foeofthelance

Actually, I think that would be a good place to draw a line before a right is infringed or being exercised. If a person is directly harmed by the action, then their rights have been infringed upon. (For the sake of convenience, I'm assuming this is between two citizens, and not a situation like the recent Sean Bell case, where people granted the authority to use force had to make a judgement on whether or not to use it.) I base this on the line "The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Life is a guarenteed and so is liberty, though the second is a loosely defined term. The third is the tricky one, as too many people try and take it to mean that bliss is supposed to be guarenteed as well. So where to draw the line then? -No one shall be allowed to attempt to do me harm, unless I am actively pursuing the harm of others. -The government shall make no attempt to determine my attitude, thoughts, or opinions, save where they would cause harm to others. -I shall in turn be protected and be provided a means of recourse against those who violate my rights.

So do we have any idea where we want to start? I was going to try and salvage the "Save the World of Fiction from the Evil Fangirls Led By Mary Sue" plot, but can adjust as necessary.

Here's a question then for you guys: what is a right and what isn't? Is my right to determine who can and cannot be on my public property greater or less than someone's else right to own or rent property?

Melrick- Part of the point of this thread is to determine what kind of rules people would be comfortable with. Mostly I think it would resemble the Forum rules for the most part (be civil, no hitting, etc.). As for having someone in charge I I I <---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I've already been told that since this was my idea, I'm in charge. I don't expect to have to make any changes, except possibly clean up some continuity here and there. I wouldn't even have mod powers, just be an impartial ref on questions and debates.

It is really rather simple. I write a quick chapter about someone named Foeofthelance. Then the next person writes a chapter, introducing themselves and maybe interacting with Foe. And so on and so. Since this is a forum orgy, expect lots of gratuitous sex, both between forum folk and random movie stars, book characters, and anyone else we get our horny little hands on. Zyx, that would be what Foe and Cal are for. And yes there would probably also be some form of reincarnation as well.

Take it from an old battered gray knight, there's nothing to it. It isn't a case of why did he get lucky when you didn't, it is more a case of why couldn't girl A see what she was giving up? Is there some mystical soulmate running around out there whom you are destined to meet and fall in love with? Um, I don't know the answer to that actually. My own particular brand of life has led to a headache in that department. But from my own experiences I can tell you this: she isn't the only one of her out there. And one of them will recognize you for what you are, and will perhaps be looking for it herself. Then you'll realize whether that's what you want or not. Maybe. I'm still working that out for myself, and willingly admit it would be much more useful if I could just indulge in polywhatever. But that's a seperate rant, for another time... Hopefully the advice (sort of) helped. *Never trust a Knight in Shining Armor. Their either a coward or a noob. Either way, not someone to count on in a fight. It's the quiet ones who bear their scars without boasting who are good men to stand with.

I think the problem is that the cause is ingored in favor of blaming the tool. If a gun is used for murder, then it's likely one of two ways: a crime pf passion, or a premeditated act. Either way, if you remove the gun the killer is going to find someway to act. How many stabbings are there, because someone reached for a kitchen knife? How hard is it to manufacture an explosive? Guns just get the blame, because there is no way to predict what will make someone snap.

I have recently been approached about the fate of the current Forum Orgy. The one that died a slow and painful death from neglect. What the question becomes then, is do we want to try again? I admit that we ran into a few problems with orgy, and most of them were my fault. It was never really publicisized, I was too lax with the rules, and the power creep that took place would have put any major SF universe to shame. I would like to try it again, as an experiment only fails if it proves that something can never happen, and I think that as a community of writers a Round Robin style story would be fun, as well as a good way to overcome writers block and to try new things before introducing them into our stories on the main site. However, if we do choose to do this again, I am going to insist on several rules and limitations: 1) I want at least five people to commit before we begin. They don't have to actually write anything right away, just pledge to add a chapter with in one week of the story being restarted. 2) No God/Demigod/All-Powerful characters. This doesn't mean you can't be as badass as you want, but no rewriting the continuity, simply making things appear and disappear as you wish, or anything else that would "break" the story. Every story needs conflict, which means bad guys, so swords, guns, and blasty type magical powers are fine...but no one will be invulnerable to them. So be careful if you try to turn it into a stomping ground, because someone can just as easily stomp on you. The exception would be my own Gary-stu (appropriately named Foe(ofthelance) and his ship, The Caltrop, with the reason being to use them as a form of mediation and retcon with in the story. If we ever write ourselves into a corner, they'd serve as a reset button. IF anyone is worried about me abusing that power, I can assure you I've already been warned that such an attempt will result in my own Death By Mod. Er, I mean God! There might be more than that, but those would be up to discussion. Only the two above would be set in stone. I open the discussion to any ideas or thoughts people might have, both for the world, plot, and just who you want to be able to screw.

