones die off. But for this voluntary accession of new members, the corporation necessarily dies with the death of those who originally composed it.%0D%0ALegally speaking, therefore, there is, in the Constitution, nothing that professes or attempts to bind the "posterity" of those who established it.%0D%0AIf, then, those who established the Constitution, had no power to bind, and did not attempt to bind, their posterity, the question arises, whether their posterity have bound themselves. If they have done so, they can have done so in only one or both of these two ways, viz., by voting, and paying taxes.%0D%0A%0D%0AII.%0D%0ALet us consider these two matters, voting and tax paying, separately. And first of voting.%0D%0AAll the voting that has ever taken place under the Constitution, has been of such a kind that it not only did not pledge the whole people to support the Constitution, but it did not even pledge any one of them to do so, as the following considerations show.%0D%0A1. In the very nature of things, the act of voting could bind nobody but the actual voters. But owing to the property qualifications required, it is probable that, during the first twenty or thirty years under the Constitution, not more than one-tenth, fifteenth, or perhaps twentieth of the whole population (black and white, men, women, and minors) were permitted to vote. Consequently, so far as voting was concerned, not more than one-tenth, fifteenth, or twentieth of those then existing, could have incurred any obligation to support the Constitution.%0D%0AAt the present time &#158;&#093, it is probable that not more than one-sixth of the whole population are permitted to vote. Consequently, so far as voting is concerned, the other five-sixths can have given no pledge that they will support the Constitution.%0D%0A2. Of the one-sixth that are permitted to vote, probably not more than two-thirds (about one-ninth of the whole population) have usually voted. Many never vote at all. Many vote only once in two, three, five, or ten years, in periods of great excitement.%0D%0ANo one, by voting, can be said to pledge himself for any longer period than that for which he votes. If, for example, I vote for an officer who is to hold his office for only a year, I cannot be said to have thereby pledged myself to support the government beyond that term. Therefore, on the ground of actual voting, it probably cannot be said that more than one-ninth or one-eighth, of the whole population are usually under any pledge to support the Constitution. &#091In recent years, since 1940, the number of voters in elections has usually fluctuated between one-third and two-fifths of the populace.&#093%0D%0A3. It cannot be said that, by voting, a man pledges himself to support the Constitution, unless the act of voting be a perfectly voluntary one on his part. Yet the act of voting cannot properly be called a voluntary one on the part of any very large number of those who do vote. It is rather a measure of necessity imposed upon them by others, than one of their own choice. On this point I repeat what was said in a former number, viz.:%0D%0AIn truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot---which is a mere substitute for a bullet---because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.%0D%0ADoubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby meliorating their condition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or even consented to.%0D%0ATherefore, a man's voting under the Constitution of the United States, is not to be taken as evidence that he ever freely assented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Consequently we have no proof that any very large portion, even of the actual voters of the United States, ever really and voluntarily consented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Nor can we ever have such proof, until every man is left perfectly free to consent, or not, without thereby subjecting himself or his property to be disturbed or injured by others.%0D%0AAs we can have no legal knowledge as to who votes from choice, and who from the necessity thus forced upon him, we can have no legal knowledge, as to any particular individual, that he voted from choice; or, consequently, that by voting, he consented, or pledged himself, to support the government. Legally speaking, therefore, the act of voting utterly fails to pledge any one to support the government. It utterly fails to prove that the government rests upon the voluntary support of anybody. On general principles of law and reason, it cannot be said that the government has any voluntary supporters at all, until it can be distinctly shown who its voluntary supporters are.%0D%0A4. As taxation is made compulsory on all, whether they vote or not, a large proportion of those who vote, no doubt do so to prevent their own money being used against themselves; when, in fact, they would have gladly abstained from voting, if they could thereby have saved themselves from taxation alone, to say nothing of being saved from all the other usurpations and tyrannies of the government. To take a man's property without his consent, and then to infer his consent because he attempts, by voting, to prevent that property from being used to his injury, is a very insufficient proof of his consent to support the Constitution. It is, in fact, no proof at all. And as we can have no legal knowledge as to who the particular individuals are, if there are any, who are willing to be taxed for the sake of voting, we can have no legal knowledge that any particular individual consents to be taxed for the sake of voting; or, consequently, consents to support the Constitution.%0D%0A5. At nearly all elections, votes are given for various candidates for the same office. Those who vote for the unsuccessful candidates cannot properly be said to have voted to sustain the Constitution. They may, with more reason, be supposed to have voted, not to support the Constitution, but specially to prevent the tyranny which they anticipate the successful candidate intends to practice upon them under color of the Constitution; and therefore may reasonably be supposed to have voted against the Constitution itself. This supposition is the more reasonable, inasmuch as such voting is the only mode allowed to them of expressing their dissent to the Constitution.%0D%0A6. Many votes are usually given for candidates who have no prospect of success. Those who give such votes may reasonably be supposed to have voted as they did, with a special intention, not to support, but to obstruct the exection of, the Constitution; and, therefore, against the Constitution itself.%0D%0A7. As all the different votes are given secretly (by secret ballot), there is no legal means of knowing, from the votes themselves, who votes for, and who votes against, the Constitution. Therefore, voting affords no legal evidence that any particular individual supports the Constitution. And where there can be no legal evidence that any particular individual supports the Constitution, it cannot legally be said that anybody supports it. It is clearly impossible to have any legal proof of the intentions of large numbers of men, where there can be no legal proof of the intentions of any particular one of them.%0D%0A8. There being no legal proof of any man's intentions, in voting, we can only conjecture them. As a conjecture, it is probable, that a very large proportion of those who vote, do so on this principle, viz., that if, by voting, they could but get the government into their own hands (or that of their friends), and use its powers against their opponents, they would then willingly support the Constitution; but if their opponents are to have the power, and use it against them, then they would not willingly support the Constitution.%0D%0AIn short, men's voluntary support of the Constitution is doubtless, in most cases, wholly contingent upon the question whether, by means of the Constitution, they can make themselves masters, or are to be made slaves.%0D%0ASuch contingent consent as that is, in law and reason, no consent at all.%0D%0A9. As everybody who supports the Constitution by voting (if there are any such) does so secretly (by secret ballot), and in a way to avoid all personal responsibility for the acts of his agents or representatives, it cannot legally or reasonably be said that anybody at all supports the Constitution by voting. No man can reasonably or legally be said to do such a thing as assent to, or support, the Constitution, unless he does it openly, and in a way to make himself personally responsible for the acts of his agents, so long as they act within the limits of the power he delegates to them.%0D%0A10. As all voting is secret (by secret ballot), and as all secret governments are necessarily only secret bands of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, the general fact that our government is practically carried on by means of such voting, only proves that there is among us a secret band of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, whose purpose is to rob, enslave, and, so far as necessary to accomplish their purposes, murder, the rest of the people. The simple fact of the existence of such a vand does nothing towards proving that "the people of the United States," or any one of them, voluntarily supports the Constitution.%0D%0AFor all the reasons that have now been given, voting furnishes no legal evidence as to who the particular individuals are (if there are any), who voluntarily support the Constitution. It therefore furnishes no legal evidence that anybody supports it voluntarily.%0D%0ASo far, therefore, as voting is concerned, the Constitution, legally speaking, has no supporters at all.%0D%0AAnd, as a matter of fact, there is not the slightest probability that the Constitution has a single bona fide supporter in the country. That is to say, there is not the slightest probability that there is a single man in the country, who both understands what the Constitution really is, and sincerely supports it for what it really is.