Amazing...
-Original Message-
From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 1:03 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Pistorious not guilty of murder
Wow...justwow.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Vivec wrote:
>
> What the hell!!?
>
That's why he went with a bench trial, rather than a jury trial.
Lawyers and judges have no problem setting aside reasonable conclusions,
and falling back to "there isnt enough evidence either way".
Especially when they want to.
Try to convince 12 peers he didnt do it. Wasn't going to happen wi
I'm waiting for some to say that "she deserved it"
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> Wow...justwow.
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Vivec wrote:
>
> >
> > What the hell!!?
> >
> > The guy shot his girlfriend 4 times in the bathroom!! He didn't even see
> > h
Wow...justwow.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Vivec wrote:
>
> What the hell!!?
>
> The guy shot his girlfriend 4 times in the bathroom!! He didn't even see
> her, he shot through the door, they were the only ones in the room!
>
> How the hell is this not murder!??
>
>
> http://gawker
What the hell!!?
The guy shot his girlfriend 4 times in the bathroom!! He didn't even see
her, he shot through the door, they were the only ones in the room!
How the hell is this not murder!??
http://gawker.com/judge-oscar-pistorius-did-not-intentionally-kill-his-g-1633392801
So it drops to po
Well duh
On Jul 31, 2013 7:21 PM, "C. Hatton Humphrey" wrote:
>
> I'll send you the associated links directly so as not to derail the thread.
>
> As for the rest, we're in agreement. What I find interesting is the fact
> that Obama has removed "whistle-blower protection" from his site, and as
>
I'll send you the associated links directly so as not to derail the thread.
As for the rest, we're in agreement. What I find interesting is the fact
that Obama has removed "whistle-blower protection" from his site, and as
the Huffington Post article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/26/obama
That sounds like an excellent interview, do you have a link you could
share? I'd love to listen to it.
As for the Manning case, I definitely see the differences from the Higbie
case, but my point was that there are no "acceptable" or, hell, even
official avenues for getting this material and conc
Allow me to rephrase slightly.
I said, 'He wanted to, "start a debate." He was in neither the position
nor the authority to do so.'
Perhaps that would be better said, "He wanted to "start a debate." Given
his rank (PFC), active duty military status and the channels through which
he decided to
hould
have more debate and that the genesis of that debate will not come from
within the ruling circles that have already bought into the current
framework.
Cheers,
Judah
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 1:16 PM, C. Hatton Humphrey wrote:
>
> > Very true. He plead guilty to a number of charges
But all our information is in the hands of "outsourced" security now.
Worldwide. Thousands of people that have special security clearance to the
most sensitive of information.
All under the auspices of a secret, clandestine court that no one knows
anything about.
It's all gone to shit where the f
> Very true. He plead guilty to a number of charges already.
>
He was also convicted of other charges today.
> Thing is it was well known that he was a problem right out of basic. And
> yet they put him in a very sensitive position. I think that more than a few
> in the upper
Very true. He plead guilty to a number of charges already.
Thing is it was well known that he was a problem right out of basic. And
yet they put him in a very sensitive position. I think that more than a few
in the upper echelons should be slapped upside the head over this.
On Tue, Jul 30
I agree with the verdict on all counts. I expect that he'll still spend a good
portion of his natural life making little rocks out of big ones.
On Jul 30, 2013, at 1:46 PM, "Larry C. Lyons" wrote:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/judge-to-announce-verdict-in-bradley-m
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/judge-to-announce-verdict-in-bradley-manning-case-today/2013/07/29/e894a75c-f897-11e2-afc1-c850c6ee5af8_story.html
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.ama
"It's a big story because it's so disgusting and atrocious. "
To some. The MSM didn't thinks so because they refused to cover it until
the very end. The called it a local story.
Interestingly enough, they did not call the the three sex slave hostage
Ohio story a local story.
Supposedly, a Gos
at 12:54 PM, C. Hatton Humphrey
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts on this?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_16
13, 2013 at 12:54 PM, C. Hatton Humphrey
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thoughts on this?
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57582104-504083/kermit-gosnell-update-phila-abortion-doctor-guilty-of-three-counts-of-first-d
How about the doctor's son slipping his girlfriend some morning after pills
to secretly abort her child?
Interesting dilemma for the pro-choice crowd. Was it murder on not?
If was murder than it's admitting the fetus is a human. If it's not
murder, he stepped all over her right to choose, but
com/8301-504083_162-57582104-504083/kermit-gosnell-update-phila-abortion-doctor-guilty-of-three-counts-of-first-degree-murder/
> > *
> > *
> > *Kermit Gosnell Update:Phila. abortion doctor guilty of three counts of
> > first-degree murder
>
>
~~~
update-phila-abortion-doctor-guilty-of-three-counts-of-first-degree-murder/
> *
> *
> *Kermit Gosnell Update:Phila. abortion doctor guilty of three counts of
> first-degree murder
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfu
Good. It was the right verdict IMHO.
On Monday, May 13, 2013, C. Hatton Humphrey wrote:
>
> Thoughts on this?
>
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57582104-504083/kermit-gosnell-update-phila-abortion-doctor-guilty-of-three-counts-of-first-degree-murder/
> *
>
Thoughts on this?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57582104-504083/kermit-gosnell-update-phila-abortion-doctor-guilty-of-three-counts-of-first-degree-murder/
*
*
*Kermit Gosnell Update:Phila. abortion doctor guilty of three counts of
first-degree murder
*
(CBS/AP) PHILADELPHIA - Dr
re they both said it was Palin's fault she was hacked or
>> at least she deserved it.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>> >
>> > This I may be guilty of. If I misperceived any of your or Dana's
>> > comments to
at least she deserved it.
>
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
> >
> > This I may be guilty of. If I misperceived any of your or Dana's
> > comments to that affect, I apologize. To me it seemed like you guys
> > were saying that since the guy
I think we should start over:
I'm pretty sure they both said it was Palin's fault she was hacked or
at least she deserved it.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> This I may be guilty of. If I misperceived any of your or Dana's
> comments to that af
n, not attributing anything to you
or quoting you in any way.
>
> 4. Claiming that we are defending the hacking itself, when no such claim
> was made or insinuated.
This I may be guilty of. If I misperceived any of your or Dana's
comments to that affect, I apologize. To me it seemed
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> I am not sure I follow.
>
> I am agreeing that she did not break the law as it was (or maybe still
> is) written. That does not mean the law does not suck and does not
> need to be changed.
>
> It is posible, in my opinion, to violate the spi
ing itself, when no such claim
was made or insinuated.
That's just a few of them...
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 1:20 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
Please show me where
I am not sure I follow.
I am agreeing that she did not break the law as it was (or maybe still
is) written. That does not mean the law does not suck and does not
need to be changed.
It is posible, in my opinion, to violate the spirit of a law without
violating the letter of that law.
On Tue, Ma
Not according to two Judges, should I look up more?
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> Honestly, I think the law does suck. Hopefully, Alaska uses this to
> make the necessary changes to make it not suck.
>
> That being said, she did not break the letter of the law (though, I
When your argument is "they probably" you know you lost :)
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Dana wrote:
> More precisely, they probably accept the ruling because they have no
> choice (tho hopefully the legislature is doing something about that).
> But a) that was a civil case so there were no "
Either admit your wrong already or storm off in a huff.
http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=10892318
ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- The governor, along with his or her staff, can
use private e-mail to conduct state business according to an Anchorage
judge.
Superior Court Judge Jack Smith ruled Wednesd
and had a heck of a lawyer apparently. I wonder if she talked to him
before or after the suit.
Ah well, let's give the rest of the list a break on this. We
semi-agree it seems.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> Honestly, I think the law does suck. Hopefully, Alaska uses thi
Honestly, I think the law does suck. Hopefully, Alaska uses this to
make the necessary changes to make it not suck.
That being said, she did not break the letter of the law (though, I
may argue she violated the spirit of the law)
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Alaska does accept
oh and ...
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Dana wrote:
> Sam
>
> I had the link in my buffer just waiting for you, cause I know you
>
> http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=10945674
>
> More precisely, they probably accept the ruling because they have no
> choice (tho hopefully the legislatur
Sam
I had the link in my buffer just waiting for you, cause I know you
http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=10945674
More precisely, they probably accept the ruling because they have no
choice (tho hopefully the legislature is doing something about that).
But a) that was a civil case so there
Alaska does accept the court ruling and she's innocent of all charges
you've made against her. Now your argument is the law sucks.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> Neither does the state of Alaska, look at the link right below that
> judgement. You really need to start reading fo
Neither does the state of Alaska, look at the link right below that
judgement. You really need to start reading for yourself. I need to go
back to filtering you.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Now you don't accept the courts ruling?
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Dana
Now you don't accept the courts ruling?
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> Sam.
>
> That's not "the" court it's "a" court. A different one.
>
> And the judge goes to great lengths to say that the Alaskan law is
> written in crayon and to invite the legislature to revise it. Look a
don't you have a bridge to lurk under or something? Travellers to harrass?
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> No it didn't.
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Dana wrote:
>>
>> actually it's just now starting to get out of its rut.
>>
>> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:59 PM, G Money
She deletes me all the time, it must not work.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> But...but...I am still here...I think. Wait...maybe if you are
> deleted, you do not know about it?
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfu
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> I think we should start over on more time.
>
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:59 PM, G Money wrote:
>>
>> This thread seriously needs to die in a fire.
>>
>
>
~|
Order the Adobe
Sam.
That's not "the" court it's "a" court. A different one.
And the judge goes to great lengths to say that the Alaskan law is
written in crayon and to invite the legislature to revise it. Look at
the text of the judgement to the left of this story.
Essentially the emails were not government r
No it didn't.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> actually it's just now starting to get out of its rut.
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:59 PM, G Money wrote:
>>
>> This thread seriously needs to die in a fire.
>>
~~
I think we should start over on more time.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:59 PM, G Money wrote:
>
> This thread seriously needs to die in a fire.
>
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfus
But...but...I am still here...I think. Wait...maybe if you are
deleted, you do not know about it?
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Oh snap, she deleted you
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Dana wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>>>
>
>
~
That happened
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
>
> Ideally, I'd like to see this handled through a strong FOIA system.
> "Governor Palin, do you have any email accounts that are used for any
> correspondence in an official capacity other than the ones provided by
> the sta
And again
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> so you have said many times. As long as you are clear that *I* am not
> saying it... whatever.
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>>
~|
Order
Oh snap, she deleted you
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Dana wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>>
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology
actually it's just now starting to get out of its rut.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:59 PM, G Money wrote:
>
> This thread seriously needs to die in a fire.
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
>>
>> Right, but the only way we know she was doing this was because someone
>> i
The state of Alaska now requires any emails relating to state business
be cced to the state address.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>>
>> Right, but the only way we know she was doing this was because someone
>> illeg
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> Ideally, I'd like to see this handled through a strong FOIA system.
> "Governor Palin, do you have any email accounts that are used for any
> correspondence in an official capacity other than the ones provided by
> the state?" and then req
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> Right, but the only way we know she was doing this was because someone
> illegally hacking into her account.
>
> I understand, and to some degree, share, your feelings of being conflicted.
>
Ideally, I'd like to see this handled through a s
This thread seriously needs to die in a fire.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> Right, but the only way we know she was doing this was because someone
> illegally hacking into her account.
>
> I understand, and to some degree, share, your feelings of being conflicted.
>
Right, but the only way we know she was doing this was because someone
illegally hacking into her account.
I understand, and to some degree, share, your feelings of being conflicted.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>>
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Scott Stroz wrote:
> Her privacy was violated (or whatever the law was the kid broke).
> Period. End of story. As I have said repeatedly, if we start placing
> blame on the victims, we are basically legitimizing the crimes and
> saying the victims deserved it.
I
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> my issue is that he didn't just disclose the government emails, he
> posted about the family pictures that were in there too, and then made
> the password public. Had he let's say simple posted emails he thought
> should not have been written with t
so you have said many times. As long as you are clear that *I* am not
saying it... whatever.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> I am referring solely to the fact that her account got hacked. I do
> not think she bears any blame because she did not use security
> measures t
I absolutely agree that it was morally wrong to publish everything in
there. That's what I tried to indicate by saying "put everything out
into public view", meaning as opposed to publishing the correspondence
that was part of government business.
I'm conflicted about the role of private individu
I am referring solely to the fact that her account got hacked. I do
not think she bears any blame because she did not use security
measures that we (as IT professionals) may use.
Her privacy was violated (or whatever the law was the kid broke).
Period. End of story. As I have said repeatedly, if
What she was doing was legal according to the court.
McKay concluded, among other things, that "not all emails relating to
state business are necessarily public records, and that the "use of
private email accounts to conduct state business does not -- in and of
itself -- violate state law."
http
that we never stated, much like you did with me in
>> our discussion about homeschooling.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 11:14 AM
>> To: cf-community
>>
my issue is that he didn't just disclose the government emails, he
posted about the family pictures that were in there too, and then made
the password public. Had he let's say simple posted emails he thought
should not have been written with that account, I would agree that it
could be a whistlebl
I'm curious where you feel her role as a public official comes into
play with this. She was using the Yahoo account for government
business and seemed to indicate that she was doing so, in part, to
evade public records laws. If someone in her office had seen damning
emails in that account and put
t; -Original Message-
> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 11:14 AM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
>
>
> I have not made up anything. I have expressed my opinion and
> interpretations of what you a
age-
> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 11:14 AM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
>
>
> I have not made up anything. I have expressed my opinion and
> interpretations of what you and Dana have sa
:14 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
I have not made up anything. I have expressed my opinion and
interpretations of what you and Dana have said - most of the time
trying to find some clarity.
Its kind of funny how anyone who disagrees with you eventually gets
I am pretty sure I was the one who pondered about evidence obtained
illegally, but not by police.
I said I did nto think it would be used, but would not be surprised if
it had been tried before.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> omg... I don't know whether items obtained by priva
omg... I don't know whether items obtained by private citizens by
breaking a law are admissible and I said so. But you have to wonder
about chain of custody and the like. Seems like it would be too easy
to get mismissed on grounds that there is no proof they are the
defendant's. If they are admiss
Original Message-
> From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 11:03 AM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
>
>
> Is your email not threaded?
>
> Dana said:
>> There's an invason of
>> priv
Thanks for clearing that up.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> The kids had nothing to do with the email incident...
>
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-
ated that.
> That is called lying and is very dishonorable. Try honesty for a
> change...you will feel a lot better about yourselves.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 10:39 AM
> To: cf-community
The kids had nothing to do with the email incident...
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 11:03 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
Is your email not threaded?
Dana said:
> There's an in
Is your email not threaded?
Dana said:
> There's an invason of
> privacy there if you can use such a word for a politican who made her
> Down's syndrome son and teenaged daughter's sex life part of her
> campaign.
So I said:
> So because you any many others claimed the child was her daughters sh
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Dana wrote:
>
> that's not what I said, Sam. I said the police need a warrant.
OK we're getting someplace. So only the police need a warrant,
everyone else can have at it if they find a crime and it's not
admissible in court.
>> The the police can invade your pr
]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 10:49 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
So putting her kids in the spotlight gives you the right to access her
person email and publish it?
I'm not getting your train of thought.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Eric Roberts
norable. Try honesty for a
change...you will feel a lot better about yourselves.
-Original Message-
From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 10:39 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
You have said that you feel she bears
So putting her kids in the spotlight gives you the right to access her
person email and publish it?
