I'd be happy to take your ng off my posts unless someone in your ng is a
contributor and objects. BTW, those abuse addresses won't deal with OT
threads. Maybe spam, threats, etc.

You're still better off filtering the subject line of threads you don't want
to see rather than hoping everyone takes your group off.

"Nick N" <nnote@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:sROzb.23583$o9.848@fed1read07...
> Lloyd parker parker@learnlink.emory.edu started this mess. See
> http://tinyurl.com/xrz7 for a look at over 55 thousand messages. To this
> day, probably two months later, him and other people are keeping this way
OT
> thread alive and clogging our newsgroups with THOUSANDS of messages. It
is
> time to kill this or take it elsewhere!
> Lloyd has already being reported to his university and the other people
who
> keep posting multiple times are also slowly being reported to their
> according abuse@ addresses. for example, abuse@mci abuse@umich
abuse@rogers
> (you know who you are) and a few others. We at Jeep+****** newsgroup are
> fed up and fighting back. I would guess many people are going to start
> having isp problems unless they quit this abuse. On the other hand, I
have
> no problem if they just start maybe a yahoo group or someplace they can
> argue tell their blue. Steve, I don't know what newsgroup you originate
> from but I appreciate your interest and support.
> Nick
>
>
>
> "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> news:4sadnUhpIuanKVKiRTvUrg@texas.net...
> > Nick N wrote:
> >
> > > "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> > > news:tdudnVlyI7iWC1KiRTvUqA@texas.net...
> > >
> > >>C. E. White wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Del Rawlins wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>The only equitable solution is for the government to get out of the
> > >>>>marriage business completely. That ought to **** off everyone
> equally.
> > >
> > >
> > > or just keep crossposting.
> > > Please everyone. Stop.
> > > Nick
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Fine. Exactly who started the crossposting? Which groups are "cross
> > posted" and which ones belong? Its clearly OT in any group in the "to"
> line.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

 

I'd be happy to take your ng off my posts unless someone in your ng is a
contributor and objects. BTW, those abuse addresses won't deal with OT
threads. Maybe spam, threats, etc.

You're still better off filtering the subject line of threads you don't want
to see rather than hoping everyone takes your group off.

"Nick N" <nnote@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:sROzb.23583$o9.848@fed1read07...
> Lloyd parker parker@learnlink.emory.edu started this mess. See
> http://tinyurl.com/xrz7 for a look at over 55 thousand messages. To this
> day, probably two months later, him and other people are keeping this way
OT
> thread alive and clogging our newsgroups with THOUSANDS of messages. It
is
> time to kill this or take it elsewhere!
> Lloyd has already being reported to his university and the other people
who
> keep posting multiple times are also slowly being reported to their
> according abuse@ addresses. for example, abuse@mci abuse@umich
abuse@rogers
> (you know who you are) and a few others. We at Jeep+****** newsgroup are
> fed up and fighting back. I would guess many people are going to start
> having isp problems unless they quit this abuse. On the other hand, I
have
> no problem if they just start maybe a yahoo group or someplace they can
> argue tell their blue. Steve, I don't know what newsgroup you originate
> from but I appreciate your interest and support.
> Nick
>
>
>
> "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> news:4sadnUhpIuanKVKiRTvUrg@texas.net...
> > Nick N wrote:
> >
> > > "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> > > news:tdudnVlyI7iWC1KiRTvUqA@texas.net...
> > >
> > >>C. E. White wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Del Rawlins wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>The only equitable solution is for the government to get out of the
> > >>>>marriage business completely. That ought to **** off everyone
> equally.
> > >
> > >
> > > or just keep crossposting.
> > > Please everyone. Stop.
> > > Nick
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Fine. Exactly who started the crossposting? Which groups are "cross
> > posted" and which ones belong? Its clearly OT in any group in the "to"
> line.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

 

In article <3FCF6650.FEA09DBC@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>
>> >It is commendable that you have appointed yourself the voice of science. I
>> >wonder if all scientist would agree with the appointment?
>>
>> Do you have any idea how many scientists agree with me on GW? About the
same
>> percentage that'd you'd find agreeing that evolution is real, for example.
>
>I don't know. Is there a poll available?

