On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 04:05:31 GMT, "TBone" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:58:23 -0700, "DouginUtah" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Annoying someone (anonymously) via the Internet is now a federal crime.
>> >
>>
>>http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.h
>tml
>> >
>> >Look out Stinky, they're coming to get you.
>> >
>>
>> So what part of "the right to freedom of speech ... shall not be
>> infringed" has Congress apparently failed to understand? Freedom from
>> unreasonable search and siezure? check, that's in there, Appropriate
>> exercise of eminent domain? check, that's in there, "Not having to quarter
>> troops?, check, that's in there? Freedom to not be annoyed? Nope, can't
>> find that one.
>>
>> AAARGH!
>>
>> Define "annoy". If somebody tells *me* that Craftsman is the apex of
>> tool developement, that will annoy *me*. If I tell some people that
>> Craftsman power tools are near the bottom of the heap, that will annoy
>some
>> of those people.
>
>Well, as far as freedom of speech, it would not be directly affected as the
>law does not effect that, only that you cannot say whatever you want without
>identifying yourself. I am not sure if it applies to Usenet as the article
>did only specify the web and email. You can thank some right wing butthead
>for this one. Oh, and BTW, Craftsman is the apex of tool development :-).
Arlen Specter does *not* fit the definition of right-wing that you are
trying to portray. He is a more problematic "moderate" or statist. Why
he chose to change the wording and slip it into the bill referenced above
is really quite beyond reason.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
TBone wrote:
> Oh, and BTW, Craftsman is the apex of tool development :-).
>
Hee-Hee-heh-hoo!
Correct, Craftsman as a brand, is the apex of an arrow pointing
downward toward the lowest quality tools on the planet. Harbor Freight
tools and other flea market tools. Craftsman, just like Stanley, means
less on the quality scale every year. Craftsman does have a few
interesting tools. So does Stanley. NOT like they used to.
So, because of your opposing point of view and the rage caused in me by
your annoying post,,PLONK!! and I'm reporting you to the feds tomorrow.
> --
> If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
O.K. I like this. I never tried sky diving. Pretty funny,,UNPLONK!!
I'll rescind my complaint to the feds immediately after filing it.
Seeya' later TBone!
Tom in KY, The only feds I know drive white vans and deliver packages.
TBone wrote:
> ...
>
> Well, as far as freedom of speech, it would not be directly affected as the
> law does not effect that, only that you cannot say whatever you want without
> identifying yourself.
Bullshit!
Today I really would not be afraid to stand on any street corner
in America and say "The Ku Klux Klan sucks." Within my lifetime,
however, men who wanted to say the same, and live to say it
again, had to to do so anonymously.
The alternative to anonymous free speech was NO free speech
and the same may still be true for a number of perfectly legal
expressions of opinion.
--
FF
Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Arlen Specter does *not* fit the definition of right-wing that you are
> trying to portray. He is a more problematic "moderate" or statist. Why
> he chose to change the wording and slip it into the bill referenced above
> is really quite beyond reason.
>
Whatever he is, one might at first be inclined to attribute this
to the same sort of incompetence that made it illegal for diabetics
to inject themselves with insulin down in Georgia.
But as Heinlein observed, there are degrees of stupidity or
incompetence
so extreme as to be indistinguishable from malice.
--
FF
In article <[email protected]>, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
> So what part of "the right to freedom of speech ... shall not be
> infringed" has Congress apparently failed to understand?
It was a tag-on to a "cannot vote against without being unAmerican"
bill. Sometimes, from north of the 49th, I wonder whose system is the
most fucked up.
Maybe it just depends on how close to an election we are... Right now,
we have nothing happening to crow about.
djb
--
Any government will work if authority and responsibility are equal and
coordinate. This does not insure "good" government; it simply insures that it
will work. But such governments are rare most people want to run things but
want no part of the blame. Robert A. Heinlein
In article <[email protected]>, Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Honestly, isn't this the most pathetic bunch you've ever seen?
If you mean the Libranos, I heartily agree.
I think Harper's doing very well, and except for not cutting spending
and taxes enough I largely like the Conservatives' platform.
--
Any government will work if authority and responsibility are equal and
coordinate. This does not insure "good" government; it simply insures that it
will work. But such governments are rare most people want to run things but
want no part of the blame. Robert A. Heinlein
"DouginUtah" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
:
:
:
: "Pop" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:NdOxf.1586$GJ4.533@trndny08...
: > Actually, in a way, it is a joke - because it's a seriously
: > misinterpreted and incorrect statement of the "situation" by
an
: > uneducated and rather ignorant source, and no such thing was
: > passed. Try going back and asking the OP for the bill numbes
and
: > such; or even research it on google.
:
: >Don't believe everything you read.
:
: Especially from ignorant people on Usenet....<g>
:
: "Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to
originate
: telecommunications or other types of communications that are
: transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without
disclosing
: his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or
harass any
: person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under
title 18
: or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
:
: SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.
