Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #21118 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-07-22 10:06 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-07-23 08:39 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 353 — 49 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-22 10:06 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 10:23 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 08:56 +1000
anonymous sims in EU (was: Who pays for a phone..) Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-07-23 20:21 +0200
Re: anonymous sims in EU tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-03 20:04 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-04 03:22 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 10:27 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-22 17:00 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 13:26 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 10:00 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 14:22 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Savageduck <savageduck1@(REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-07-22 10:07 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-22 20:06 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? DevilsPGD <boogabooga@crazyhat.net> - 2015-07-22 13:13 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 09:08 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Chris Blunt <mail@nospam.com> - 2015-07-24 11:22 +0800
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 14:36 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-25 13:12 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-25 19:34 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-25 16:58 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 17:51 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 09:57 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-24 14:32 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Wolfgang Barth <barthwo@spamfence.net> - 2015-07-24 15:38 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Savageduck <savageduck1@(REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-07-24 09:26 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-25 13:22 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Savageduck <savageduck1@(REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-07-25 11:19 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-25 13:17 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Savageduck <savageduck1@(REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-07-25 11:18 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-25 19:47 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-27 09:46 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-04 03:50 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-04 06:59 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-08-04 16:21 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-04 08:52 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 05:30 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-04 19:33 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-08-06 09:39 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 12:17 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 05:41 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-04 17:25 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 05:26 +1000
voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-08-05 20:08 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-05 14:58 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-05 15:16 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-05 12:41 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-05 16:03 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 06:24 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-05 13:34 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-06 04:51 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-10-21 19:45 +0000
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 09:17 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-10-24 17:49 +0000
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 13:40 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> - 2015-10-24 19:03 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <slocombjbEDIT@gmail.xyz> - 2015-10-25 09:52 +0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 22:28 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Walter Briscoe <wbriscoe@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2015-10-25 08:17 +0000
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-10-25 10:14 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Bert <bert@iphouse.com> - 2015-10-25 18:50 +0000
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <slocombjbEDIT@gmail.xyz> - 2015-10-25 18:00 +0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-10-25 10:16 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <slocombjbEDIT@gmail.xyz> - 2015-10-26 07:24 +0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 10:13 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <slocombjbEDIT@gmail.xyz> - 2015-10-27 07:09 +0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 20:03 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <slocombjbEDIT@gmail.xyz> - 2015-10-27 18:33 +0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> - 2015-10-26 08:07 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-10-25 14:58 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> - 2015-10-25 17:10 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-10-26 10:08 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 10:09 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <slocombjbEDIT@gmail.xyz> - 2015-10-26 07:27 +0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 10:14 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <slocombjbEDIT@gmail.xyz> - 2015-10-27 07:11 +0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 20:09 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Walter Briscoe <wbriscoe@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2015-10-26 21:24 +0000
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 23:18 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 13:22 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-05 13:41 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 14:53 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "JHY" <JHY5566@nospam.com> - 2015-08-06 15:35 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 23:26 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "JHY" <JHY5566@nospam.com> - 2015-08-06 16:35 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 09:46 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-06 14:40 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas "JHY" <JHY5566@nospam.com> - 2015-08-07 06:02 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-08 01:09 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 14:04 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas DevilsPGD <boogabooga@crazyhat.net> - 2015-08-09 00:14 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-09 12:42 +0000
Re: voting booths in republican areas Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2015-08-10 00:18 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-09 17:50 +0000
Re: voting booths in republican areas Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-09 23:19 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-09 23:10 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 08:43 +0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 13:40 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-11 00:21 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 06:57 +0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-11 09:57 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 08:20 +0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-12 11:21 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-12 19:50 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-12 16:21 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-13 12:08 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-13 09:58 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-13 17:04 +0200
