Re: Adobe's Teeth. (Was: Re: [free-sklyarov] Re: Rallies on Monday)
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Black Unicorn wrote: I would be amused to see one of these cloistered techies in a real encounter with police, who recognize that the best legal argument they The only serious encounter I would risk with anything, is by means of anonymized (including resistance to trace analysis) physical proxy. So the threshold is pretty high. Who do you think we are, marines?
Adobe's Teeth. (Was: Re: [free-sklyarov] Re: Rallies on Monday)
- Original Message - From: Trei, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Black Unicorn' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 10:17 AM Subject: RE: Adobe's Teeth. (Was: Re: [free-sklyarov] Re: Rallies on Monday) From: Black Unicorn[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Exercise your right to free speech. Do it carefully. Use a spotter, protective equipment, and enlist a trained coach. Translate as: Use a lawyer, anonymous remailer, and enlist a PR expert. Good advice in either example.
RE: Adobe's Teeth. (Was: Re: [free-sklyarov] Re: Rallies on Monday)
-- From: Black Unicorn[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Exercise your right to free speech. Do it carefully. Use a spotter, protective equipment, and enlist a trained coach. Do warm up exercises first :-) Peter
Re: Adobe's Teeth. (Was: Re: [free-sklyarov] Re: Rallies on Monday)
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Black Unicorn wrote: Translate as: Use a lawyer, anonymous remailer, and enlist a PR expert. Good advice in either example. That's pretty constrained 'free speech'. -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, Let Tesla be, and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: Rallies on Monday
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 10:39:06PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: An unconstitutional law. A law which limits freedom in a country which is ultimately governed by Congress shall make no law... If you can't catch that clue, there is no hope. The interesting thing in this case is that Dmitry was not arrested for discussing or revealing information about Adobe's arguably-sucky copy protection system. If you read the FBI affidavit (http://cryptome.org/usa-v-sklyarov.htm), you'll note that the FBI seems only concerned about his commercial activities: [ ... ] That's because the DMCA only makes commercial circumvention a crime: (a) In general. -- Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, Wrong. See that phrase 'private financial gain'? That means that any(!!!) activity, private or commercial, which reduces the cash flow INTO the corporation is a legitimate target. So simply talking about it is most definitely a crime. So, while in this case they may not have decided to go this route, the route is still there. -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, Let Tesla be, and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: [free-sklyarov] Re: Rallies on Monday
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Seth Finkelstein wrote: While this is true, there's a very deep issue in the definition of protected. No there isn't, it's just that '...no law...' is onconvenient for people who believe they are angels among men: Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The problem is better rendered that the courts have taken the view that the protection of (intellectual) *property rights* trumps the free-speech concerns here. The problem is that courts believe they can interpret the constitution instead of as actually worded, being limited to laws made 'under' the constutition. A major distinction. -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, Let Tesla be, and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: Rallies on Monday
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Reese wrote: Just my 2 cents (after about 12 beers...) A little crazy? No. A lot drunk. Take two aspirin with the handful of clue pills, you'll need them. Besides, being drunk is no excuse for beind stupid. I mean, I boast a good in-excess-of-1-per-mille alcohol intoxication at the moment, and still manage to write in a relatively rational manner. Being drunk does *not* mean one is exempt from displaying manners, or that one can safely switch off one's intellect. Then, if one really can't cope with drugs as strong as alcohol, but still wants take them, sure. One just shouldn't be surprised if that leads to behavior one might regret later. He really does seem to need a clue pill. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
Re: Adobe's Teeth. (Was: Re: [free-sklyarov] Re: Rallies on Monday)
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote: Exercise your right to free speech. Do it carefully. Not carefully. Wisely. And what pray tell is 'wisely'? -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, Let Tesla be, and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: Rallies on Monday
