They are separate issues.
Both are true and one does not cancel out the other, ok? I've really
spent a disproportionate amount of time on this compared to how much I
really give a damn ;)
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Medic wrote:
>
> I stopped posting because I wasn't really getting anywhere
I stopped posting because I wasn't really getting anywhere.
Eric and Dana both seemed (note... SEEMED) to be saying that Palin deserved
it because she didn't go further in protecting herself from hackery and
skullduggery.
I think that as long as the victim didn't specifically invite said crime
(
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 affect, I apologize. To me it
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> I won't dig back for the exact quote, but in the homeschool discussion, you
> kept saying that I said something when in fact it was someone else that said
> it...and continued to claim that even after you were corrected several
> times.
I a
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
mmm offhand I think that if you are an employee you have an
obligation to promote the interest of your employer or qut if you
cannot. So I don't regard the Edwards employer as a whistleblower. I
think that what he did to his wife was reprehensible but ... well, it
rather depends on what statement
Out of curiosity, where do people think that whistle blower actions
fit into the debate?
I, personally, think that investigatory agencies (cops and whatnot)
definitely have to follow the letter of the law, acquire warrants, etc
in order to produce any useable evidence because those agencies wield
We agree there. The stuff he found would not have been usable in
court. Publishing the business letters might have been a legitimate
free speech case, but that's not what he did. 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 tee
ervative and all
>>> about personal responsibility...
>>>
>>> -Original Message-----
>>> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:19 AM
>>> To: cf-community
>>> Subject: Re: Palin email hacking ca
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 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> http://cbs3.com/local/Larry.Mendte.Sentencing.2.872738.html
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Dana wrote:
>>
>>
to:boyz...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:57 AM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
>
>
> But, it was only discovered that she used the account for government
> business BECAUSE fo the hack.
>
> Using your logic, the ends justify
I think it's called a warrant, lol...that thing you are againt
requiring for wiretaps.
> So, you are saying the government or anyone else can invade your
> privacy as long as they end up finding illegal activity?
> How's that saying go? You have nothing to worry about as long as you
> don't do an
l Message-
> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:57 AM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
>serio
>
> But, it was only discovered that she used the account for government
> business BECAUSE fo the hac
oral of the story is that if you are going to do something
>> that
>>> is illegal...make sure you use a strong passwords and a good encryption
>>> scheme....or at least one good enough to stop a teenager ;-)
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>> -Original Mes
>> I don't think that education cures stupid, in many cases it just
>> allows them to use bigger words.
>
>Larry - you owe me a new keyboard. I spit orange juice all over mine
>when I read that. I hate when its Monday morning and you have already
>read what will most likely be the funniest thing
>> I don't think that education cures stupid, in many cases it just
>> allows them to use bigger words.
>
>Larry - you owe me a new keyboard. I spit orange juice all over mine
>when I read that. I hate when its Monday morning and you have already
>read what will most likely be the funniest thing
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> That could be...but does that apply to the specific emails that were sent?
Yes.
> I don't know the particulars of Alaska's law,
That's why they asked a Judge, he knows.
> but most state laws do
> prohibit it...
We only care about Alaska
te email
addy were a bit stricter ;-)
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 12:46 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
Hey, didn't I use that line on you last week:)
But you're wrong:
McKay
Hey, didn't I use that line on you last week:)
But you're wrong:
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
*POP*
there goes you're entire argument
http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=11867946
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 o
: cf-community
Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
I'm confused.
You think she's guilty because she hid in plain site public sensitive
information that is publicly available using FOIA?
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> I think this is a ca
Uh...no...please read and make use of reading comprehension...I know that
may be difficult for you Sam.
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:59 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at
I'm confused.
You think she's guilty because she hid in plain site public sensitive
information that is publicly available using FOIA?
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> I think this is a case that would be similar to one where an IT person or
> anyone else in charge of se
I agree with that.
But don't tell people I'm labeling you :)
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
> By your logic (or lack thereof), because I think a criminals should be
> punished and victims should not be blamed for crimes committed against
> them, I think like a conservative?
PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> no
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:49 AM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
>
>
> By saying the victim bears some of the bl
Making up things and attributing them to someone is a very conservative
tactic...
-Original Message-
From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:57 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Palin email hacking case - guilty!
But, it was only discovered that she
What crime was she charged with again?
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> For a non-conservative you sure think like a conservative. She bears the
> blame because, not only did she fail in her responsibility to properly
> secure her account, she also conducted government b
and it
> was obtained via illegal means...which I believe would also "taint" the
> evidence anyway...
>
> Eric
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Casey Dougall [mailto:ca...@uberwebsitesolutions.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:21 AM
> To: cf-community
>
1 - 100 of 240 matches
Mail list logo