security concept "rule of least priviledge" (was: voting booths in repu areas) Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> - 2015-08-17 16:42 -0400
Re: security concept "rule of least priviledge" (was: voting booths in repu areas) "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-18 10:08 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 06:26 +0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-13 09:38 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-13 17:14 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-13 11:42 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-13 18:47 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-13 14:22 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 07:00 +0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-14 11:34 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 06:53 +0700
what's entrapment (was: voting booths in republican areas) Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-08-15 14:13 +0000
Re: what's entrapment (was: voting booths in republican areas) John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 11:20 +0700
Re: what's entrapment Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201508.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2015-08-18 22:06 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 06:43 +0700
prosecutors do not care about guilt (was: voting booths in republican areas) Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-08-15 13:42 +0000
Re: prosecutors do not care about guilt (was: voting booths in republican areas) John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 11:08 +0700
Re: prosecutors do not care about guilt (was: voting booths in republican areas) Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-16 17:14 +0200
Re: prosecutors do not care about guilt Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-08-17 22:57 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-12 13:07 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-12 18:31 +0000
Re: voting booths in republican areas tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-12 22:44 -0400
why disclose personal info (was: voting booths in republican areas) Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-08-15 13:20 +0000
Re: why disclose personal info David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-08-15 15:12 +0100
Re: why disclose personal info Bert <bert@iphouse.com> - 2015-08-15 15:08 +0000
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 08:26 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 08:23 -0700
accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> - 2015-08-15 09:50 -0400
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) lew <citrustwosac@google.mailer.company.invalid> - 2015-08-15 16:36 +0000
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 10:55 -0700
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-15 14:44 -0500
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 19:34 -0700
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 09:54 +0700
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-18 11:02 +1000
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-08-22 12:55 +0000
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-22 19:08 +0200
security vs. manners (was: accommodating unreasonable searches..) Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-08-24 00:48 +0200
Re: security vs. manners Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> - 2015-08-24 14:18 -0400
Re: security vs. manners The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 19:59 -0700
Re: security vs. manners Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-25 13:40 +0200
Re: security vs. manners Travis Bickle <3S96@taxi.net> - 2015-08-25 12:31 -0400
Re: security vs. manners lew <citrustwosac@google.mailer.company.invalid> - 2015-08-25 16:38 +0000
Re: security vs. manners "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-26 09:29 -0400
Re: security vs. manners "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2015-08-26 10:19 -0400
Re: security vs. manners "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-26 11:45 -0400
Re: security vs. manners "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2015-08-26 13:53 -0400
Re: security vs. manners BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-26 14:39 -0500
Re: security vs. manners "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2015-08-26 16:56 -0400
Re: security vs. manners BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-26 16:08 -0500
Re: security vs. manners "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2015-08-26 17:33 -0400
Re: security vs. manners BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-26 17:32 -0500
Re: security vs. manners "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2015-08-26 19:51 -0400
Re: security vs. manners BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-26 18:59 -0500
Re: security vs. manners "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2015-08-27 08:42 -0400
Re: security vs. manners BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-27 09:24 -0500
Re: security vs. manners tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-26 22:52 -0400
Re: security vs. manners The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 09:57 -0700
Re: security vs. manners Bob Henson <rh547477@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 15:36 +0100
Re: security vs. manners "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2015-08-25 21:04 -0400
Re: security vs. manners tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-26 03:25 -0400
Re: security vs. manners "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-26 09:26 -0400
Re: security vs. manners The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 12:18 -0700
Re: security vs. manners (was: accommodating unreasonable searches..) TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2015-08-25 08:36 -0400
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) - 2015-08-16 23:19 +0000
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) "Stuart McCall" <smccall@myunrealbox.com> - 2015-08-17 18:08 +0100
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> - 2015-08-17 17:22 -0400
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) - 2015-08-17 23:15 +0000
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) "Stuart McCall" <smccall@myunrealbox.com> - 2015-08-18 17:11 +0100
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) - 2015-08-18 23:03 +0000
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) Joe Makowiec <makowiec@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-19 13:53 +0000
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 06:49 +0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-06 17:25 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 19:51 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 19:31 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 21:56 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-06 20:51 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-06 21:48 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 19:29 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "JHY" <JHY5566@nospam.com> - 2015-08-07 15:40 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-07 00:08 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "JHY" <JHY5566@nospam.com> - 2015-08-07 21:08 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-08 01:04 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 13:58 +1000
do absentee voters need photo id? (was: voting booths in republican areas) Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201508.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2015-08-08 14:03 +0200
Re: do absentee voters need photo id? (was: voting booths in republican areas) Elias <elias@nowherenohow.com> - 2015-08-08 10:02 -0500
