Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 17:40 Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:17:57 -0700, JoeBloe > <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > > ><snip> > >I know my rights, and the law you twits keep spewing on about will > >get shot down in the supreme court, whether by me or another. > > Actually, I hope you are right about the Supreme Court on this > subject. You think ppl *should* be allowed to use the net to harass or threaten other ppl ? Graham
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 15 Oct 2006 17:45 On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:40:03 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > >> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:17:57 -0700, JoeBloe >> <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >> >> ><snip> >> >I know my rights, and the law you twits keep spewing on about will >> >get shot down in the supreme court, whether by me or another. >> >> Actually, I hope you are right about the Supreme Court on this >> subject. > >You think ppl *should* be allowed to use the net to harass or threaten >other ppl ? No, I just think that the kinds of name calling I see around here is pretty minor (bothersome, yes) compared with the costs of allowing some central, highly authoritarian system to jail folks with the final and ultimate willingness to kill folks over it (by this, I mean that if the local police come out to arrest you, for example, and you refuse to accept their authority, the ultimate place where increasing the level of refusal and insistance ultimately much culminate in the willingness of authorities to apply the ultimate force to achieve their authority.) I would rather a free expression forum, even if that means people go around making threats. The place I'd draw the line would be when they make "credible threats." It would be the credibility of that threat that would trigger, for me, the willingness to get authorities involved. That's how I see it, anyway. Jon
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 17:47 T Wake wrote: > "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message > >Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> Gave us: > >>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? Under the law it has merely to be perceived as a threat to come under its jurisdiction. After all, any thug can say "I didn't really mean it " ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 17:48 T Wake wrote: > why do you[JB] keep pretending you can beat me in a fight? It's the only way he knows of 'winning an argument' suince his mental capacity is too feeble to do it the normal way. Graham
From: T Wake on 15 Oct 2006 17:49
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4532AC5B.C4C150A(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >> >Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> Gave us: >> >>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? > > Under the law it has merely to be perceived as a threat to come under its > jurisdiction. After all, any thug can say "I didn't really mean it " ! Very true. The credibility is the issue though. JoeBloe is probably incapable of aggressively opening a packet of crisps. If a six year old girl came up to you and said she was going to beat you up, you'd laugh and tell her to go away. JoeBloe is that six year old girl. |