June 27, 2004
Tryin' to kill me, eh?
Posted by shonk at 12:11 AM in Politics | TrackBackAfter intimating that intellectual property crimes are, in effect, thought crimes, I want to continue in a similar thematic and, perhaps, iconoclastic vein by suggesting that attempted murder is not a crime. A bit radical, perhaps, but I want to make a case that such a position is at least understandable, even if nobody ends up actually agreeing with me.
To that end, it would probably be useful to make the terms I’m discussing as explicit as possible, so I’ll argue on the basis of the definitions given by the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, since that’s my current state of residence.
18 Pa.C.S. § 901(a) defines criminal attempt as: “A person commits an attempt when, with intent to commit a specific crime, he does any act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that crime.” Obviously, in the case of attempted murder, the “specific crime” in question is that of murder, defined in 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502. As for punishment, 18 Pa.C.S. § 1102(c) gives the sentencing guidelines for attempted murder, which carries a maximum sentence of 40 years if the victim suffers “serious bodily injury” and 20 years otherwise, which correlates to the punishments for third degree murder (18 Pa.C.S. § 1102(d)) and for first degree felonies (18 Pa.C.S. § 1103), respectively.
What this all boils down to, then, is that, according to Pennsylvania law, if I stab someone with the intent to kill him, I’m subject to twice as long a prison sentence as if I stab without intending to kill. Similarly, if I do anything the court construes as a “substantial step” (a phrase I suspect left intentionally vague) towards killing someone, even if I never actually hurt her (and even if she never even knows about my attempt), I’m subject to just as long a sentence as if I rape her. Think about that for a minute.
Now, I don’t want to suggest that what we call attempted murder should never be punished. If I stab someone, that’s clearly a crime (namely, aggravated assault), whether or not I intended to murder him. If I spray bullets in someone’s direction, even if I miraculously fail to hit anybody, that’s also a crime (again, aggravated assault). And I certainly think aggravated assault is a crime worthy of punishment (although I will note that I disagree with the federal and state justice system’s emphasis on punishment of the criminal over rehabilitation of the victim).
What I have problems with is the notion that, in and of itself, intending to kill someone is criminal. Certainly harboring such intentions makes me not a very nice person, someone who deserves to be shunned by society and cast out of polite company, but, assuming my attempt breaks no other laws, I’m not sure on what grounds it can be justified as criminal (or on what grounds having an intent to kill while committing an assault is worse than simply committing the assault).
As I see it, the issue boils down to the simple question: are a person’s thoughts, intentions and desires, however degenerate or reprehensible, criminal? To me, the answer has to be “no”; for something to be criminal, it must be wrongfully damaging to another (this sort of statement must, of course, be founded upon an entire theory of justice, which in turn is based on morality, which I’d rather not get into right now; those holding contrary opinions are, as always, free to prove me wrong) and I simply don’t see how a person’s thoughts, beliefs or intentions can, in and of themselves, harm another. The qualifier “in and of themselves” is important in the preceding sentence, because actions predicated on certain thoughts or beliefs can, of course, be harmful.
The obvious parallel to a much more controversial topic is that of hate crimes. An example from the Pennsylvania statutes is “Ethnic intimidation” (18 Pa.C.S. § 2710), which states the following:
A person commits the offense of ethnic intimidation if, with malicious intention toward the race, color, religion or national origin of another individual or group of individuals, he commits an offense under any other provision of this article or under Chapter 33 (relating to arson, criminal mischief and other property destruction) exclusive of section 3307 (relating to institutional vandalism) or under section 3503 (relating to criminal trespass) or under section 5504 (relating to harassment by communication or address) with respect to such individual or his or her property or with respect to one or more members of such group or to their property.
Such offenses cause the crime to be classified one degree higher than otherwise specified. I’m not particularly familiar with “hate crime” laws in other states, but my impression is that they are similar.
Again, I’m not sure how the beliefs or intentions of a criminal are necessarily criminal. The implication of this particular law is that my beating up a black man on the streets would be worse if I were a racist than if I were simply a sadist. Now racism is certainly reprehensible (as are homophobia, misogyny and any other attitudes that might be targeted by “hate crime” laws), but, again, I don’t see how assaulting people for racist (or homophobic, misogynist, etc.) reasons is any more damaging to the victim than assaulting people for misanthropic or sadistic reasons. Put more bluntly, Matthew Shepard isn’t any more dead than Nicole Brown-Simpson (to take two high-profile cases from the last decade).
