Forum: Author Hangout

That's what led to my conclusion the administrators are 'hiding'. Courts may 'generally support freedom of expression', but an over-zealous prosecutor, looking for publicity, can still ruin someone's life before a prosecution they start is thrown out.
Why they haven't is pure supposition, but you agree, they haven't responded to anything for many years?

Except that, for a few isolated cases experienced here on SOL, there haven't been any suits or public condemnations of ASSTR. Thus I doubt they're 'hiding' from a non-existent threat. They're likely incredibly nervous about when the hammer may fall, but not answering inquires won't shield them from ANY convictions, as the law can get around most efforts to hide, especially if the site MUST remain accessible for it to continue.

Using the 'common sense test', the better answer is generally the simpler one. Thus, it's unlikely they're in hiding, while it's more likely they're simply overwhelmed, as that proposal explains more than the alternative, which explains nothing.

Would you email me privately please.

Obliterous, I can no longer remember the location of the ASSTR Forum, but their email address is ASSTR_ASSM_Authors@yahoogroups.com. If you post a message there, you won't read the site administrators, but you'll likely reach knowledgeable authors who can help you figure out how to work around the existing issues.

On a side note if you go to the news groups and post a message at ass.stories.d

You mean alt.sex.stories.d of course, accessible via google groups. Which is a better line to the admins than the user-created https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ASSTR_ASSM_Authors/

Has anyone tried wgm37silpeyp@contactprivacy.email?

Uh, just wtf does wgm37silpeyp@contactprivacy.email supposed to do, and why should I use that, as opposed to contacting the people responsible for making the legal decision?

Contact Privacy is listed by ICANN as the registrant of asstr.org and wgm37silpeyp@contactprivacy.email is the listed email address for registrant contact, Admin contact and Tech contact.

Meaning what? That they'll forward the email on to the appropriate party, or that there's some management function who'll intervene when an anonymous website does something wrong or illegal?

I think not. Those breaking the law and stealing works will continue unless forced to stop. Sending them a 'please stop' letter won't get more than a momentary smirk.

Again, while ICANN won't reveal the owners behind those sites, any decent lawyer can get a court order compelling them to reveal who's breaking the law.

True, but then AFIK no one is accusing asstr of stealing anything. The op is trying to contact them for site maintenance issues/tech support.

Apparently I spent too much time jumping between different threads. I can never remember which I'm responding to (and I'm too dim-witted to read the thread title at the top of the page)!

1 Yes they'll forward the email on to the appropriate party.

2. That is the official email address for contacting those legally responsible for the asstr.org website.

Ahh! Thanks for the clarification. It wasn't immediately clear why you were suggesting we contact them (I thought it was in reference to the plagiarism concerns in the other threads).

so it's possible it stopped working years ago and we never noticed.

Who else appreciates what Lazeez does?

Who else appreciates what Lazeez does?

"I do! I do!" he says, raising something besides his hand. 'D

Who else appreciates what Lazeez does?

Screaming "me" while jumping up and down and waving hands. I really appreciate how responsive he is to suggested changes that you can give a good supporting case for. Anyone noticed the new "send and archive" button on the mail system - yeah.

Screaming "me" while jumping up and down and waving hands. I really appreciate how responsive he is to suggested changes that you can give a good supporting case for. Anyone noticed the new "send and archive" button on the mail system - yeah.

Yeah, I've noticed, as I'm still getting a fair number of posts. Though, I'm never sure whether responding via the email notices also sends them to the messaging system or not (it seems they do), so all is good.

But when you compare it to ASSTR, where they've never tested their backup or their servers in years, I'm glad that Lazeez is able to keep the site afloat, functional and up-to-date.

Long live SOL (and FS and Sci-Fi, too)!

Thank you guys for all the support.

And thank you for not having one crisis after another, for not being unreachable, and for knowing where your damn data center is and what state it's in!

Competence and financial independence count for a lot.

I think it's good that there will continue to be a home for stories failing to meet Canadian legal criteria and I wish them success.

AJ

I think it's good that there will continue to be a home for stories failing to meet Canadian legal criteria and I wish them success.

I've love to see them climb out of that limited role, as they used to cover a wide variety of stories (all sex related, of course). But as they became known as 'the kiddie porn' site, other authors have abandoned it, figuring the readers were only there for one thing.

I'm not sure how you combat that kind of influence. Not only did the range of stories suffer, but the size of their 'new story' listings did too, reflecting the overall drop in authors participating in the site.

I pulled everything from there (over the copyright thefts they couldn't control) except for one story I wouldn't release on SOL (mm), and all it generates is 5 - 10 reads per week. Hardly an encouraging rate.

The site is still up, but you still can't access any stories and they aren't listing ANY new stories at all, but ...

What do you mean when you say 'can't access any stories'?

I went to the site and I was able to access all the authors listing and their stories.

Do you mean you as an author aren't able to add/remove/update your files on the site? because readers still can read.

What do you mean when you say 'can't access any stories'?

I went to the site and I was able to access all the authors listing and their stories.

Do you mean you as an author aren't able to add/remove/update your files on the site? because readers still can read.

I meant, from a readers' perspective, that the main page is completely empty of stories, and although you can access individual stories, you can only access certain stories (i.e. those that belong to separate collections, not any that reside on the main ASSTR server). Thus, anything that was set up separately from the main ASSTR database is still accessible, but no one can post or access ANY new stories.

What's more, although there are more stories available, they're part of the 'incomplete' restore I mentioned. They did manage to restore several stories, but the only reliable backup they could access was from mid-2016, more than a full year ago.

My main point, though, was unless they can resume posting new stories, it'll be difficult for them to attract any funds to finance their necessary upgrades to restore the site.

I see that they now use https rather than http, I think that's new.

It is. They discussed it on their forum posts (I get email notifications whenever they do).

And it means that 32-bit Chrome can't access the site :(

AJ

It's been several days since the first reported ftp failure, and I'm still unable to access the general submission site, either authors.asstr.org or secure.asstr.org. Has anyone here been able to reach the ftp submission site, or is it down for the duration?

Never mind. It's been some time since I last posted to ASSTR, and reviewing the site, it's apparent they've completely abandoned the traditional 'authors.asstr.org' facility, switching to a purely ftp self-posting setup, rather than a 'guided' posting arrangement.

I'm still unable to access the general submission site, either authors.asstr.org or secure.asstr.org.

This is all talked about in the posts on alt.sex.stories.d

Due to the generally completely fucked nature of everything, they got it back up to some minimal functionality (access using an FTP client) while other stuff is still down for the foreseeable future (web access to files via authors.asstr.org).

Because even if you don't like the way it has become saturated by paedo stories, it's a significant bastion of freedom of expression and I think everyone should mourn its loss.

AJ

Because even if you don't like the way it has become saturated by paedo stories

That's not my reason. Years ago the support from the admins disappeared. That's when I felt it was dying.