%0D%0AThe ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible supporters of most other governments, are made up of three classes, viz.: 1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth. 2. Dupes---a large class, no doubt---each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a "free man," a "sovereign"; that this is "a free government"; "a government of equal rights," "the best government on earth,"1 and such like absurdities. 3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change.%0D%0A---------------------------------------------------------%0D%0A%0D%0A1 Suppose it be "the best government on earth," does that prove its own goodness, or only the badness of all other governments?%0D%0A---------------------------------------------------------%0D%0A%0D%0AIII.%0D%0AThe payment of taxes, being compulsory, of course furnishes no evidence that any one voluntarily supports the Constitution.%0D%0A1. It is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other; that that each man makes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties to the Constitution, to pay so much money for so much protection, the same as he does with any other insurance company; and that he is just as free not to be protected, and not to pay tax, as he is to pay a tax, and be protected.%0D%0ABut this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: "Your money, or your life." And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.%0D%0AThe government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.%0D%0AThe highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a "protector," and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to "protect" those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful "sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords you. He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.%0D%0AThe proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who call themselves "the government," are directly the opposite of these of the single highwayman.%0D%0AIn the first place, they do not, like him, make themselves individually known; or, consequently, take upon themselves personally the responsibility of their acts. On the contrary, they secretly (by secret ballot) designate some one of their number to commit the robbery in their behalf, while they keep themselves practically concealed. They say to the person thus designated:%0D%0AGo to A_____ B_____, and say to him that "the government" has need of money to meet the expenses of protecting him and his property. If he presumes to say that he has never contracted with us to protect him, and that he wants none of our protection, say to him that that is our business, and not his; that we choose to protect him, whether he desires us to do so or not; and that we demand pay, too, for protecting him. If he dares to inquire who the individuals are, who have thus taken upon themselves the title of "the government," and who assume to protect him, and demand payment of him, without his having ever made any contract with them, say to him that that, too, is our business, and not his; that we do not choose to make ourselves individually known to him; that we have secretly (by secret ballot) appointed you our agent to give him notice of our demands, and, if he complies with them, to give him, in our name, a receipt that will protect him against any similar demand for the present year. If he refuses to comply, seize and sell enough of his property to pay not only our demands, but all your own expenses and trouble beside. If he resists the seizure of his property, call upon the bystanders to help you (doubtless some of them will prove to be members of our band.) If, in defending his property, he should kill any of our band who are assisting you, capture him at all hazards; charge him (in one of our courts) with murder; convict him, and hang him. If he should call upon his neighbors, or any others who, like him, may be disposed to resist our demands, and they should come in large numbers to his assistance, cry out that they are all rebels and traitors; that "our country" is in danger; call upon the commander of our hired murderers; tell him to quell the rebellion and "save the country," cost what it may. Tell him to kill all who resist, though they should be hundreds of thousands; and thus strike terror into all others similarly disposed. See that the work of murder is thoroughly done; that we may have no further trouble of this kind hereafter. When these traitors shall have thus been taught our strength and our determination, they will be good loyal citizens for many years, and pay their taxes without a why or a wherefore.%0D%0AIt is under such compulsion as this that taxes, so called, are paid. And how much proof the payment of taxes affords, that the people consent to "support the government," it needs no further argument to show.%0D%0A2. Still another reason why the payment of taxes implies no consent, or pledge, to support the government, is that the taxpayer does not know, and has no means of knowing, who the particular individuals are who compose "the government." To him "the government" is a myth, an abstraction, an incorporeality, with which he can make no contract, and to which he can give no consent, and make no pledge. He knows it only through its pretended agents. "The government" itself he never sees. He knows indeed, by common report, that certain persons, of a certain age, are permitted to vote; and thus to make themselves parts of, or (if they choose) opponents of, the government, for the time being. But who of them do thus vote, and especially how each one votes (whether so as to aid or oppose the government), he does not know; the voting being all done secretly (by secret ballot). Who, therefore, practically compose "the government," for the time being, he has no means of knowing. Of course he can make no contract with them, give them no consent, and make them no pledge. Of necessity, therefore, his paying taxes to them implies, on his part, no contract, consent, or pledge to support them---that is, to support "the government," or the Constitution.%0D%0A3. Not knowing who the particular individuals are, who call themselves "the government," the taxpayer does not know whom he pays his taxes to. All he knows is that a man comes to him, representing himself to be the agent of "the government"---that is, the agent of a secret band of robbers and murderers, who have taken to themselves the title of "the government," and have determined to kill everybody who refuses to give them whatever money they demand. To save his life, he gives up his money to this agent. But as this agent does not make his principals individually known to the taxpayer, the latter, after he has given up his money, knows no more who are "the government"---that is, who were the robbers---than he did before. To say, therefore, that by giving up his money to their agent, he entered into a voluntary contract with them, that he pledges himself to obey them, to support them, and to give them whatever money they should demand of him in the future, is simply ridiculous.%0D%0A4. All political power, so called, rests practically upon this matter of money. Any number of scoundrels, having money enough to start with, can establish themselves as a "government"; because, with money, they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money; and also compel general obedience to their will. It is with government, as Caesar said it was in war, that money and soldiers mutually supported each other; that with money he could hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. So these villains, who call themselves governments, well understand that their power rests primarily upon money. With money they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. And, when their authority is denied, the first use they always make of money, is to hire soldiers to kill or subdue all who refuse them more money.%0D%0AFor this reason, whoever desires liberty, should understand these vital facts, viz.: 1. That every man who puts money into the hands of a "government" (so called), puts into its hands a sword which will be used against him, to extort more money from him, and also to keep him in subjection to its arbitrary will. 2. That those who will take his money, without his consent, in the first place, will use it for his further robbery and enslavement, if he presumes to resist their demands in the future. 3. That it is a perfect absurdity to suppose that any body of men would ever take a man's money without his consent, for any such object as they profess to take it for, viz., that of protecting him; for why should they wish to protect him, if he does not wish them to do so? To suppose that they would do so, is just as absurd as it would be to suppose that they would take his moeny without his consent, for the purpose of buying food or clothing for him, when he did not want it. 4. If a man wants "protection," he is competent to make his own bargains for it; and nobody has any occasion to rob him, in order to "protect" him against his will. 5. That the only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in their keeping their money in their own pockets, until they have assurances, perfectly satisfactory to themselves, that it will be used as they wish it to be used, for their benefit, and not for their injury. 6. That no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted for a moment, or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly upon voluntary support.%0D%0AThese facts are all so vital and so self-evident, that it cannot reasonably be supposed that any one will voluntarily pay money to a "government," for the purpose of securing its protection, unless he first make an explicit and purely voluntary contract with it for that purpose.%0D%0AIt is perfectly evident, therefore, that neither such voting, nor such payment of taxes, as actually takes place, proves anybody's consent, or obligation, to support the Constitution. Consequently we have no evidence at all that the Constitution is binding upon anybody, or that anybody is under any contract or obligation whatever to support it. And nobody is under any obligation to support it.