A group of SF fans got together at a convention recently, and tried what they called the "Open Source Boob Project". Quite simply, it allowed anyone to touch the breasts of a participating woman (marked by a button), as long as she gave her permission. The story can be found here: http://theferrett.livejournal.com/1087686.html Now, personally, I have no problems with this, and not only because I'm a guy and it means free touches. While I see the need for personal space, there can be a point at which we as people become afraid to approach people for fear that we may be seen as too intrusive, thus not risking any form of contact at all. As such, I tend to freely associate with people who are comfortable with their bodies, and behave accoridngly. What do you guys think?

You know, I sincerely doubt it's because of the way Americans are portrayed in her books, especially if her manga is being sold over here. I think it is far more likely that as a Japanese author her books aren't being brought over because, let's face it, she's Japanese. Who writes extremely graphic novels. Which makes her stand out...how? How many other Japanese authors are having their novels imported? Or French authors? German ones? An author really needs to stand out if they are going to break into a foreign market; she just hasn't made herself stand out. "But the manga!" Well, that's different becase it is manga. There really isn't an American form of entertainment to compare to it. Admittedly, there is a slight crossover with the recent increase in trade paperbacks from comicbook companies, but the idea of a purely image based novel is still inherently Japanese in execution. The only real source of manga is Japan, and so we import titles written by Japanese authors, such as Reiko. So where as her books don't stand out well enough to compete with American authors, her mangas can fill a vacuum. That's just how the market works.

They don't, at least not officially. The worst that happens is that either a community decides it doesn't like something, and tries to have it removed from libraries etc. (which is fair, sort of, as that's also the basis for obscenity definitions) Those normally fall through at the first complaint, or break down over time. Or, more like in the case of this, publishing companies just don't pursue the rights to be able to distribute it here in the United States. It isn't really banned, everyone just considers it to be too controversial to be worth the headaches. And again, these things tend to break down over time, and eventually someone picks it up. But if you ordered a copy from the Japanese publisher and had it shipped via the U.S. Postal service it would be delivered. Compare to this to a place such as China, which actively does ban things, to the point that certain books cannot be sold in stores, certain websites can't be accessed, and certain shows can't be watched. In that case, the source of the bans is the group in power, which fears free information flow would put their power at risk. Which, if half the ancedotes I've heard are true, it probably would be...

Laid down and accepted! Though I admit, this may be my toughest task yet. I started writing it this morning, and did OK up until Chick started hitting on Phelps. At that point nasuea began to set in...

Is that a challenge?

God help me, but divine retritbution if there ever was... Should I write a Jack T. Chick/Fred Phelps slash fic?

Wouldn't that make Baby Universes cry? I mean, just trying to say it mentally is causing my eyes to bleed out all over my keyboard... Keith, there is a ninja in your future...

Personally, I think the second article to be the more accurate of the two, for several reasons: 1) The first article never quite explained how 'orphaned works' would be given into the public domain, let alone bypass the claims just about every hosting site on the net uses. (Point blank: "If we host it for you, we get to use it. In exchange, no one else but you can. Agree/Disagree?" 2) I know lobbying is a big business, but seriously, does the term 'political suicide' not mean anything to people? Senators and Reps can only keep sucking at the public teat if they get re-elected. Not gonna happen if the other guy can claim you sold out every talented person in the nation. 3) How the heck did they expect it to survive the courts? The Supreme would have that tossed on the first case for infringement purposes, and with 200+ years of material to back the decision with.

Nah, petitions don't count. They're designed to attract the bugnuts. As for paladins, I don't really get it either. But by the end of the debate I'd accused of being a Communist Nazi Demon, who was evil because he was a polygamist. (I stringently deny the first three. I admit the last, freely and plainly, though I don't see how it makes me evil.) All because I condoned the taking of an innocent life, to save both the world and the soul that had been bound with in that life. Apparently the proper answer was to foolishly sacrifice myself, and take the world with me, as my soul as a paladin was worth more than an individual commoner. That particular fued has now gone through no less than three seperate threads...

I know, and I probably would have been better off quoting the line under that. :-P My bad. But I was trying to put the topic in a slightly broader focus, which, to be fair, is how it needs to be addressed. Honestly, I tend to find the people who inhabit internet forums to be generally rational about these kinds of things. (The odd troll or honest to god idiot aside*) Which simply means the majority of the bigots don't hang out on the internet...which makes these kinds of debates sort of odd, in a way. But I think the point stands, even if it does not necessarily fit one particular person: christianity tends to recieve the blame, rather than the specific church or cult, when all they seem to hold is a belief that one man was the son or prophet of god. *Never try to argue the merits of how a Paladin's code of honor works in 3.X D&D. The experience is not a pleasant one, and tends to attract those who think moral superiority means they're right, and you're wrong, even if it hands the world over to Evil in the process.