There are two critical components for me:

1. As a reader, a search engine to find stories. ASSTR's is non-existant. SOL's is really good.

2. As an author, webmaster support. ASSTR's is non-existant. SOL's is great.

Because even if you don't like the way it has become saturated by paedo stories, it's a significant bastion of freedom of expression and I think everyone should mourn its loss.

I DO mourn it's loss, but it wasn't lost during this current kerfuffle, but back when it became a defacto pedo-only site after they effectively chased away most authors posting non-pedo stories. Given their inability to receive donations and their inability to receive and respond to direct emails, there's little chance they'll pay for the extensive changes required to the site. Frankly, I have no clue how they're doing as much as they are.

It's essentially a zombie site, dead but still stumbling forward, oblivious to the many limbs it keeps dropping as it continues. If and when they follow SOL's lead, and create a non-pedo spinoff site, THEN I'll return to it.

Oh, and Switch's reasons too. Essentially, everything is tied into their inability to solicit funding, which they permanently severed by continuing to foster the very pedo stories which drew a broader array of authors/readers they need to survive.

I'm of mixed opinion here. Pedo doesn't turn me on but Mr. Double and other early pedo sites actually predated the internet and in my opinion a lot of the internet would never have been developed were it not for on-the-margin sex sites. It was a way that those of other sexual orientations could write and hopefully play out their fantasies in a non-harmful way. We, as a society, have greatly narrowed our tolerances since those days. I can remember when Toronto, CA made it seem like it was legal to obtain 13 year old prostitutes.

I also remember, as I grew up in Charlotte, that the age of consent was 15 in NC although you needed parental consent to marry at that age and many of my HS classmates skipped over the border to SC to marry without consent at 14.

I support Lazeez and know he has to abide by the law and I for one am glad that he does. My first few stories were Pedo by today's standards and when the wind started shifting I offered to remove those stories from the site and was told it was not needed. You can look at the stories and see they were edited by well respected editors.

My point is that we're only one law away from having no right to publish any sexual content and that is a real shame.

I'm of mixed opinion here. Pedo doesn't turn me on but Mr. Double and other early pedo sites actually predated the internet and in my opinion a lot of the internet would never have been developed were it not for on-the-margin sex sites.

I never held such reactionary reviews before. Frankly, it didn't bother me that there were pedo stories here or on ASSTR, but once SOL was forced to abandon them (because of the Canadian law changes), ALL the pedo writers descended on ASSTR as the other sites all banned them too. As they did, the other more mainstream authors saw the writing on the wall, and as the balance of stories started to turn overwhelmingly pedo (again, often because the same authors kept posting the SAME pedo stories over and over just to keep their names at the top of the posting lists), they began abandoning the site, worsening their slide into irrelevance.

Lazeez is doing a noble job, trying to allow sexually free stories while trying to prevent the site from becoming unmanageable. He's now considering removing the older (early) pedo stories, just because it scares off many newer readers, reducing the number of potential new paying members. But ASSTR should be a lesson to all of us about just how quickly a story site like this can get flushed down the proverbial toilet.

I'm _really_ worried about SOL's future, when Lazeez reaches the end of his run. My impression is that his sites have a _lot_ of hand coding in their makeup, and that requires a very special kind of person to pick up the reins. Really, it would take an extended apprenticeship, and I haven't heard anything to suggest that it's happening.

I worry about that too. While Lazeez does have other 'admins', they don't seem to do the heavy lifting that he does, so I worry if this wonderful site will suffer what ASSTR is now if something happens to him (which, of course, could happen at any time).

Yet another good reason as many readers as possible should pay for their premier membership so the site is profitable and someone will want to continue it so it remains so.

Even if the site IS profitable, if no one is trained to take over the reins and knows how to manage the site, come what may, it's often all for naught.

I suspect that Lazeez may need to delegate a bit more, just to allow his admins to grow and gain responsibilities, so they feel the site is theirs, too. Face it, how many out there know the names of the other admins on the site? I've worked with several, over the years, but I'm not even sure how many admins there are in total.

Viet Nam

I saw the first episode of the History of the Vietnam War last night (it's a PBS special). I'm not only a baby boomer, but was in the Army Reserves during the war. You won't believe how it all started. It's amazing.

And Ho Chi Min (Sp?) came to us for help against the French. He even quoted Thomas Jefferson in a speech. We blew that one - big time. We even sent in a military doctor to help him when he was gravely ill.

unbelievable plot and unrealistic characters

Hunger Games?

Man, it's fiction.

Says someone who hasn't read a word of either Marx or Lenin.

There is a reason why those of us in 'flyover' country (as well as John Ringo) tend to refer to certain states in this country, such as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as the Peoples Democratic Republic of Massachusetts.

Democratic Republic means you elect your representatives - which is fine.
Peoples Republic means you're a socialist, maybe even a communist.
Democratic Peoples Republic means you think Marx and Lenin were the greatest people that ever lived, and that socialism and communism should rule everything, and that all individual rights should be subsumed to the all-knowing, omni-benevolent government.

That's got to be, frankly, the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I've NEVER known anyone living in Boston, and I know quite a few, who has any love whatsoever for Marx or Lenin. Don't confuse trying to help people with being Socialists. That's a meaningless term thrown around, just like Nazi is, to degrade and belittle your enemies. But what they all have in common, is using 'the common good' for the 'average man' as a rallying cry, while they do whatever they feel like.

The key isn't to guard against Nazis or Socialists, it's to beware of populists, promising to 'wipe the slate clean' and 'return power to the common man'. Because, believe me, the common man will always get the shaft, every single time! Political persuasion means little.

But what they all have in common, is using 'the common good' for the 'average man' as a rallying cry, while they do whatever they feel like.

Differences I've seen between Right and Left 1) group rights vs individualism 2) community responsibility vs personal responsibility 3) leftists believe that as long as their cause is just any means is acceptable, where one on the right would say ends don't justify means, process is important...and others

Of course, in none of those cases did the revolution occur in an industrialized nation, which Marx and Engels posited as being a pre-requisite, so it's possible that they might be right after all.

The problem is concentration of power, which corrupts even the well meaning. I believe in the wisdom of the crowds before any self proclaimed experts and technocrats. Never trsut a politician, even the ones you voted for.

asstr.org is off-line , it may be for major maintenance - I just checked with a site validation site

I just checked the Domain information, I'm not sure what showed before, but it was just updated on 9 Nov 2017, is down for expiration on 9 Dec 2021, which indicates renewed on 9 Dec 2016 for 5 years, and registered via Contact Privacy In Customer 1241107443 in Toronto, ON, Canada

Interesting it's down just after an update.

Canada

Isn't that the death knell for all the underage stuff?

AJ

Isn't that the death knell for all the underage stuff?

I can't find out much about the Canadian company, but what i can find out makes it look like a company you use as a cut out for contact services, not the real owners. It also looks like it may be a Google subsidiary. The bit with the customer number is a bit of a give-away.

We can always hope, not that it will make much of a difference if the same nifty stories are still uploaded on a daily basis.