The case might be made that racists are more likely to be repeat offenders than other violent criminals and hence deserve harsher punishment, but, even setting aside the fact that sadists probably also have a higher propensity than average towards repeat offenses and yet there are no “sadist laws”, such considerations are already taken into account (at least in theory) by the legal system. Sentencing (again, at least in theory) takes into account both aggravating and mitigating circumstances and, although I’m no lawyer, I would have to imagine that a propensity towards repeat offense qualifies as an aggravating factor.
Anyway, the point is that a crime is not somehow worse because the criminal has a certain agenda and, going back to attempted murder, having certain intentions, no matter how despicable, is not a crime. Additionally, on a wholly more practical level, these “crimes of intent” are dangerous because they place evaluation of intent under the purview of the judicial system. And, let’s be honest, do any of us really trust the courts to be able to determine accurately what our thoughts may or may not have been in any given circumstance?
Initially I agreed with you that it is wrong to punish people for thought crimes.
It would be a horrible world indeed if every time you thought of something you would be responsible.
Of course most thoughts do not produce any evidence that you thought them and hence you cannot be held responsible for them. Thus the only time the issue comes up is when something physically happens that gives evidence that some forbidden thought might have occurred.
How does one know that a punishable thought/action has occurred? You must have two elements. These are context and action. Action is necessary so that someone other than the criminal knows a crime has been committed. Context refers to the situation in which the act occurs. There are plenty of situations where the context makes a huge difference.
If you are at a gun show or are hunting and someone displays a gun, so what? In this context it is perfectly proper. Everyone assumes that your thoughts (intentions) are benign and thinks nothing of your actions. If you were in a bank and did the same thing, you would be assumed to have the intent to rob the bank and would probably be convicted. There are plenty of other examples that are heavily dependent on reading the persons intent (thoughts) based on the context of the situation. For example chicken farmer/ practitioner of animal cruelty, pediatrician/child molester, house painter/ vandal, etc., the difference being whether you were acting by permission in the proper context or acted upon socially unacceptable intensions.
If these things are true we must back up and admit that thought crimes are punishable. In fact the very essence of crime is intent or thought.
If I accidentally bump into a person, this invariably results in both parties apologizing and that is the end of it. If one were to obviously and purposely bump in to a stranger, the situation could be much more serious. Zillions of examples can be created. If I accidentally push you into the Grand Canyon it is less serious than I did so intentionally. What if I ineffectually try to kill you? The issue has already been settled. For example a man in Florida tried to kill his wife who had the phony illness “multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome.” He sprayed perfume and household fragrance everywhere in the house. The verdict, guilty of attempted murder!
This brings us to hate crimes. This takes the issue to new and uncharted regions. You have already established that the criminal acted because of nefarious motives. Explain to me why racism or homophobia more evil than ordinary evil intent towards another human?
To be honest, I have no particular problem with "attempted murder" being a sort of heightened category of aggravated assault. Certainly there might be a role for such.
My problem is that, legally speaking, there's the potential that someone could be convicted for attempted murder without having ever actually harmed anyone, and possibly without the "victim" ever even knowing anything was amiss. I grant that this might be unlikely, but I still think there's something inherently wrong with that.
Explain to me why racism or homophobia more evil than ordinary evil intent towards another human?
Exactly.
Posted by: shonk at June 28, 2004 09:25 PM'A bit radical, perhaps, but I want to make a case that such a position is at least understandable, even if nobody ends up actually agreeing with me.'
I can think of one person who agrees with you:
'Convicted of a crime I didn't even commit. Hah! Attempted murder? Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry? Do they?' -Robert Underdunk Terwilliger
Suppose you could predict the future with 100% accuracy, and suppose that you determined that Person-X was definitely going to murder you on some specific date in the near future.
Are you saying that you would do nothing and just accept your fate?
I mean, according to your logic the person really hasn't done anything wrong/immoral/illegal/unethical until the actual moment when they pull the trigger and kill you.
Posted by: The Serpent at July 7, 2004 02:41 PMSuppose you could predict the future with 100% accuracy, and suppose that you determined that Person-X was definitely going to murder you on some specific date in the near future.
Engaging in counter-factual speculation is the surest way to lead yourself astray.