The problem is the harassment is always blamed on 'Christians'. That's like discussing the destructive actions of the more radical Black Panthers, yet only referring to them as "blacks". The Westboro Baptists are not the Church of Later Day Saints, who are not the Amish, who are not the Roman Catholics, who are not the Jehovah's Witnesses, who are not the Anglican Church, which is not where Calvinists worship. And it really is a bit of a double standard. If an Islamic terrorist blows up a crowded market place, we get a lecture on how Islam is really a religion of peace, and they don't all mean it. If the Westboro Baptists picket a funeral, however, then its Christian fundamenalists trying to impose their views on freedom loving people. Personally, given the choice, I much prefer being woken up at 9 in the morning by some well meaning, if inconvenient, folks who think they're going to save my soul. (The Westboros, on the other hand, I would much prefer stay in their own tiny little temple.) Not to sound preachy, but as far as I'm concerned, God will reward as God chooses, and there are going to be a lot of people in for a surprise, not all of them happy...

Because as far as anyone can tell, the majority of them are Mexican. (Sadly, they don't stand around to be counted. If they did, we probably wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem. ) And if they aren't, it is still easier for them to cross the Mexican border than it is to come in from any other point. The Mexican government, from what I've managed to glean, has no real interest in actually taking care of its people, especially not when it is so easy to encourage everyone to emigrate to the great northern nation. The problem with this is that it drains resources that aren't being replaced. Paying an illegal immigrant is best done in cash, for a variety of reasons. That cash is then not taxed, and is quite often sent back home to support a family in the mother country or to pay for them to come here. That takes that money out of the economy here, save for perhaps a small living pittance. If an illegal uses a social support service (such as the emergancy room at the hospital) they are likely without insurance, and the end result is that the hospital never gets paid. The end result is that the hospital has to close. That happened locally. The immigrant population was churing out too many anchor babies, both for welfare and citizenshsip purposes, and the local hospital wasn't getting paid. The maternity ward was the first to go, and the entire hospital folded a year or so later. My suggestion? Announce internationally that as of January 1, 2009 anyone living inside the United States is a citizen automatically, so long as they register ahead of time with a local government body, at which point they will be issued a federally recognized ID card. Keep track of who files for this card. January 1, 2010 go through the welfare rolls, picking out everyone who is physically fit, and announce their drafting into the Coast Guard or Customs and Immigrations. Preferably the Latinos will be trained in the Coast Guard, while the Asians who are being smuggled in get trained for Customs and Immigration. Africans and Europeans get assigned at a 1:1 ratio. (Note: This is to prevent conflict of interest. The main way to cross for a Latino is to jump the Mexican border. The main method of entry for an Asian is being smuggled into a West Coast port. So have the Latinos patrol the coast, and the Asians patrol the border.) Starting 100 meters away from Mexico, turn the entire border area into one massive military testing area. Ignore the Mexican protests about the damage being done to the plants*. Put up helpful bilingual signs to warn away border crossers. Run massive Coast Guard drills off the west coast. Watch as illegal immigration (hopefully) drops. Admittedly, it is somewhat draconian of a solution. It might be easier to just out and out annex Mexico. Not only would that remove the urge to cross, but would bring American minimum wage laws down south. That, and it would be much easier to seal the bottom of Mexico than the bottom of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. Or we could just trank border crossers, stick 'em on a helicopter and fly them down to Southern Mexico. Hire a bunch of out of work actors, and pretend they're in Southern Texas... * When Bush announced plans to extend the chain link border fence another couple of hundred miles, the Mexican government protested on environmental grounds. Apparently it would interfere with airborne pollination.

http://bing91911.multiply.com/video/item/30

Honor Amongst Thieves Original/Fantasy Adult All OCs Feedback? yes please! The streets of Tyro are alive at night with death and deception. Amongst the darkness two lovers find it hard to have a relationship amongst a war between rival thieve's guilds. http://original.adult-fanfiction.org/story....9&chapter=1 Tsukiyo Kage

The Role of Government as Seen Through the Eyes of a Bored Twenty Year Old The federal government should play a role similar to that of a police force, in that it must provide a means of prevention and recourse for members of society who are wronged by other individuals, with wrongs and their consequences to be determined by the society in question, with judicial oversight to determine validity. The purpose of the legislature is to craft the laws, but not to interpret them, and is meant to serve the interests of the people, not anyone specific group. When so called minority causes begin to have champions, everything becomes a minority cause. The government is not supposed to solve squabbles between separate interests, but rather to provide a means for those interests to work out their own deals. Rather than creating an ever increasingly complex tangle of rules, it should provide a means of negotiation impartial to both sides. Only where a violation of the rights granted by the system occurs should a law be necessary. It is the responsibility of the Executive branch to ensure an orderly and effective means of running this government; so long as the rights of the people are not violated it should not worry about the means so much as the consequences. Failed programs should be terminated and replaced, not fixed or expanded. The conflict faced by government is the depth of its role in common affairs. Modern candidates seek power, not progress, and are willing to promise goals which can only be accomplished through the expansion of their power. This places an unfair burden on the federal government, especially as consecutive generations of politicians seek to their own agendas, modifying or undoing the accomplishments of those who came before. To call this orderly chaos is unfair; there is nothing orderly about it. Instead ever increasing levels of bureaucracy are added to disguise the running conflicts that never seem to be resolved. Thus to be truly effective, higher levels of government should be given less responsibility. The federal government should have only three major areas of responsibility: security, financial, and mediation. The Roles Expanded Security- Just as each township and village has its own police force, so must the federal government act to ensure the welfare of the citizens. First, strong international presences through an unequivocal force of arms. This must be recognized for what it is: a means of defense rather than a means of destruction. As each successful government would be seeking a similar position it would be all too easy to fall into an arms race, and steps should be taken to prevent this. While the sharing of military technology with unfriendly hands would be terrible to consider, joint military operations so that each government might have some idea of the capabilities of its fellows would be useful, as well as a good way to promote constant investment in the forces necessary for defense. Finally, a strong intelligence initiative is important, so that those responsible for security are aware of changes both to and by a noted threat. Financial- First, the government must provide a universally accepted currency of good value. This will in turn help ensure the financial ability of its citizens. In order to accomplish this the government must act more as a wise business man rather than as an over generous parent: willing to spend its money wisely, and even take a few risks, yet unwilling to just give it away to any who might ask. No one district or state should ever get back more than what it gives to the federal coffers, unless that money is being spent on a federal, and only a federal, project. This includes such things as new military bases, FBI offices, and other buildings necessary for the execution of federal programs. Second, programs such as welfare and so called “universal healthcare” should be abolished. Any attempt to run such programs eventually turns them into political weapons, which does nothing more than defeat their intended purposes while at the same time crippling those who might find themselves dependent on those programs. Instead of welfare, a work substitute program, used to staff such things as custom and immigration agencies for those who are unable to find work, while funds for social healthcare initiatives should be invested into the hospitals directly, with only a few minor restrictions on how the funds might be spent, and even then those restrictions would be aimed at ensuring the money is spent on patients and their care, rather than on those running the operations. (It is acknowledged that there are those who are incapable of functioning in society, for whatever reasons. While the government should aid in financially supporting their care, it should not be allowed to dictate the terms of said care. That should be left to the communities where those individuals live, as there is likely to be an increase of specific interest from said communities.) A program such as Social Security is acceptable, as in this case the government should be acting as a bank, merely putting aside money earned by an individual for that individual’s later use. While finding ways for that money to grow through interest, the government should at no time be allowed to “loan” that money to itself. Any funding left over after the above needs have been met should be reinvested into the communities from which it comes, with a small amount held in reserve for emergency relief situations, and for the easing and prevention of national debt. This would provide continued support for education, social programs, and similar constructs necessary for a healthy society could be funded, while specific problems and needs could be corrected and handled at the community level, as this is where it is most likely to be noticed, and easier to handle. Mediation- The purpose of the courts is to rule in criminal matters, assign blame where blame must be assigned, and to negotiate settlements between two wronged parties. This should be left to the courts and the courts alone, to prevent special interest groups from trying to sway opinions. Law should be the tool by which disputes are framed, not decided. When the way to settle a dispute is to write a new law, it is likely to turn in favor of the group best able to influence the situation, whether or not they are in the right or wrong. The courts then, especially those elected, are most likely to be neutral, for a judge that seemingly serves a specific interest rather than that of the people is not likely to hold the bench for very long. Finally, the federal government should only pass such laws as are necessary to ensure an equal status amongst the states. This follows on things such as abortion, drinking age, and regulation of interstate commerce. If one state denies a service then all states should deny the service; it also follows that if one state provides a service than all states should provide a service and that the federal government should decided between the two, preferably through national referendums, voted on during regular election cycles. Please, criticize and critique. The entire point to writing this was so that I might discuss it with others.

I was thinking about the concept of chivalry, its evolution from a set of guidelines for the battlefield to a general code of conduct, and its (apparent) current downfall. Yet I don't recall ever hearing of a female form...