Ping ATB.

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:32:35 +1300, Greg Procter
wrote:

:Sarah Czepiel wrote:
:
: On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:58:03 +1300, Greg Procter
: wrote:
:
: :Sarah Czepiel wrote:
: :
: : On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:46:35 +1300, Greg Procter
: : wrote:
: :
: : :Sarah Czepiel wrote:
: : :
: : : On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:45:26 -0600, "TMOliver"
: : : wrote:
: : :
: : : :
: : : :"Mr. Travel" wrote ...
: : : : Greg Procter wrote:
: : : :
: : : : "Mr. Travel" wrote:
: : : :
: : : :
: : : : The "NZ Bill of Rights" is a total irrelevance - it merely attempts to
: : : : state some of the rights we already have in reverse manner to the way
: : : : they are already stated in our laws.
: : : : The "US Bill of Rights" is your base document.
: : : :
: : : : Correct, the Bill of Rights is our base document and it clearly indicates
: : : : our rights are not limited by the document.
: : : :
: : : :
: : : :The purpose of the 9th Ammendment was to clearly specify the
: : : :rights outline in the Bill of Rights were NOT the only rights.
: : : :
: : : :
: : : :
: : : : LOL, so you're saying it negates the effects of the rest of the Bill.
: : : : you yanks are soooo sad
: : : :
: : : : What about YOUR Bill of Rights.
: : : : You have also stated it doesn't limit your rights.
: : : : ...... But it sure as Hell lists them, doesn't it?
: : : :
: : : :Among the vast sum of human experience that Groggy fails to understand or
: : : :appreciate....
: : : :
: : : :A long time ago, back when New Zealand was but an unknown distant loom of
: : : :land upon the horizon, unvisited and unsettled by many if any (other than
: : : :the Maoris), a big segment of the colonists in North America (most of them
: : : :with roots and family origins in the Scuppered H'aisles) found that the
: : : :sovereign, Fat George the Choleric and Porphyric, had allowed his government
: : : :to exceed the bounds of common law and precedent (including the celebrated
: : : :Magna Carta which has nothing to do with Groggy's natural rights, instead
: : : :extending privileges to the nobility and actually repressing the
: : : :underclasses). The revolted, declared their independence along the way, set
: : : :up a government, and bested the armed forces of the UK, sent packing the
: : : :damnable redcoats quartered in their midst (and homes - a point of
: : : :contention addressed in the BoR) and assorted German hirelings - fitting
: : : :that a family of hireling German princelings would hire more Germans to
: : : :fight their battles, in a struggle culminating in Cornwallis's abject
: : : :capitulation (with no little help from Johnny Crapaud along the way) on the
: : : :malarial flats between the James and the Rappahannock (or some such tidal
: : : :creek).
: : : :
: : : :Wandering along for a few years under the Articles of Confederation - New
: : : :Zealand still hardly a gleam in greedy imperialists' eyes - the colonists
: : : :strove to form a more perfect union, composed and adopted a written
: : : :"Constitution", a lack of which had caused various of their forefathers a
: : : :pack of hurt, since a long train of Kings had overlooked the traditional
: : : :"Constitution by precedent, tradition, and common law" to royally **** over
: : : :their subjects at countless opportunities. Cemented to the end of the
: : : :Constitution was a list of broad areas in which future governments were
: : : :circumscribed in the area of permissible ****ing over and individual and
: : : :collective rights of the People were set forth, not all of them for sure,
: : : :but the ones that the actions of English kings had made most aggravating to
: : : :their former colonists. Left unlisted were all sorts of traditional natural
: : : :rights, some like the right to privacy extrapolated and interpreted by
: : : :actions of US courts over the two plus centuries since.
: : : :
: : : :So shocked had been the King and the folks of the UK by the revolting
: : : :behavior of the colonists that the country soon started following a path in
: : : :which sovereigns and their ministers were prevented from generally ****ing
: : : :over the home folks (except in times of emergency - French scares, Krauts
: : : :on the loose, Fuzzy Wuzzies unleashed, during which UK laws permit all sorts
: : : :of ****ing over). As a result, a variety of UK colonial dependencies,
: : : :including those settled by transported felons and randy sheepherders, gained
: : : :more real freedoms.
: : : :
: : : :One could rightly say that most of those "rights" enjoyed by New Zealanders
: : : :were secured because American colonists fought hard for their own, thus
: : : :scaring British kings and governments into providing them for their own
: : : :locals and at least the "White" residents of other colonies. Of course, in
: : : :the colonies the poor blackamoors and aboriginals had to wait much longer
: : : :for their rights.
: : : :
: : : :When was it that the Maoris got to vote?
: : : :
: : :
: : : Yes, ahem well it should be noted that among his other claims Groggy
: : : has also said he is a Maori.
: : :
: : :
: : :
: : :
: : :Look it up - I'm registered Ngai Tahu.
: :
: : Why would I bother to look it up?
: :
: :
: :I thought you liked doing that sort of thing.
: :
: :Also, it would prove that I qualify as being 'Maori'.
:
: If it means that much to you. Link please.
:
:
:Nahh, I just like to stir you - find it yourself.