At 8:23 PM -0400 7/20/01, GeEk wrote: Just wondering (because maybe you don't live in the US). But why are you all gonna protest because some Russian got arrested for breaking the law?? \ Probably because he got arrested on American Soil, by American Cops for breaking an American law while living and working in Russia. It also happens to be a law that many disagree with. Clear things up for you? (note, trimmed the CC line)
Re: Rallies on Monday
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 10:39:06PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: An unconstitutional law. A law which limits freedom in a country which is ultimately governed by Congress shall make no law... If you can't catch that clue, there is no hope. The interesting thing in this case is that Dmitry was not arrested for discussing or revealing information about Adobe's arguably-sucky copy protection system. If you read the FBI affidavit (http://cryptome.org/usa-v-sklyarov.htm), you'll note that the FBI seems only concerned about his commercial activities: Diaz affirmed that he believes the Elcomsoft Software program, coupled with the Elcomsoft unlocking key, circumvents protection afforded by a technological measure developed by Adobe for its Acrobat eBook Reader either by avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactiviating, or otherwise impairing the technological measure. I believe Dmitry Sklyarov, employee of Elcomsoft and the individual listed on the Elcomsoft software products as the copyright holder of the program sold and produced by Elcomsoft, known as the Advanced eBook Processor, has willfully and for financial gain (etc.) That's because the DMCA only makes commercial circumvention a crime: (a) In general. -- Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, (1) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years or both, for the first offense Non-commercial circumvention may, of course, be a civil offense, as 2600 found out in the New York case brought by the movie studios. This state of affairs creates a mild problem (to go back to the recent topic of discussion on cypherpunks) for those who strongly believe in the First Amendment when applied to nonprofit or not-for-profit speech but less so when it comes to speech that's part of a commercial transaction. For instance, a guy ranting on Usenet, they say, should have free speech rights, but the tobacco companies or pharmaceutical companies can properly be muzzled. Let's hope Dmitry, a budding capitalist, doesn't fall into that same commercial-speech-can-be-regulated catchall. -Declan
Re: [free-sklyarov] Re: Rallies on Monday
Declan McCullagh writes: That's because the DMCA only makes commercial circumvention a crime: (a) In general. -- Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, (1) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years or both, for the first offense Non-commercial circumvention may, of course, be a civil offense, as 2600 found out in the New York case brought by the movie studios. This state of affairs creates a mild problem (to go back to the recent topic of discussion on cypherpunks) for those who strongly believe in the First Amendment when applied to nonprofit or not-for-profit speech but less so when it comes to speech that's part of a commercial transaction. For instance, a guy ranting on Usenet, they say, should have free speech rights, but the tobacco companies or pharmaceutical companies can properly be muzzled. Let's hope Dmitry, a budding capitalist, doesn't fall into that same commercial-speech-can-be-regulated catchall. I agree, and I fear that this is why StreamBox settled in the _Real Networks v. Streambox_ case. They didn't necessarily feel optimistic that their commercial speech would be protected in the view of the courts. The outcome of that case is certainly troubling for this one. For those who don't want to protest Adobe on Monday, why don't you go protest Real Networks? Goodness knows they could use it. :-) Streambox VCR is useful in some of the same ways as AEBPR, although there are perhaps more legal uses for AEBPR and more illegal uses for Streambox VCR. They are both proprietary commercial software and many people do argue that there is a free speech right to sell them (as there is a free speech right to sell books!). But it would be more immediately obvious if they were free/open source. Unfortunately, courts already seem to have a hard enough time believing that electronic publication of free/open source software is protected by the first amendment. -- Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
Re: [free-sklyarov] Re: Rallies on Monday
