>>> doctor_gabby_savy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>So I checked the last 50 or so Technology arttices in the >>>NYTimes. And the last 50 or so articles in the "Washington" >>>section. Could't find anything close to what the poster cited. >>>So I did a search on "anonymous" and seperately on "annoy". >>>There are no articles in the past week containing these words >>>that appear to have anything to do with what the poster says >>>he read.
>> TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> responded: >>Well, it took me one...count them, ONE...Google search >>to find exactly what he was talking about, including >>several news articles. >>Anyone with half a brain would have Googled on the name >>of the law itself. > Judy (authfriend) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> then wrote: > For the record, I couldn't find it on the NYTimes > site either. I think Michael may have misremembered > where he saw the piece. Dear Judy, Thanks for bringing this up in such a reasonable way, compared to the "hysterical" flaming that others have so easily been nudged into during the past few days. Here are the facts: I subscribe to an e-mail newsletter, published weekly by the NY Times, called "Circuits" - a NY Times digest of technology news. I received this week's NY Times "Circuits" digest on 26 Jan 06 - and that same day I wrote the post about it for this list. I slept on that post overnight as I usually do, looked at it again the next morn- ing, edited it a bit to make sure it clearly reflected what I wanted to say, and posted the info to FFLife the day after I got it from an official NY Times publication. You can access that NY Times techno- logy digest by going to the following link (which all needs to be on one line in case Yahoo breaks it up). You may have to be a NY Times member to access it - they don't charge anything to sign up.) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/26/technology/circuits/26POGUE-EMAIL.html The author of "Circuits", David Pogue, had a link in his lead article which leads to the information I quoted. Although the link was sent to me by the NY Times - the link actually leads to an article on news.com, authored by Declan McCullagh, "Chief Political Correspondent, CNETnews. com", entitled "Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail". Here is the link to that article as given in the NY Times "Circuits" digest (again, remember to put it all back on one line): http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3- 6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news If you read the whole article, you'll see that for brevity and to stay on point, I didn't quote it all, just the parts that I felt were rele- vant, especially the parts that introduce and quote the new Federal law. So my statements in my original post were accurate: 1. It WAS info published by the NY Times. 2. It WAS published by the NY Times on the date that I said (or the day before if you take into account that I held my post back till the next morning). 3. It IS a real, fairly recent (and disturbing) Federal law. Beyond that, opinions about how this law will be applied, how it will be interpreted by courts, appeals courts, etc., what it was intended to be applied to, what it WILL be applied to...that is up to each of us to figure out - and to watch unfold over time. I really doubt whether sincere, thoughtful opinions about any of that will be affected by whether it was actually published by the NY Times or by other news agencies, or by whether it became law that day, the day before, or a few weeks before. People that Judy is responding to, who made a big deal of those and other peripheral points, are just creating a big fog of distraction - either to avoid the simple main point I was making, to create general confusion and argument, or to put me down because I irritate them. A wise man once said: "The intellect supports the heart". To me that means that we will select evidence (what we look at, what we read, what we believe, what we choose to filter out and ignore) to support our deepest emotional needs, our life-script, our issues. We will "find" evidence to "prove" that we are right, that we are OK - to prove that we don't have to look into those dark places inside our- selves that we live to avoid. It's fascinating to see how some of the very people on this list who love to annoy people, to attack people, to argue, to diminish others - some of the bullies who feel so much need to puff themselves up by putting others down - feel so threatened by my reference to the new Federal law that might, even possibly, threaten their style. Look at how they jumped around, searched for and pounced on any commentator who wrote an opinion that supports the way they'd like the world to keep working, and then quoted it as though they've "proved" their case. Look at how they avoided the obvious, intelligent search mechanisms that calmer, more balanced people immediately used and reported here (Google, etc.). By their own "research", they put "stability" back into their universe; they attack and diminish the messenger (me); they feel safe; they feel big; they feel in control. But really, look at what it took to control THEM, to set them in mo- tion, to turn on their predictable response patterns. Look at what it took to get them to perform like trained monkeys! Look at what it took to elicit so many e-mails from them, so much attacking of me, so much of their time and attention spent on such silliness. It took just a few paragraphs of typing by me in that original post. So who's in control of whom here? It's amusing. ;) Of course, I know this will be good enough to stimulate at least a dozen more entertaining posts by the resident court jesters. You go, dudes! P.S. To the poster who claimed that my interpretation of the danger to individual posters or this group, based on this new Federal law, was wildly misstated and paranoid, and who claimed that I was ignorantly suggesting some departure from due process: Yahoo is not required to wait for due process through the courts in order to take action against members or groups. Yahoo can establish their own policies (Terms of Service), their own process for evaluat- ing complaints, and their own consequences for violations (or even perceived violations) of those Terms of Service. They can unsub- scribe a Yahoo member, or demolish a Yahoo group, for reasons that fall far short of violating any laws; they can also act on "evidence" (complaints, etc.) that would never meet legal standards. They are a private company, not the official legal system. Since Yahoo's Terms of Service (that we agreed to in return for the free services that they provide) prohibit illegal activities, they could decide to apply this new Federal law strictly. Time will tell. Of course, Yahoo could decide to ban a Yahoo member, or disband a Yahoo group, on much flimsier evidence than the official legal system requires. Belief to the contrary is naive and silly. Anyone who fol- lows the controversies about seemingly arbitrary actions by Yahoo re- alizes this. People are banned, and groups mysteriously disappear, every week in the universe of Yahoo. No due process, no facing your accusers, rarely an appeal...sometimes just electrons moving in the dead of night. P.P.S. And to the poster who asked if I was implying that I planned to make use of this new law (to harm FF Life?). The answer is: no. It often amazes me how people read things through the filter of their own issues. Where would you get even a hint of that from anything I actually wrote, or from my history here since the very beginning of this list years ago? If I don't like someone's energy here, I just simply don't read their stuff (delete key or filter-direct-to-trash), or if I read it I control myself and don't reply. And if I didn't like the general tone of the whole group, I could just simply stop reading the digests for a while, or unsubscribe. (All of these are skills that, if more widely practiced by some here, would make life more charming for many.) But if I did that (unsubscribed), how could I keep my finger (attention) on the pulse of the good and the evil here, and pass it all along to Santa Clause or whoever is making a list? ;) And notice that I DO sign my real name here - always have, always will. I can understand anonymity from Movement folks who fear repercussions from participating here, but you folks who joust and attack and bully and rant, hiding behind anonymity here - in my opinion you are simply cowards. Prove me wrong. Reveal yourselves. Take responsibility for your words. Step out of the shadows into the light. Namaste, Michael PARA - THE CENTER FOR REALIZATION Michael Dean Goodman Ph.D., D.D., Director Boca Raton (Palm Beach County) Florida * 561-350-3930 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] Counseling * Workshops * Educational Sessions * Presentations * Satsang Clients and programs throughout the United States, Europe, and India ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