Why would I bother to look it up?

Sarah Czepiel wrote:

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:32:35 +1300, Greg Procter
wrote:

:Sarah Czepiel wrote:
:
: On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:58:03 +1300, Greg Procter
: wrote:
:
: :Sarah Czepiel wrote:
: :
: : On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:46:35 +1300, Greg Procter
: : wrote:
: :
: : :Sarah Czepiel wrote:
: : :
: : : On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:45:26 -0600, "TMOliver"
: : : wrote:
: : :
: : : :
: : : :"Mr. Travel" wrote ...
: : : : Greg Procter wrote:
: : : :
: : : : "Mr. Travel" wrote:
: : : :
: : : :
: : : : The "NZ Bill of Rights" is a total irrelevance - it merely attempts to
: : : : state some of the rights we already have in reverse manner to the way
: : : : they are already stated in our laws.
: : : : The "US Bill of Rights" is your base document.
: : : :
: : : : Correct, the Bill of Rights is our base document and it clearly indicates
: : : : our rights are not limited by the document.
: : : :
: : : :
: : : :The purpose of the 9th Ammendment was to clearly specify the
: : : :rights outline in the Bill of Rights were NOT the only rights.
: : : :
: : : :
: : : :
: : : : LOL, so you're saying it negates the effects of the rest of the Bill.
: : : : you yanks are soooo sad
: : : :
: : : : What about YOUR Bill of Rights.
: : : : You have also stated it doesn't limit your rights.
: : : : ...... But it sure as Hell lists them, doesn't it?
: : : :
: : : :Among the vast sum of human experience that Groggy fails to understand or
: : : :appreciate....
: : : :
: : : :A long time ago, back when New Zealand was but an unknown distant loom of
: : : :land upon the horizon, unvisited and unsettled by many if any (other than
: : : :the Maoris), a big segment of the colonists in North America (most of them
: : : :with roots and family origins in the Scuppered H'aisles) found that the
: : : :sovereign, Fat George the Choleric and Porphyric, had allowed his government
: : : :to exceed the bounds of common law and precedent (including the celebrated
: : : :Magna Carta which has nothing to do with Groggy's natural rights, instead
: : : :extending privileges to the nobility and actually repressing the
: : : :underclasses). The revolted, declared their independence along the way, set
: : : :up a government, and bested the armed forces of the UK, sent packing the
: : : :damnable redcoats quartered in their midst (and homes - a point of
: : : :contention addressed in the BoR) and assorted German hirelings - fitting
: : : :that a family of hireling German princelings would hire more Germans to
: : : :fight their battles, in a struggle culminating in Cornwallis's abject
: : : :capitulation (with no little help from Johnny Crapaud along the way) on the
: : : :malarial flats between the James and the Rappahannock (or some such tidal
: : : :creek).
: : : :
: : : :Wandering along for a few years under the Articles of Confederation - New
: : : :Zealand still hardly a gleam in greedy imperialists' eyes - the colonists
: : : :strove to form a more perfect union, composed and adopted a written
: : : :"Constitution", a lack of which had caused various of their forefathers a
: : : :pack of hurt, since a long train of Kings had overlooked the traditional
: : : :"Constitution by precedent, tradition, and common law" to royally **** over
: : : :their subjects at countless opportunities. Cemented to the end of the
: : : :Constitution was a list of broad areas in which future governments were