Personally, if ASSTR hopes to survive, they'll have to following SOL's lead and limit the underage content, as their pedo fans are chasing away everyone else, as more and more mainstream authors and readers are abandoning the site because of the overabundance of kiddy porn. With few other options, the pedo crowd is feverishly working to kill off their last remaining refuge.

I love the freedom of expression and diverse material, but not at the exclusion of everything else. When a niche group eliminates your bread and butter customers, it's time to fish or cut bait. ASSTR's biggest single problem is their inability to pay for new staff and equipment updates, and they have few options for increasing contributions.

Thank God, Lazeez plans ahead and is making plans to keep the site operational into the future (or at least until he dies, then all bets are off).

if ASSTR hopes to survive, they'll have to following SOL's lead and limit the underage content,

In the ASSTR Yahoo group, I suggested people switch to SOL when ASSTR was down and no one knew if it would be back up. The response was: "My stories aren't welcome on SOL."

Isn't that the death knell for all the underage stuff?

A temporary outage isn't a death knell. SOL goes offline frequently, but it's typically late at night when few notice, and it's not for very long. What IS a likely death knell, was the news by the site Admins who can't easily access the site to know, that the Feds have obtains a court order to start tracking log-ins to the site. Thus, if you visit the site, expect to find yourself under investigation. Also, knowing their modus operandi, if you communicate electronically with anyone under investigation (emails, messages, whatever), expect the same.

I'm not about to visit the site until AFTER whatever draconian legal actions have been resolved. It just ain't worth the risk.

I was referring to the Canadian registration.

AJ

Besides, I wouldn't really consider 9 months later as being 'just after'. That's like years in internet time.

Information details updated on 9 Nov 2017 isn't 9 months ago, but a day or so ago.

The Whois website shows a lot of information, part of which I summarised. The important part is:

Domain Information

Domain: asstr.org
Registrar: Google Inc.
Registration Date: 1998-12-10
Expiration Date: 2021-12-09
Updated Date: 2017-11-09
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
clientHold
clientTransferProhibited
clientUpdateProhibited

While I'm not sure what is meant by the status information, I do know the Updated date is the date some of the client details were updated on the system. The reason for the update can be many things like a change of the Name Servers, or the owner, or the owner's details, or the renewal of the registration. My own Whois report shows an update of the recent date when I renewed my registration.

Perhaps ASSTR's update was when they took it offline to work on it?

Could be. The people who host my website were bought out some years back, and the new owners transferred all the clients over to their Domain Name Server. For about 30 minutes I couldn't access my website. A check of the Whois showed the Name Server had changed that day. I later learned all the new clients lost website access for some period due to the Name Server change taking time to promulgate through the other Internet servers. They usually make such changes in the wee small hours to minimise impact, but the tech people of the new owners were overseas and did the change in their wee small hours which matched our prime time. The new owners got a lot of complaints, and they started up a local tech group to do maintenance during our night. Since then it's been bought again, but by a local owner now.

There had been some possibility before that it had been taken over by law enforcement. Maybe they now have whatever they were looking for and have turned the servers off.

or the servers finally died and couldn't be brought up again.

states there have been no issues or incidents for over a week, and the status is as it was some weeks back.

makes you wonder if someone killed a trunk to where the server is, or similar.

The servers were up. But their DNS record got wiped. When a DNS records gets wiped, the site disappears from the internet. If you know a site's IP address (ASSTR's is 64.71.155.222), then you can keep accessing the site without the need for a DNS record.

I don't know if ASSTR's DNS record was accidentally wiped or intentionally. They have their DNS records at a very leftist/intrusive/censorious entity.

I really would hate to lose all that asstr has to offer.

I gave up on ASSTR some time ago. The last time I used it, was to post a gay sex story I didn't want to post on SOL, but there are plenty of other sites I can post those to (everyone was over 18 in the story, so ASSTR offers me nothing but pedophiles at this point). It stopped being a 'literary' site a long time ago.

P.S. The only stories of mine are the ones I deleted and they then 'restored' after they lost their system. With the LEA monitoring who signs in, I'm not about to sign in just to delete them again.

As "socialists" go we really suck at it! LOL

We're also not very good at 'representational democracies' either. While we all may have an equal vote, far too many of us or either side-lined, shoved aside, or prevented from exercising our votes.

a "lefty democrat" a radical nut ;)

Ahh, going from what you see on the media, where the hell do you find a US Democrat who is not a radical lefty wanting to create total anarchy?

"Killer Clinton" and "Clown Trumpf".

I have to agree with those, but for a clown he's doing surprisingly well at fixing the country's woes. Now, if he can only get the professional politicians on both sides who hate having an amateur like him in charge to agree to do what's best for the country a lot of good can be done.

My biggest worry about the US is the number of people who are behaving like the Nazi Brownshirts and Blackshirts did in the 1930s while they claim to be anti-facists at the same time they push a totally single world order communist agenda.

Improved economic environment that creates a growing economy, increased employment is what he's already accomplished, despite the opposition.

The national debt should be slowly addressed by the improving economy, but it also needs Congress to stop wasting money to do anything worthwhile with it, and we all know the US Congress will never agree to stop wasting money on their boondoggles.

Immigration requires the agreement of Congress, and the Democrats automatically oppose everything that isn't an open borders policy - dumb as that is.

Racism, equality, and drug addiction is best dealt with at the local level, as there's not much more, if any, that can be done via federal legislation.

Health care is far too screwed up for anyone to fix without a total wipe out and rebuild which isn't going to happen.

...................

Even if he wasn't doing much, he has to be far better than those like Maxine who encourages racial discrimination, civil unrest, riots, open borders to allow criminals in to kill citizens, and a totalitarian socialist regime with her as one of the top leaders. Ever notice how she encourages her followers to never allow those who don't agree with her an opportunity to speak their mind?

'Maxine and her ilk are the current alternative being offered to the people of the US instead of Trump. So it now looks like a choice between Trump and a Hitler / Stalin clone. Which do you prefer?

Since you have only identified this person by the single name, I don't know who this "Maxine" is who has got you so riled up.

How many people named Maxine are in the Democrat leadership for you not to identify Maxine Waters just because I can't remember her full name. I suppose you've not seen this video clip at all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJCDe7vdFfw

Is she a threat to his presidency or his re-election?

First, I never said Maxine Waters silenced Trump, I said she called for violence against Trump and anyone in his administration. She's called for it a few times, but the clip at the start of this video is very clear on what she sees as acceptable behaviour.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJCDe7vdFfw

What makes you think the Democrats will choose her or her ilk to be the standardbearer to oppose Trump?

Because they're the ones the Democrats have out front leading the charge and the ones their tame media are pushing hard. They have all the markings of being in charge of the party now.

typo edit

Do you really believe Maxine Waters is who "the Democrats have out front leading the charge"?
Of course, you have the right to believe whatever you want.
My belief is that she has about as much chance of leading the Democratic Party as

Of course, as you say, you can believe whatever you like. However. it matters not if you believe she will or won't, the fact sheer goes on the way she does and no one in the Democrat Party try to stop her or disagree with what she's saying makes it very clear she's obviously stating the party policy on the issues she speaks on.

publicly disavowed what Maxine Waters said,

I have to disagree with your statement about being policy, because he did not disagree the first few times she said it, but only have it caused a major media backlash at the party for it. Nor has he put a gag on her saying again since then.