Re: do absentee voters need photo id? (was: voting booths in republican areas) Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-08 21:28 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas "JHY" <JHY5566@nospam.com> - 2015-08-06 15:23 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas News <News@Group.Post> - 2015-08-06 07:00 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-06 04:59 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 11:33 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-06 15:34 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 18:50 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 16:55 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-06 09:12 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 08:40 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-06 07:26 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-06 12:16 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 13:24 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-06 12:16 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 13:22 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-06 07:35 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-08-06 14:36 +0000
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-06 12:18 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 13:31 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 11:46 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 14:04 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 12:14 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 14:27 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 11:44 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 13:58 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 12:12 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 11:36 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-08-10 20:05 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 06:18 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-05 15:27 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-05 13:38 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 15:25 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-05 15:19 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-06 09:07 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 08:38 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-06 07:25 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 11:11 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-06 07:31 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-06 12:02 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 11:14 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 11:38 -0700
leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? (was: vot booths..) Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-08-07 14:58 +0200
Re: leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? (was: vot booths..) "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-07 10:56 -0400
Re: leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? (was: vot booths..) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 05:16 +1000
Re: leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201508.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2015-08-25 22:45 +0200
Re: leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-26 09:24 -0400
Re: leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-08-27 13:47 +0000
Re: leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2015-08-27 10:20 -0400
q) campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? a) education Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-09-03 08:44 +0000
comp.mobile.android "The Sorceress of Qar" <sorceress@qar.qanar.com> - 2015-08-27 09:23 -0500
Re: leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-27 13:01 -0400
Re: leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201509.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2015-09-06 00:12 +0200
Re: leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? (was: vot booths..) Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-08 16:21 -0700
Re: leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201508.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2015-08-22 23:11 +0200
Re: leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 20:54 -0700
Re: leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-08-22 23:40 -0500
Bev's reverse logic (was: leader's campaigns..) Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-09-03 09:22 +0200
Re: Bev's reverse logic David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-09-03 08:44 +0100
Re: leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2015-08-23 08:49 -0400
small campaign donations (was: leader's campaigns..) Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> - 2015-08-31 16:06 -0400
leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? (was: vot booths..) Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> - 2015-08-12 04:08 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Aldo Raine <apache@scalpem.net> - 2015-08-05 18:13 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-05 16:02 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Mike Yetto <unet.lighthouse@xoxy.net> - 2015-08-06 18:27 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Aldo Raine <apache@scalpem.net> - 2015-08-07 12:36 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-07 12:38 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-08-10 08:51 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-10 22:28 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-08-11 08:53 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-11 01:06 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-08-11 10:25 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-11 17:46 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-08-12 09:54 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-05 19:00 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas Aldo Raine <apache@scalpem.net> - 2015-08-07 12:39 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) Bert <bert@iphouse.com> - 2015-08-06 16:14 +0000
Re: voting booths in republican areas TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2015-08-18 09:07 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-18 09:49 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2015-08-18 11:46 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-18 12:38 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2015-08-18 18:51 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-19 11:14 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-19 08:31 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-19 12:56 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-19 11:57 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-19 15:04 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-19 12:22 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-19 15:36 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 06:09 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-19 13:10 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-24 11:03 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-19 12:39 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Joe Makowiec <makowiec@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-19 20:09 +0000