Yes. It's called the scientific literature.


>And when you say they agree with you -
>do you mean completely agree with you, or agree with certain points. For
>instance, they may agree that the concept of global warming due to CO2 is
valid
>but they may disagree on the magnitude, effects, or the suggested remedies.

OK, there is discussion about that, granted, but not about the 2 main points:

1. Warming is occurring.
2. Human activities are causing it.


>I
>think you overstate the level of agreement in an attempt to give more weight
to
>your particular beliefs. But that is just my personal opinion (not backed by
any
>other group).
>
>Ed
>

 

In article <3FCF6650.FEA09DBC@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>
>> >It is commendable that you have appointed yourself the voice of science. I
>> >wonder if all scientist would agree with the appointment?
>>
>> Do you have any idea how many scientists agree with me on GW? About the
same
>> percentage that'd you'd find agreeing that evolution is real, for example.
>
>I don't know. Is there a poll available?

Yes. It's called the scientific literature.


>And when you say they agree with you -
>do you mean completely agree with you, or agree with certain points. For
>instance, they may agree that the concept of global warming due to CO2 is
valid
>but they may disagree on the magnitude, effects, or the suggested remedies.

OK, there is discussion about that, granted, but not about the 2 main points:

1. Warming is occurring.
2. Human activities are causing it.


>I
>think you overstate the level of agreement in an attempt to give more weight
to
>your particular beliefs. But that is just my personal opinion (not backed by
any
>other group).
>
>Ed
>

 

In article <3FCF6650.FEA09DBC@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>
>> >It is commendable that you have appointed yourself the voice of science. I
>> >wonder if all scientist would agree with the appointment?
>>
>> Do you have any idea how many scientists agree with me on GW? About the
same
>> percentage that'd you'd find agreeing that evolution is real, for example.
>
>I don't know. Is there a poll available?

Yes. It's called the scientific literature.


>And when you say they agree with you -
>do you mean completely agree with you, or agree with certain points. For
>instance, they may agree that the concept of global warming due to CO2 is
valid
>but they may disagree on the magnitude, effects, or the suggested remedies.

OK, there is discussion about that, granted, but not about the 2 main points:

1. Warming is occurring.
2. Human activities are causing it.


>I
>think you overstate the level of agreement in an attempt to give more weight
to
>your particular beliefs. But that is just my personal opinion (not backed by
any
>other group).
>
>Ed
>

 

In article <vsuq4hj18hmfe6@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqnjba$e8j$17@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <jitssv8suj0cd099p9hi10snvtjud3sfg9@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:53:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>>Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating
>health
>> >>>problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own
>expense.
>> >>>Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a
>year
>> >>>for treatment.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Like asking why people travel to Mexico for Christmas trees. It simply
>does
>> >>not happen.
>> >>
>> >>Read, for example,
>> >>http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrig...da-health.html
>> >
>> >Um, Lloyd...
>> >Remember how you complain when we quote conservative sources?
>> >
>>
>> Because CR is a consumer advocate group. Not liberal or conservative.
>Now I
>> know to you Taliban anybody to the left of Atilla the Hun is a liberal if
>not
>> a socialist, but the rest of us aren't stupid like that.
>
>
>They don't speak for any consumers I know. Consumer Reports is a joke, used
>by those people who lack the intelligence to invistigate an issue and learn
>the truth.
>
>
Yeah, what else to expect of the mind-set that thinks Fox News is "fair and
balanced"?

 

In article <vsuq4hj18hmfe6@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqnjba$e8j$17@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <jitssv8suj0cd099p9hi10snvtjud3sfg9@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:53:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>>Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating
>health
>> >>>problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own
>expense.
>> >>>Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a
>year
>> >>>for treatment.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Like asking why people travel to Mexico for Christmas trees. It simply
>does
>> >>not happen.
>> >>
>> >>Read, for example,
>> >>http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrig...da-health.html
>> >
>> >Um, Lloyd...
>> >Remember how you complain when we quote conservative sources?
>> >
>>
>> Because CR is a consumer advocate group. Not liberal or conservative.
>Now I
>> know to you Taliban anybody to the left of Atilla the Hun is a liberal if
>not
>> a socialist, but the rest of us aren't stupid like that.
>
>
>They don't speak for any consumers I know. Consumer Reports is a joke, used
>by those people who lack the intelligence to invistigate an issue and learn
>the truth.
>
>
Yeah, what else to expect of the mind-set that thinks Fox News is "fair and
balanced"?