Sounds like a typical misogynistic Republican.

I see you subscribe to the 'my party right or wrong' rule. I don't follow either party, in fact, I've never voted in a US election, and I doubt I ever will. However, while you think it's OK for someone high in the party hierarchy to call for violence and encourage rioting I don't think it should be allowed. The moment she started that the party leaders should have told her to stop it, and the second time they should've kicked her out of the party. However they didn't do a thing until their was a media backlash about it, then they mouthed words to try and save a little face.

Have fun standing in line and shouting "Yes, My Leader," if Waters and her ilk ever gain a real control of the US government, because they'll make Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini look like beginners in the governmental total control of the population stakes.

How do you think such a statement makes you look?

Like someone who has studied and understands history and people, and a person who is worried about the repetitive nature of certain types of people and how they act like other people in history. There's a very old saying:

When it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's very likely it is a duck.

The actions and behaviours of Maxine Waters and her supporters are just like those of 80 years ago in Europe, and they push the same agenda as the ones did 80 years ago in Europe.

Stating a loud-mouthed bitch hardly anyone ever heard of

She's in the news often, that she frequently speaks for the Democrat Party leaders, that she has made millions while holding political office and raises millions for the Democratic Party. That's not someone anyone hardly ever heard of.

She gives speeches promoting the same behavior as Adolf and Stalin did, she promotes the same political agenda as Adolf and Stalin did. Do you want to wait until she starts her gulags and concentration camps?

In fact, the fact that fails to mention is he has never voted in a US election because he's not an American.

Which is a fact I've often mentioned, and is in my author profile. But it doesn't stop me from being able to have an opinion on things, or to see historical parallels.

You may be amused to learn that for all his ranting about the evils of "socialist" welfare states, he's quite content to rely on one of those for his own income! As far as I know, for many years he has relied on a pension from the Australian government to live on.

Let's see. When I first started working part-time and during school holidays I was paid in pounds, shillings, and pence. At that time the government took out a small amount of income tax and they paid out pensions and other social security payments from it. That was in late 1965 and the next year I was paid in dollars and cents.

Part of those taxes then, and since, went to pay for government pensions for people who weren't working for many reasons, and for a number of other reasons the government paid social security out for. The various governments promised all Australian citizens would be paid in accordance with the social security rules they put in place when they increased the income tax to pay for them. The same thing happened again decades later when they put the Medicare legislation and extra tax in place.

Based solely on the tax records I kept from when I started full-time work and the percentage of the government budget used to pay for pension I've got to live to be about 130 years of age before I get back the percentage of the taxes they took off me that went into the social security budget - of course, if they double payments the payoff would be shorter.

If they didn't take so much tax for the social security budget I would've had a lot of money in my pocket to buy more assets and to save money as well as make investments to live off after I retired.

I stopped working early when the government bureaucrats insisted that I was unable to work any more because I did not fit their rules and regulations of what was now required of a person in full-time work, so they told me to go away and take the pension they were paying me and not bother them again. I did as I was told because I couldn't afford to fight them. That's why I have so much time to be on the Internet.

Do I like not having a job, no - is there anything I can do about it, no - - I don't fit the rules so I can't get the work.

You should know better than to respond to ad hominem attacks :(

AJ

Ernest Bywater has made a post directed at me which seems to imply everyone here knows he's not an Australian.

I suggest you try to write what you mean.

I've always said I'm Australian. But that has absolutely no relevance on comments about the behaviour of people who are in the public spotlight.

A comment was made about being a Republican and voting that way, to which I responded in a way to make it clear I wasn't voting Republican no matter what. Then you jumped in and made a post that directly attacked me, to which I responded on the circumstances relevant to what you had to say while never saying anything about you, because such wasn't relevant to the discussion.

I never assumed anyone did or didn't know what my nat6ionality is or isn't, as I saw it irrelevant to talking about how certain people are behaving. This is especially true when their behaviour is almost a copy of that of past politicians pushing similar agendas to their own.

As to your final question about payments into the system - did you ever consider what would happen if people were allowed to keep the money they worked for and made their own decisions about what is done with it? or how that would have affected their lives?

Yes. Your son may have died because of you couldn't earn enough to afford appropriate care and/or medical insurance was unavailable for pre-existing conditions.

At the time he was born in 1988 I was earning $55,000 per year plus extras, and there was no special medical treatment required for him. I also paid the full medical costs involved with his birth either directly or through the health insurance I had then. Thus your comment is totally irrelevant.

Ernest Bywater is an Australian who lives in Australia but sees himself as an expert in the finer nuances of US politics.

You don't have to be an expert on US politics to make a comment on the obvious aspects of it. BTQ I never said I was an expert on US politics, if I was I'd know why certain Democrats claim Kanye West has to be a racist because he said something nice about Donald Trump and his policies - I can't work that one out at all, because Kanye West is an Afro American and I've never seen anything he said that was racist in any way.

for a clown he's doing surprisingly well at fixing the country's woes

And, if my limited understanding is correct, he is prepared to change his mind based on public pressure (the separation of illegals from their kids) - something inconceivable to the UK's Margaret Thatcher ("This lady's not for turning.")

Watch out in 2024 - Kanye West is aiming to become the first black USA president, although he allegedly hasn't yet decided with which party.

AJ

(the separation of illegals from their kids)

First, I've not seen every tweet or sound bite from Trump on the issue. However, what i have seen has been consistent with his position of not liking it, but it's not his fault because the law being enforced was in place when he came into office and was enforced by the Obama administration as well - most of the pictures of the kids that first came out were from during the Obama period. He has always said he believes in the rule of law. Also, the only kids I've heard of being separated from parents is so when the parents are arrested from crimes the kids don't have to go into an adult prison with them. So where is the evidence of him changing his position on that issue?

yes, Trump is far from perfect, but he way better than what the Democrats have offered in his place, or are offering.

wanting to create total anarchy?

Excuse me. That would be the Libertarian Party.

Excuse me. That would be the Libertarian Party.

Right! (sarcasm alert off) Take a look at the news clips of Maxine calling for violence and riots and try saying she's not a raving nut case.

Didn't one US President just say in a speech. "How hard is it to say that Nazis are bad?"

Same can be said for all other socialist governments, in fact more so for the communist governments as they killed more than the German National Socialist did.

Same can be said for all other socialist governments, in fact more so for the communist governments as they killed more than the German National Socialist did.

Are you suggesting that how evil a regime is should be measured by the body count?

Are you suggesting that how evil a regime is should be measured by the body count?

I'm saying, not suggesting, that it's an important criteria to be very much aware of.

Just in case anyone is interested, the ASSTR FTP addy is:

I think most everyone here knows where ASSTR is, and if they don't, Google remembers the location. But Lazeez really doesn't appreciate our providing links, as he sees it as unofficial 'ads' for a competing site.