Re: voting booths in republican areas Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-19 14:27 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-19 14:58 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-19 16:10 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2015-08-20 08:32 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-24 11:14 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-24 08:33 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-24 09:37 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-24 15:27 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-24 11:13 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2015-08-19 16:34 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-19 14:46 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2015-08-20 12:40 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-20 09:55 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-20 10:14 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2015-08-20 22:35 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-24 11:09 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-24 11:02 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-19 00:03 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2015-08-18 19:01 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2015-08-19 19:08 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 09:34 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-18 23:57 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2015-08-18 19:05 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 09:28 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2015-08-19 19:14 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2015-08-19 09:09 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-19 07:15 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 05:56 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 05:52 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 13:15 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas David Solimano <david@solimano.org> - 2015-08-06 22:52 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 21:59 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 20:26 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-04 14:03 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-25 13:11 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 05:34 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-25 20:04 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Dieghettino <d@casa.mia> - 2015-07-26 06:41 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 08:45 +1000
non-EU travellers must carry passports (was: Who pays..) Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-08-01 20:26 +0200
Re: non-EU travellers must carry passports cl@isbd.net - 2015-08-01 21:33 +0100
Re: non-EU travellers must carry passports tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-03 23:11 -0400
Re: non-EU travellers must carry passports cl@isbd.net - 2015-08-04 14:25 +0100
Re: non-EU travellers must carry passports Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201508.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2015-08-05 18:56 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-04 04:05 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-04 07:03 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-04 14:11 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-04 11:19 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 12:19 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-04 12:32 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-04 15:40 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-04 14:15 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 05:36 +1000
id required at New Mexico's illegal checkpoints? *no* Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-08-05 20:05 +0000
Re: id required at New Mexico's illegal checkpoints? *no* Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-05 13:19 -0700
Re: id required at New Mexico's illegal checkpoints? *no* tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-06 04:46 -0400
Re: id required at New Mexico's illegal checkpoints? *no* "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-06 09:10 -0400
Re: id required at New Mexico's illegal checkpoints? *no* tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-06 14:51 -0400
Re: id required at New Mexico's illegal checkpoints? *no* "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-06 14:58 -0400
id required at New Mexico's illegal checkpoints? *no* Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-08-08 08:48 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-26 18:45 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 10:04 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-27 09:51 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-28 09:30 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-30 20:24 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-25 19:57 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-25 16:57 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 08:39 +1000
Page 7 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 18 Next page →
| From | Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201508.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 22:06 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: what's entrapment |
| Message-ID | <af20674939248ad4649437662a106afc@msgid.frell.theremailer.net> |
| In reply to | #22060 |
> So the sales person broke the law, so he was mistaken for an > employee, so what? When the police violate criminal procedure, it's a very big deal. Prosecutors lose cases, and guilty people walk because of it. And rightly so. Police and prosecutors must be (and are) accountable for breaking the law and violating peoples rights. Read about where Miranda Rights come from. Make sure you read about the Miranda case, where a rapist walked because *the police broke the law*.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-14 06:43 +0700 |
| Subject | Re: voting booths in republican areas |
| Message-ID | <mj8qsahm2crlkrcgjfehdkton7tmn0ahik@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #22005 |
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 09:38:45 -0400, "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote: >"John B." <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:9sknsa5jfv2a86ettmln1dqjsftj6mmjkd@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:21:18 -0400, "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> >> wrote: >> >>>"John B." <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:287lsa9t06u23sbai8j9mbktm1rn5d6lah@4ax.com... >>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:57:39 -0400, "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>"John B." <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:rbeisa141693c76cb4mc9c6e41mqhag5o7@4ax.com... >>>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 00:21:08 +0200, Axel Berger >>>>>> <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>The Real Bev wrote: >>>>>>>> But if a cop really wants to know who you are and you >>>>>>>> can't produce some sort of acceptable explanation/paper, he can >>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>> life a living hell for you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>And you really believe than in America you can tell police your >>>>>>>name >>>>>>>is >>>>>>>Mickey Mouse and they'll just accept that and let you go? That's >>>>>>>where >>>>>>>ID really makes life much easier for us and far less hassle. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Axel >>>>>> >>>>>> I was under the impression that you must advise the police of your >>>>>> identification so googled it and find that some 25 states have a >>>>>> law >>>>>> that says they you must identify yourself if asked and the U.S. >>>>>> Supreme Court has ruled that the law is permissible if a state >>>>>> implements it. >>>>> >>>>>This is not so clear-cut. There are only four states that have a >>>>>law >>>>>that mandates that you must identify yourself when asked to by a law >>>>>enforcement officer for any reason or no reason. In the other >>>>>states, >>>>>a >>>>>police officer can ask for ID at anytime but you are under no >>>>>obligation >>>>>to provide it unless you are being detained and to be detained an >>>>>officer must suspect you of committing a crime or that you are about >>>>>to >>>>>commit a crime. If you are detained for any other reason, that >>>>>itself >>>>>is illegal. Police do have ways, as we know, of making life >>>>>difficult >>>>>when you don't oblige to their demand even if they are unlawful >>>>>demands. >>>>>You have to make a choice whether to stand up for your rights or >>>>>allow >>>>>them to be violated. Having a camera to record the "event" helps. >>>>>Still, there are cases where even that doesn't change things and >>>>>police >>>>>blatantly violate one's rights. It seems that there are only very >>>>>few >>>>>instances where an officer who does that ever