Declan McCullagh wrote: This state of affairs creates a mild problem (to go back to the recent topic of discussion on cypherpunks) for those who strongly believe in the First Amendment when applied to nonprofit or not-for-profit speech but less so when it comes to speech that's part of a commercial transaction. Heck, Declan, as far as I recall, you don't believe that the First Amendment applies to people who merely REPEAT (for profit) too many words you originally wrote as speech that's part of a certain commercial transaction (i.e. copyrighted articles, which you are paid for). In fact, I can't look this up now, but I believe you've posted to the cypherpunks list on this very topic in the past. You want the government to punish people who simply say too many words that you originally said. Isn't that very inconsistent philosophically for you? By the way, as you know, this distinction is enshrined in copyright law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; Let's hope Dmitry, a budding capitalist, doesn't fall into that same commercial-speech-can-be-regulated catchall. But Declan, as a Libertarian proselytizer. how can you justify making your living from a government-granted monopoly which infringes on free speech? Note the above is not necessarily my view. But if you are going to try to use this tragedy to recruit people for silly Libertarian ideology, I think consistency demands you apply the same argument to your articles too. Have you changed your views on this topic since I last saw them discussed? -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sethf.com http://www10.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circuits/19HACK.html
Re: [free-sklyarov] Re: Rallies on Monday
Adobe- owing to the kidnapping of its big wig some time ago- is very paranoid. Please be aware and be cautious as they may be prone to overreact to taunting. (Do not taunt happy-fun-acrobat). This looks like a joke. If so, it is really hilarious, but otherwise sorry. Unfortunately it's not. So Adobe thugs will pour out of the building sprayng crowd with machine-gun fire ? Corporate commandos will make arrests and cart them to software sweatshops ? What exactly peaceful banner-carrying demonstrators on the public grounds should be afraid of ? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: [free-sklyarov] Re: Rallies on Monday
Seth David Schoen wrote: Unfortunately, courts already seem to have a hard enough time believing that electronic publication of free/open source software is protected by the first amendment. While this is true, there's a very deep issue in the definition of protected. The problem is better rendered that the courts have taken the view that the protection of (intellectual) *property rights* trumps the free-speech concerns here. There's a very revealing paragraph in the DeCSS decision concerning this: Thus, even if one accepted defendants' argument that the anti-trafficking prohibition of the DMCA is content based because it regulates only code that expresses the programmer's ideas for circumventing access control measures, the question would remain whether such code--code designed to circumvent measures controlling access to private or legally protected data--nevertheless could be regulated on the basis of that content. For the reasons set forth in the text, the Court concludes that it may. Alternatively, even if such a categorical or definitional approach were eschewed, the Court would uphold the application of the DMCA now before it on the ground that this record establishes an imminent threat of danger flowing from ^^ dissemination of DeCSS that far outweighs the need for unfettered ^ communication of that program. See Landmark Communications, ^ Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 842-43 (1978). -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sethf.com http://www10.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circuits/19HACK.html
Re: [free-sklyarov] Re: Rallies on Monday
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Morlock Elloi wrote: So Adobe thugs will pour out of the building sprayng crowd with machine-gun fire ? Corporate commandos will make arrests and cart them to software sweatshops ? What exactly peaceful banner-carrying demonstrators on the public grounds should be afraid of ? The police, and possibly military presence, responding to Adobe executives panicked calls that they are under attack by an armed mob of anarchists bent on the utter destruction of our building and grounds and possibly the murder of our employees and executives... Adobe security guys behind a window on the third floor of the building, scanning the crowd with a high-resolution camera, and the $MILLIONS they are willing to spend to hire a private investigator to find out who each and every one of the people in the picture is so that police complaints can be filed against each and every one, and charges brought for criminal trespass, even if it takes months And of course the money spent tracking them all down will be on the bill of damages they try to recover Illegal sweetheart deals that have been worked out with police officials and/or private security whereby they've pretty much agreed in advance that if Adobe puts out the right codeword, a bunch of muscular men in riot gear will show up to HURT the attackers - this could involve the deployment of tear gas or pepper spray. Miscellaneous water cannon, rubber bullets, and, worst of all, thundering herds of lawyers both for attack and defense. I'm pretty sure attack dogs are effectively banned in California due to astronomical liability settlements, but otherwise you'd have to worry about that. Make no mistake, an american company with a really paranoid bent can make life sheer hell for any who have the temerity to show up protesting on its grounds. It costs them a lot of goodwill though -- if they pull out all the stops more than once every few years, it's going to seriously hurt their reputation and their business. I doubt that Adobe will go the whole route here: I bet they'll go as far as meeting the protesters with a full cordon of armed law officers, but if things stay peaceful, the two groups will probably be able to just stand a respectful distance apart and wave at each other politely. They'll probably scan the crowd with a high-res camera, but probably won't bother to file charges unless someone throws a rock or something. And we're not likely to see water cannon or pepper spray used unless someone actually gets inside one of the buildings. Bear
Re: Rallies on Monday
At 11:09 AM 7/21/01 -0700, David Honig wrote: And the FBI identifies him as the copyright holder. What would they have done if a group[1] was listed after the (C)? [1] registered corporation, anonymous coders, anonymous registered corporation (?) etc. Your guess is as good as mine, and I'll defer to the criminal lawyers here, if there are any. My suspicion: In truly criminal enterprises, I suspect they'd go after the officers of the corporation. But in practice trafficking is a broad prohibition, and the Feds will arrest anyone involved who sets foot in the U.S. -Declan
Adobe's Teeth. (Was: Re: [free-sklyarov] Re: Rallies on Monday)
- Original Message - From: Subcommander Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 11:20 AM Subject: Re: [free-sklyarov] Re: Rallies on Monday Black Unicorn Scribed: Adobe- owing to the kidnapping of its big wig some time ago- is very paranoid. Please be aware and be cautious as they may be prone to overreact to taunting. (Do not taunt happy-fun-acrobat). Someone answered: This looks like a joke. If so, it is really hilarious, but otherwise sorry. I replied: Unfortunately it's not. At 10:03 AM 7/21/01 -0700, Morlock Elloi replied: So Adobe thugs will pour out of the building sprayng crowd with machine-gun fire ? Corporate commandos will make arrests and cart them to software sweatshops ? What exactly peaceful banner-carrying demonstrators on the public grounds should be afraid of ? Quite a lot actually. This is why I like most cypherpunks. They have the most charming naiveté about the real world. It's quaint. I see it most often in their propensity to argue to most obscure technical-legal points with the full expectation that a judge isn't just going to say that's specious counselor, have any real arguments? I love hearing things like: Well if I just have the micromint transfer all its money to itself first then that's legally a transaction, right? or I'm not transferring the e-gold to the user, I'm transferring it to his key, so there are no taxes! or Sorry your honor, I used key splitting to put the key in 4 jurisdictions so I can't recover the critical financial data under subpoena. Now you have to send me home. Hee hee! The second most frequent expression of this kind of sheltered thinking is in the political-societal belief that there is no such thing as street justice in the United States and that officers aren't prone to poke the odd protestor with a nightstick in any country except Mexico or India or the Middle East or some other far away and out of sight place. But this is AMERICA! or But I'm an AMERICAN! Good morning. How was your sleep? I would be amused to see one of these cloistered techies in a real encounter with police, who recognize that the best legal argument they have on the street is a good whack to opposing counsel's head and that about the most serious ramifications of this might be that the protestor gets off scott free after 48 hours in holding with the gang bangers. It's pretty easy to get arrested in a protest situation. Life is manifestly unfair to arrestees. You decide what you want to do about it. Adobe is a large and influential company in the Valley. It may very well be responsible for getting the Commissioner of Labor in California removed from office simply because they disagreed with his ruling on forced vacations for their employees. Adobe's co-founder is easily spooked and Adobe has had it's run-ins with violence before. This event is well publicized and Adobe knows its coming. Draw your own conclusions about how Adobe might prepare. What would you do in Adobe's place? (I know you are suddenly tempted to come up with a witty reply. It's a rhetorical question, smartass). Here is an article on the kidnapping of Adobe co-founder Chuck Geschke: http://www.losaltosonline.com/latc/arch/9742/Exclusiv/1adobe/1adobe.html An excerpt: It was supposed to be a normal day at the office for Adobe Systems president Charles Chuck Geschke when he pulled into the parking lot of his Mountain View headquarters on May 26, 1992. Instead, his kidnapping at gunpoint by two Arabic men began a five-day nightmare in which Geschke was blindfolded and unaware of his location. His frantic family, in the meantime, enlisted the help of the FBI in a search that was the biggest of its kind since the kidnapping of Patti Hearst. Chuck's rescue was triggered by daughter Kathy's drop-off of ransom money and her negotiations with the captors. The news of the kidnapping made headlines all over the world. The family, still, has not fully recovered from the emotional harm. [...] To this day, [Chuck] still has flashbacks when he drives into a parking lot void of cars or people. And he has replayed his capture dozens of times, both during and after captivity, questioning his decision to obey the armed stranger. The nightmares, which continue to this day, were just the start of a whole new deck of fears the family had to deal with once they returned to Los Altos after their month retreat. Chuck's insecurities about his safety invaded all aspects of his life. The 6-foot, 1-inch, 220-pound Chuck now scares easily. I see someone walking or parking in front of the house and I try to notice if there is anything suspicious about it. I never, never had that feeling ever in my life before. I've always been a very open person, never felt any physical fear of any kind, he said. end excerpt. Following the kidnapping Adobe made such substantial changes to security that employees jokingly, and not so
Re: Adobe's Teeth. (Was: Re: [free-sklyarov] Re: Rallies on Monday)
At 01:43 PM 7/21/2001 -0700, Black Unicorn wrote: - Original Message - From: Subcommander Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 11:20 AM Subject: Re: [free-sklyarov] Re: Rallies on Monday What exactly peaceful banner-carrying demonstrators on the public grounds should be afraid of ? Quite a lot actually. This is why I like most cypherpunks. They have the most charming naiveti about the real world. It's quaint. I see it most often in their propensity to argue to most obscure technical-legal points with the full expectation that a judge isn't just going to say that's specious counselor, have any real arguments? I love hearing things like: Well if I just have the micromint transfer all its money to itself first then that's legally a transaction, right? or I'm not transferring the e-gold to the user, I'm transferring it to his key, so there are no taxes! or Sorry your honor, I used key splitting to put the key in 4 jurisdictions so I can't recover the critical financial data under subpoena. Now you have to send me home. Hee hee! The second most frequent expression of this kind of sheltered thinking is in the political-societal belief that there is no such thing as street justice in the United States and that officers aren't prone to poke the odd protestor with a nightstick in any country except Mexico or India or the Middle East or some other far away and out of sight place. But this is AMERICA! or But I'm an AMERICAN! Good morning. How was your sleep? I would be amused to see one of these cloistered techies in a real encounter with police, who recognize that the best legal argument they have on the street is a good whack to opposing counsel's head and that about the most serious ramifications of this might be that the protestor gets off scott free after 48 hours in holding with the gang bangers. It's pretty easy to get arrested in a protest situation. Life is manifestly unfair to arrestees. You decide what you want to do about it. A lesson not lost of The Founders, many who paid with their lives and their fortunes even if they did keep their sacred honor. Even if you are non-violently demonstrating BU is correct that you still may pay a heavy price. You need to decide before you demonstrate: how important this issue you're protesting is, how far you're willing to take your protests and what you may be risking in doing so. Then make preparations accordingly. All Western countries fear losing the support of their middle class, tax paying, citizens. To the extent that the Vietnam demonstrations succeeded it was because they were able to elicit police riots in response to what many felt were mostly non-violent (if not legal) demonstrations and swing public opinion. Of course, the release of the Pentagon Papers, which credibly confirmed \what many of the demonstrators had been saying of U.S. goals and involvement in S.E. Asia, didn't hurt either. steve
Rallies on Monday
http://www.boycottadobe.com/pages/rallies.html is now the home for the rally announcements. If you're planning on attending one, please visit this page for info. If you're holding one, please let us know so we can add it to the page. Thanks! -- Len Sassaman Security Architect| Technology Consultant | Let be be finale of seem. | http://sion.quickie.net | --Wallace Stevens
Re: Rallies on Monday
Note: Adobe- owing to the kidnapping of its big wig some time ago- is very paranoid. Please be aware and be cautious as they may be prone to overreact to taunting. (Do not taunt happy-fun-acrobat). - Original Message - From: Len Sassaman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 6:39 PM Subject: Rallies on Monday http://www.boycottadobe.com/pages/rallies.html is now the home for the rally announcements. If you're planning on attending one, please visit this page for info. If you're holding one, please let us know so we can add it to the page. Thanks! -- Len Sassaman Security Architect| Technology Consultant | Let be be finale of seem. | http://sion.quickie.net | --Wallace Stevens
Rallies on Monday
http://www.boycottadobe.com/pages/rallies.html is now the home for the rally announcements. If you're planning on attending one, please visit this page for info. If you're holding one, please let us know so we can add it to the page. Thanks! -- Len Sassaman Security Architect| Technology Consultant | Let be be finale of seem. | http://sion.quickie.net | --Wallace Stevens
Re: Rallies on Monday
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, GeEk wrote: Just wondering (because maybe you don't live in the US). But why are you all gonna protest because some Russian got arrested for breaking the law?? An unconstitutional law. A law which limits freedom in a country which is ultimately governed by Congress shall make no law... If you can't catch that clue, there is no hope. Don't you have anything better to do with you're time??? It isn't 'my time' in the above situation, I've gotta go ask my master before I can answer your question. It is however a nicely gilded cage. (this isn't a flame but if that's how you want to take it be my guest, just wondering why we are soo concerned about some russian.. the principle?? If you want to protest something why not put you're effort into blowing open the Gary Condit fuck up... ) No accounting for taste. I mean this ass hole fucked some Intern and then killed her... maybe I'm a little crazy here (which I have been told oftern that I am) but that seems a hell of a lot more important then some fucking Commie. If you got proof, run with it...nobody else seems to have any proof. Just my 2 cents (after about 12 beers...) ;) -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, Let Tesla be, and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: Rallies on Monday
Reese, I know there are things about the U.S govt that you can't or aren't willing to understand. And if you really have such a small Brain that you can't see Condit is part of the murder then I really have nothing more to say to you.. once day you will learn more about the Media their filters, politics and Money... untill then continue to flame people for your ignorance. I won't respond to any more of you're flames.. I know the truth and if you really belelive that me calling into the D.C police or anyone for that matter is really going to mean anything you might want to reevaluate your understanding of how the System works... it is't as it seems not even close.. -- LinSys http://www.visi0n.net Unix / Security Online Info - When you die and your life flashes before your eyes does that include the part where your life flashes before your eyes? - On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Reese wrote: At 02:23 PM 7/20/01, dumbGeEk wrote: into blowing open the Gary Condit fuck up... ) I mean this ass hole fucked some Intern and then killed her... Your proof that he killed her? You've shared it with the D.C. police I take it? Condit is in custody now? Or should we downgrade this fantastically strong assertion to just your wild assed guess, and send the nice young men in clean white coats after you, to check you out? maybe I'm a little crazy here (which I have been told oftern that I am) but that seems a hell of a lot more important then some fucking Commie. Anyone who cannot distinguish between Russian citizens who were victims under communism and Communists deserves to be treated like a Communist. You need more than two clue pills. Just my 2 cents (after about 12 beers...) A little crazy? No. A lot drunk. Take two aspirin with the handful of clue pills, you'll need them. Oh, this is the last time I'm going to leave your To: and Cc: includes intact. If you don't have the style, grace or courtesy to send separate emails to different lists, you deserve the hangover you should wake up with and 10,000 more all at once too. Fuckhead. Reese