It's ok to discuss it's current state—especially when their disarray makes SOL look vastly better, but the links are a big no-no.

Given that the whole discussion was originally about how screwed up ASSTR is - and that visitors run the risk of being tracked down by the FBI - SOL should only care if the forwarding links can be traced back to here.

Actually, SOL has a prohibition against any external site, as they can't guarantee how secure they are (i.e. do they track users, do they pitch ads, and will a readers bad response generate trust issues with SOL for 'sending' them on a wild goose chase.

I also misunderstood the point of the post. I've always used that address, but I didn't understand that it wasn't the traditional 'landing' page that a Google search dumps you on. I've always had the 'recent updates' page maintained on my stored sites list.

The filtered stories (extreme) are the ones from before the 2011 change that have characters under 14 involved in sex.

So it would be a stagnant site, that is, no new stories would be added because of the current Canadian laws.

ETA: I don't understand why grandfathering stories that are now illegal is legal, but if you have a site with illegal stories with a link to it, aren't you making it more visible to the authorities? You will basically have an illegal site.

If I ever undertake this big change of segregating under-14-characters stories to their own site, I would make an announcement on the site here telling those who are interested where the stories moved to. There will also be a link on the home page to the new site like there are now for FS and SFS.

I was going to ask 'what constitutes an "Extreme" story', as it could easily degenerate into whatever is currently politically expedient (i.e. no stories by gay authors, no stories by blacks or Muslims, and no transexual stories unless the characters are either victims or criminals who get their heads handed to them).

We already have too few minority voices here (including under-represented nationalities like Indians or South Africans). I'd rather not see the current shortage of voices worsened over time.

But it sounds like you've already accounted for that, and are merely trying to remove the biggest impediments to new readers joining the site.

However, I'd also like to suggest a couple 'protected' sites, like "Gay" or "Black" story sites where posters are free to venture material they feel speaks to the specific segment of the population that other readers can't shame into abandoning the site.

@D.S.

Well, if there was enough demand to support it, he could set it up so the site was hosted in the US or somewhere else with more permissive laws.

My understanding is he'd only include the 'grandfathered' stories, already allowed by the Canadian laws (as are most laws, as they weren't illegal until someone specifically forbid them).

However, you're right, it would essentially create 'dead' sites, with no new stories to maintain them and easy targets for law-enforcement to target readers stupid enough to venture there for stories they're legally entitled to read. :( (i.e. it's not a viable option for anyone).

If you will excuse a perhaps stupid question but WHY are there under-represented nationalities or cultures?

It could be that their authorities (like some public ISPs sub-transmitters like McDonalds) in the UK censor out SOL or that people simply have not heard of SOL.
Yes, I would prefer to see stories in some variation of the English language though I am confident that Lazeez could conjure up say an Urdu channel (subject to his crew being able to ensure then content is legal).

That might be a factor, but it isn't either the only one or even the primary one. I've studied where readers visit my stories from (those who followed my stories from both ASSTR and SOL to my site) and in both cases, I saw multiple visits from very repressive countries. Your theory also doesn't account for why American blacks, Muslims or gays don't spend any time writing on the site. Instead, it's much more likely it's the negative reception those authors receive when they post something the majority of SOL readers disapprove of. (I've also heard that from many authors and readers on both this and several other sites.)

I'm not saying that there are any reasonable solutions to the problem, but we need to be aware of the cost of the scoring system, especially how the influence of 1-bombers exacerbates the problem.

and Crumbly Writer alludes to her having a problem with conservatives.

I typed my post before reading CW's, but I think we said the same thing. He said:

She's not 'religious', but she treats conservative issues like many treat religion.

So to her, conservatism is a religion.

So to her, conservatism is a religion.

Yeah, I understand what you are saying and I took it wrong when I first read it. I'm only a dabbler in forums and so am unlikely to get into political discussions. I have seen some stories that try to pound home one political theme or another and usually try to avoid those stories. Heinlein was the master at this and I'm not sure that the dogmas in his stories weren't a bit too impressive on juvenile minds. Still the stories gave me an abiding love for SF.

My point is that I never got anything static or even an indication that she agreed, disagreed or even read my post. Of course that was 10 or more years ago.

Heinlein was the master at this

Ayn Rand

Heinlein was the master at this

Ayn Rand

Except, a LOT of different people read Heinlein, I've never known anyone who wasn't a die-hard Republican who could actually finish any of Ayn Rand's books. (I certainly never did!)

She was writing for the already converted, rather than trying to reach a broader audience to spread her message to more people.

I've never known anyone who wasn't a die-hard Republican who could actually finish any of Ayn Rand's books.

Oddly enough, despite been a voracious reader, I've never heard of Ayn Rand except when mentioned on this forum - must look them up in wiki one day.

All of us shrugged.

It may also be she's one of those who was hardly noticed outside of the USA. In my younger days I read a lot of books on political ideas, and one thing I find of great humour today is the number of people in the USA who don't realise that the real name of the Nazi party was National-Socialist German Workers' Party, and that the only real difference between what Hitler pushed and what Stalin pushed was Stalin wanted a Russian controlled socialist world named for Russia with him boss and Hitler wanted a socialist world named for Germany with him boss. Also, Musolini lead the National Fascist Party which was a socialist party with an Italian twist.

What's there to realize? It's just a name. They could have named themselves 'Beneficial Society to Save the Homeland', would it have made a difference?

Not to their behaviour which was copied off Stalin's treatment of the people of the Ukraine. However, 95% of the Hitler's agenda and manifesto was lifted directly from the Russian issued material Hitler was given while a member of the Austrian Socialist Movement.

The key aspect is the US socialist think Hitler and Stalin had different ideologies and agendas, when they were exactly the same. The actions and behaviours of the extreme socialists, like Antifa, are the same as exercised by the Nazis before they gained power. Yet they accuse everyone who doesn't agree with them as being a Nazi, when they are the ones exercising Nazi behaviours, attitudes, and ideologies.

right wing or a left wing sack of shit.

I never said otherwise, I just pointed out the hypocrisy of the current socialists in the USA saying those who don't agree with them are Nazis when it's the bleating socialists who are following the same doctrine as the Nazis and using Nazi behaviours.

It sounds as if you'd believe the term 'socialism' would have a distinctive definition but it doesn't.

Every person who wrote a treatise of manifesto on socialism seemed to have a very good consensus of opinion on what socialism is and what a socialist is, where they differed was on how to set it up and on who should be the leader.

But even taking you statement they all have a different definitions, they all think they have a right to take away anything anyone else has that's more than what they have and do with it however they want. Through history such people were called thieves, bandit, killers, and tyrants - the name changed with the size of the gang and how powerful they became.

hey all think they have a right to take away anything anyone else has that's more than what they have and do with it however they want.

The US is currently plagued with what I call the "Politics of Envy and Outrage." It's all based in an emotional appeal and requires a strong national government to protect the victims from their oppressors - IOW, fascists. I follow the Australian pundit Rita Panahi and unfortunately yunz folks down under appear to be cursed with some of the same types.