%0D%0A%0D%0AIV.%0D%0AThe Constitution not only binds nobody now, but it never did bind anybody. It never bound anybody, because it was never agreed to by anybody in such a manner as to make it, on general principles of law and reason, binding upon him.%0D%0AIt is a general principle of law and reason, that a written instrument binds no one until he has signed it. This principle is so inflexible a one, that even though a man is unable to write his name, he must still "make his mark," before he is bound by a written contract. This custom was established ages ago, when few men could write their names; when a clerk -- that is, a man who could write---was so rare and valuable a person, that even if he were guilty of high crimes, he was entitled to pardon, on the ground that the public could not afford to lose his services. Even at that time, a written contract must be signed; and men who could not write, either "made their mark," or signed their contracts by stamping their seals upon wax affixed to the parchment on which their contracts were written. Hence the custom of affixing seals, that has continued to this time.%0D%0AThe laws holds, and reason declares, that if a written instrument is not signed, the presumption must be that the party to be bound by it, did not choose to sign it, or to bind himself by it. And law and reason both give him until the last moment, in which to decide whether he will sign it, or not. Neither law nor reason requires or expects a man to agree to an instrument, until it is written; for until it is written, he cannot know its precise legal meaning. And when it is written, and he has had the opportunity to satisfy himself of its precise legal meaning, he is then expected to decide, and not before, whether he will agree to it or not. And if he do not then sign it, his reason is supposed to be, that he does not choose to enter into such a contract. The fact that the instrument was written for him to sign, or with the hope that he would sign it, goes for nothing.%0D%0AWhere would be the end of fraud and litigation, if one party could bring into court a written instrument, without any signature, and claim to have it enforced, upon the ground that it was written for another man to sign? that this other man had promised to sign it? that he ought to have signed it? that he had had the opportunity to sign it, if he would? but that he had refused or neglected to do so? Yet that is the most that could ever be said of the Constitution.SUP>2 The very judges, who profess to derive all their authority from the Constitution---from an instrument that nobody ever signed---would spurn any other instrument, not signed, that should be brought before them for adjudication.%0D%0A---------------------------------------------------------%0D%0A2 The very men who drafted it, never signed it in any way to bind themselves by it, as a contract. And not one of them probably ever would have signed it in any way to bind himself by it, as a contract.%0D%0A---------------------------------------------------------%0D%0AMoreover, a written instrument must, in law and reason, not only be signed, but must also be delivered to the party (or to some one for him), in whose favor it is made, before it can bind the party making it. The signing is of no effect, unless the instrument be also delivered. And a party is at perfect liberty to refuse to deliver a written instrument, after he has signed it. The Constitution was not only never signed by anybody, but it was never delivered by anybody, or to anybody's agent or attorney. It can therefore be of no more validity as a contract, then can any other instrument that was never signed or delivered.%0D%0A%0D%0AV.%0D%0AAs further evidence of the general sense of mankind, as to the practical necessity there is that all men's important contracts, especially those of a permanent nature, should be both written and signed, the following facts are pertinent.%0D%0AFor nearly two hundred years---that is, since 1677---there has been on the statute book of England, and the same, in substance, if not precisely in letter, has been re-enacted, and is now in force, in nearly or quite all the States of this Union, a statute, the general object of which is to declare that no action shall be brought to enforce contracts of the more important class, unless they are put in writing, and signed by the parties to be held chargeable upon them. &#091At this point there is a footnote listing 34 states whose statute books Spooner had examined, all of which had variations of this English statute; the footnote also quotes part of the Massachussetts statute.&#093%0D%0AThe principle of the statute, be it observed, is, not merely that written contracts shall be signed, but also that all contracts, except for those specially exempted---generally those that are for small amounts, and are to remain in force for but a short time---shall be both written and signed.%0D%0AThe reason of the statute, on this point, is, that it is now so easy a thing for men to put their contracts in writing, and sign them, and their failure to do so opens the door to so much doubt, fraud, and litigation, that men who neglect to have their contracts---of any considerable importance -- written and signed, ought not to have the benefit of courts of justice to enforce them. And this reason is a wise one; and that experience has confirmed its wisdom and necessity, is demonstrated by the fact that it has been acted upon in England for nearly two hundred years, and has been so nearly universally adopted in this country, and that nobody thinks of repealing it.%0D%0AWe all know, too, how careful most men are to have their contracts written and signed, even when this statute does not require it. For example, most men, if they have money due them, of no larger amount than five or ten dollars, are careful to take a note for it. If they buy even a small bill of goods, paying for it at the time of delivery, they take a receipted bill for it. If they pay a small balance of a book account, or any other small debt previously contracted, they take a written receipt for it.%0D%0AFurthermore, the law everywhere (probably) in our country, as well as in England, requires that a large class of contracts, such as wills, deeds, etc., shall not only be written and signed, but also sealed, witnessed, and acknowledged. And in the case of married women conveying their rights in real estate, the law, in many States, requires that the women shall be examined separate and apart from their husbands, and declare that they sign their contracts free of any fear or compulsion of their husbands.%0D%0ASuch are some of the precautions which the laws require, and which individuals---from motives of common prudence, even in cases not required by law---take, to put their contracts in writing, and have them signed, and, to guard against all uncertainties and controversies in regard to their meaning and validity. And yet we have what purports, or professes, or is claimed, to be a contract---the Constitution---made eighty years ago, by men who are now all dead, and who never had any power to bind US, but which (it is claimed) has nevertheless bound three generations of men, consisting of many millions, and which (it is claimed) will be binding upon all the millions that are to come; but which nobody ever signed, sealed, delivered, witnessed, or acknowledged; and which few persons, compared with the whole number that are claimed to be bound by it, have ever read, or even seen, or ever will read, or see. And of those who ever have read it, or ever will read it, scarcely any two, perhaps no two, have ever agreed, or ever will agree, as to what it means.%0D%0AMoreover, this supposed contract, which would not be received in any court of justice sitting under its authority, if offered to prove a debt of five dollars, owing by one man to another, is one by which---as it is generally interpreted by those who pretend to administer it---all men, women and children throughout the country, and through all time, surrender not only all their property, but also their liberties, and even lives, into the hands of men who by this supposed contract, are expressly made wholly irresponsible for their disposal of them. And we are so insane, or so wicked, as to destroy property and lives without limit, in fighting to compel men to fulfill a supposed contract, which, inasmuch as it has never been signed by anybody, is, on general princples of law and reason---such principles as we are all governed by in regard to other contracts---the merest waste of paper, binding upon nobody, fit only to be thrown into the fire; or, if preserved, preserved only to serve as a witness and a warning of the folly and wickedness of mankind.%0D%0A%0D%0AVI.%0D%0AIt is no exaggeration, but a literal truth, to say that, by the Constitution---not as I interpret it, but as it is interpreted by those who pretend to administer it---the properties, liberties, and lives of the entire people of the United States are surrendered unreservedly into the hands of men who, it is provided by the Constitution itself, shall never be "questioned" as to any disposal they make of them.%0D%0AThus the Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 6) provides that, "for any speech or debate (or vote), in either house, they (the senators and representatives) shall not be questioned in any other place."%0D%0AThe whole law-making power is given to these senators and representatives (when acting by a two-thirds vote);3 and this provision protects them from all responsibility for the laws they make.%0D%0A---------------------------------------------------------%0D%0A3 And this two-thirds vote may be but two-thirds of a quorum---that is two-thirds of a majority---instead of two-thirds of the whole.