: : : :circumscribed in the area of permissible ****ing over and individual and
: : : :collective rights of the People were set forth, not all of them for sure,
: : : :but the ones that the actions of English kings had made most aggravating to
: : : :their former colonists. Left unlisted were all sorts of traditional natural
: : : :rights, some like the right to privacy extrapolated and interpreted by
: : : :actions of US courts over the two plus centuries since.
: : : :
: : : :So shocked had been the King and the folks of the UK by the revolting
: : : :behavior of the colonists that the country soon started following a path in
: : : :which sovereigns and their ministers were prevented from generally ****ing
: : : :over the home folks (except in times of emergency - French scares, Krauts
: : : :on the loose, Fuzzy Wuzzies unleashed, during which UK laws permit all sorts
: : : :of ****ing over). As a result, a variety of UK colonial dependencies,
: : : :including those settled by transported felons and randy sheepherders, gained
: : : :more real freedoms.
: : : :
: : : :One could rightly say that most of those "rights" enjoyed by New Zealanders
: : : :were secured because American colonists fought hard for their own, thus
: : : :scaring British kings and governments into providing them for their own
: : : :locals and at least the "White" residents of other colonies. Of course, in
: : : :the colonies the poor blackamoors and aboriginals had to wait much longer
: : : :for their rights.
: : : :
: : : :When was it that the Maoris got to vote?
: : : :
: : :
: : : Yes, ahem well it should be noted that among his other claims Groggy
: : : has also said he is a Maori.
: : :
: : :
: : :
: : :
: : :Look it up - I'm registered Ngai Tahu.
: :
: : Why would I bother to look it up?
: :
: :
: :I thought you liked doing that sort of thing.
: :
: :Also, it would prove that I qualify as being 'Maori'.
:
: If it means that much to you. Link please.
:
:
:Nahh, I just like to stir you - find it yourself.

Why would I bother to look it up?

I quote:

: : : Yes, ahem well it should be noted that among his other claims Groggy
: : : has also said he is a Maori.

Sarah, I always tell the truth, with perhaps the possibility of the
occassional ridiculous tall story for the purposes of stiring up the
idiots here.
I don't gain anything by telling you that I have Maori heritage, and I
put myself in the firing line of rabid racists like Ken-scum.
All I'm doing is giving you the opportunity of confirming my statement
by giving you details which will enable you to verify them.

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:


Your problem is that you are focused on your "Bill of Rights".

NO, I focused on both the NZ and the US versions.
They are quite a bit similar.

_Our_ rights are established in the Magna Carta of 1215 and subsequent
legal precident whereas yours are established by your "Bill of Rights",
incuding your amendment #9.

You still don't understand. Ammendment 9 is saying exactly what you are
saying about your rights. That is, the are NOT limited by these
documents. Rights in the US are also based on common law, and even on
the ideas presented in the Magna Carta. Do you think the founding
fathers didn't think of this?

If the 9th Ammendment states our rights are NOT limited by the rights
listed in the contstituion, why do you keep saying the Bill of Rights is
limited our rights? The 9th Ammendment clealy states they are not
limited by the documented.
Now, without making stupid comments about Bush, even though he deserves
them, what rights are you saying you have that we don't?