BS

a perfect description of antifa and the vocal socialists in the USA.

The actions and behaviours of the extreme socialists, like Antifa, are the same as exercised by the Nazis before they gained power. Yet they accuse everyone who doesn't agree with them as being a Nazi, when they are the ones exercising Nazi behaviours, attitudes, and ideologies.

Hitler was a national while the Soviets were international socialists. The left today has convinced themselves that the Nazis are right wing. Antifa and today's white supremacists are both all about group rights. Their difference is the order they rank the groups.

The left today has convinced themselves that the Nazis are right wing.

The problem is when most people talk of left wing and right wing politics they don't realise they're talking of European Socialist politics. If you picture the political spectrum as being a street of four city blocks and each block has twenty-five houses in it. The houses number, from left to right, 1 to 24 the left street is the cross street followed by houses 26 to 50 and middle street, then houses 51 to 75 and right street with houses 76 to 100 last. You'll find all the modern conservative parties in houses in the block 76 to 100 while the Nazis are in house 24 and the Facists in house 25 with the Markists in house 1 and the Stalinists in House 2 - houses 26 to 40 a re bunch of less totalitarian socialists and everything else is spread out down the rest of the road. Thus, to the heavy duty socialist politics of Europe of the Nazis were the right wing of the socialist group and the Marxist the left wing of the socialists.

A bigger load of bullshit I have never read, Mr. Bywater.

Do you even understand what socialism means? If you do, have you ever read a single history book on the Third Reich?

Socialism is a materialistic political theory, it sees the society in terms of who has money and who doesn't, and its entire point is that if people were compensated according to what they deserve (they were paid for all the work they did), social classes would disappear.

Nazis (right wingers) called themselves 'socialists' because they wanted to destroy class distinction within the Aryan race and place their them above everyone else. (and they purged almost everyone in the party who wanted even this version of 'socialism' in 1934 - night of knives)

Today's conservatives (what you americans call republican) and liberals (Democratic party in the US, Labour in UK and AUS, Liberals in Can) - centrist cowards the lot of them - all think capitalism is great and the current wealth distribution of society is fine and dandy.

Actual socialists want everyone to be paid the compensation they deserve. They want to eliminate the leeching bourgeoisie who do no work and live off the labor of the disenfranchised. The rich trust-fund kid who has done no work his entire life, the landowner whose entire income is based on taking rent and doing no work, the investment banker who creates nothing in his job and just makes sure other rich people don't have to work; these are the people the real leftists want to remove. And they don't want to kill them either, they just want to make their jobs irrelevant.

Note, I'm not advocating for or against any of these ideas. All I'm saying is that the drivel you write has nothing to do with the actual history of these things. Would the world end if you didn't write about things you have no knowledge of? Seriously? Like why do you feel the need to do it?

Your kind make me wish humanity had never figured out how to put words into sentences.

Do you even understand what socialism means?

yes, i know what socialism means - it means no one owns anything, the state owns everything, you get only what the state allows you should get for doing the work they insist you do. That's what socialism means on the political stage, and what it has meant for the last 100 years.

Socialism means you can't make a life better for your children, you can't pass on anything of real value (mainly because you can't own anything of real value).

Modern socialists hide their desire for a huge totalitarian centralised government behind rhetoric of being for the workers. They claim the workers should get an equal share of the profits from all business endeavours, yet they don't insist the workers front up the money to buy that share to establish the business. In short, modern socialists want others to wear the cost of establishing a business and then take all the profits off them.

You claim socialist want people to be paid the compensation they deserve, but you don't set out how that compensation should be fairly decides what a fair share is, beyond stealing the businesses or land someone inherited from someone else who worked hard to make it to pass it on to their heirs.

If someone can't keep what wealth they create and then pass it down to their heirs, what is there to encourage them to create anything or to work any harder than the minimum needed? Nothing is the answer, and that's what the socialists want, because if no one but the centralised socialist government running things has any wealth they have a total control of the people.

BTW The Nazis are right wing socialists not right wing conservatives, and they called themselves socialists because almost all of their agenda and doctrine came directly from the socialist paperwork put out by the Markists in the 1920.

Throughout the entire human history, people abused ideas, philosophies, social theories, and religion as a means to further their personal goals to gain power and wealth.

That's true, but the socialism being pushed as political agendas today are the Stalinist style which always push for a large centralised tyranny to be funded by stealing everything from everyone else.

Socialism as original suggested and is now called Utopian Socialism was tried at various time through history, and even found to work up to the village level, but once you go beyond a large village all forms of socialism fail due to them not being able to allow the society, as a whole, have a say in the running of the society. Thus the society starts to develop into stratas based on their position in the management system with those near the top doing all they can to maintain their position and power. This has been shown in the USSR, China, North Korea and everywhere else a socialist government has gained power. Every time a political party has gained office in a democratic country they pass laws to centralise power, remove power and wealth from the middle class, and to steal everything they think they can get away with.

There is not a socialist movement or party in existence today that doesn't want a strong central government where they control the power and the wealth, and those in the leadership positions of it are simply out to increase their own power and wealth. The first things they want to do are to disarm the people so they can't fight back against the government, they also want to rob everyone who has anything of any value - and they do it all by saying it's for the betterment of the poor, yet the poor never get the real benefit of what they steal, if they're lucky the poor will get 1% while the rest go to those in power of the socialist party.

An example for what? For a democratic government overthrown by an election?

Hitler was elected too.

Chavez attempted a military coup and was jailed. Let out early, he became a politician and got elected by promising free shit to the underclasses. When congress failed to pass his fundamental transformations he disbanded them and unilaterally rewrote the constitution. Free shit worked as long as the oil money was rolling in, but then the prices dropped...

Still, winning an election is something else than overthrowing a democratic government.

Yes, but this concept is "One man, one vote, one time" Once the guy gets elected he tears up the democratic institutions so that there are no longer any fair or competitive elections.

Throughout the entire human history, people abused ideas, philosophies, social theories, and religion as a means to further their personal goals to gain power and wealth.

Which is why I have an inherent distrust of concentrating power in anyone's hands, public or private. The temptation to misuse is great.

When the zombie apocalypse comes, we must make sure to keep the investment bankers safe because they're so much more important than the military, engineers, farmers etc ;)

AJ

Just look at the origin of the words bank, bond, bankrupt .... The banker was the middleman between those who had money and those who needed it.

A traditional banker takes deposits from account holders and lends the money back out to people who want to start/expand their companies or buy houses etc.

Investment bankers are like leeches, developing pseudo-investment products to sit on top of traditional banking and suck money out, hence reducing interest payments to account holders and raising interest payments for loanees.

AJ

Overall it's a zero-sum game, but since investment bankers usually make eye-watering profits, that means your food, your mortgage, your pension etc are subsidising them them :(

AJ

Socialism is a materialistic political theory, it sees the society in terms of who has money and who doesn't, and its entire point is that if people were compensated according to what they deserve (they were paid for all the work they did), social classes would disappear.

And that is exactly what's wrong with socialism: it goes against every instinct and everything that makes us human.