I'm not getting your train of thought.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> She is the one that put them in the spotlight and made them part of her
> campaign. That makes the
t;
> Eric
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 7:26 AM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
>
>
> So because you any many others claimed the child was her daughters she
> has n
Remember this:
As far publishing online...I don't think that would be legal,
regardless of who does it...unless it was after the case to prove guilt
(like an official release to the news agenesis) or as part of an FOIA
request...
So are you saying anyone except the police can publish your person
that's not what I said, Sam. I said the police need a warrant.
> The the police can invade your privacy as long as they find something
> illegal but don't use it in court?
she was not on trial, Sam, that was a criminal case and the guy who
changed her password was the defendant.
> She broke no
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 7:26 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
So because you any many others claimed the child was her daughters she
has no right to privacy? Start the wiretaps.
On Tue,
...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 7:22 AM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
>
>
> The kid didn't have a warrant and you've been bitching for years about
> wireless wiretapping. Based on what both of you have said a warran
: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 7:22 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
The kid didn't have a warrant and you've been bitching for years about
wireless wiretapping. Based on what both of you have said a warrant
isn't
So any politician that brings there kids with them on the campaign
trail has no right to privacy including personal mail?
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Dana wrote:
>
> I claimed no such thing. I don't know and I don't care. She did
> however parade him at campaign events, and her pregnant da
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Dana wrote:
>
> To do what, though. Seems like it also depends on who "they" is. The
> police need a warrant, or at least used to... If someone is an alleged
> terrorist I am not sure anymore. This kid did not have a warrant of
> course, and I don't think items fo
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Eric Roberts <
ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> There's a difference? The all quack like ducks to me...
>
You've done quite a lot of quacking yourself on here the last couple of
weeks.
--
The suburbs have no charms to soothe
The restless dream of you
ference? The all quack like ducks to me...
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Dana [mailto:dana.tier...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:47 PM
>> To: cf-community
>> Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
>>
>>
>> don&#
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> There's a difference? The all quack like ducks to me...
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dana [mailto:dana.tier...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:47 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: Pali
There's a difference? The all quack like ducks to me...
-Original Message-
From: Dana [mailto:dana.tier...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:47 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
don't help them co-opt the word conservative. It&#
I claimed no such thing. I don't know and I don't care. She did
however parade him at campaign events, and her pregnant daughter too,
the poor kid.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> So because you any many others claimed the child was her daughters she
> has no right to privacy? Sta
To do what, though. Seems like it also depends on who "they" is. The
police need a warrant, or at least used to... If someone is an alleged
terrorist I am not sure anymore. This kid did not have a warrant of
course, and I don't think items found by private citizens are usable
in court. I am of cou
So because you any many others claimed the child was her daughters she
has no right to privacy? Start the wiretaps.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Dana wrote:
>
> We agree there. The stuff he found would not have been usable in
> court. Publishing the business letters might have been a legiti
Didn't he get like six months house arrest and he didn't even publish anything?
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> That guy installed a keylogger and read the woman's email three
> thousnd different times! And he got probation, for crying out loud.
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:43
Now SS is a neo-con? And hear I thought I was the only one on this list.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> don't help them co-opt the word conservative. It's a neo-con thing.
>
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Antho
The kid didn't have a warrant and you've been bitching for years about
wireless wiretapping. Based on what both of you have said a warrant
isn't needed if they find something illegal.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> I think it's called a warrant, lol...that thing you are againt
This brings up an interesting point. I agree that the evidence would
not have been used. But, why not?
This kid was obviously not working for a law enforcement agency or any
government agency, so does the 4th Amendment actually apply here? I
know, a very steep, ice covered slope, but an interesti
the usual argument is that the public needs to know because he is
running for office. I am not sure I agree unless it is someone like
the wide-stance guy who is engaging in private in behavior he condemns
in public. In that case, exposing the hypocrisy may be a public good.
Not sure. It's definite
I always viewed the 'whistle blower' statutes to be for when a company
is doing something illegal, or (if its possible they are separate)
putting people in harm's way.
I never looked at it from a moral standpoint, like the Edwards
affairs. I am not so sure that I think those kind of actions would
1 - 100 of 697 matches
Mail list logo
