Conference back40::soapbox

	Rules... they are made to be broken. 

  Nonsense.  Rules were made to be followed.

  bb

    
    	Rules which make sense are made to be followed.
    
    	Rules which make no sense are made to be broken.
    

    Tine:
    
    Without rules, transgression is non existent.  Humankind has an inert
    propensity to rebel!

    Kind of like your class in Ashland!! :-)

    rules are instituted so people who are ignorant will know what to do

Actually, .6 reflects something that it took some sufi muckety-muck pages
to say.

I like your wording much better.

    Jack,
    
    My class was a model of young, personable teens!

    Kelly, your class was a consortium of young, personable models!! I'd
    drive through Ashland just to raise my testosterone levels! ;-)

>    rules are instituted so people who are ignorant will know what to do

...and are uncessarily restrictive for those who aren't, stifling creativity
and inventiveness.

>    rules are instituted so people who are ignorant will know what to do

There are rules that, when followed, benefit everyone.

Then there are rules that benefit one at the expense of another ....


In the latter case, rules are instituted to gain the advantage ....

    Enter Covert and EDP ----------------------->

    
    "Rules? There's no rules in a knife fight"
    
    (kicks Jaws in groin) "ok, let's get started.
    
    "ok, someone say 1-2-3, go"
    
    "1-2-3 go"
    
    "double hand hit to the jaw"
    
    

	Battis, you're wrong. There is a rule in a knife fight. "Never play
with knives. You could get hurt!"

Of course, the most important rule in a knife fight, if you want to win, is:

Bring a gun.

    re 3.
    
    >>Rules which make sense are made to be followed.
    
      Rules which make no sense are made to be broken.<<
    
    By who's standard.  Who gets to choose what makes sense and what does
    not. 
    
       Rules which make sense are made to be followed.
    
       Rules which make no sense are made to be changed by the consent of
       the majority.
    
    
      

providing the majority think the rules make no sense.

rules have boundaries, boundaries have limits; i'm for infinity and beyond where
anything goes. screw the rules.

ogre.

    .0  However, there's always a squeaky wheel that wants to
    .0  rebel for the sake of rebelling, it seems.  Why is that? 
    
    In the US you will see more of this than say China or Russia.
    Independence promotes independent thinkers.  People have 
    actually learned to think about right from wrong in US instead of
    BEING TOLD what is right and what is wrong.  That fact can work 
    for us or against us in that when consensus is reached - 
    WE need to start acting like a country.... 
    
    

    break the rules in the first 15 minutes otherwise they stick

    oh ya happy birthday to me   ;)~
    

        >Of course, the most important rule in a knife fight, if you want to
    >win, is:

    >Bring a gun.

    Reminds me of a scene in the 'Untouchables', when Sean Connery is in
    his apartment, and hears a noise. He walks down the hallway, and see's
    one of Capones gangsters. The gangster is carrying a knife.

    SC: "Typical wop. Brings a knife to a gunfight"

    He proceeds to chase the gangster out of his house, only to be
    slaughtered by another gangster packing an automatic rifle. 

    re: rules.

    Rules are needed for Law and Order. In most cases they provide
    fairness. One of the rules I break regularly, is the one for parking
    tickets. Over here you have to pay to park, and in return you get a
    little sticker, telling you when your pre-paid limit expires. You have
    to leave the car-park, when you time is up, and you cant return within
    what I think is an hour. If I have paid for 1 hour, and only use 20
    minutes, I usually give it someone else, as I leave, because I have paid
    for an hour, not used it, so I fail to see the fairness in having
    people pay twice for the same amount of time. Especially when you have
    no choice and the shortest time period is 1 hour. This is breaking the
    rules, but I think that by breaking that rule, I am being fair to other
    drivers, who park there. 
    So in this case, breaking the rules creates a fair environment. 

    Oh, I have just realised that I have blown my own statement completely
    out of the water. Nevermind. Food for thought.
    
