still no answer then?
Privacy and the State
Collapse
X
-
Richard Barrett
-
Richard Barrett
I think perhaps we are at cross-purposes here. I was suggesting that one of the phenomena that might help a police state such as the Soviet Union into existence is the complacency of people who carry on believing that the state acts in their interest, even when there's mounting evidence to the contrary, and particularly where such things as surveillance and breach of privacy are concerned. I'm not going to sit here and write an essay about the causes of Stalinism for you, there are plenty of sources you can read if you really want to know (if you read books other than dictionaries!), I was just interested,as Amateur51 aso is, in your response to this suggestion. It seems you aren't interested in giving one, which is OK I suppose, but I thought we were all here to discuss this issue.
Comment
-
An_Inspector_Calls
I thought Barrett had managed to pose the question and answer it to his own satisfaction (who else matters?) in #1062 and #1068, and managed on the way to,yet again,tell me what I was thinking! All of which was, as usual, so interesting that I think it's time for Hinton to pose a vote of thanks.
I get the impression that Amateur51 is doing something else tonight (#1092).
Comment
-
Richard Barrett
-
An_Inspector_Calls
-
Richard Barrett
No, I asked for opinions. I don't know what you're waiting for! why so coy all of a sudden?
On second thoughts don't bother.
Comment
-
scottycelt
Originally posted by Richard Barrett View PostNo, I asked for opinions. I don't know what you're waiting for! why so coy all of a sudden?
On second thoughts don't bother.
Comment
-
amateur51
I wonder if the Inspector, scotty and PeeMeister have read 1984 ... by George Orwell (it makes googling and thus cribbing easier)
Comment
-
amateur51
Originally posted by scottycelt View PostThat's the second time you've finally decided you're not really interested in the opinions of other members, Mr (Comrade) Barrett ... so why this silly initial pretence that you are?
Comment
-
Richard Barrett
Comment