suffers any >>>>>consequences >>>>>of it. The system of police departments investigating themselves >>>>>when >>>>>an officer is suspected of wrongdoing is problematic in itself. >>>> >>>> But in reality why should one care if someone asks their name? >>>> Businessmen almost always hand out name cards showing their name and >>>> telephone numbers and usually an address any time that they get >>>> close >>>> to anyone. The much vilified police all wear a badge with their >>>> serial >>>> number on it, the military all wear "name tags" on their uniforms, >>>> mechanics usually wear a shirt with their name embroidered over the >>>> pocket, in athletic events the participants all wear numbers for >>>> identification, gee... even a prisoner of war is required to give >>>> his >>>> name, rank and serial number. >>> >>>If I am going about my business, doing nothing wrong and a police >>>officer walks up to me and wants my ID then I would certainly object >>>to >>>it. We all have a right to go about our business without being >>>harassed. I don't ascribe to the notion that if I have "nothing to >>>hide" then I shouldn't worry. I have nothing to hide but should I >>>just >>>allow police officers into my home to search it? No. >> >> Seriously? You are walking down the street, in broad daylight, >> clapping your hands and singing a happy song, and a policeman leaps >> out of a hidden doorway and demands your name? >> >> Really truly? >> >> Or your were skulking in the shadows trying to get a peep through Ms. >> Jones' windows while she was changing her undies. >> >> Or you are imagining all this? >> >> I ask as I have lived in the U.S. in nine states ranging from Maine to >> California. I have lived in 8 countries ranging from the U.S. through >> most of the Far East and I can honestly say that I have never been >> accosted by a policeman without cause. > >Where in my post did I say that I was accosted by a police officer who >leaped out of a hidden doorway while I walked along clapping and >singing? That is a gross exaggeration. What I have stated is that we >are seeing our rights being eroded. I really like that last comment. Your "rights are being corroded!" what utter Bull Shit! Your "rights" are better protected now than they ever were during the history of the United states. In Boston, in 1775 - 76 if you vocally and actively supported your legal government you were likely to be beaten up by local "riff-raft". In New York in 1860 there were violent riots by whites who didn't want to be drafted into the army to free the slaves. Martial law was declared and 119 people were killed. The riots have been described as "The New York City Draft Riots of July 13-16, 1863, were by some measures the most bloody and devastating riots in American history." Contrast that with Kent State if you can. In 1930 during the "Little Steel Strike" the police fired into a crowd of strikers who were marching toward the "Little Steel" yards but were threatening anyone nor had they reached the steel plant. 10 strikers were killed outright and an additional 30 were injured. A Coroner's Jury declared the killings to be "justifiable homicide". >Maybe you think it's OK to be >questioned by a police officer when you are engaging in a perfectly >legal activity, I don't. They should spend their time more productively >by dealing with people who are engaging in illegal activity, wouldn't >you think? I have a right to be left alone as long as I am not doing >anything illegal. I should not be asked for ID, or questioned as to why >I am doing what I am doing, where I came from, where I am going, etc. >Perhaps if it happened to you or you've witnessed it happening to others >then you might feel otherwise. Most people won't be accosted by a >police officer but for those who have, their lives can be made a living >hell because of the power a police officer has, not to mention the court >system where the job of a prosecuting attorney is to get convictions >rather than get the truth. I have no idea what innocent act you were engaged in when you were so violently oppressed by the law officers, nor what actions on your part resulted in you being prosecuted unjustly but I will repeat my original statement "you were acting perfectly innocently and a policeman, without provocation, started persecuting you unjustly? And your life has been made a perfect hell?" And, by the way. strangely as it may be seen, the "prosecuting attorney" was hired to do a job.... to prosecute evil doers. The job of determining your guilt or innocence is not his job, that is what the court does. Quite obviously your grasp of U.S. laws and practices is rather feeble, thus one is forced to speculate whether your grasp of what can be defined as "innocent" is equally feeble. -- cheers, John B.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-15 13:42 +0000 |
| Subject | prosecutors do not care about guilt (was: voting booths in republican areas) |
| Message-ID | <a5412cc6e18f7885cc34d249dfa8387b@remailer.paranoici.org> |
| In reply to | #22016 |
> I have no idea what innocent act you were engaged in when you were > so violently oppressed by the law officers, It doesn't matter what innocent act he was doing. What's important is that it's quite common in the US for non-criminals to be harassed by cops -- largely due to profiling. > And, by the way. strangely as it may be seen, the "prosecuting > attorney" was hired to do a job.... to prosecute evil doers. The job > of determining your guilt or innocence is not his job, that is what > the court does. You've contradicted yourself. Prosecutors in the US /prosecute/, period, not just "evil doers". The court decides whether a defendant is an evil doer. I've been behind the scenes on some criminal cases in the US, where attorneys often know whether someone is guilty or innocent. Attorneys have a better picture of guilt than the court does (for reasons I won't go into). But what's important to realize is that when a prosecutor knows that a defendant is innocent, *they still do their job*. They do not let up. They continue to weave an incriminating story into non-incriminating evidence - sometimes creating bogus evidence in the process. It's despicable to see an innocent person get convicted or get pushed into plea bargain so the prosecutor can rack up another win. > Quite obviously your grasp of U.S. laws and practices is rather > feeble, thus one is forced to speculate whether your grasp of what > can be defined as "innocent" is equally feeble. It looks more like your grasp of US law is getting blurred with the other 7 countries you've been in. PAS seems to have a better understanding than you. In the US, there is a basic principle where people are assumed to be innocent until provent guilty. There is a 4th amendment protecting non-criminals from unreasonable searches (that is, searches without cause). Your response shows that you seem to presume guilt; which was an undercurrent in your statement "I have no idea what innocent act you were engaged in when you were so violently oppressed by the law officers". Apparently merely getting the attention of a cop is sufficient for you to consider someone guilty. I would feel sorry for any defendant who might have you as a juror.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 11:08 +0700 |
| Subject | Re: prosecutors do not care about guilt (was: voting booths in republican areas) |
| Message-ID | <42vvsad5hhsqcpiehtao0p2ji0aig9ofat@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #22044 |