Posted by: shonk at July 7, 2004 03:11 PM"Suppose you could predict the future with 100% accuracy, and suppose that you determined that Person-X was definitely going to murder you on some specific date in the near future.
Are you saying that you would do nothing and just accept your fate?"
Are you saying it's possible to stop him? If so, your premise is wrong. If not, there's no point in trying.
Posted by: Andy Stedman at July 7, 2004 03:24 PMShonk: Engaging in counter-factual speculation is the surest way to lead yourself astray.
I’m not sure I comprehend your point?
If you are asserting that it is impossible to accurately anticipate the future then I would say you have no idea at all what it is to actually be a “human being”.
Andy Stedman: Are you saying it’s possible to stop him? If so, your premise is wrong. If not, there’s no point in trying.
At some point I would assume that the laws of Physics were eternal and unchanging, and that if I conduct the same experiment (specific sequence of events) under the same controlled conditions that I will get the same exact result.
I mean, at one point eclipses of the Sun were considered “random”, and “magical” (i.e. supernatural), but you don’t believe that solar eclipses are beyond human comprehension (without an underlying logical mechanism) … do you Mr. Stedman?
Posted by: The Serpent at July 8, 2004 09:51 AMAndy's point was that if you could predict the future and knew with certainty that Person X was going to murder you, then there isn't much you could do about that, is there? And, obviously, if you did manage to prevent him from murdering you, then your prediction of the future must not have been very accurate.
And, you being a determinist, I'm surprised you think there's an option other than to accept your fate.
Posted by: shonk at July 8, 2004 11:26 AMThe problem is that you are still perceiving the universe (i.e. Destiny) as a Materialist, whereas I perceive Destiny as an Informationalist.
In your mind, Destiny is made from “matter”. In my mind Destiny is made of “information”.
Shonk: Andy’s point was that if you could predict the future and knew with certainty that Person X was going to murder you, then there isn’t much you could do about that, is there? And, obviously, if you did manage to prevent him from murdering you, then your prediction of the future must not have been very accurate.
Suppose that you just acquired the knowledge (for the first time) that certain persons driving their automobiles at high rates of speed will always stop at Red traffic lights, and always go when the light is Green.
Compared to a person who lacked this information I would say that you had a much better Destiny if it came down to driving a Car.
Or suppose we lived in ancient times, and you and I possess the knowledge that Spring always follows Winter and that a year is approximately 365 days long. Once again I would say that we had a better Fate in store for us than individuals who lacked this information.
Destiny is made of information. Change the information you possess, and you change your destiny (or at least that’s how it will appear).
Shonk: And, you being a determinist, I’m surprised you think there’s an option other than to accept your fate.
I don’t think there is an option other than to accept my Fate. All of my actions are predetermined. I am going to do exactly what I am destined to do.
The thing is some algorithms (or consciousnesses if you prefer) are better suited to accurately perceive the future. They are more efficient at it. But once again that is a result of the information they carry. It is a matter of the manner in which they have been programmed.
Look, when you make a mistake, I am willing to bet that in hindsight, under careful analysis you didn’t commit that mistake because of supernatural magic. In objective hindsight you always perceive that your mistakes were the inevitable result of a lack of complete information or a case of misperception (wrong information) at the time the mistake occurred. If you had it to do over again – if you could go back and carry the experience with you – you wouldn’t make the same exact mistake twice.
No one burns their hand on the stove more then once, unless they are insane and enjoy burning their hand on the stove.
Posted by: The Serpent at July 8, 2004 11:49 AMThe problem is that you are still perceiving the universe (i.e. Destiny) as a Materialist, whereas I perceive Destiny as an Informationalist.
You know, disagreements can arise for other reasons than this.
I don’t think there is an option other than to accept my Fate. All of my actions are predetermined. I am going to do exactly what I am destined to do.
Then why did you pose the following question as if both options were viable: "Are you saying that you would do nothing and just accept your fate?"?
Destiny is made of information. Change the information you possess, and you change your destiny (or at least that’s how it will appear).
This is true, but then you can't predict the future with 100% certainty, so your whole hypothetical is pointless.
This was my point about counterfactuals. I can't predict the future with 100% certainty. Therefore, any arguments based on the assumption that I can are likely to lead me astray from the path of reason and clarity. Why? Because in arguing about a situation with which I have no experience and not even a good vocabulary to discuss it, I'm much more likely not to notice when I make a mistake or mis-state my conclusions. Just so in the case you make above. It sounds reasonable on the surface, but one can't simultaneously have perfect information about the future and be able to change that future based on that information.