Socialism is a scam that lazy people use to take wealth from those who are capable of work and wealth generation. It uses people's jealousy, sense of unfairness and their worst fears and directs it where the scammer wants. Every socialist experiment failed. Socialism has failed everywhere that it was tried. It failed because it ignores human nature. People aren't all the same. They can't be treated all the same. A highly intelligent person can't be expected to learn, behave, work and get compensated in the same manner as a dumb one. An intelligent person is capable of more. We aren't all the same despite what Marxists say.

Marxists play on people's feelings that somebody else might be inherently more capable and more gifted than themselves. It abuses humans' fear that they might not be as capable as others. I plays on unsuccessful people's resentment of successful people.

Marxists peg the whole world as an unfair fight between rich and poor. It creates this terrible image that the world's economy is a zero sum game. That for somebody to make money, somebody has to lose money. The gloss over Capitalism's wealth creation where by economic cooperation wealth is created and everybody is better off. They play the game that capitalism is an economic system where the rich rob the poor. Where the rich exploit the poor unfairly and take from them undeservedly. It's the most insidious of philosophies that had ever been invented.

Capitalism is what humans truly want. Capitalism is another word for 'economic freedom'. You're free to own, you're free to do and you're free to be whatever you want to be. You are not some cog in a giant socialist machine where you're forced to do what the powers that be deem is good enough for you.

Marxists paint all capitalism in the same brush as 'crony capitalism' where wealthy people/organizations buy laws to give them an economic advantage. Cronyism is bad. True capitalists hate cronyism as much as everybody else.

Nothing has given the world and poor people as much as capitalism. Capitalism has eliminated poverty way, way, way more than any attempt at socialism. On the contrary, socialism has succeeded in destroying vast amounts of wealth. Proof: Venezuela. Rich country, rich with resources. Took up socialism and now, barely after twenty short years of socialism, people are going hungry.

The most underreported thing about humanity ever is the progress we've made in eliminating poverty.

https://medium.com/future-crunch/global-inequality-is-getting-better-fdbfde215b73

Do you think any socialist system could have resulted in the great wealth generation that trickled down to the poor in Africa? Do you think a socialist system could have ever resulted in something like smart phones that equalized global access to resources and allowed people to better their lives?

Every socialist experiment has shown that socialism doesn't work. Every failed socialist experiment has been described by socialists as 'Not true socialism'. This is the biggest line of bullshit that every socialist tries to sell you and it's based in arrogance. As every person whoever says this to you means that 'If I were in power then I would implement a true socialist utopia'. Even if that person was indeed so benevolent as to be in power and yet treat everybody else as equal, people around that person are sure to be power hungry and will eliminate him/her to replace them and take power for themselves. A socialist system needs to be controlled by somebody otherwise human nature will prevail. That controller will have almost absolute power. We know how power corrupts. Why push a system that will only result in corruption and power abuse?

How many people died from socialism? Tens upon tens of millions starved, suffered and died because of socialism. Why do people refuse to learn?

There's a lot of nostalgia for the simpler life under the communist regime in the former Soviet Union.

Maybe there is, but it's only because the country hasn't transitioned to a capitalist system in a proper way. And only the youngest have lived under a non-communist regime. They've yet to experience the benefits of capitalism.

One of the seductive things about socialism is that people are told that the government will take care of them. One takes care of his slaves. Doesn't mean the slaves are better off under slavery. The common people are nothing more than slaves under a strictly socialist regime. They're called comrades, but they are nowhere near the top of the hiararchy comrades.

Everybody wants less responsibility. Many women prefer to be submissive because it means they don't have to live with the consequences of being wrong.

The capitalist system means that you are free economically, you're free to make any decision you like, but it also means you have to live with the consequences of your decision. You do good business, you make good money. You make stupid decisions and you pay the price for those decisions. Most people prefer to have jobs instead of starting their own business. There is always a very strong certainty in a job. You don't need to make the hard decisions. You do your job according to your job description and you get paid the agreed wages. It's easy. But somebody has to make the decision for you. Somebody has to write your job description for you. A business person has to make a lot of decisions. Do we make a deal with this company? is it good? do we produce this product? will it be profitable? The wrong decision can have dire consequences.

The decision making done in a Capitalist society rests in the hands of the bosses. To be a boss in a capitalist society means you have to be smart enough to make the right decisions. The simple consequence of making the wrong decisions is you go bankrupt.

In a communist society, the most ruthless and most psychopathic tend to reach and hold power. To gain a position you just have to figure out how to eliminate the ones occupying it. That's why there is great destruction and great suffering under a communist system.

In a communist society, the most ruthless and most psychopathic tend to reach and hold power. To gain a position you just have to figure out how to eliminate the ones occupying it. That's why there is great destruction and great suffering under a communist system.

This sounds remarkably like the current version of Capitalism in the USA today.

This sounds remarkably like the current version of Capitalism in the USA today.

In the US currently, there is a lot of crony capitalism. By allowing lobbying and 'campaign contributions' congress people became for sale to the highest bidder.

I remember ten years ago a senator threatening Apple with unspecified legal action because Apple at the time had no lobbyists paying congress anything. They stopped when Apple hired lobbyists and started spreading some of its money on Capitol Hill.

This is corrupt government. I don't know how to get enough honest people to change things when they reach this degree of corruption. But when it's corruption like this, it has nothing to do with capitalism or socialism. Although, it's very easy to blame the existing system for what's going on and usually the logical reaction is to go for the opposite system, which in the case of the US it's seductive to go for socialism even though socialism is terrible and it will only result in tears.

It is obviously, your religion. You believe in it. There is no room for dissenting opinion, even less room for facts that don't support your belief.

Where the hell did that come from? No room for dissenting opinions? Huh?

Relax man. Did I shut you up? Did I even address you in my reply?

I already said that cronyism is bad and government shouldn't collude/be bought by big business, or did you miss that part?

I'm a moderate libertarian. I believe in free markets, but I also believe that monopolies are bad. I'm against those who push marxism and hard left socialism.

Why don't you tell us about your "religion"? Are you a marxist? If you are a marxist, then yes I'm against you all the way.

Once you start regulating an economy, it is no longer a true free market economy. The Entrepreneur will fight regulation every inch of the way, unless he sees a personal benefit from it, which generally means a restriction on who can enter his subsection of the market.

I think my record for prolonged, extravagant rants has officially been bested. Luckily, my "Most Curmudgeonly Author" award still stands!

The goal of regulators should be to ensure that a competitive market exists - buyers free to choose from a variety of sellers.

Don't allow barriers to entry of new competitors
Don't allow cooperation between sellers
Don't allow barriers to consumer choice
Make sure accurate information is available to consumers to make an informed choice
Enforce contract terms on both buyer and seller
and a few others.

Where skilled labor is required, well, it's an unregulated free market economy, if there is competition for skilled labor positions, the skilled laborer who asks the least in regard to pay is the one who will be hired, presuming they have the skills required. So things aren't necessarily any better for the skilled laborer.

