A few names come to mind, though I just ignore it all
 

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...1028_3-6022491.
html
Nick

Re: A few names come to mind, though I just ignore it all
 

I have been told numerous times, that I could get in trouble if I did
certain things to "annoy" or "offend" people. The last time wound up in
court. I won of course. America is still America. Next time, try posting
longer lines or use TinyURL.com, like this

http://tinyurl.com/czaml

I just got back to Spain for another month, after Christmas in the States.
The jet lag is awful. Don't anyone post anything to annoy me. I mean it.

Earle

"Nick" <nnote@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:5SDwf.5050$B93.3785@fed1read07...
>
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...1028_3-6022491.
> html
> Nick
>
>

Re: A few names come to mind, though I just ignore it all
 

I have been told numerous times, that I could get in trouble if I did
certain things to "annoy" or "offend" people. The last time wound up in
court. I won of course. America is still America. Next time, try posting
longer lines or use TinyURL.com, like this

http://tinyurl.com/czaml

I just got back to Spain for another month, after Christmas in the States.
The jet lag is awful. Don't anyone post anything to annoy me. I mean it.

Earle

"Nick" <nnote@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:5SDwf.5050$B93.3785@fed1read07...
>
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...1028_3-6022491.
> html
> Nick
>
>

Re: A few names come to mind, though I just ignore it all
 

I have been told numerous times, that I could get in trouble if I did
certain things to "annoy" or "offend" people. The last time wound up in
court. I won of course. America is still America. Next time, try posting
longer lines or use TinyURL.com, like this

http://tinyurl.com/czaml

I just got back to Spain for another month, after Christmas in the States.
The jet lag is awful. Don't anyone post anything to annoy me. I mean it.

Earle

"Nick" <nnote@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:5SDwf.5050$B93.3785@fed1read07...
>
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...1028_3-6022491.
> html
> Nick
>
>

Re: A few names come to mind, though I just ignore it all
 

The writer of that article wants to imply that the honest sending of a
message that someone might be able to claim is offensive is a misguided
piece of liberal demoncratic commie cr^p.

That the law is opposed by the ACLU is reason enough to support the
legislation.

The intent is, in my understanding is to make it a crime to hide the
identity of a person, or evade law enforcement by a person ALREADY
COMMITTING A CRIME.

You might see the similarity in this law and existing statutes in most
states concerning evading apprehension by the police by criminal suspects
(as shown nightly on COPS and similar TV shows.)

What is its real expected use? Not to go after honest but misguided
citizens but after criminals. In recent years there have been court cases
where criminals claimed that they committed no e-crime in a given state
because their computer or server was in another state or country.

I personally hope they go after spammers who almost invariably use false or
misleading e-addresses in the propagation of their harassing and annoying
messages. Atop that force me to pay for this harassment as I pay for e-mail
access and my fees include the costs of accepting, storing, and relaying
these messages.

Is it possible, as wackos and shysters will expound, that this law may
eventually be turned toward an honest citizen by a corrupt political hack?
Certainly!, but the demented politicos would have to convince 12 citizens
that your message was part of a criminal plot.

The CNET writer claims a woman fired for alleged sexual harassment has the
right to make unsubstantiated, unproven, scandalous, and libelous claims on
an international forum behind a cloak of secrecy. If this same woman was to
print flyers with these same unproven claims and post them in the
neighborhood of the boss she might well end up in jail herself.

I hope someone else finds this article offensive, annoying and harassing.
I'd report him but I suspect that is a valid CNET e-address.

PS: to reach me at the listed e-address just remove the SPAM


"Nick" <nnote@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:5SDwf.5050$B93.3785@fed1read07...
> http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...1028_3-6022491.
> html
> Nick
>
>

Re: A few names come to mind, though I just ignore it all
 

The writer of that article wants to imply that the honest sending of a
message that someone might be able to claim is offensive is a misguided
piece of liberal demoncratic commie cr^p.

That the law is opposed by the ACLU is reason enough to support the
legislation.

The intent is, in my understanding is to make it a crime to hide the
identity of a person, or evade law enforcement by a person ALREADY
COMMITTING A CRIME.

You might see the similarity in this law and existing statutes in most
states concerning evading apprehension by the police by criminal suspects
(as shown nightly on COPS and similar TV shows.)

What is its real expected use? Not to go after honest but misguided
citizens but after criminals. In recent years there have been court cases
where criminals claimed that they committed no e-crime in a given state
because their computer or server was in another state or country.

I personally hope they go after spammers who almost invariably use false or
misleading e-addresses in the propagation of their harassing and annoying
messages. Atop that force me to pay for this harassment as I pay for e-mail
access and my fees include the costs of accepting, storing, and relaying
these messages.

Is it possible, as wackos and shysters will expound, that this law may
eventually be turned toward an honest citizen by a corrupt political hack?
Certainly!, but the demented politicos would have to convince 12 citizens
that your message was part of a criminal plot.

The CNET writer claims a woman fired for alleged sexual harassment has the
right to make unsubstantiated, unproven, scandalous, and libelous claims on
an international forum behind a cloak of secrecy. If this same woman was to
print flyers with these same unproven claims and post them in the
neighborhood of the boss she might well end up in jail herself.

I hope someone else finds this article offensive, annoying and harassing.
I'd report him but I suspect that is a valid CNET e-address.

PS: to reach me at the listed e-address just remove the SPAM


"Nick" <nnote@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:5SDwf.5050$B93.3785@fed1read07...
> http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...1028_3-6022491.
> html
> Nick
>
>

Re: A few names come to mind, though I just ignore it all
 

The writer of that article wants to imply that the honest sending of a
message that someone might be able to claim is offensive is a misguided
piece of liberal demoncratic commie cr^p.

That the law is opposed by the ACLU is reason enough to support the
legislation.

The intent is, in my understanding is to make it a crime to hide the
identity of a person, or evade law enforcement by a person ALREADY
COMMITTING A CRIME.

You might see the similarity in this law and existing statutes in most
states concerning evading apprehension by the police by criminal suspects
(as shown nightly on COPS and similar TV shows.)

What is its real expected use? Not to go after honest but misguided
citizens but after criminals. In recent years there have been court cases
where criminals claimed that they committed no e-crime in a given state
because their computer or server was in another state or country.

I personally hope they go after spammers who almost invariably use false or
misleading e-addresses in the propagation of their harassing and annoying
messages. Atop that force me to pay for this harassment as I pay for e-mail
access and my fees include the costs of accepting, storing, and relaying
these messages.

Is it possible, as wackos and shysters will expound, that this law may
eventually be turned toward an honest citizen by a corrupt political hack?
Certainly!, but the demented politicos would have to convince 12 citizens
that your message was part of a criminal plot.

The CNET writer claims a woman fired for alleged sexual harassment has the
right to make unsubstantiated, unproven, scandalous, and libelous claims on
an international forum behind a cloak of secrecy. If this same woman was to
print flyers with these same unproven claims and post them in the
neighborhood of the boss she might well end up in jail herself.

I hope someone else finds this article offensive, annoying and harassing.
I'd report him but I suspect that is a valid CNET e-address.

PS: to reach me at the listed e-address just remove the SPAM


"Nick" <nnote@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:5SDwf.5050$B93.3785@fed1read07...
> http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...1028_3-6022491.
> html
> Nick
>
>