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:42:13 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote: >> I have no idea what innocent act you were engaged in when you were >> so violently oppressed by the law officers, > >It doesn't matter what innocent act he was doing. What's important is >that it's quite common in the US for non-criminals to be harassed by >cops -- largely due to profiling. > Ah yes, "Profiling". Or, one might say the identification of the group that commits the majority of the crimes. And this is something new? Not at all, it has existed and been enforced by public demand throughout the history of mankind. You want evidence? Start with the Christian Bible - the chosen people when they invaded Palestine killed everyone. The Christians did the same thing, when they captured Jerusalem during the 1st crusade they apparently massacred the population making no distinction between Christian Jews or Moslems. And that is just an example. The same thing goes on everywhere. Today! I don't live in the U.S. now but I see a lot of USian who visit this country and it is not unusual to hear one of these tourists say something like, "Geeze, that guy is really stupid. Why, he can't even speak English". Profiling the entire population of a foreign country... And again I can go on and on with examples. In the military I served in several Asian countries and the G.I.'s (who due to the draft probably represented a cross section of U.S. young men) referred to most Asians as "Gooks", although the Japanese were sometimes referred to as "Slope Heads" and apparently believed that all the women in the country were prostitutes. In fact I once provoked a loud argument by arguing that. "They ALL can't be". I was shouted down, "They ALL are! All of them!" Strangely though when the same thing is done to (usually) Negro's (or is "Negro" now a incorrect term?) people who habitually do profile others condemn it. >> And, by the way. strangely as it may be seen, the "prosecuting >> attorney" was hired to do a job.... to prosecute evil doers. The job >> of determining your guilt or innocence is not his job, that is what >> the court does. > >You've contradicted yourself. Prosecutors in the US /prosecute/, >period, not just "evil doers". The court decides whether a defendant >is an evil doer. > >I've been behind the scenes on some criminal cases in the US, where >attorneys often know whether someone is guilty or innocent. Attorneys >have a better picture of guilt than the court does (for reasons I >won't go into). But what's important to realize is that when a >prosecutor knows that a defendant is innocent, *they still do their >job*. They do not let up. They continue to weave an incriminating >story into non-incriminating evidence - sometimes creating bogus >evidence in the process. It's despicable to see an innocent person >get convicted or get pushed into plea bargain so the prosecutor can >rack up another win. > While I do not doubt that your assertion does occur I would contend that it is not a common practice for a D.A. to prosecute an innocent person by fabricating totally false evidence. Nor do totally innocent bystanders get convicted with any regularity. As for your contention that attorneys "know" who is guilty and innocent try going to an attorney who specializes in criminal defense cases and tell him "I am totally guilty. I am the one that raped and murdered that 13 year old girl, and, oh yes, I am a Moslem, I want you to defend me although I don't have much money." and see whether he will accept you as a client. >> Quite obviously your grasp of U.S. laws and practices is rather >> feeble, thus one is forced to speculate whether your grasp of what >> can be defined as "innocent" is equally feeble. > >It looks more like your grasp of US law is getting blurred with the >other 7 countries you've been in. PAS seems to have a better >understanding than you. > >In the US, there is a basic principle where people are assumed to be >innocent until provent guilty. There is a 4th amendment protecting >non-criminals from unreasonable searches (that is, searches without >cause). Your response shows that you seem to presume guilt; which was >an undercurrent in your statement "I have no idea what innocent act >you were engaged in when you were so violently oppressed by the law >officers". Apparently merely getting the attention of a cop is >sufficient for you to consider someone guilty. I would feel sorry for >any defendant who might have you as a juror. I see. In the U.S., you seem to be telling me, it is somehow contrary to law for a person who is hired for the purpose of enforcing the law, to ask you for identification, although it is (I believed) a requirement of the law that an individual who is engaged in selling alcoholic beverages must insist on seeing identification that you are of legal age to drink in that State. Actually the 4th amendment says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" so it does not specifically protect non-criminals, as you stated. The only question is actually what "unreasonable" means. I believe that in most, if not all, States that "reasonable" is defined by law, is it not? Or, do you contend that the laws are wrong? Is it, for example unreasonable to interview a mature male who is repeatedly seen watching young girls performing exercises in a school yard? Or a very poorly dressed individual in an "up market" shopping area walking down a line of expensive cars and peering in the window as if to see whether anyone left their keys in the car? They might be innocent, in which case you would undoubtedly argue that it wasn't "reasonable". But on the other hand they might be intent on raping your little sister or stealing your new Mercedes, in which case you will be loudly claiming that the law didn't do enough to protect you and yours. -- cheers, John B.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 17:14 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: prosecutors do not care about guilt (was: voting booths in republican areas) |
| Message-ID | <55D0A8DD.E2FE1A99@B.Maus.De> |
| In reply to | #22059 |
"John B." wrote: > Ah yes, "Profiling". Or, one might say the identification > of the group that commits the majority of the crimes. As I said before: The valid and sensible criterion is NOT whether the proabability of being stopped and searched is different between groups. It is whether in all searches done the probability of finding something is the same for all groups. Axel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-17 22:57 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: prosecutors do not care about guilt |
| Message-ID | <64104e9fe7e9085a513e0b51ee8e756e@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #22059 |
> Actually the 4th amendment says, "The right of the people to be > secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against > unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" so it > does not specifically protect non-criminals, as you stated. The > only question is actually what "unreasonable" means. I believe that > in most, if not all, States that "reasonable" is defined by law, is > it not? It's surprising that you were able to pick up on the very critical keyword "unreasonable", but then you assert that this does not concern non-criminals. Of course it does. Having criminal evidence makes the difference between a reasonable search, and an unreasonable search, defined in case law.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 13:07 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: voting booths in republican areas |
| Message-ID | <15su06djp2qlo$.v9tani2angeg.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #21968 |
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:20:01 +0700, John B. wrote: > ... mechanics usually wear a shirt with their name embroidered ... I used to have a mechanic's shirt with the name Frank embroidered on it. Didn't mean my name was Frank, though :-) . 'Zat help at all? -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 18:31 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: voting booths in republican areas |
| Message-ID | <d31ho8Fp8s7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21985 |
tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote: > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:20:01 +0700, John B. wrote: > > > ... mechanics usually wear a shirt with their name embroidered ... > > I used to have a mechanic's shirt with the name Frank embroidered on it. > Didn't mean my name was Frank, though :-) . 'Zat help at all? -- tlvp So that's where my shirt is! I've one with "tlvp". Swap?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 22:44 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: voting booths in republican areas |