:
: (a) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the
Communications Act
: of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended--
:
: (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `and' at the end;
:
: (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and
inserting `;
: and'; and
:
: (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
:
: `(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1),
includes any
: device or software that can be used to originate
telecommunications or
: other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or
in part, by
: the Internet (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the
Internet Tax
: Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).'.
:
: (b) Rule of Construction- This section and the amendment made
by this
: section may not be construed to affect the meaning given the
term
: `telecommunications device' in section 223(h)(1) of the
Communications Act
: of 1934, as in effect before the date of the enactment of this
section.
: -----------
:
:
LOL! Absolutely, "Especially from ignorant people on
Usenet....<g>" but I'd have left out the "ignorant" part.
I ass-u-me you're familiar with the CFRs et al, apparently, or at
least peripherally so. Your post is an excellent example of why
one cannot take most ANY paragraph and expect to have it read by
others for exactly what it means. Back in a previous life I was
a compliance eng and as such at that time was managing a
compliance lab so I managed to get pretty familiar with
interpreting them, AND then working with Bill Von Alven to see
what some of them REALLY meant! That's not a name-drop: If the
name's meaningful to you without looking it up, then we're
bretherin of a sort.
Pop
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Whatever he is, one might at first be inclined to attribute this
> to the same sort of incompetence that made it illegal for diabetics
> to inject themselves with insulin down in Georgia.
>
Yes indeed, the problem with representative democracy is we don't elect our
best and brightest. or even appoint them to the bench.
Of course, it was some legal-trained weenie that decided that self-injection
should extend to the therapeutic rather than the merely recreational.
Self-declared oligarch.
Looks like it's a two way street! Perhaps you should learn to curb your dog,
then perhaps you wouldn't step in it or keep your mouth shut.... Either
works!
"DouginUtah" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Annoying someone (anonymously) via the Internet is now a federal crime.
>
> http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html
>
> Look out Stinky, they're coming to get you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Call your mother
"DouginUtah" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Annoying someone (anonymously) via the Internet is now a federal crime.
>
> http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html
>
> Look out Stinky, they're coming to get you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Actually, in a way, it is a joke - because it's a seriously
misinterpreted and incorrect statement of the "situation" by an
uneducated and rather ignorant source, and no such thing was
passed. Try going back and asking the OP for the bill numbes and
such; or even research it on google. Don't believe everything
you read.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:58:23 -0700, "DouginUtah"
<[email protected]>
: wrote:
:
: >Annoying someone (anonymously) via the Internet is now a
federal crime.
: >
:
>http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html
: >
: >Look out Stinky, they're coming to get you.
: >
:
: So what part of "the right to freedom of speech ... shall not
be
: infringed" has Congress apparently failed to understand?
Freedom from
: unreasonable search and siezure? check, that's in there,
Appropriate
: exercise of eminent domain? check, that's in there, "Not having
to quarter
: troops?, check, that's in there? Freedom to not be annoyed?
Nope, can't
: find that one.
:
: AAARGH!
:
: Define "annoy". If somebody tells *me* that Craftsman is the
apex of
: tool developement, that will annoy *me*. If I tell some people
that
: Craftsman power tools are near the bottom of the heap, that
will annoy some
: of those people.
:
:
:
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
:
: If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
:
:
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Yup, that's exactly what ignorant means, but on a group it's an
invitation to others to feel they have to prove how smart they
are, regardless. Without a solid context it's usually taken as a
rebuff, unfortunately. Sort of, I know what it means, but what
did the person who just called me or someone else that name think
it meant? I don't really care what anyone not close to me thinks
about me, but it makes my point I think, which is the same as
yours.
Hmm, interesting: If you have no knowledge of CFRs (and I
apologize for not spelling out what it stood for), where did you
come across the quoted material? Just curious. Some of it was
very close to what's in Title 47 of the CFRs as I recall it, so
... ? It's pretty raw text for cit'.gov or mygov and those
kinds of places.
I thought it made an excellent point, at any rate, though a
little covert in nature.
Cheers,
Pop
"DouginUtah" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
:
: "Pop" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:3wSxf.465$FS3.391@trndny04...
:
: > LOL! Absolutely, "Especially from ignorant people on
: > Usenet....<g>" but I'd have left out the "ignorant" part.
: ---------
: Pop,
:
: Just to ensure that I'm not misunderstood....
:
: When I use the word ignorant I do not equate it with the
commonly held
: belief that it means something akin to stupid. It does not. If
you call me
: ignorant you have not insulted me. You have just said there is
something I
: don't know.
:
: At least that's how I see it.
:
: I have no knowledge of CFRs (Code of Rederal Regulations?). But
with a
: handle of "Pop" I suspect we may still be "bretherin" of a
sort.