And even if the reasoning is valid, an argument based on counterfactuals usually has no relevance to reality. Even if one could say "Okay, I have perfect information about the future, and based on that information I know person X is going to kill me, so I'm going to stop him from doing so, and he deserves punishment for what he will do unless stopped", that doesn't mean that in the real world of imperfect information that attempted murder laws are valid.
By the way, this habit you have of bringing up this determinism business in every single comment gets annoying. All you're doing is stating a tautology and then pretending that it's profound.
Posted by: shonk at July 8, 2004 12:53 PMThe Serpent: (previously) Are you saying that you would do nothing and just accept your fate?
I was implying that those who do not see (i.e. perceive) the future (those who think it “impossible”) are powerless to “alter” it.
The Serpent: (previously) Destiny is made of information. Change the information you possess, and you change your destiny (or at least that’s how it will appear).
The Shonk: This is true, but then you can’t predict the future with 100% certainty, so your whole hypothetical is pointless.
I disagree, although I guess it would come down to our precise definitions of the terms “certainty”, “100%”, “perfection”, and “impossible”(and ultimately our definitions of the term “infinite”).
I rely on a Godelian definition of those terms (consistent with informationalism), whereas I suspect you rely on the Materialist definition of those terms which I would consider mystical, supernatural, and utterly beyond all comprehension.
The Shonk: This was my point about counterfactuals. I can’t predict the future with 100% certainty. Therefore, any arguments based on the assumption that I can are likely to lead me astray from the path of reason and clarity. Why? Because in arguing about a situation with which I have no experience and not even a good vocabulary to discuss it, I’m much more likely not to notice when I make a mistake or mis-state my conclusions. Just so in the case you make above. It sounds reasonable on the surface, but one can’t simultaneously have perfect information about the future and be able to change that future based on that information.
Perfect information produces perfect results (perfect outputs), but once again it would come down to the definition of “perfect”.
But let me ask you this. Are you 100% certain that 2 + 2 = 4?
Are you reasonably certain that you are the same Shonk today that you were yesterday?
Are you positive that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that Autumn follows Summer?
Suppose that someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night? Is that any reason to shoot at them? Maybe they mean you no harm what-so-ever? Maybe they have a “perfectly” legitimate reason for breaking into your house (kind of like having a “perfectly” legitimate reason to rape your wife, I suppose?). In any event, according to your “thought crime premise” shouldn’t you wait until they actually shoot at you first before you could be “100% certain” of their intent to murder you?
Of course you said that intent was no crime. Only the actual act of murder. So I guess by your logic you would have to wait until you were actually killed dead to be “certain”.
The Shonk: And even if the reasoning is valid, an argument based on counterfactuals usually has no relevance to reality.
What do you mean precisely by “counterfactuals”?
If Determinism is True in reality then the future (the truth about reality) can definitely be predicted.
That’s why you don’t find many individuals who still believe that the world is flat and motionless.
The Shonk: Even if one could say “Okay, I have perfect information about the future, and based on that information I know person X is going to kill me, so I’m going to stop him from doing so, and he deserves punishment for what he will do unless stopped”, that doesn’t mean that in the real world of imperfect information that attempted murder laws are valid.
You are assuming that all individuals have access to exactly the same information. That isn’t the case.
The Shonk: By the way, this habit you have of bringing up this determinism business in every single comment gets annoying. All you’re doing is stating a tautology and then pretending that it’s profound.
Actually you bring up your magic “free will’ powers in many of your posts. It just so happens that is when I am most likely to disagree with you, or perceive an obvious error in your line of thinking.
As to me pretending my opinions are “profound”, I would say that is in the eye (perception) of the beholder. From my point of view my opinions are merely “common sense reasoning”.
Posted by: The Serpent at July 8, 2004 03:11 PMI was implying that those who do not see (i.e. perceive) the future (those who think it “impossible”) are powerless to “alter” it.
But if determinism is true, nobody has the power to "alter" the future, anyway.
I disagree, although I guess it would come down to our precise definitions of the terms “certainty”, “100%”, “perfection”, and “impossible”(and ultimately our definitions of the term “infinite”).
So you (as in you specifically) can predict the future with 100% certainty?
