commies rear ugly heads yet again Re: [LINK] Airport to tag passengers

Frank O'Connor foconnor at
Mon Oct 16 09:18:58 AEST 2006

Commies again, Vic?

You have a really simplistic view of life, my narrow minded Putz.

In 'Vic World':

People who want to protect their privacy = Communists
People who actually want to curtail the power of the state = Communists
People who think banks are ripping us off = Communists
People who disagree with the War in Iraq = Communists
People who want the Internet as unconstrained as possible = Communists
People who agree with the idea of product liability = Communists
People who believe in global warming = Communists
People who recommend technology changes = Communists
People who want cheaper drugs for AIDS sufferers in the Third World = 
People who think more medical research should be directed toward the 
big killer diseases - malaria, dysentry et alia = Communists
People who think developing software and releasing it for free is fun 
= Communists
Mothers who sacrifice for their children = Communists
People who disagree with you = Communists

In 'Vic World' (aside from Vic Cinc of course) exactly who isn't a communist?

But your simplistic, bigoted and puerile little environment isn't the 
one the rest of us live in, Moron.

Ours is a little more complex, my weasel like cretin.

Now, in the dim recesses of the single Vic neuron you may be 
incapable of realising this ... and we make allowances for that. You 
are after all someone who cut yourself shaving when told you'd been 
promoted to Grade 2. Simple bowel movement involves a considerable 
amount of your intellectual resources - and one could argue a large 
amount of your ideas. Whereas most of us have a vocabulary of 50000 
words or more, yours is sadly limited to whatever reading primer was 
in vogue whenever you finished your education. ("See Vic run, see Vic 
jump, see Vic skip" ... see Vic run into the brick wall of his 

That's why 'Commie' is such a great fallback, isn't it Vic? It 
doesn't stretch you linguistically or intellectually, it has a 
relatively low letter count, it can be used on virtually any 
occasion, and you don't have to know what it means. It's the ultimate 
in insults for use by the ignorant.

The post below demonstrated once and for all the tiresome limitations 
of your complete mind set, Vic ... the whole minute gamut of your 

We've heard it all before, Vic ... but introducing it into a debate 
where it is largely moot and irrelevant represents a new low - even 
for you.

So put a sock in it, Vic ... listen and learn.

It's your best (and many would argue, your only viable) strategy in life.


At 8:01 AM +1000 on 16/10/06 you wrote:
>Karl Auer [kauer at] wrote:
>>  On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 22:12 +1000, Geoffrey Ramadan wrote:
>>  > surface appears to conform to the 4 basic RFID privacy resolutions (from
>>  > the world's data protection and privacy commission)
>>  > 1) data not linked to personal information
>>  > 2) person fully informed
>>  > 3) only use data for what it was intended for
>>  > 4) able to delete or disable RFID tag
>>  Are these the only four?!? What about a person's choice not to take
>>  part?
>if you are talking about about other peoples property then you have no
>right to split out one component that doesnt suit you if the proprietor
>doesnt wish it to be split. such suggestions are just more communism.
>these display a fundamental disrespect for other peoples property rights which
>really is the hallmark of a good commie inst it?
>>  I find it objectionable to place business interests on the same level as
>>  privacy rights at all, and it is telling that Maxwell does. Says a lot
>>  about what he really thinks about privacy.
>business interests are superior to privacy, privacy doesnt create
>prosperity. privacy is the last bastion of the leftist against the
>overwhelming triumph of business to create lifestyle and an unprecendent
>standard of living for humanity that participates in it.
>to suggest business should kow tow to privacy advocates is disingenous
>stupidity. business only kow tow to one group, its customers. if its
>customers dont want rfid they will not spend their hard earned dollars.
>the market very quickly sorts out what the public want in stark contrast
>to the self anointed bleating losers who claim they know what the public want.
>>  > ???In a society based on anarchy, it is possible to imagine anything. But
>>  > we live in a civilised society, in which both common sense and the rule
>>  > of law prevail.??? - Interview from Professor Peter Cole April 8 2004.
>>  > (RFID Physicists)
>>  This is an apparently meaningless truism. You may to be using it to
>>  imply that NOT accepting a "balance" between business interests and
>>  privacy rights would be tantamount to anarchy. If not, what the heck DO
>>  you mean?
>not anarchy. the usual ratbag communists.
>the rfid beat up is not different to the barcode beat up many years ago
>and we hear nothing from our commie friends about barcode any more. in a
>decade rfid will still be here our commie friends will have been swamped
>out in the tide of consumer demand, choice and benefits.
>Link mailing list
>Link at

More information about the Link mailing list