| Message-ID | <oaf5drn5z7n5$.atw4xwgx3dpb$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #21989 |
On 12 Aug 2015 18:31:36 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote: > So that's where my shirt is! > > I've one with "tlvp". Swap? Alas, Frank, that shirt went through its last wash / dry cycle back before 1980 sometime, and is now reposing blissfully in Frank-shirt Heaven. Please keep the tlvp-shirt as compensation, inadequate tho' it be, for your loss. Bedankt, og cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-15 13:20 +0000 |
| Subject | why disclose personal info (was: voting booths in republican areas) |
| Message-ID | <973bed2be399da88d6d7c884a8d26a18@remailer.paranoici.org> |
| In reply to | #21968 |
"John B." <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> wrote in message > > But in reality why should one care if someone asks their name? Whenever considering whether you should take an action (like disclose information about yourself), it's fundamentally a good idea to ask yourself: how will I benefit from taking that action? What favorable outcome are you expecting to gain from it? When it comes to disclosing your identity, there are countless many ways it can *damage* you. The information can be used for social engineering. It can be used by someone who wants to sue you, or defame you. It's also a precursor to digging up sensitive information. The negative possibilities are endless. > Businessmen almost always hand out name cards showing their name and > telephone numbers and usually an address any time that they get > close to anyone. Indeed, self promotion is a good reason to disclose your identity. OTOH, disclosure to a cop is unlikely to promote you professionally to any extent significant enough to offset the ways it can damage you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-15 15:12 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: why disclose personal info |
| Message-ID | <mqnh9n$m3o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #22043 |
On 15/08/2015 14:20, Anonymous wrote: > "John B." <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> But in reality why should one care if someone asks their name? > > Whenever considering whether you should take an action (like disclose > information about yourself), it's fundamentally a good idea to ask > yourself: how will I benefit from taking that action? What favorable > outcome are you expecting to gain from it? > > When it comes to disclosing your identity, there are countless many > ways it can *damage* you. The information can be used for social > engineering. It can be used by someone who wants to sue you, or > defame you. It's also a precursor to digging up sensitive > information. The negative possibilities are endless. > >> Businessmen almost always hand out name cards showing their name and >> telephone numbers and usually an address any time that they get >> close to anyone. > > Indeed, self promotion is a good reason to disclose your identity. > OTOH, disclosure to a cop is unlikely to promote you professionally to > any extent significant enough to offset the ways it can damage you. This is a group about Android, please don't post off-topic any more than is necessary. -- Cheers, David Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bert <bert@iphouse.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-15 15:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: why disclose personal info |
| Message-ID | <XnsA4F767640E9DCVeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1> |
| In reply to | #22046 |
In news:mqnh9n$m3o$1@dont-email.me David Taylor <david- taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > This is a group about Android, please don't post off-topic any more than > is necessary. People could help reduce this kind of noise by not re-posting the entire offending posts in their entirety to add a one-line comment. -- bert@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 08:26 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: voting booths in republican areas |
| Message-ID | <mqfofc$qnm$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #21938 |
On 08/10/2015 04:57 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 00:21:08 +0200, Axel Berger
> <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> wrote:
>
>>The Real Bev wrote:
>>> But if a cop really wants to know who you are and you
>>> can't produce some sort of acceptable explanation/paper, he can make
>>> life a living hell for you.
>>
>>And you really believe than in America you can tell police your name is
>>Mickey Mouse and they'll just accept that and let you go? That's where
>>ID really makes life much easier for us and far less hassle.
>>
>>Axel
>
> I was under the impression that you must advise the police of your
> identification so googled it and find that some 25 states have a law
> that says they you must identify yourself if asked and the U.S.
> Supreme Court has ruled that the law is permissible if a state
> implements it.
So next time a cop asks I'll just tell him I am Spartacus. That's easy.
--
Cheers, Bev
"It's important to never be arrogant. Especially if you're one
of the little people whose opinion doesn't matter." --Rat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 08:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: voting booths in republican areas |
| Message-ID | <mqfoba$qnm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #21935 |
On 08/10/2015 03:21 PM, Axel Berger wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote:
>> But if a cop really wants to know who you are and you
>> can't produce some sort of acceptable explanation/paper, he can make
>> life a living hell for you.
>
> And you really believe than in America you can tell police your name is
> Mickey Mouse and they'll just accept that and let you go? That's where
> ID really makes life much easier for us and far less hassle.
So much of life now requires some sort of ID that the "I don' have to
show you no steenkin' badges" solution causes more trouble than it's
worth. I really disapprove of national lists containing everything any
government official might want to know about us, but it's already here.
I guess we just have to trust the bastards not to hurt us.
--
Cheers, Bev
"It's important to never be arrogant. Especially if you're one
of the little people whose opinion doesn't matter." --Rat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-15 09:50 -0400 |
| Subject | accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) |
| Message-ID | <226e6df1a3caaeb6576920e57f28bb9b@remailer.cpunk.us> |
| In reply to | #21977 |
> So much of life now requires some sort of ID that the "I don' have > to show you no steenkin' badges" solution causes more trouble than > it's worth. Doing a needless disclosure becomes part of the problem, not the contrary. It's an enabler. Taking the cowards way out and disclosing is to support the attack on the liberties of other non-criminals who get harassed after you. Props to those who stand up for their rights, because they are doing the right thing by everyone. It's a true dichotomy. You can be part of the problem, or you can be part of the solution, there is no other option.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lew <citrustwosac@google.mailer.company.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-15 16:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) |
| Message-ID | <mqnpqn$ioc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #22045 |