%0D%0A---------------------------------------------------------%0D%0AThe Constitution also enables them to secure the execution of all their laws, by giving them power to withhold the salaries of, and to impeach and remove, all judicial and executive officers, who refuse to execute them.%0D%0AThus the whole power of the government is in their hands, and they are made utterly irresponsible for the use they make of it. What is this but absolute, irresponsible power?%0D%0AIt is no answer to this view of the case to say that these men are under oath to use their power only within certain limits; for what care they, or what should they care, for oaths or limits, when it is expressly provided, by the Constitution itself, that they shall never be "questioned," or held to any resonsibility whatever, for violating their oaths, or transgressing those limits?%0D%0ANeither is it any answer to this view of the case to say that the men holding this absolute, irresponsible power, must be men chosen by the people (or portions of them) to hold it. A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years. Neither are a people any the less slaves because permitted periodically to choose new masters. What makes them slaves is the fact that they now are, and are always hereafter to be, in the hands of men whose power over them is, and always is to be, absolute and irresponsible.4%0D%0A---------------------------------------------------------%0D%0A4 Of what appreciable value is it to any man, as an individual, that he is allowed a voice in choosing these public masters? His voice is only one of several millions.%0D%0A---------------------------------------------------------%0D%0AThe right of absolute and irresponsible dominion is the right of property, and the right of property is the right of absolute, irresponsible dominion. The two are identical; the one necessarily implies the other. Neither can exist without the other. If, therefore, Congress have that absolute and irresponsible law-making power, which the Constitution---according to their interpretation of it---gives them, it can only be because they own us as property. If they own us as property, they are our masters, and their will is our law. If they do not own us as property, they are not our masters, and their will, as such, is of no authority over us.%0D%0ABut these men who claim and exercise this absolute and irresponsible dominion over us, dare not be consistent, and claim either to be our masters, or to own us as property. They say they are only our servants, agents, attorneys, and representatives. But this declaration involves an absurdity, a contradiction. No man can be my servant, agent, attorney, or representative, and be, at the same time, uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me for his acts. It is of no importance that I appointed him, and put all power in his hands. If I made him uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me, he is no longer my servant, agent, attorney, or representative. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over my property, I gave him the property. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over myself, I made him my master, and gave myself to him as a slave. And it is of no importance whether I called him master or servant, agent or owner. The only question is, what power did I put in his hands? Was it an absolute and irresponsible one? or a limited and responsible one?%0D%0AFor still another reason they are neither our servants, agents, attorneys, nor representatives. And that reason is, that we do not make ourselves responsible for their acts. If a man is my servant, agent, or attorney, I necessarily make myself responsible for all his acts done within the limits of the power I have intrusted to him. If I have intrusted him, as my agent, with either absolute power, or any power at all, over the persons or properties of other men than myself, I thereby necessarily make myself responsible to those other persons for any injuries he may do them, so long as he acts within the limits of the power I have granted him. But no individual who may be injured in his person or property, by acts of Congress, can come to the individual electors, and hold them responsible for these acts of their so-called agents or representatives. This fact proves that these pretended agents of the people, of everybody, are really the agents of nobody.%0D%0AIf, then, nobody is individually responsible for the acts of Congress, the members of Congress are nobody's agents. And if they are nobody's agents, they are themselves individually responsible for their own acts, and for the acts of all whom they employ. And the authority they are exercising is simply their own individual authority; and, by the law of nature---the highest of all laws---anybody injured by their acts, anybody who is deprived by them of his property or his liberty, has the same right to hold them individually responsible, that he has to hold any other trespasser individually responsible. He has the same right to resist them, and their agents, that he has to resist any other trespassers.%0D%0A%0D%0AVII.%0D%0AIt is plain, then, that on general principles of law and reason---such principles as we all act upon in courts of justice and in common life---the Constitution is no contract; that it binds nobody, and never did bind anybody; and that all those who pretend to act by its authority, are really acting without any legitimate authority at all; that, on general principles of law and reason, they are mere usurpers, and that everybody not only has the right, but is morally bound, to treat them as such.%0D%0AIf the people of this country wish to maintain such a government as the Constitution describes, there is no reason in the world why they should not sign the instrument itself, and thus make known their wishes in an open, authentic manner; in such manner as the common sense and experience of mankind have shown to be reasonable and necessary in such cases; and in such manner as to make themselves (as they ought to do) individually responsible for the acts of the government. But the people have never been asked to sign it. And the only reason why they have never been asked to sign it, has been that it has been known that they never would sign it; that they were neither such fools nor knaves as they must needs have been to be willing to sign it; that (at least as it has been practically interpreted) it is not what any sensible and honest man wants for himself; nor such as he has any right to impose upon others. It is, to all moral intents and purposes, as destitute of obligations as the compacts which robbers and thieves and pirates enter into with each other, but never sign.%0D%0AIf any considerable number of the people believe the Constitution to be good, why do they not sign it themselves, and make laws for, and administer them upon, each other; leaving all other persons (who do not interfere with them) in peace? Until they have tried the experiment for themselves, how can they have the face to impose the Constitution upon, or even to recommend it to, others? Plainly the reason for absurd and inconsistent conduct is that they want the Constitution, not solely for any honest or legitimate use it can be of to themselves or others, but for the dishonest and illegitimate power it gives them over the persons and properties of others. But for this latter reason, all their eulogiums on the Constitution, all their exhortations, and all their expenditures of money and blood to sustain it, would be wanting.%0D%0A%0D%0AVIII.%0D%0AThe Constitution itself, then, being of no authority, on what authority does our government practically rest? On what ground can those who pretend to administer it, claim the right to seize men's property, to restrain them of their natural liberty of action, industry, and trade, and to kill all who deny their authority to dispose of men's properties, liberties, and lives at their pleasure or discretion?%0D%0AThe most they can say, in answer to this question, is, that some half, two-thirds, or three-fourths, of the male adults of the country have a tacit understanding that they will maintain a government under the Constitution; that they will select, by ballot, the persons to administer it; and that those persons who may receive a majority, or a plurality, of their ballots, shall act as their representatives, and administer the Constitution in their name, and by their authority.%0D%0ABut this tacit understanding (admitting it to exist) cannot at all justify the conclusion drawn from it. A tacit understanding between A, B, and C, that they will, by ballot, depute D as their agent, to deprive me of my property, liberty, or life, cannot at all authorize D to do so. He is none the less a robber, tyrant, and murderer, because he claims to act as their agent, than he would be if he avowedly acted on his own responsibility alone.%0D%0ANeither am I bound to recognize him as their agent, nor can he legitimately claim to be their agent, when he brings no written authority from them accrediting him as such. I am under no obligation to take his word as to who his principals may be, or whether he has any. Bringing no credentials, I have a right to say he has no such authority even as he claims to have: and that he is therefore intending to rob, enslave, or murder me on his own account.%0D%0AThis tacit understanding, therefore, among the voters of the country, amounts to nothing as an authority to their agents. Neither do the ballots by which they select their agents, avail any more than does their tacit understanding; for their ballots are given in secret, and therefore in such a way as to avoid any personal responsibility for the acts of their agents.%0D%0ANo body of men can be said to authorize a man to act as their agent, to the injury of a third person, unless they do it in so open and authentic a manner as to make themselves personally responsible for his acts. None of the voters in this country appoint their political agents in any open, authentic manner, or in any manner to make themselves responsible for their acts. Therefore these pretended agents cannot legitimately claim to be really agents. Somebody must be responsible for the acts of these pretended agents; and if they cannot show any open and authentic credentials from their principals, they cannot, in law or reason, be said to have any principals. The maxim applies here, that what does not appear, does not exist. If they can show no principals, they have none.