I rely on a Godelian definition of those terms (consistent with informationalism), whereas I suspect you rely on the Materialist definition of those terms which I would consider mystical, supernatural, and utterly beyond all comprehension.
Then perhaps you'd be willing to give the Godelian definition of those terms? It's one thing to sit there and claim we're using different definitions, it's quite another to demonstrate it.
Perfect information produces perfect results (perfect outputs), but once again it would come down to the definition of “perfect”.
And since neither is possible, what's the point?
Of course you said that intent was no crime. Only the actual act of murder. So I guess by your logic you would have to wait until you were actually killed dead to be “certain”.
At what point does "intent" become actionable?
What do you mean precisely by “counterfactuals”?
Things which are contrary to reality.
If Determinism is True in reality then the future (the truth about reality) can definitely be predicted.
Correct. However, you'll note that I said "I can’t predict the future with 100% certainty". I said nothing about whether it were possible to predict the future, nor about whether anybody other than myself could. I merely stated something I know, which is that I cannot predict the future with 100% accuracy. Maybe it's because I'm not smart enough, maybe it's because I'm not observant enough, maybe it's because determinism is false. Who knows exactly why? The why is irrelevant; the fact is that I can't, so it's silly for me to speculate about what I would do if I could. If I ever get to the point where I can predict the future with 100% certainty, then I'll worry about it.
You are assuming that all individuals have access to exactly the same information. That isn’t the case.
Right. Which means your argument is no justification for attempted murder laws.
Actually you bring up your magic “free will’ powers in many of your posts. It just so happens that is when I am most likely to disagree with you, or perceive an obvious error in your line of thinking.
Hey, I can't help it. It was all pre-determined.
As to me pretending my opinions are “profound”, I would say that is in the eye (perception) of the beholder. From my point of view my opinions are merely “common sense reasoning”.
Your stance on determinism boils down to an argument that people will do what they think is in their best interest in any given situation and therefore that they will always do the same thing in the exact same situation. Which is a pretty uncontroversial point. But you never state it this clearly or concisely, which is why nobody ever understands what the hell you're talking about.
Posted by: shonk at July 8, 2004 03:58 PMThe Shonk: But if determinism is true, nobody has the power to “alter” the future, anyway.
Technically speaking (i.e. minus semantics) that is absolutely correct – what is going to happen is inevitable; it is fixed, preordained, eternal and unchanging. In a way, it has already happened you just haven’t perceived (observed) it yet.
I am merely trying to articulate a notion (premise) in terms that I suspect you will more easily comprehend and accept.
Where the real “power” lies is in the inequities of the system. Namely that all individuals are unique, and they are unique by virtue of the fact that they possess unique information. In other words, some individuals perceive the future better than others, and from the point of view of those who do not perceive what will be, those that can and do perceive it appear to have “magic powers”.
… but there is nothing “magical” about it at all. It’s just that those who do not perceive are incapable (not programmed) to perceive the underlying logical mechanic of what the “Seers” are doing (how their algorithm functions).
The Shonk: So you (as in you specifically) can predict the future with 100% certainty?
At times … most definitely – just as you can. Of course the point I think you are getting hung up on is this notion of Omniscience in the old sense of the word.
Omniscience in the sense of ALL-knowing (as opposed to MOST-Knowing) doesn’t exist. At least it doesn’t exist any more.
The Shonk: Then perhaps you’d be willing to give the Godelian definition of those terms? It’s one thing to sit there and claim we’re using different definitions, it’s quite another to demonstrate it.
Well, of course the problem there is that once I give you my definition I will most definitely “alter” your path of destiny (your worldline). And if your present future is beneficial from my point of view (i.e. to me personally), then why on Earth would I want to alter it?
… but I’m going to play along …
I would define Perfection as the best system (most efficient) in existence at performing a specifically defined task/function.
Now that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a “more perfect” system in the future. It simply means that at the present moment there is no known superior (i.e. more beneficial, more efficient) system for performing the operation/function.
The Shonk: [perfect information] And since neither is possible, what’s the point?
Again, I would disagree that either is impossible to attain.
Like I said, isn’t 2 + 2 = 4 a “perfect” statement of truth?
The Shonk: At what point does “intent” become actionable?
In my opinion (and that’s really all my posts ever are) I would say that the moment you can comprehend (or articulate (a slightly higher criteria (as comprehension of information typically precedes the ability to express information))) the inevitable outcome/result of the intent then the intent and the action are one and the same.