Interesting rant. You have the worst case scenario point of view ever. You even rant about how bad it is for skilled labourers it would be when they're in high demand. Once you go that far, you're clearly ranting for the sake of ranting. Market dynamics will mean that whatever is in demand commands the highest price possible, including labour. If you deny that, then you're not thinking straight or you have a very skewed point of view.

Yes. Many of the things you listed happen, but the net result of a capitalist system vs a socialist ones cannot be denied. I was talking about Capitalism vs Socialism. In a socialist/communist system if you don't do the work you end up in some gulag. Which is better?

Everything has good side and bad side. No arguments there. For example:

I've been in a union job when I was younger and let me tell you, that shop was screwed. I got kicked out of the union because I worked too hard. One day I was approached by the union rep where I worked and was told to slow down. He said I was making all the others look bad because I worked hard. The next week there were $800 on my pay check that weren't supposed to be there. When I enquired about the extra money it turned out to be my union dues refunded. They kicked me out of the union and I was fired a week later in a deal between the union rep and the shop manager. That branch company went bankrupt a year or so after I was fired.

That experience coloured my view towards unionized workers ever since and I'm always very cautious when dealing with places where the workers are unionized. This anecdote shows you that even things done with the best of intentions can have bad consequences.

I remember a factory nearby that closed after a prolonged workers strike in the early 90s. That factory's owner made a pretty penny from that strike. /sarcasm.

I've been in a union job when I was younger and let me tell you, that shop was screwed.

At one time, unions served a valid purpose in this country. It's very difficult for me to argue otherwise, considering my grandfather had to start working in a coal mine when he was 8 years old to feed his family. The United Mine Workers had a valid reason for existence. THEN.

Now ... realistically, most unions no longer serve a needed purpose. What actually does MORE good in this country now is the THREAT of a union. I worked 15 years at a Japanese transplant auto factory. We weren't union - yet for the most part (certain American managers excepted - who had come FROM union car plants), the workers were treated fairly and paid appropriately. We also worked our butts off. As a forklift operator, I changed my own battery. In a union shop, it required an electrician to do that.

And don't get me started on government employee unions. Reagan had the proper response to those - fire everyone.

I would never read on the grounds that everyone I've seen who has it on their list of the books they most love is on my list of the people I most hate.

Ahh, sorry, but I've never even seen it on anyone's Must Read list. The only reason I've read some things like an English version of Mein Kampf and the Socialist Manifesto was it was needed for certain courses I did many moons ago. Same is true of the Shakespeare I've read - required reading. It's been my experience that 90% of required reading books are there because most people wouldn't read them if given a choice.

Apparently God has fathered a lot of children with her ;)

AJ

I've never known anyone who wasn't a die-hard Republican who could actually finish any of Ayn Rand's books

I wasn't and I loved "Atlas Shrugged." Maybe it's because I was young and didn't understand her politics.

I wasn't and I loved "Atlas Shrugged." Maybe it's because I was young and didn't understand her politics.

It was never the politics which kept me from finishing "Atlas Shrugged", rather it was the impenetrable wall of text (this from someone who read all of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago"). The political analogies all seemed heavy-handed, overly stressed (i.e. complete unnatural) and I just couldn't get into it. Thus it seems the idea of 'political non-interference' seemed the main attraction in the story, rather than the story itself (at least in my opinion, more than 40 years since I last tried to read it—back when Reagan was all the rage and I was trying to figure out the whole basis behind his candidacy).

I've never known anyone who wasn't a die-hard Republican who could actually finish any of Ayn Rand's books.

Her philosophy was embraced by libertarians and ultra-conservatives (who I think are really libertarians, not the far-Right religious ones) — individualism and individual freedom.

I don't remember if I read "The Fountainhead," but I saw the movie (not that it was a great movie). But I don't know why any author in this group wouldn't drool over it.

Authors here moan all the time about how the traditional publishers put the same type novels out and aren't open to "our" new ideas for fiction. Isn't that what "The Fountainhead" is about? An architect with new ideas being crushed by the established architects because he was different.

"Atlas Shrugged" is all about individualism and Capitalism. I guess a Socialist or Communist would hate it, but why would us Capitalists?

Because without restraints, individualism and Capitalism would destroy everything you currently call "society".

What restrains is choice and competition. Those who are tempted to cheat and destroy have to be in fear that the customer's dollars will go elsewhere.

Legally there is only one - part 1 and part 2 ten years later.

Why do you think so?

The first one was about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

The second one was (mistakenly) about weapons of mass destruction.

Why do you think so?

Iraq invaded Kuwait. There was some intense fighting, followed by a Cease Fire Agreement - no Peace Treaty or Surrender document was ever agreed to or signed, thus that conflict still continued, just not a hot war.

Part of the Cease Fire Agreement was for the Iraqi government to take certain actions and assist inspectors in proving the actions had been done. The Iraqi government not only didn't adhere to that, they actively hindered the inspectors.

One of the important aspects of the Cease Fire Agreement was the destruction of the poison gas chemicals the Iraqi government had for making deadly gases - a weapon of mass destruction they deployed against the Iranians and the Kurds. They deployed some of the gases against the Kurds during the Cease Fire period, and those chemicals have never been destroyed or fully accounted for.

Because there was no Peace Treaty or other document to legally end the war the active military hostilities could be started up by any signatory at any time. However, for years the US Congress had been pussyfooting around while they ignored what the Iraqis were up to and even denied they had been violating the Cease Fire Agreement the US Congress wouldn't agree to just start the shooting again. So they sought other reasons to recommence military activity.

At any point during this time it was legal for the US, or any other Allied government, to go back and start shooting again. There was no new war started, just a restart of the military activity of the original war after a long hiatus.

I know many in the US think of it as two wars, however, under International law it's only one, because the first was never concluded.

ed to add: One day I'll read all the posts before answering one. When I sent this off I then read DS had already answered it.

ed to add: One day I'll read all the posts before answering one. When I sent this off I then read DS had already answered it.

But you did a good job.

It wasn't just the poison gas. A few years ago I read Hans Blix' report at the UN. He headed the inspectors who catalogued the WMD that the Iraqis possessed during the cease fire period and before those inspectors were expelled by Saddam. Anthrax, sarin, etc. When the inspectors came back the stockpiles were gone from their original locations. Saddam claimed they were destroyed, but couldn't prove it to Blix' satisfaction, but Blix didn't think it was worth resuming the war over.

The second one was (mistakenly) about weapons of mass destruction.

Rather, the 2nd one was fought (for purely imaginary reasons) in an attempt to justify his father's misguided attempts in the region.

Rather, the 2nd one was fought (for purely imaginary reasons) in an attempt to justify his father's misguided attempts in the region.

It was fought because Saddam lied about having WMD to intimidate Iran. The CIA believed him.

As to the senior Bush, he didn't want to invade Iraq. He knew better. All he did was help the Kuwaitis so, in effect, his son went against his wishes.

The 2 problems with the 2nd war are:
1. It made Iran much stronger (this is why I was against it)
2. It created ISIS (I never saw that coming)