Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 17:24 JoeBloe wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >JoeBloe wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >> > >> >Why not? Are you banned from leaving your house? I will be in the US soon on > >> >business if you want to meet up. > >> > >> It's called the law. And, no, I do not want to meet you, jackass. > >> > >> I would surely end up in prison for removing your voluntary capacity > >> to use oxygen. > > > >I'd watch it if I were you. > > > >That could be seen as a threat. > > > Wrong again, dumbfuck. If you're not careful you're going to get reported. You realise you're comitting a federal offence ? Graham
From: T Wake on 15 Oct 2006 17:27 "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message news:1160947154.480103.70710(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > T Wake wrote: >> "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >> news:df55j2l9e2oo3kqfltihfvdehckdarn529(a)4ax.com... >> > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:38:08 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan >> > <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> Gave us: >> > >> >>On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:05:57 +0100, Eeyore >> >><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>JoeBloe wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >> >>>> >> >>>> >Why not? Are you banned from leaving your house? I will be in the >> >>>> >US >> >>>> >soon on >> >>>> >business if you want to meet up. >> >>>> >> >>>> It's called the law. And, no, I do not want to meet you, jackass. >> >>>> >> >>>> I would surely end up in prison for removing your voluntary >> >>>> capacity >> >>>> to use oxygen. >> >>> >> >>>I'd watch it if I were you. >> >>> >> >>>That could be seen as a threat. >> >> >> >>Especially given that new law that applies in the US, about threats >> >>made under pseudonyms, discussed elsewhere in sci.electronics. :) >> >> >> > >> > Since it isn't a threat to begin with, dipshit, it has no bearing. >> >> Really? >> >> "I would surely end up in prison for removing your voluntary capacity to >> use >> oxygen." >> >> Carries an implied threat.You can wax lyrical about how it's not a >> "threat" >> but the reality is, it was. >> >> That said, I find you about as frightening as a garden gnome so you >> really >> will have to try harder if you want to either impress or intimidate me. >> If >> you want to do neither, why do you keep pretending you can beat me in a >> fight? > > I think you may have hit on exactly why JoeBloe's post could not be > rated as a threat. If I stated that I was going to shoot you with my > N-ray gun, it could not be taken seriously and thus would not rate as a > threat. Basically JoeBloe by stating that his post was not a threat is > telling you that you can safely assume that no such threat could be > taken seriously. He does bloe a lot of hot air. It does make me wonder why he keeps going on about how tough he is and saying things like he will "post edit my face" when it reality he is picked upon by six year old girls.
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 17:28 JoeBloe wrote: > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:51:08 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the > >Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy." > > My intent is not to annoy. If you get annoyed, that's your problem. It's now your problem sunshine. You can fix that ( the federal offence ) by posting using your real name btw. Graham
From: T Wake on 15 Oct 2006 17:38 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:bs85j2pauvngavectctj1cco09m3jn8104(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:11:33 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:18:26 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >>> > On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:36:51 +0100, Eeyore >>> > >>> >>When does Bush get impeached ? >>> > >>> > Not worth the bother. His term expires in 2008. >>> > >>> >>When does the Republican Party get impeached ? >>> > >>> > Sorry, there's no provision for impeaching a party. >>> > >>> > But the real question is, why are you so obsessive about US politics? >>> > We >>> > ignore your politics, so it's only fair that you ignore ours. >>> >>> He's afraid of becoming a victim of "collateral damage", or maybe >>> "friendly fire". >> >>That and I also believe in ethical behavior. > > --- > As long as you can define what's ethical Isn't that the case for everyone? Doesn't everyone have to define their own ethical compass?
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 17:38
JoeBloe wrote: > I know my rights, Bwahahahahahaha. They all say that ! > and the law you twits keep spewing on about will > get shot down in the supreme court, whether by me or another. (a) Prohibited acts generally Whoever? (1) in interstate or foreign communications? (A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly? (i) makes, creates, or solicits, and (ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person; (B) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly? (i) makes, creates, or solicits, and (ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication; (C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications; (D) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or (E) makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication; or (2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000223----000-.html |