    Steven

You must sit in the back of the bus ...

    What have buses got to do with parking permits?

    Some people don't understand the concept of "rules".  They must feel
    that they are constantly confronting something.  It has a lot to do
    with maturity level, imo.  Chicken Little mentality.  My ex-husband is 
    a prime example.

        The way I see it is if you are going to break a rule, and by doing
    so you are not harming anyone, then why not. If you are going to harm
    yourself, then asses the risk, and if you feel you can handle it, go
    for it. If your assessment was wrong and you do harm yourself, then put
    it down as experience.

    If by your rule breaking, someone else is going to be harmed, then
    think to yourself, "how would I react in this case" if the answer is
    'pretty pissed off' then don't do it. It all comes down to common sense
    really. Sometimes we don't show much other times we show a little too
    much. I guess that is why rules exist. To create a happy medium.

>         <<< Note 849.24 by SCASS1::BARBER_A "Psychobilly Freakout" >>>

Some people think they understand the concept of "rules".  They must feel
that everything will always go exactly their way, that the vast array of
human experience all fits in their neat little compartments.  It has a lot to
do with maturity level, imo.  "They need mommy-ing" mentality.  Our town's
DPW inspector is a prime example.

    
    	I don't understand the "no U-turn" rule posted at some intersect-
    	ions.  If it's legal to make a left turn, what's the harm in mak-
    	ing two in a row instead if the coast is clear?  ESPECIALLY at an
    	intersection with a separate left turn light.
    

>      <<< Note 849.27 by BUSY::SLAB "Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448" >>>
    	If it's legal to make a left turn, what's the harm in mak-
    	ing two in a row instead if the coast is clear?

You'll impact their ticket quota.

>    Some people don't understand the concept of "rules".  They must feel
>    that they are constantly confronting something.  It has a lot to do
>    with maturity level, imo.  Chicken Little mentality.  My ex-husband is 
>   a prime example.

    Some people don't understand the concept of "rules".  They must feel
    that they must blindly follow authority.  It has a lot to do
    with lack of independence, imo.  Follow the herd mentality.  

    I'll admit to selective rules following.  Any rule can be broken but
    you must be willing to accept the consequences of your actions.  

>    I'll admit to selective rules following.  Any rule can be broken but
>    you must be willing to accept the consequences of your actions.  

Not if the rule is stupid, or immoral by any recognized standard.

Suppose their was a new "rule" requiring Jews to wear a star of David? Should
you be willing to accept the consequences of disobeying?

    Re .27:
    
    > I don't understand the "no U-turn" rule posted at some intersect-
    > ions.
    
    Consider an intersection with a high volume of traffic turning right
    (northbound cars are becoming eastbound).  It is often desirable to
    give this traffic a green right-turn signal at the same time that
    westbound cars have a green left-turn signal (to become southbound),
    because that allows a large flow of right-turning traffic.
    
    If the westbound cars are allowed to make U-turns, collisions will
    occur because the U-turning drivers and the right-turning drivers will
    all believe they have the right of way.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    	RE: .32
    
    	Yes, I realize all of that, but it's generally the case that a
    	left-turner yields to everybody else ... so this would not be
    	much different than a left-turner meeting a vehicle going straight
    	through the same intersection.
    

    If there are no rules....
    
    Improvise.
    
    If people are upset with the improvisation... humbly beg forgiveness
    and hope they don't make up rules just to spite you... 
    
    
    If using this method you add 4+ rules to an organization within any 
    given 12 month period....
    
    
    
    
    You're doing very well indeed;-)

    
    -Screw the rules
    -People without common sense need rules as guildlines
    
    -People with common sense(i.e. myself ;^) 
     must follow the rules set by our senseless government

Obviously, a few rules can be agreed upon by everyone: Do not commit murder.