Our "Bill of Rights" doesn't claim to hold our rights legally.

I see.
What is the purpose of the NZ Bill of Rights?

You do recognize that it is law in NZ, correct?
After all, it is an Act passed by your government.

It's no wonder you can't comprehend what I am trying to tell you, you
don't even believe your own Bill of Rights has any meaning.

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:


What about YOUR Bill of Rights.
You have also stated it doesn't limit your rights.
...... But it sure as Hell lists them, doesn't it?



No, it lists some of our major rights.

Exactly MY point. The US Bill of Rights list SOME of OUR rights.

Our Laws list those things we can't do - everything else is our "Right".


Good for you. Now why do you think this wouldn't apply in the US,
especially after you've read the 9th Ammendment? It's not long, surely
you can read.

Greg Procter wrote:

Look it up - I'm registered Ngai Tahu.

But, you use the name Greg Proctor in you normal life, right?
Why?

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:


Your problem is that you are focused on your "Bill of Rights".

NO, I focused on both the NZ and the US versions.
They are quite a bit similar.

Of course - the UN recommendation is largely based on the US model.



_Our_ rights are established in the Magna Carta of 1215 and subsequent
legal precident whereas yours are established by your "Bill of Rights",
incuding your amendment #9.

You still don't understand. Ammendment 9 is saying exactly what you are
saying about your rights. That is, the are NOT limited by these
documents. Rights in the US are also based on common law, and even on
the ideas presented in the Magna Carta. Do you think the founding
fathers didn't think of this?

Obviously not.


If the 9th Ammendment states our rights are NOT limited by the rights
listed in the contstituion, why do you keep saying the Bill of Rights is
limited our rights? The 9th Ammendment clealy states they are not
limited by the documented.
Now, without making stupid comments about Bush, even though he deserves
them, what rights are you saying you have that we don't?

All of them.



Our "Bill of Rights" doesn't claim to hold our rights legally.

I see.
What is the purpose of the NZ Bill of Rights?

To fulfill a UN requirement. It serves no legal purpose.


You do recognize that it is law in NZ, correct?
After all, it is an Act passed by your government.

It's a piece of paper.


It's no wonder you can't comprehend what I am trying to tell you, you
don't even believe your own Bill of Rights has any meaning.

It doesn't. Everything there is already covered in our law.

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:


What about YOUR Bill of Rights.
You have also stated it doesn't limit your rights.
...... But it sure as Hell lists them, doesn't it?



No, it lists some of our major rights.

Exactly MY point. The US Bill of Rights list SOME of OUR rights.


Sure, but in your case your Bill of Rights is the document that protects
those rights.
Ours isn't.


Our Laws list those things we can't do - everything else is our "Right".


Good for you. Now why do you think this wouldn't apply in the US,
especially after you've read the 9th Ammendment? It's not long, surely
you can read.


Our further rights are covered elsewhere, as are our rights listed in
thae superfluous BoR document.

Greg Procter wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:


If the 9th Ammendment states our rights are NOT limited by the rights
listed in the contstituion, why do you keep saying the Bill of Rights is
limited our rights? The 9th Ammendment clealy states they are not
limited by the documented.
Now, without making stupid comments about Bush, even though he deserves
them, what rights are you saying you have that we don't?


All of them.


Does this statement make sense to you?



Our "Bill of Rights" doesn't claim to hold our rights legally.

I see.
What is the purpose of the NZ Bill of Rights?


To fulfill a UN requirement. It serves no legal purpose.

The UN require NZ to have a Bill of Rights?

Greg Procter wrote:


Our further rights are covered elsewhere,

And so are ours. That is why they are not listed, but mentioned by the
9th Amendment.

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

Look it up - I'm registered Ngai Tahu.

But, you use the name Greg Proctor in you normal life, right?

Of course.

Why?

That's my given name.
(well "Greg" is shortened, I don't include my middle name, and you've
mis-spelled my surname)