Put another way …
Action is the ultimate manifestation of intent (Action is the ultimate manifestation of Thought/Cognition (or processing begets output)).
The Shonk: Counterfactuals = Things which are contrary to reality.
Okay, that is what I thought, it’s just that you “threw” me when I read this last time …
And even if the reasoning is valid, an argument based on counterfactuals usually has no relevance to reality.
I was thinking -- How can valid reasoning be counterfactual?
The Shonk: Correct. However, you’ll note that I said “I can’t predict the future with 100% certainty”. I said nothing about whether it were possible to predict the future, nor about whether anybody other than myself could. I merely stated something I know, which is that I cannot predict the future with 100% accuracy.
Well with that attitude even if it were possible you wouldn’t be able to do it.
Look, it’s like we are living 3000 years ago, and there is nothing physically preventing you from circumnavigating the globe, it is merely your premise that the Earth is flat that is preventing you from circumnavigating the globe.
The Shonk: Maybe it’s because I’m not smart enough, maybe it’s because I’m not observant enough, maybe it’s because determinism is false. Who knows exactly why? The why is irrelevant; the fact is that I can’t, so it’s silly for me to speculate about what I would do if I could. If I ever get to the point where I can predict the future with 100% certainty, then I’ll worry about it.
But will you ever get to that point given your present attitude? I’d say no, your attitude (your perception of reality) would have to change first.
But you have no reason to believe that Determinism is false. We have been over that time and time again. All of the evidence would lead you to believe that Your atoms are as obedient to TLOP as the Moons atoms are.
You know that story about the ant and the grasshopper … right? The grasshopper was the guy who keep saying “When Winter arrives then I’ll worry about it.”
The Shonk: Hey, I can’t help it. It was all pre-determined.
Great Goddess help me to accept those things which I have no power to change. ;-)
The Shonk: Your stance on determinism boils down to an argument that people will do what they think is in their best interest in any given situation and therefore that they will always do the same thing in the exact same situation. Which is a pretty uncontroversial point. But you never state it this clearly or concisely, which is why nobody ever understands what the hell you’re talking about.
That could be, although in my defense I am constantly refining (and perfecting) my memes.
But then again perhaps I am only trying to target specific individuals carrying specific information?
I’ve told you before, I don’t think you will be able to hack existence as a “red blood cell”. It’s just not in your nature my old friend.
Posted by: The Serpent at July 8, 2004 04:49 PMI am merely trying to articulate a notion (premise) in terms that I suspect you will more easily comprehend and accept.
Why would you try to articulate a notion in language you admit obscures it?
Again, I would disagree that either is impossible to attain.
Like I said, isn’t 2 + 2 = 4 a “perfect” statement of truth?
Let me know when you know my future intentions with the same degree of certainty that you know 2+2=4.
I was thinking — How can valid reasoning be counterfactual?
By being based on false premises. If I take as a premise that 1=0, then I can use an entirely valid chain of deductions to prove that the integers consist of a single element. In the technical vocabulary, "valid" simply means that the rules of inference are used correctly in going from premise to conclusion. Within that context, a true conclusion would be one which results from valid reasoning from true premises.
Well with that attitude even if it were possible you wouldn’t be able to do it.
Again, you're reading too much in. I merely stated that currently I cannot, which is true. Stating truthfully that I cannot do something is quite different than saying I will never be able to do that thing and it certainly does not imply that I'm not trying to do that thing. I can't prove the Riemann Conjecture, but that doesn't mean I won't try.
You know that story about the ant and the grasshopper … right? The grasshopper was the guy who keep saying “When Winter arrives then I’ll worry about it.”
This situation is different. I would equate what I'm talking about more to planning how to spend my prize money from winning a Field's Medal before having produced the results that would justify getting the Field's Medal.
But then again perhaps I am only trying to target specific individuals carrying specific information?
Well, of course that's a possibility. And it's equally possible that they're targeting you. So what?
I’ve told you before, I don’t think you will be able to hack existence as a “red blood cell”. It’s just not in your nature my old friend.
Since I apparently misunderstood what you meant by that the last time around, I'm curious what you mean by this.
Posted by: shonk at July 8, 2004 07:56 PMPowered by Movable Type 2.661
Valid CSS | Valid XHTML | Valid RSS | Valid Atom