%0D%0ABut even these pretended agents do not themselves know who their pretended principals are. These latter act in secret; for acting by secret ballot is acting in secret as much as if they were to meet in secret conclave in the darkness of the night. And they are personally as much unknown to the agents they select, as they are to others. No pretended agent therefore can ever know by whose ballots he is selected, or consequently who his real principles are. Not knowing who his principles are, he has no right to say that he has any. He can, at most, say only that he is the agent of a secret band of robbers and murderers, who are bound by that faith which prevails among confederates in crime, to stand by him, if his acts, done in their name, shall be resisted.%0D%0AMen honestly engaged in attempting to establish justice in the world, have no occasion thus to act in secret; or to appoint agents to do acts for which they (the principals) are not willing to be responsible.%0D%0AThe secret ballot makes a secret government; and a secret government is a secret band of robbers and murderers. Open despotism is better than this. The single despot stands out in the face of all men, and says: I am the State: My will is law: I am your master: I take the responsibility of my acts: The only arbiter I acknowledge is the sword: If anyone denies my right, let him try conclusions with me.%0D%0ABut a secret government is little less than a government of assassins. Under it, a man knows not who his tyrants are, until they have struck, and perhaps not then. He may guess, beforehand, as to some of his immediate neighbors. But he really knows nothing. The man to whom he would most naturally fly for protection, may prove an enemy, when the time of trial comes.%0D%0AThis is the kind of government we have; and it is the only one we are likely to have, until men are ready to say: We will consent to no Constitution, except such an one as we are neither ashamed nor afraid to sign; and we will authorize no government to do anything in our name which we are not willing to be personally responsible for.%0D%0A--%0D%0AThe trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -Bertrand Russell http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1383771/treason.html?rss=1 Tue, 3 Nov 2009 04:02 GMT I have always despised the hoopla made over organized athletics. Kids with a ball in an empty lot? Great, I fully support it, have fun, enjoy yourselves, play fair and be safe. Publicly-funded billion dollar arenas, "sports medicine", University athletics programs, corporate sponsorship, billions of wasted dollars and other resources, publicly touting these steroid-fueled, millionaire, ball-chasing freaks as "heroes" or "role models", fuck that! Our obsession with professional athletics is but one more symptom of our skewed cultural values and our national pathology. We will know that we have taken the next evolutionary step when there is no longer such a thing as ESPN or Sports Illustrated and we instead seek to improve our society with the same gusto and fervor that we follow the NBA or the career of Tiger Woods. When athletics is no longer considered a way of life and is once again relegated to its rightful place as a "hobby" we will know that we are making progress. %0A--%0AThere's nothing worse than a reformed anything http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384479/ticker_tape_parades_athletes.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:05 GMT You threaten physical violence so often it got boring, but we just look at a pic you put up on the BrickBoard server & you cry like a little baby which had it's rattle taken away.%0D%0A%0D%0A<i>Earlier this year, I made a resolution to not antagonize anyone on the Brickboard. This proved to be an attraction that was too tempting for B20 Paul and Snootfull. They both went beyond all intelligent limits to provoke me to anger. When I did retaliate, then most of you regular posting members, thought that it was just as funny as could be.</i>%0D%0A%0D%0AThere you go rewriting history again, fact is you said that you wouldn't antagonise anyone & then you did anyhow.%0D%0A%0D%0A%0A--%0AThree 164's, Two 144's, One 142 & a partridge in a pear tree. http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384672/grab_kleenex_ya_big_crybaby.html?rss=1 Sat, 7 Nov 2009 14:55 GMT To all:%0D%0A%0D%0AEarlier this year, I made a resolution to not antagonize anyone on the Brickboard. This proved to be an attraction that was too tempting for B20 Paul and Snootfull. They both went beyond all intelligent limits to provoke me to anger. When I did retaliate, then most of you regular posting members, thought that it was just as funny as could be. %0D%0A%0D%0ASnootfull went beyond what was right when he went on his investigation, and copied and posted a photo that is in fact copyrighted, and as such is the property of the site from which he stole the picture. If you read the terms of that site, you will see that all entries on that site are copyright protected.%0D%0A%0D%0AAside from that, there was not one instance where I posted information pertaining to any posting member here. There is a vast difference in asking about someone's information, and posting something that I found elsewhere. Having said this, it is not the only time that Snootfull made posts concerning my information. This was done within the last 2 weeks as well.%0D%0A%0D%0ANow, having said all that, it still does not excuse my outbursts toward several of you. I hereby make an apology to all of you for these lapses of decorum. I an still evaluating whether or not I wish to continue to participate in these Forums. I will do something that I don't see any of you doing, and that is to help other Volvo owners with the problems that they are experiencing with their cars. I don't live on the Opinion Forum. Maybe that would be good advice for all of us.%0D%0A%0D%0AAt this time, I will be logging off this site while I decide whether or not I wish to continue. I really don't know why I would want to be on a site where the main theme is to denigerate the other posting members, and when the biggest thrill is to be able to yell, Gotcha!%0D%0A%0D%0AI do have a life apart from this screen, and I'd advise you all to acquire the same. %0D%0A%0D%0AHave a good day,%0D%0A%0D%0ABill http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384587/ill_ban_anyone_site_posts_personal_identity_information_others.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 23:24 GMT I'm not a spectator yet a few million of my Tax dollars are spent on policing the event and cleaning up after.%0D%0A %0A--%0A'75 Jeep CJ5 345Hp ChevyPwrd, two motorcycles, '85 Pickup: The '89 Volvo is the newest vehicle I own. it wasn't Volvos safety , it was Longevity that sold me http://home.no.net/ebrox/Tony's%20cars.htm http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384667/ticker_tape_parades_athletes.html?rss=1 Sat, 7 Nov 2009 14:32 GMT The parades aren't for the athletes, they're for the spectators.%0D%0A%0D%0AAnd if that's what the spectators want to do with their time, why not? It's harmless.%0D%0A http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384663/ticker_tape_parades_athletes.html?rss=1 Sat, 7 Nov 2009 14:23 GMT The distinction, and it's an important one, is that while Sticky and 03 may have been pushing Flab and Snoot for personal info, they had the right to tell them to go pound sand, which they did. They got to maintain control over the release of personal info.%0D%0A%0D%0ASnoot took away Sticky's control in that area, and I'm with Jarrod here. Especially since he owns the deal, and gets to set whatever rules he chooses.%0D%0A%0D%0A http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384511/just_dont_understand_ok_sticky_03v_bully_people_private_stuff_seen_victims.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 18:25 GMT You know what? That is my wish, I would like for there to be healing over this issue because, contrary to what you might think, I actually do like you and I am truly regretful of my actions. I am sorry that I caused you this upset and I never would have done this to you if I had any reason to believe that you actually did care. The thing is though that I have no intention of prostrating myself before you until the end of time because I screwed up, I will still always be the warm, fuzzy, flaming a-hole you have come to rely upon for all of smart-ass needs. I will still call "bullshit" where I smell it and I will still scream "dumb-ass!" where appropriate. So, if that works for you then let's move on otherwise leave this site secure in the knowledge the my apology was sincere. %0A--%0AThere's nothing worse than a reformed anything http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384654/ill_ban_anyone_site_posts_personal_identity_information_others.html?rss=1 Sat, 7 Nov 2009 13:24 GMT Ummm, one thing.....At no point did I send a message to Jarrod, complaining about what you did. So it looks as if you called his wrath down upon yourself. That does happen you know. I didn't whine, or snivel. It was a wake up call to me, and I realized that the people who you consider your friends are not. Those whom you don't consider your friends may well be. It's nice to be able to sort them out. Shame that it takes something such as this to do it. Apologies are great when they are sincere. I don't think that yours are. In this thread, you have made some other posts that don't sound very apologetic. Personally, I think that you made the apology to get JSBB off your ass, and that's about it. If you were truly regretful of the post that caused this thread, you wouldn't sound quite so smug. I expect Paul to be supportive of you, but I really am surprised by the responses of some of the other members. The healing process between you and me will take some time. If that is your wish, we'll see. If that is not your wish, so be it. http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384649/ill_ban_anyone_site_posts_personal_identity_information_others.html?rss=1 Sat, 7 Nov 2009 11:26 GMT "There is a vast difference in asking about someone's information, and posting something that I found elsewhere."