Others, under which we now live, are so strange that they almost defy
description: Thou shalt not change a faucet washer in thine own house in
Massachusetts, thou shalt hire a plumber to do it. Only under the bizzarest
of circumstances would doing this cause trouble for anyone but me. Blatently
obvious union power grab, and the sad part is, our politicians actually fell
for it, and now we're stuck with it.

    The politicians who were elected by a majority of the voters who
    managed to haul themselves up off their butts to get into the polls to
    vote?  Those politicians did it, without our permission?

>                <<< Note 849.37 by BULEAN::BANKS "Saturn Sap" >>>
>    vote?  Those politicians did it, without our permission?

Well, theoretically they don't need our permission. It's "in their job
description" to make decisions like that for us. The reason it's sad is that
they are actually so jackass stupid that they:

- fell for something so obvious - no common sense? Never had to fix a leaky
  faucet in their collective life?
- believe that their law will stop anyone from doing it - might as well
  outlaw breathing
  
But, yes, THOSE politicians.

  the effect is a consequence of majoritarian democracy - "single issue"
 constituencies have increased power, when compared to generic liberals
 or generic conservatives.  Consider a single-issue group, say teacher's
 unions, or gun nuts.  Suppose they vote in a block, and they are quite
 willing to ignore all other positions, whether liberal or conservative,
 and in any election swing ALL their votes to a candidate who goes their
 way on one specific issue.  As little as a 5% block is virtually
 unstoppable if they care deeply about a peripheral issue.  It's just math.

  For this to work, you really have to be "single issue", not just say
 you are.  You really have to be willing to vote for Strom Thurmond or
 Ted Kennedy or anybody else, so long as they go your way on one and only
 one issue, and you have to demonstrate your power in an actual election.

  The nightmare of single-issue constituencies, is the referendum.  You
 can see why.

  bb

OTOH, if these politicians demonstrate such a consistent level of jackass
stupidity (and, IMHO, those in MA do), it becomes an issue of the level of
jackass stupidity of the average voter.

You know, representative gummint, and all that.

>                <<< Note 849.40 by BULEAN::BANKS "Saturn Sap" >>>
> jackass stupidity of the average voter.

Yup. What's that name y'all use in here - Mrs. Dougherty? She votes for the
biggest wad from the public dole, not much else.

Anyone for the SLAVERY!!! SLAVERY!! debate again?

Did I hear right, or is this a belated 4/1/97 note ...

It is now against the law in Mass to fix your own plumbing in your own house??

<boggle>

Plumbing supplies are no longer available at the hardware store without a 
license? Need a permit to carry a pipe wrench? Black market in washers?

>  <<< Note 849.42 by DECWET::LOWE "Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng.,  DTN 548-8910" >>>
> It is now against the law in Mass to fix your own plumbing in your own house??

It's been that way for years...

Now, I can understand a peabrain politician reasoning, "Duh, dey might mess
up da whole town's watah!" But faucet washers?? What possible harm could come
of it?

Every Mass. hardware store I've been in has a humongous plumbing section. An
elegant demonstration of the effectiveness of our laws and lawmakers. An
illustration of what will happen increasingly often as mommy gov't gets
farther out of touch with reality of everyday life under their "rules".

    i know in our town (Gardner, MA) you can do your own electricty and
    kill yourself or burn your house down, but there is no legal way to
    self-impose a basement full of water.

    
    yet another reason to move to Chicago. we can do plumbing, electrical,
    whatever we want. we're civilized.

    And here I thought the only reason to go to Chicago was for Bohemian
    blood sausages and deep dish Pizza
    
    meg

civilized? hmm, this from the town that brought us Jerry 
Springer....

    RE: .31
    
    No, even the stupidest or cruelest rules must be followed or you must
    be willing to accept the consequences of your actions.  In the case of
    your example, wear the star or else, those choosing not to wear the
    star must make a decision to comply or take it to the end with the
    final resolution possibly being death.  This is not different than
    our founding fathers or any other perosn that was willing to make the
    ultimate sacrifice.  
    