:
: -Doug
:
: > I ass-u-me you're familiar with the CFRs et al, apparently,
or at
: > least peripherally so. Your post is an excellent example of
why
: > one cannot take most ANY paragraph and expect to have it read
by
: > others for exactly what it means. Back in a previous life I
was
: > a compliance eng and as such at that time was managing a
: > compliance lab so I managed to get pretty familiar with
: > interpreting them, AND then working with Bill Von Alven to
see
: > what some of them REALLY meant! That's not a name-drop: If
the
: > name's meaningful to you without looking it up, then we're
: > bretherin of a sort.
: >
: > Pop
:
:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:58:23 -0700, "DouginUtah" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Annoying someone (anonymously) via the Internet is now a federal crime.
>
>http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html
>
>Look out Stinky, they're coming to get you.
>
So what part of "the right to freedom of speech ... shall not be
infringed" has Congress apparently failed to understand? Freedom from
unreasonable search and siezure? check, that's in there, Appropriate
exercise of eminent domain? check, that's in there, "Not having to quarter
troops?, check, that's in there? Freedom to not be annoyed? Nope, can't
find that one.
AAARGH!
Define "annoy". If somebody tells *me* that Craftsman is the apex of
tool developement, that will annoy *me*. If I tell some people that
Craftsman power tools are near the bottom of the heap, that will annoy some
of those people.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
In article <120120062258085297%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> Maybe it just depends on how close to an election we are... Right now,
> we have nothing happening to crow about.
What's the matter, Dave, aren't the Liberal pre-election hand-outs making it out
West? <G>
"Vote For Me! I Have Money!"
Honestly, isn't this the most pathetic bunch you've ever seen?
In my riding, I get to pick between a disbarred lawyer (the incumbent Roger
Galloway) and a Diesel-Dyke who thinks it's probably okay to kill for money.
Then two fringe artists. One who wants to put a flower in my gun and one who
wants to whack me with a hammer and sickle.
Oh goody.
A full page add by Lee Valley in the Ottawa newspaper proclaiming the unfairness
of the new postal rates.
WAY TO GO LEONARD LEE!
"Pop" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:NdOxf.1586$GJ4.533@trndny08...
> Actually, in a way, it is a joke - because it's a seriously
> misinterpreted and incorrect statement of the "situation" by an
> uneducated and rather ignorant source, and no such thing was
> passed. Try going back and asking the OP for the bill numbes and
> such; or even research it on google.
>Don't believe everything you read.
Especially from ignorant people on Usenet....<g>
"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate
telecommunications or other types of communications that are
transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing
his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any
person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18
or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.
(a) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications Act
of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `and' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting `;
and'; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
`(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes any
device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or
other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by
the Internet (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax
Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).'.
(b) Rule of Construction- This section and the amendment made by this
section may not be construed to affect the meaning given the term
`telecommunications device' in section 223(h)(1) of the Communications Act
of 1934, as in effect before the date of the enactment of this section.
-----------
"Pop" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:3wSxf.465$FS3.391@trndny04...
> LOL! Absolutely, "Especially from ignorant people on
> Usenet....<g>" but I'd have left out the "ignorant" part.
---------
Pop,
Just to ensure that I'm not misunderstood....
When I use the word ignorant I do not equate it with the commonly held
belief that it means something akin to stupid. It does not. If you call me
ignorant you have not insulted me. You have just said there is something I
don't know.
At least that's how I see it.
I have no knowledge of CFRs (Code of Rederal Regulations?). But with a
handle of "Pop" I suspect we may still be "bretherin" of a sort.
-Doug
> I ass-u-me you're familiar with the CFRs et al, apparently, or at
> least peripherally so. Your post is an excellent example of why
> one cannot take most ANY paragraph and expect to have it read by
> others for exactly what it means. Back in a previous life I was
> a compliance eng and as such at that time was managing a
> compliance lab so I managed to get pretty familiar with
> interpreting them, AND then working with Bill Von Alven to see
> what some of them REALLY meant! That's not a name-drop: If the
> name's meaningful to you without looking it up, then we're
> bretherin of a sort.
>
> Pop
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:58:23 -0700, "DouginUtah" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Annoying someone (anonymously) via the Internet is now a federal crime.
> >
>
>http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.h
tml
> >
> >Look out Stinky, they're coming to get you.
> >
>
> So what part of "the right to freedom of speech ... shall not be
> infringed" has Congress apparently failed to understand? Freedom from
> unreasonable search and siezure? check, that's in there, Appropriate
> exercise of eminent domain? check, that's in there, "Not having to quarter
> troops?, check, that's in there? Freedom to not be annoyed? Nope, can't
> find that one.
>
> AAARGH!
>
> Define "annoy". If somebody tells *me* that Craftsman is the apex of
> tool developement, that will annoy *me*. If I tell some people that
> Craftsman power tools are near the bottom of the heap, that will annoy
some
> of those people.
Well, as far as freedom of speech, it would not be directly affected as the
law does not effect that, only that you cannot say whatever you want without
identifying yourself. I am not sure if it applies to Usenet as the article
did only specify the web and email. You can thank some right wing butthead
for this one. Oh, and BTW, Craftsman is the apex of tool development :-).
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving