Asp Forum - Qanah being put on the back burner - for now

Joshua J. Kugler

7/1/2005 9:35:00 AM

All -

I owe a few people an apology. I jumped in to trying to start up a
project at a time when my schedule just wouldn't handle the load. I
did not accurately estimate my time commitments for the coming months
when I made the announcement of Qanah this past March.

So, for now, Qanah is being put on the back burner. Note I didn't say
abandoned: just postponed. If you are subscribed to the listserve,
please remain so. When my schedule allows, I want to hit this full on.

Thank you all for your ideas and input. I will continue to pursue this
as time allows. So until then, keep coding!

j----- k-----

--
Joshua J. Kugler -- Fairbanks, Alaska -- ICQ#:13706295
Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess, in heaven, on earth, and
under the earth, that Jesus Christ is LORD -- Count on it!

4 Answers

Gordon Levi

8/11/2009 5:16:00 PM

"regn.pickford" <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:

>We should cancel any treaties with this dinosaur which may even influence
>our sovereignty.

Great idea! Who needs international post, airlines or
telecommunications? <http://www.un.org/aboutun/chart_.... If we
feel that our airline traffic controllers should speak Chinese then
why should we let some dinosaur dictate that they speak English?

regn.pickford

8/11/2009 9:08:00 PM

"Gordon Levi" <gordon@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:cn83859ipjh5jncnl3hmqc6qgltrlpo824@4ax.com...
> "regn.pickford" <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>
>
>>We should cancel any treaties with this dinosaur which may even influence
>>our sovereignty.
>
> Great idea! Who needs international post, airlines or
> telecommunications? <http://www.un.org/aboutun/chart_.... If we
> feel that our airline traffic controllers should speak Chinese then
> why should we let some dinosaur dictate that they speak English?
>

Australian sovereignty apart from some special situations does not extend to
other sovereign nations.

So this reply is written using whatever system _I_ choose, is transmitted
to
your computer via accepted protocols where it then read by you with
whatever system _you_ choose.

When the captain of a vessel moves into another nations sovereign
territory the law of that nation is applicable. not an imposed
cooperation with vessels flying a `flag of convenience`

I may ring you in whatever sovereign country you live but if I want
to communicate, I may need an interpreter. Better that than some corrupt,
incompetant, unelected organisation passing effective law requiring
me to learn Esperanto.

Respect for sovereign rights, human rights, non interference does
not empower dictating laws So AFAIC for the UN to seek a treaty
where national sovereignty is impinged upon is contrary to
their U fkn N, charter.

Stan Pierce

8/12/2009 2:01:00 AM

"regn.pickford" <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote in message
news:4a81ddc9@news.comindico.com.au...
(snipped)
> Respect for sovereign rights, human rights, non interference does
> not empower dictating laws So AFAIC for the UN to seek a treaty
> where national sovereignty is impinged upon is contrary to
> their U fkn N, charter.
>
>

I remember when the UN was set up. Civilised men were in charge then.
This was before the Soviets got it subverted by their proxies. Now it's
almost totally Sovietised by blacks from Africa, South America, and sundry
other third world failures with an axe to grind...while getting funded by
the white man. Respect for human rights is just a cynical tag for the lot
of them. The blacks commit most of the atrocities the UN was supposed to
prevent.

It's really control of dumbed down white men that motivates them and gives
them some status in life if they can tell the white man what they should and
should not do. And still all the time dependent on white tax payers for
their funding.

No African state pays for anything in the UN and yet gets most of the
handouts. One big sink hole of good money going after bad people and the
money paying for tribal allegiances that ends up in Swiss banks or paying
for mercedes benz cars.
And we are supposed to 'respect' them.

Gordon Levi

8/14/2009 9:22:00 AM

"regn.pickford" <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:

>
>"Gordon Levi" <gordon@address.invalid> wrote in message
>news:cn83859ipjh5jncnl3hmqc6qgltrlpo824@4ax.com...
>> "regn.pickford" <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We should cancel any treaties with this dinosaur which may even influence
>>>our sovereignty.
>>
>> Great idea! Who needs international post, airlines or
>> telecommunications? <http://www.un.org/aboutun/chart_.... If we
>> feel that our airline traffic controllers should speak Chinese then
>> why should we let some dinosaur dictate that they speak English?
>>
>
>Australian sovereignty apart from some special situations does not extend to
>other sovereign nations.
>
>So this reply is written using whatever system _I_ choose, is transmitted
>to
>your computer via accepted protocols where it then read by you with
>whatever system _you_ choose.
>
>When the captain of a vessel moves into another nations sovereign
>territory the law of that nation is applicable. not an imposed
>cooperation with vessels flying a `flag of convenience`
>
>I may ring you in whatever sovereign country you live but if I want
>to communicate, I may need an interpreter. Better that than some corrupt,
>incompetant, unelected organisation passing effective law requiring
> me to learn Esperanto.
>
>Respect for sovereign rights, human rights, non interference does
>not empower dictating laws So AFAIC for the UN to seek a treaty
>where national sovereignty is impinged upon is contrary to
>their U fkn N, charter.

In order for _any_ international treaty to work the countries that
have ratified the agreement need to change their national laws to
conform to the agreement.

In some cases this requires no government action at all. Australian
air traffic controllers are likely to speak English but in order for
you to land safely in China it is essential that Chinese air traffic
controllers are legally obliged to speak English. The United Nations,
through the International Civil Aviation Organization, insists that
they do. Your Qantas pilot relies on the fact that it is a
contravention of _Chinese_ law if the Beijing air traffic controller
insists on speaking Mandarin.

No country is obliged to sign an international treaty but, if they do,
it is meaningless if their national laws don't conform to the
international obligations that they have undertaken. The simplest way
of doing this is to legislate that an international agreement takes
precedence over a national law.

comp.lang.ruby

Qanah being put on the back burner - for now

Joshua J. Kugler

Gordon Levi

regn.pickford

Stan Pierce

Gordon Levi

x Login to ForumsZone