    BTW, murder is not an obvious rule we can all agree on.  It's pretty
    obvious many people each year violate this rule.  With impunity even.  

    RE: Plumbing laws.  The same laws deny MA residents from using plastic
    piping with compression fittings in favor of copper with tin solder for
    water supplies.  The former is easily installed by an average homeowner
    and is highly resistant to bursting if frozen.  The latter requires some 
    amount of skill to assemble, can degrade over time due to high acidity
    and will burst open if frozen.  

    ahhhh, it all makes sense, now that it's explained.

>     <<< Note 849.48 by CONSLT::MCBRIDE "Idleness, the holiday of fools" >>>
>    BTW, murder is not an obvious rule we can all agree on.  It's pretty
>    obvious many people each year violate this rule.  With impunity even.  

Fine. You are the next victim, then. BANG.

>    ahhhh, it all makes sense, now that it's explained.

Yes indeedy.

Actually, copper is no big deal. I've made antennas out of it. Plumbing would
have been illegal, and no one would ever break an inconvenient and expensive
law, would they?

    At the same time, I have been in homes where do-it yourself plumbers
    and electricians have really made a mess of things. They don't mind and
    they don't kill anyone in their family. It is usually someone who moves
    in a few years down the line and finds this "DREAM HOUSE". I understand
    that most of YOU have a reasonable amount of education or maybe
    background to do some work in your house but don't assume this from
    everybody. I don't know what the answer is but no supplies or supplies
    for everyone are the extremes. I have a brother-in-law who does his own
    work and I have to go over once a year and fix something so he won't
    kill himself or one of the relatives.
    

    Tom,
    
    You stated it was obvious that murder was something we all agreed on
    being a rule not to break.  Who is the we?  If it is societal, then 
    clearly this is violated everyday.  So it is not obvious this is 
    something we all agree on is it?  
    
    Brian

>     <<< Note 849.54 by CONSLT::MCBRIDE "Idleness, the holiday of fools" >>>
> Who is the we?

You.

> If it is societal, then clearly this is violated everyday.  So it is not
> obvious this is something we all agree on is it?  

Fine. You're next.

Yes, apparently some feel that murdering OTHERS is ok. I wonder how they'd
respond to the above?

    Yup, I agree murder is bad and it is unfathomable for me to actually
    kill someone on purpose or otherwise.    

    .55 from the interviews i've seen of quite a few convicts on death row,
        they're okay with it. granted, there are the whiney scum that
        take the position that their death will not bring back the person
        they so cooly dispatched from this earth, but many have resigned 
        themselves to the fact that they took a life and, they themselves,
        should expect and accept the same. 
    
        an almost honorable/noble position (if it weren't for the
        crime).

    According to Hitler, who got a bunch of folk to sign the Warsaw Peace
    pack. I would go along with rules are ment to be broken. As he said, he
    knows that his enemy were worms, they signed the pack.:( 

    Well, then it was their mistake and they deserved what happened to
    them. Anyone who knows anything would only sign a peace pact. Peace
    packs are usually worthless.

    
    	RE: .58
    
    	Hitler: the leader of the pact.
    

    Well, since there is such a thing as a peace pipe, perhaps a pack of
    cigarettes could be considered a peace pack, eh?

    rule #11 - There's no crying in baseball

    Unless your name is Fred Patek!

    
    	Poor Freddie, eh?
    
    	When was that ... 1980 or 1981, right?
    

    But, then there was a Wolf pack. Is that like a peace pack? And there
    are packs of lawyers, and you know there aint no peace with them...
    Even after your dead.:) Then there is always the question about the
    differnce between a law firm and a vaccum cleaner... only one dirt bag
    to deal with with a vaccum cleaner..:)
    

    George that was about as funny as a pay toilet in a diaherria ward!!!

    I wasn't that funny, was it?

    jackdude, never had that experience. you must have to write so well
    about the subject.:)