 

In article <vsuq4hj18hmfe6@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bqnjba$e8j$17@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <jitssv8suj0cd099p9hi10snvtjud3sfg9@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:53:28 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>>Explain then Lloyd why bus loads of Canadians with life threating
>health
>> >>>problems are forced to come to the USA for treatment at their own
>expense.
>> >>>Sure they can get free care in Canada, IF they can wait 6 months to a
>year
>> >>>for treatment.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Like asking why people travel to Mexico for Christmas trees. It simply
>does
>> >>not happen.
>> >>
>> >>Read, for example,
>> >>http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrig...da-health.html
>> >
>> >Um, Lloyd...
>> >Remember how you complain when we quote conservative sources?
>> >
>>
>> Because CR is a consumer advocate group. Not liberal or conservative.
>Now I
>> know to you Taliban anybody to the left of Atilla the Hun is a liberal if
>not
>> a socialist, but the rest of us aren't stupid like that.
>
>
>They don't speak for any consumers I know. Consumer Reports is a joke, used
>by those people who lack the intelligence to invistigate an issue and learn
>the truth.
>
>
Yeah, what else to expect of the mind-set that thinks Fox News is "fair and
balanced"?

 

In article <3FCF6A9F.CE14F321@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote first this:
>>
>> > I know that in NC, a law was passed specifically validating interracial
>> > marriages in order correct the harm done my an old law that declared
>> > such marriages invalid. If a similar law was passed validating same ---
>> > unions and recognizing then as a marriage, then I guess I'd be satisfied
>> > if not delighted.
>>
>> Then this:
>>
>> > I am opposed to trying to implement this through the judiciary by
>> > redefining the legal meaning of the word "marriage" as it has been
>> > understood for many years.
>>
>> These two statements seem contradictory.
>
>I'll try to clarify -
>
>I do not have a problem with the idea that same --- couples should be granted
>the same rights and responsibilities as people in a traditional man/woman
>marriages. To implement this, my preference is that laws be enacted to grant
>same --- unions rights equivalent to a traditional marriage where
appropriate.
>I'd prefer this be done without trying to redefine the legal meaning of the
>word marriage. I am especially opposed to a judge deciding that the word
>marriage means something different than the traditional legal definition. If
a
>law was passed that explicitly changed the definition, then I'd have to live
>with it (I'd be satisfied but not delighted).
>
>Ed
>
>
How about this? Marriage is a religious ceremony, performed by a church; the
government doesn't use the term "marriage" at all but "civil unions" for all
recognizied unions of 2 adults and grants the same benefits to all of them.

 

In article <3FCF6A9F.CE14F321@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote first this:
>>
>> > I know that in NC, a law was passed specifically validating interracial
>> > marriages in order correct the harm done my an old law that declared
>> > such marriages invalid. If a similar law was passed validating same ---
>> > unions and recognizing then as a marriage, then I guess I'd be satisfied
>> > if not delighted.
>>
>> Then this:
>>
>> > I am opposed to trying to implement this through the judiciary by
>> > redefining the legal meaning of the word "marriage" as it has been
>> > understood for many years.
>>
>> These two statements seem contradictory.
>
>I'll try to clarify -
>
>I do not have a problem with the idea that same --- couples should be granted
>the same rights and responsibilities as people in a traditional man/woman
>marriages. To implement this, my preference is that laws be enacted to grant
>same --- unions rights equivalent to a traditional marriage where
appropriate.
>I'd prefer this be done without trying to redefine the legal meaning of the
>word marriage. I am especially opposed to a judge deciding that the word
>marriage means something different than the traditional legal definition. If
a
>law was passed that explicitly changed the definition, then I'd have to live
>with it (I'd be satisfied but not delighted).
>
>Ed
>
>
How about this? Marriage is a religious ceremony, performed by a church; the
government doesn't use the term "marriage" at all but "civil unions" for all
recognizied unions of 2 adults and grants the same benefits to all of them.