-%0D%0A%0D%0AYes and there is a vast difference between saying that you don't care about who knows what about you and then crying about it when someone holds you to the fire and puts your boasting to the test.%0D%0A%0D%0AGet over it Sticky, you are a fine looking fellow who builds nice planes and there is proof positive now. It was wrong of me to post that picture and because it was wrong I apologized to you for it, if I could undue it I would but I can't so here we are. Now dry your tears, dust yourself off and get back to adding your unique zest to the opinions forum. %0A--%0AThere's nothing worse than a reformed anything http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384590/ill_ban_anyone_site_posts_personal_identity_information_others.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 23:41 GMT Jarrod,%0D%0ANormally I would agree, but in this instance, and I'm assuming you're referring to the Stickbuilder picture incident, I dissent.%0D%0A%0D%0AThere is personal information and there is personal information. In this case a photograph of a person with model airplanes that he has displayed proudly elsewhere can hardly be considered personal and certainly not harmful. (They were lovely planes and Sticky's photogenic attributes were far superior than what one would expect from the quality of his posts.) It's quite different from publishing personal identity data, addresses, shopping and reading habits, financial information, or, God forbid, sexual preferences.%0D%0A%0D%0APersonally, I found the protracted prelude to the picture's posting puerile and annoying and I wished many times over many months that you would intervene or, at least, issue a timely warning. As others have pointed out, this incident was the culmination of series of harassments and threats of physical harm directed, not only at the actual participants in the dispute, but at others quite removed from it as well. A stop should have been put to these goings-on far earlier in the game.%0D%0A%0D%0AI realize you cannot be the baby sitter to all of us all of the time, but it might elevate the tone of discourse here if you would raise a warning voice when things get too raucous in the rumpus room, thus avoiding having to enforce your, BTW, perfectly legitimate, expulsion edict. All that, of course, without dampening spirited give and take that comes naturally when provocative propositions elicit vigorous dissent - even if the personal charms of someone's mother are the topic under discussion ;-) http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384578/ill_ban_anyone_site_posts_personal_identity_information_others.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 22:57 GMT If this sh*t storm is about 'that' picture, then reproducing it is only a crime against copyright (possibly), not against the person pictured. The picture was in a public place. Had the subject (and there's no proof that it was Stickbuilder in the picture) wanted that picture to remain private it should have been protected from public view. "Members only', password, there's a heap of ways.%0D%0AThis from http://www.nitrd.gov/fnc/Internet_res.html :%0D%0A%0D%0A"The Federal Networking Council (FNC) agrees that the following language reflects our definition of the term "Internet". %0D%0A"Internet" refers to the global information system that -- %0D%0A%0D%0A(i) is logically linked together by a globally unique address space based on the Internet Protocol (IP) or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons;%0D%0A%0D%0A(ii) is able to support communications using the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) suite or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons, and/or other IP-compatible protocols; and %0D%0A%0D%0A(iii) provides, uses or makes accessible, <b>either publicly or privately,</b> high level services layered on the communications and related infrastructure described herein." %0D%0A%0D%0A<i>"either publicly or privately"</i> The choice is there for the user. The choice by the user in this case was that the picture be publicly available. Snootfull's only sin was, maybe, that he should have posted the link to the picture rather than the picture itself, assuming it is copyright.%0D%0AIf you stand by your ruling in this case, does that also apply to any and all publicly available information? If so then all web pages, advertisements, books, magazines, the phone book, posters, films, music, etc etc must all be off limits in case any reference to any of them might contain <u>publicly available</u> personal information.%0D%0A%0D%0AI have a silly web site. I don't care who sees it. If I did care I would password protect it.%0D%0A%0D%0AHow about a fresh ruling reminder about threats of violence being made and foul language being used here? If I had young kids I surely wouldn't want them to read the foulness that has poured from Stickbuilder for instance.%0D%0A%0D%0AI understand that this site is your property consequently you are entitled to do what you like with it of course. 99% of the time you're dead right. In this instance I think you've over-reacted a tad. %0D%0A%0A--%0A' It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it.' S. Wright http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384572/sorry_dont_get.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 22:37 GMT I apologized to Stickbulder because I sincerely regret my actions and apparently I owe you the same for the aggravation that I have caused you; Jarrod I am sorry and it will not happen again. %0A--%0AThere's nothing worse than a reformed anything http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384558/well.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:48 GMT I don't buy your argument. For example, I recently found that there are LinkedIn scrapers who post stuff that you share behind authenticated views. I'm sure there are many such examples with social media. This information isn't meant to be general public, yet it is due to these unscrupulous "services."%0D%0A%0D%0AWhatever the case, when people have done this in the past I actually started getting calls from police. It's unacceptable. %0D%0A%0D%0AIf someone chooses to put this information in their profile, it's their call. If they want it left out, they have that option too.%0D%0A%0D%0AI think the act of looking for details on someone, even if it means it comes up at the top of a Google search, should be considered investigation.%0D%0A%0D%0A%0A--%0AThe trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. &#128;&#148;Bertrand Russell http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384556/ill_ban_anyone_site_posts_personal_identity_information_others.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:35 GMT Would a link to the picture instead of the picture itself been more appropriate? The way that I see it is that once a person chooses to post something on the internet than it is no longer "personal" information because they have chosen to make it "public information" and it becomes no different than any other "public" information. That picture was just something that I found on the net just like any other picture, story, clip or anything else out there or in a public library for that matter. Furthermore, if you have read all of the back and forth on this topic you will know that Stickbuilder said that he didn't care about having his information out in the open, that he wasn't afraid and that Paul and I were cowards for not choosing to publish more personal information about ourselves. I'm guessing he has changed his tune now.%0D%0A%0D%0AI do regret that I posted that picture because of Stickbuilder's reaction, I didn't want to hurt him, embarrass him or drive him away from posting here I just wanted to show him that he is not as immune as he thinks that he is, I figured that he would be surprised nothing more. When he said that he "didn't care" then I assumed that he really didn't care and if I had known that he really did care than I never would have proceeded as I did. I am sorry to Stickbuilder for what I did to him. %0A--%0AThere's nothing worse than a reformed anything http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384490/ill_ban_anyone_site_posts_personal_identity_information_others.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:54 GMT He was running his pie hole about how Paul and I were "cowards" because we chose not to post our personal information. I tried to tell him that posting such information was asinine because it is available to the world, no possible good can come of it and it has the potential to put the poster and his loved ones in a position of unnecessary risk. Stickbuilder would have none of it, he "wasn't afraid" and "didn't care" who knew what about him because he is a tough guy and we were pussies. Soooo, I decided to show him what the smallest, most informal little game of "connect the dots" could produce. I figured that since the name "Stickbuilder" had nothing to do with Volvos then he was probably dumb enough to use the same user name at multiple sites, I was right. "Stickbuilder" and his "personal" information are all over the damn internet and yet somehow he is surprised that someone was capable of figuring this out? He's just lucky I'm not in the market for a new credit card! %0A--%0AThere's nothing worse than a reformed anything http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384548/just_dont_understand_ok_sticky_03v_bully_people_private_stuff_seen_victims.