Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2006 15:14 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "Robert Latest" <boblatest(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote > > > >> I didn't like FT; it was stupid situation/embarassment comedy like "I > >> Love Lucy", nowhere near Monte Python level. > > > > Have you seen the recent BBC series, "Extras"? It's as close as it gets > > to MP, though entirely different. > > That's also on HBO, set in Hollywood, with Ricky Gervais, right? I really > wanted to like it (I love both the US and UK versions of "The Office"), but > sadly it kind of bored me, frankly. It doesn't cut it for me either. Much modern 'humour' falls flat on its face to my way of thinking. It's mainly rather boring and unoriginal. Graham
From: Kurt Ullman on 5 Oct 2006 15:15 In article <yecVg.8912$GR.1933(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > Maybe, maybe not, but in any case, the scenario that Jim presented is > immaterial. It is still a private citizen behaving as a private citizen. > Now, if the government were to come to that citizen and say "please tap your > phone when you call X", it would be thrown out in most courts in the US, > since that person would be interpreted as working as an ad hoc agent of the > government. That can be very dependent on the law in the particular state. In those states where the law says that as long as one person consents to taping a phone conversation, then it may get through even under those circumstances. The equivalent of if I am informant and I get a cop into a meeting somewhere, then you can't say the cop needed a warrant to enter the premises later. In others, where the requirement is both, then it is more likely to get thrown out. Most cops and DAs I know woudn't suggest that to a person just because it easier to get the warrant than it is to argue it under other circumstances.
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 15:15 "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:kurtullman-5311CC.18523604102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx... > In article <peb8i2lf4af0irq171tqukscc9n0lec541(a)4ax.com>, > Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:51:21 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >> >In article <HLVUg.13315$7I1.5654(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >> > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> I don't care. If you're listening to a phone call to which the phone >> >> in >> >> my >> >> living room is party, then as a citizen of the US, I demand that your >> >> listening be carried out according to my Constitutional rights. >> > >> > Probably is. Under a warrant for a phone anything that goes on over >> >that phone is legally admissable, even if the other person's phone >> >doesn't have a warrant on it. It well settled that as long as one phone >> >is legally tapped, any phone that calls it or is called by it is fair >> >game. Since there are no restrictions on tapping a phone outside of the >> >country, it would be legal tap. Thus anyone the phone calls or anyone >> >who calls the phone could be listened to as noted. Would be a rather >> >interesting case to make. >> >> And it varies state-by-state... it is legal in Arizona to record all >> calls on your own phone, _without_ notifying the other party. >> >> All I need to do is push a button ;-) > > There are two different things going on here. One is what you can > do as private citizen, which in AZ is that all are fair game. But we > were talking about what goverment (be it under the mantel of cop-dom or > spook-dom) can do. Whole 'nother kettle of fish.. Doesn't make it "right."
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 15:15 "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:kurtullman-2ACD69.18550504102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx... > In article <adKdneADy_ehrbnYRVnyiQ(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >> It is good that you have these loopholes to circumvent civil liberties. > > He is civilian not a cop. BIG difference. Really? So that makes it Ok then. The implication of the post was it would be OK for him to do these things to other people because there were sufficient loopholes that he would not be in trouble. If you feel this is not the case of a loop hole which circumvents civil liberties then fine. People have a right to respect others liberties - not just law enforcement officials. It may be different in your country.
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2006 15:16
Ken Smith wrote: > T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >A surprisingly small number of Islamic extremists are actually willing to > >die for their cause you know? > > Their belief system encourages it with promices of virgins etc It's a *distorted* version of their 'belief system' that does that. Don't blame Islam. Graham |