random guy

What point are you trying to make? Get it over it! Technicaly you can sign up when you're 17 with your parents consent for your information! Alot of the stuff you're talking about was fone in the past. Today things have become a little bit more political. Things are a bit different ths time around, so stop your whining, cuz really you're not getting anywhere with it, and ethics?! What about them? So what of the names? They're just names, like that guy up there who had made up a fake name so that he could get more fake ice cream? They can't send a guy who doesn't exist to war can they, or can they? Hmmm...im gonna do some reaserch on this and find out. I'll be back with some info later one. So much greatness in 2004. Babe's curse broken, some other crap, and random fag biatched slapped. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fine, well I hope once the draft gets re-instated they send you over to Iraq first. Then when you're huddling in the trenches trying desperately to keep warm in the freezing desert nights, and trying to keep your head down to avoid it getting shot off, and you don't have any body armour because the Bush administration "can't afford it", you can say "Today things are more political" and feel 100% better.

Cominus, bite me. I would have *thought* it was clear for ANYONE with 1/4 of a brain (but I guess that excludes you!) that the point I was making is once you start playing with ethicallities like signing people up to the SS through free ice-cream lists, or forcing people to sign up before they're 18 even thouh the rules state that you have to be 18 before you sign up, that you're on a slippery slope, and who knows what they'd resort to doing. Grow a brain, arsehole.

I give up. Hell, it's not my country, what do I care how many people get forced to sign up for this thing, or from free ice-cream, free toy, hell, free sex lists for all I care. Why stop when they're 15, why not make people sign up when they're 12? Or 6? Or make their parents sign em up when they're born? You'll change your tune once the draft gets reinstated (yes I said ONCE, not IF)

If the army has to resort to free ice-cream lists to mail people, I seriously doubt that "nearly everyone" recieves reminder letters.

You completely misunderstand my maths - say there were 167,000 people, by the army's statistic we are to assume that 156,000 would sign up WITHOUT INTERVENTION OF THE LETTER, that leaves 10,000 people who are likely to sign up after they got the letter. If ANY ONE of those people signed up as a result of recieving the letter, that counts as solicitation.

On-line petitions don't work. And for a number of reasons, including: 1. (Unlike a pen-and-paper petition) There's no way to tell if people signed more than once (at least the originator of a pen-and-paper petition will be more likely to know if someone signed it twice) 2. (Unlike a pen-and-paper petition) There's no way to put your actual signature on the petition (with pen-and-paper petitions, you can search the sigs for similarities, to tell if some entries have been faked) 3. (Unlike a pen-and-paper petition) There's no way to tell if people signing it come from the relevent age or geographic area or whatever

Ok, that's fair, we're starting to think critically it looks like... Now, how does this lead to your conclusion? Should non-business organizations not have the same right to publicly traded lists as businesses do? Or is it just selective services who should be specifically not-included? Are you sure this isn't just an attempt to justify your emotional reaction to selective services? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> For crying out loud man, no matter how many times you complain along the "knee-jerk reaction" line (I count at least half a dozen), if even ONE PERSON out of the nearly 120,000 people who were contacted using this list signed up to the Selective Service as a result of being contacted, WHETHER OR NOT THAT PERSON WENT TO WAR, that means THE ARMY WAS SOLICITING for "customers" using the list. To put it another way, the Army proudly states that 94% of people who are supposed to sign up to the selective service do. Going by those statistics, of the 120,000 people who were on that list, if they all signed up for the SS after getting the letter, that means that about 7000 people signed up that otherwise wouldn't have! But hey, you seem to be so convinced that I'm some emotional firebomb, incapable of viewing matters objectively, that you've completely (and pre-emptorily) ruled out the possibility that my concerns may be valid, and quite frankly I'm getting sick of arguing.

How's it an old movie? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes , the original is from "beginning of the 80s ". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think you'll find you're talking about "Dawn of the Dead" Note that this is SHUAN of the Dead we're talking about.

The army is not a business.

I know it's sometimes difficult to masterize our emotions, but this's a nice solution to avoid the viral spread. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Do you really think that an epidemic of the scale of aids in africa will be stopped by telling people not to have sex? No, the virus won't be eradicated easily coz it comes from SIV & it will stay transmittable by blood transfusions. Also, the minority of uneducated people will refuse to believe in safe-sex recommendations or in condom use measures. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's what sex-ed programs are for to EDUCATE people. Also, that minority would be FAR smaller than the minority of people who would stop having sex just because they'd been told to do so.

I know it's sometimes difficult to masterize our emotions, but this's a nice solution to avoid the viral spread. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, it very much is not. Do you really think that an epidemic of the scale of aids in africa will be stopped by telling people not to have sex? It's a ridiculous proposition, and safe-sex programs are the only way to even put a dent in the numbers - but Bush is stedfastly REFUSING to fund safe-sex education or, say, condom distribution programs, instead resorting to the juvenile and naïve assumption that telling people not to have sex is going to do anything to stop the AIDS virus from spreading.

How's it an old movie?

I too loved it. My only criticism is that towards the end it turns into more of a standard zombie movie, and I would have preferred it to be in the more lampoonish feel all the way through. On the plus side, even when it does become a standard zombie movie, it's a GOOD zombie movie.

I almost have to do it, but: http://www.snopes.com/crime/clever/cigarson.asp

Gryph: I know AIDS has been around for a long time before Bush, but AFAIK he's the first moron to push for abstinense based education (and, more importantly, DENY GOVERNMENT FUNDING TO ANY PROGRAM THAT IS NOT ABSTINENSE BASED) in Africa.

I disagree Daeval - the people who signed up for the ice-cream promotion were no doubt aware of the possibility that signing up for the promotion would mean they'd recieve junk-mail (the free ice-cream has to be paid for somehow). Where I take issue is with the ARMY using these lists, as that is an eventuality that neither the proprietor of the store or the people who signed up to the list would be prepared for.

Sounds like a sure-fire way to lose friends to me.

How was the ice-cream a coincidence? Although they didn't buy the list directly from the ice-cream company, they HAD to know where the list was coming from, a free ice-cream promotion! It wasn't a coincidence. Also, I suppose you could boil this down merely to the privacy issue, but unless the people who signed up for the free ice-cream promotion KNEW SPECIFICALLY that signing that promotion would mean getting on the army's mailing list, then the army behaved EXTREMELY unethically, on the privacy issue alone.

There's a difference between building up an immunity and evolving. We've built up immunities to plenty of diseases, from the common cold upwards, and in mere generations to boot. Because Bush is promoting the absolute worst and most ineffective method of sex education in a place where MILLIONS of people are dying from a deadly STD, THAT'S why he's getting blamed for it!

No, the ice-cream list is very much NOT immaterial. Nor is it an emotional device to get people angry - not the way it was presented in that site anyway. In case you don't know, that is a site dedicated to proving or disproving urban legends, and every detail on that site is treated in an objective way. The FACT that the army used a free ice-cream list to get them to sign up for the SS is therefore presented and shown to be 100% true. And why, if the SS is such an obsolete and never-to-be-used-again system, have states just RECENTLY started forcing people to sign up for it when they sign up for their driver's license? If the system never gets used, why are they devoting such a comprehensive effort to get people to sign up for it? The only possible answer I can think of is that they either know that a draft will be reinstated, or they know that reinstating the draft will be a distinct possibility.

Some of you are missing a main point of this - yes, the old man had the right to expect to be able to sit in a restaraunt and not be bothered by people talking on their cellphones, but at the same time the guy talking on the cellphone had the right to expect not to be attacked by a pissed off old man!

Dude, there are legions of reports of infected men flocking BABIES. That sounds a lot like rape to me!

Why is a The Maxx toy being sold in a Spawn box?

That's why Bush's biggest of his many flock-ups is by pushing for ABSTINENSE-BASED education in Africa! What, is he a flocking moron? Actually, he already answered that question many times over. I mean, for crying out loud, in a country where (as has been said) it's widely believed that raping a virgin cures you of AIDS, the best form of sex-ed is NOT abstinense based!!!!1

I still can't believe that I'm arguing with someone that it's not okay for the army to solicit names of kids from free ice-cream lists! How can anyone think that that is okay? I was NOT implying that it was your "opinion" that SS service is mandatory. And besides which, it very much isn't mandatory. If it was mandatory then the kids of all the rich, or the kids of congressmen, would be forced to sign up, and we both know that the rich and congressmen's children very very rarely go to war (look at Bush Jr for example). Your country can't have it both ways, but that's what the people of influence are trying to do - it's "Selective Service" because they want a way so that the poor kids all have to sign up for military service, but the rich still won't have to. THAT'S why it's not "mandatory", THAT'S why the government resorts to using ice-cream lists, THAT'S why they're using DMV lists - because that way they can "Selectively" choose people from only low-income areas to "mandatorily" sign up. Again, I can't believe that ANYONE thinks this is okay!