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 20:55 GMT "...I did not seek out his private information in his private life I performed a search of his public persona, "Stickbuilder...%0D%0A%0D%0AWhich begs the question. Why did you feel compelled to do an internet search on him?%0D%0A%0D%0A http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384545/just_dont_understand_ok_sticky_03v_bully_people_private_stuff_seen_victims.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 20:35 GMT This should not be construed as a defense of my actions which, when all is said and done, I do regret but:%0D%0A%0D%0A"Snoot took away Sticky's control in that area"- No, I did not and that was the point of the whole thing that I was trying to make to Stickbuilder. Sticky voluntarily relinquished control when HE chose to make his private information public by willingly, knowingly and purposefully uploading it to the public internet for the world to see and use completely without his knowledge, consent or restriction. I did not seek out his private information in his private life I performed a search of his public persona, "Stickbuilder", which provided only the information that he wanted such a search to reveal because he flat out told me that he did not care. What I did was less revealing and less intrusive than what the phone company does when they divulge your name, address and phone number to anyone or any business that desires to harass you at dinner time unless you pay the phone company blackmail fee not to publish that information.%0D%0A%0D%0AIf it turned out that one of the BB members won a Nobel Peace Prize or went on a killing spree would I be forbidden to link to or post any publicly available information on those events as well? What about Obama's right to privacy or Rush Limbaugh's, shouldn't we be honoring that here at the brickboard too?%0D%0A%0D%0AAs far as Jarrod goes you are right, his game his rules. %0D%0A--%0D%0AThere's nothing worse than a reformed anything http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384523/just_dont_understand_ok_sticky_03v_bully_people_private_stuff_seen_victims.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 19:17 GMT <i>Does a picture qualify as "personal information"?</i>%0D%0A%0D%0ANot if they put it up here for everyone to see, but what sort of idiot would do that?%0D%0A%0D%0AIf you take the picture yourself, upload it to a host & then post a link to that, you have then "posted the personal identity information of others."%0A--%0AThree 164's, Two 144's, One 142 & a partridge in a pear tree. http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384543/ill_ban_anyone_site_posts_personal_identity_information_others.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 20:15 GMT No, I found that picture through "google" by searching for "Stickbuilder". Of course I don't actually have any knowledge of who that person in the picture really is or if it is just coincidence or outright theft of information that his profile information at that site seems to match the profile information of our "Stickbuilder" here at this site. Does a picture qualify as "personal information"? I guess that is up to Jarrod since he is the law giver around here. Would it have been "personal information" if I had posted the other pictures of the air planes without the guy in the picture? What about the picture with the unidentified woman and the airplane, would that have qualified as "personal information"? It all gets a little confusing once you step away from the idea that anything that you choose to post on the world-wide internet becomes in fact "public" and no longer qualifies as "private". %0A--%0AThere's nothing worse than a reformed anything http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384538/ill_ban_anyone_site_posts_personal_identity_information_others.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 19:54 GMT You didn't post "the personal identity information of others", so don't worry about it.%0D%0A%0D%0APosting a moron's pic doesn't qualify especially since he used the BrickBoard to host the picture. Which part of it was Volvo content? Did one of the RC planes have a B230 in it that we didn't notice?%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A%0A--%0AThree 164's, Two 144's, One 142 & a partridge in a pear tree. http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384532/ill_ban_anyone_site_posts_personal_identity_information_others.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 19:41 GMT I said I agreed with Jarrod's stand on boundaries. I disagree with the stand that continued harassment is OK. It's not OK. I despise schoolyard bullies and that's all these two are schoolyard bullies. Look at Stickbuilder walking around threatening to beat up people. %0D%0A%0D%0AWhen you ignore excessive harassment you get a bad result like we have now. %0D%0A%0D%0A http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384518/just_dont_understand_ok_sticky_03v_bully_people_private_stuff_seen_victims.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 19:04 GMT I know Jarrod is busy and we have to act like adults on some level. Your comment on Sticky's conduct though is pretty much my point. You have to go ahead and punish him for starting this whole thing if you are going to punish the guy retaliating.%0D%0A%0D%0AI don't think that's too much to ask in this case. 03V and Stick have been harassing Flab continuously over just the sort of information you posted and now they cry. They went after you too. I believe Jarrod needs to address that as well at this time.%0D%0A%0D%0A http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384504/just_dont_understand_ok_sticky_03v_bully_people_private_stuff_seen_victims.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 17:44 GMT I don't know that Jarrod necessarily keeps up with all of the minutia of the "opinions" forum anymore. Before he had kids and before he was all worried about the world coming apart at the seams he used to keep up on everything pretty well which is why my brother got invited to leave the BB for behavior that pales in comparison to Sticky's blatant threats, vulgarity and open hostility. Even as "in your face" as my posting of that picture was it still took Jarrod about a week to notice and he has yet to remove it so I'm guessing he has other things on his plate more pressing than what goes on here, at least I hope so.%0A--%0AThere's nothing worse than a reformed anything http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384500/just_dont_understand_ok_sticky_03v_bully_people_private_stuff_seen_victims.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 17:22 GMT I agree with Jarrod about posting information from other sites, even if it is published. I just disagree that he ignores people who harass people for that information and then acts like they are victims for getting back what they asked for. %0D%0A%0D%0AI have a strong sense of fair play, and punishing someone for retaliation is ridiculous. http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384497/just_dont_understand_ok_sticky_03v_bully_people_private_info_seen_victims.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 17:11 GMT One more reason I know you are a cop to be a bully. The same way you scream free market but suck onto the taxpayer for all your income, like any good for nothing welfare candidate. http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384491/comforting_thought_peace_officer_likes_get_someone_riled.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:58 GMT I love it when your panties get all bunched up....%0A--%0A&quot;There are more things between heaven and earth, Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophy' http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384481/ill_ban_anyone_site_posts_personal_identity_information_others.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:13 GMT Don't you go worrying about my panties that's personal information!%0A--%0AThere's nothing worse than a reformed anything http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384486/ill_ban_anyone_site_posts_personal_identity_information_others.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:34 GMT I agree with your statement but I think you need to also address the type of bullying that was going on and resulted in Stickbuilder's information being posted. That harassment continues even now but you ignore it.%0D%0A%0D%0AStickbuilder and 03V tried many times to bully and harass other members into posting private and personal information on this site. They made up all sort of questionable claims about someone's background. When those members refused to give the information they claimed it was proof they were correct and continued to harass the members. Part of that harassment was to claim they were not afraid of their personal information being posted.%0D%0A%0D%0AThe two victims of this harassment by Stickbuilder and 03V have been Flab and Snootfull.You chose to allow that harassment to continue and the result is the bullies- Stickbuilder and 03V - were served the dish they claimed they were not afraid of eating by Snootful. Now suddenly you decide to react.%0D%0A%0D%0AThat's like watching two kids pick and push around on another kid in the schoolyard but then punishing the bullied kid for finally swinging back. That's ridiculous.%0D%0A%0D%0AI strongly suggest you remind Stickbuilder AND 03V that they have no right to demand or harass members for private information anymore than any member should psot their private information on this site.%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0AI gave you a thumb down because you decided to punish the one who reacted to the bukllying, and left the bullies alone.%0D%0A http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384482/must_punish_harassing_private_information.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:17 GMT You are continuing to bully Flab for her personal background now. Will you squeal as loudly if she posts something about you? %0D%0A%0D%0AWah wah not fair, she did to me what I was trying to do to her!!%0D%0A%0D%0AWah wah wah.%0D%0A%0D%0AWhat a bunch of whiners. http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384483/yes_stickbulder_allowed_bully_people_private_information.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:20 GMT I concur. That was not Snoot's finest moment.%0D%0A--%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A*Note the rare "Thumbs up" for Jarrod. Bask in the glow my friend.%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A"There are more things between heaven and earth, Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophy' http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384477/ill_ban_anyone_site_posts_personal_identity_information_others.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 15:53 GMT You're sucking up to daddy like my little brother used to whenever I was the one in trouble and he felt like the "good" one, hardly your finest moment either. "Oooh, have a thumb's up Jarrod, I love you!"...pathetic.%0D%0A--%0D%0AThere's nothing worse than a reformed anything http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384480/ill_ban_anyone_site_posts_personal_identity_information_others.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:10 GMT Being from the City of Champions..... and the Pirates, I have an affinity for post championship parades. I would rather my tax dollars be spent on celebrations rather than a lot of other things, like funding the military industrial complex and AIG. %0D%0A%0D%0ARelax, it's only one day and a relatively small amount of money.%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0AGo Bucs! cough cough. http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384461/ticker_tape_parades_athletes.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:25 GMT Long driveway? There is a picture of my driveway in the gallery. It is pretty wide, but the plow pushes snow under the back bumpers of the cars.%0A--%0A01 V70 2.4 M5 and a Mini http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384431/comparo_01_v7009_v70.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:21 GMT Considering that the engine went from 2.5L to 3.2L, added 1 cylinder, and bhp is now around 235, getting 25mpg around town is not bad at all. The 1994-2000 cars had a center jack point which I loved, both wheels came off the ground at the same time, making tire rotation a breeze.%0D%0A%0D%0AThe new slip control computers are amazing, not only are the brakes applied but the throttle is also reduced to minimize slip. Watching the mpg scale on the display is disheartening at full throttle, 5mpg does make you think! %0D%0A%0D%0AI am surprised that you didn't opt for the XC70 with your long driveway. You could have decreased the number of times you need to remove the snow.%0D%0A%0D%0AKlaus%0D%0A%0A--%0AProud owner of a 220S. If I had more room, I would have more Volvos. http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384181/comparo_01_v7009_v70.html?rss=1 Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:50 GMT Last spring I traded the 01 V70 for a new one. We won't go into the why of it all, just accept the fact that it was not my idea. The new car has something over 10k miles on it now, and I have some opinions to share. %0D%0A%0D%0AThe 09 gained some weight. This car is big and fat. Part of the weight gain is under the hood, probably mostly in the six speed automatic. Yes, folks, the only new Volvo you can buy with a manual transmission (US model) is a C30. Or so the salesman told me. I have been doing business with this guy since 1970; he has no reason to jive me. The transmission is pretty nice, I guess, but I am still frustrated by something that does what it wants to rather than what I want.%0D%0A%0D%0AThis car is a gas hog. Sure, it has something over 200 horsepower, stronger and faster than anything I have owned before, but I would rather have the economy of my previous Volvos. I have done some highway travel at moderate speeds, 27-28 mpg, my daily commute is down around 25. A poor replacement for the 01 which did a pretty steady almost 30 mpg. This car is comfortable. As comfortable as a bed. Not always a good thing, but I am getting softer and more spoiled. I like it. It feels solid. The next months will tell how it goes in bad weather.%0D%0A%0D%0ADynamic traction and stability control. I am notoriously unstable, so I resent this feature. The only time I have noticed it so far was when I floored it from an uphill stop in the rain. I won't do that again. Plus the know-it-all computer told me I burned and extra $5 worth of gasoline doing it. I wish the car wouldn't tell me stuff like that, but since it is there I can't stop looking at it. We'll see how the traction control does when I pull out of my road making the right turn and going up the hill from a standing start on an icy night. %0D%0A%0D%0AI put the snow tires on the other day. The telescoping lug wrench is a neat thing. The FoMoCo stamp suggests that it may be found in some other vehicles also. The tools and spare reside under the cargo bed in an easy access hole. An improvement. The whole cargo area is improved. The huge and wide hatch will swallow all sorts of stuff, as a Volvo should. It seems much wider than the hole in the back of the 01. The adjustable sliding tie downs are sweet, and the upper tie downs are another nice improvement.%0D%0A%0D%0AIf this car was economical and had a manual transmission I might even like it. Smirk.%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A--%0D%0A01 V70 2.4 M5 and a Mini http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1383748/comparo_01_v7009_v70.html?rss=1 Tue, 3 Nov 2009 02:33 GMT FC,%0D%0A%0D%0AMy apologies for being "pushy", but your post sounded somewhat urgent and I made the stupid American mistake of making an assumption! I didn't realize that you had a kerosene heater that was keeping your pipes from freezing! Then again, I don't know where you live... and don't care to know.%0D%0A%0D%0ABTW, I've been on the BB since 97. I hope the cap swap resolves the issue, sorry to hear about having to crawl through the mud to resolve the problem!%0D%0A%0D%0Ajorrell%0D%0Agood luck!%0A--%0A92 245 284K miles, IPD'd to the hilt, 06 XC70, 00 Eclipse custom Turbo setup...currently taking names and kicking reputations! http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384413/results.html?rss=1 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 03:17 GMT Jorrell, I have been a member on this forum for over a decade, I know what is customary.Don't be so cranky, even if other posts annoy you. %0D%0A%0D%0AI haven't given results because there aren't any yet. It was too wet under the house Sunday to give it a shot, and the last few days I have had too many calls to make to Europe before leaving the house, and its quite late and dak when I get back.%0D%0A%0D%0AI should have a chance to do it shortly. http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384235/results.html?rss=1 Thu, 5 Nov 2009 04:24 GMT Ok, Volvo geeks, I am having trouble with my furnace...again....Actually, the furnace burns fine when it the blower kicks on. Hey,. its a TRANE....so its really annoying. This is what I get for going away for long periods of time.%0D%0A%0D%0A I did et back in time to run the AC a few times in the late summer, but when we had a cold bit with some frost the other week, I couldn't get it to start. I don't like my house hot, so in my typical fashion, I just turned on a small radiator I have to take the edge off, but now the time has come to deal with it, I suppose. %0D%0A%0D%0AAbout a year ago, a similar situation occurred and I duly called the HVAC repair guys. The technician is great, and it turned out to be a 6 dollar capacitor. The symptoms are the same this time, and it appears as if the fricken part has failed again. I see where it is, but I am leary of replacing it myself. OTOH if it is straight forward, I don't feel like coughing up the 100+ for a simple service call.%0D%0A%0D%0AHas anyone replaced these, and can they give some advice on how to do it? As much as some people on this forum might not mind me getting electrocuted, I have no intention of departing this earth just yet. Certainly not over a six dollar part. http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1383521/need_help_furnace_capacitor.html?rss=1 Mon, 2 Nov 2009 01:15 GMT I'm surprised a manual box isn't even an option over there. I realise that auto trans is preferred in the US (isn't it?) but there must be enough people, like yourself, who know how to and like to use a "stick" shift as you call it. Strange. It's the other way round here to the extent that if you take your driving test in an auto (unusual) you're not qualified to drive a manual. Regards. %0A--%0ABillB http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384348/manual_transmission.html?rss=1 Thu, 5 Nov 2009 22:05 GMT I wish that NY's 23rd had gone different. Here we had a local Republican chosen by other local Republicans to represent local Republican issues being stepped on by big, bad, outsider Washington D.C. elites (and a half-term, half-assed Alaska Governor) trying to impose their will by forcing a candidate on them that didn't even live in the district. Had the Conservative won his victory would have fed the resentment of the local Republicans and helped to encourage the split between dedicated party members and disaffected conservatives. The fact that the Democrat won provides more opportunity for "healing" and having a common enemy. I would rather the conservative walked away with the seat because anything that reduces the ever-shrinking area beneath the Republican umbrella is okay with me; keep drumming out those moderates, extremism or bust!%0D%0A--%0D%0AThere's nothing worse than a reformed anything http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/volvo/1384295/problems_statistics_surprise.html?rss=1 Thu, 5 Nov 2009 18:31 GMT Use the text input below to search brickboard.com query http://www.brickboard.com/FIND/