On 2015-08-15, Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> wrote: >> So much of life now requires some sort of ID that the "I don' have >> to show you no steenkin' badges" solution causes more trouble than >> it's worth. > > Doing a needless disclosure becomes part of the problem, not the > contrary. It's an enabler. Taking the cowards way out and disclosing > is to support the attack on the liberties of other non-criminals who > get harassed after you. > > Props to those who stand up for their rights, because they are doing > the right thing by everyone. > > It's a true dichotomy. You can be part of the problem, or you can be > part of the solution, there is no other option. > Define "needless disclosure" for every individual of the 7 billion people on the planet. I got a couple of letters that I need to state my beneficiary for some death benefits. The form has a "must fill" for SSA & DOB. My perspective on both items are "needless disclosure"; it may not be for lawyers, but I'm not a lawyer. I didn't fill the form. Some apps want permission before installing; many are what I believe is needless disclosue; but not providing permission, the app won't install & cannot be used..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-15 10:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) |
| Message-ID | <mqnuar$8o4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #22045 |
On 08/15/2015 06:50 AM, Jack Ryan wrote: >> So much of life now requires some sort of ID that the "I don' have >> to show you no steenkin' badges" solution causes more trouble than >> it's worth. > > Doing a needless disclosure becomes part of the problem, not the > contrary. It's an enabler. Taking the cowards way out and disclosing > is to support the attack on the liberties of other non-criminals who > get harassed after you. Yes, but we have to give name, address, birthdate and SS # in order to get a credit card. We have to give more -- LOTS MORE -- to get a security clearance. These things are not unreasonable. I try not to give out my birthdate or SS number, or give a fake one, but given that all of the above have been hacked for SOMEBODY'S personal information, it seems needlessly stressful to worry about this stuff. > Props to those who stand up for their rights, because they are doing > the right thing by everyone. > > It's a true dichotomy. You can be part of the problem, or you can be > part of the solution, there is no other option. What I resent is cops' "I own you" attitude. I somebody is being an asshole I reserve the right to call him an asshole to his face. Why are cops allowed to get testy if I ask one why he parked in a red zone 4 feet from the curb and is casually walking up to the high school's office in CLEAR non-emergency mode? The answer, of course, is "For your safety." If I'd been gutsy I would have told him that if he wasn't dealing with an emergency he should get back in his car and move to where parking is legal or I'd call the station and report him. I was on my bicycle. I figured he could claim some reason to arrest me and my bicycle would have been lost forever. I still resent it, though, and that was 10 years ago. -- Cheers, Bev When you wish upon a falling star your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a meteorite hurtling to the earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much hosed no matter what you wish for. Unless it's death by meteor. --Demotivators
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-15 14:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) |
| Message-ID | <u75vsap3301qtr9e7dn7a0naqj1g18ge8d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #22051 |
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 10:55:11 -0700, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote: >What I resent is cops' "I own you" attitude. I somebody is being an >asshole I reserve the right to call him an asshole to his face. Why >are cops allowed to get testy if I ask one why he parked in a red zone 4 >feet from the curb and is casually walking up to the high school's >office in CLEAR non-emergency mode? The answer, of course, is "For your >safety." > >If I'd been gutsy I would have told him that if he wasn't dealing with >an emergency he should get back in his car and move to where parking is >legal or I'd call the station and report him. I was on my bicycle. I >figured he could claim some reason to arrest me and my bicycle would >have been lost forever. I still resent it, though, and that was 10 >years ago. I was driving on a turnpike with a state trooper behind me, doing a little less than the speed limit and had to slow down because of traffic. He passed me and got in front of me. I just kept up his pace for about three miles and suddenly he turned his lights on and pointed for me to pull over. He had been going ten miles over the limit and without thinking I just kept up with him. He ticketed me. When I asked why he could speed for no reason I just got the look "do you want to pursue this?" and I dropped it. I mentioned this to the judge when paying the fine. He smiled. $115.00 smile.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-15 19:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) |
| Message-ID | <mqosp1$b6b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #22053 |
On 08/15/2015 12:44 PM, BobbyK wrote: > On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 10:55:11 -0700, The Real Bev > <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote: > >>What I resent is cops' "I own you" attitude. I somebody is being an >>asshole I reserve the right to call him an asshole to his face. Why >>are cops allowed to get testy if I ask one why he parked in a red zone 4 >>feet from the curb and is casually walking up to the high school's >>office in CLEAR non-emergency mode? The answer, of course, is "For your >>safety." >> >>If I'd been gutsy I would have told him that if he wasn't dealing with >>an emergency he should get back in his car and move to where parking is >>legal or I'd call the station and report him. I was on my bicycle. I >>figured he could claim some reason to arrest me and my bicycle would >>have been lost forever. I still resent it, though, and that was 10 >>years ago. > > I was driving on a turnpike with a state trooper behind me, doing a > little less than the speed limit and had to slow down because of > traffic. He passed me and got in front of me. I just kept up his > pace for about three miles and suddenly he turned his lights on and > pointed for me to pull over. He had been going ten miles over the > limit and without thinking I just kept up with him. He ticketed me. > When I asked why he could speed for no reason I just got the look "do > you want to pursue this?" and I dropped it. I mentioned this to the > judge when paying the fine. He smiled. $115.00 smile. They're part of the revenue system. Not likely they'd give any up without a better reason than common decency. -- Cheers, Bev "When I was a kid my dad once joked that the best way to prevent being on a plane with someone carrying a bomb would be to bring your own bomb and not detonate it. Sounded convincing. What are the odds that two people board, each with a bomb?" -- Rowdy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 09:54 +0700 |
| Subject | Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) |
| Message-ID | <hcuvsa5384jkumn1a7gg4csae4cs7qr4t2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #22045 |
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 09:50:40 -0400 (EDT), Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> wrote: >> So much of life now requires some sort of ID that the "I don' have >> to show you no steenkin' badges" solution causes more trouble than >> it's worth. > >Doing a needless disclosure becomes part of the problem, not the >contrary. It's an enabler. Taking the cowards way out and disclosing >is to support the attack on the liberties of other non-criminals who >get harassed after you. > >Props to those who stand up for their rights, because they are doing >the right thing by everyone. > >It's a true dichotomy. You can be part of the problem, or you can be >part of the solution, there is no other option. Are you people real? You meet someone and he introduces himself and you say "Nope, I can't reveal my name!". Why in the world is your identity a secret? If you wish to enter the U.S. you must not only identify yourself, but you must prove of that identity. If you want to get a driver's license you must provide some form of identification and (I believe) prove how old you are. If you wish to enter school you must identify yourself. If you want to get a job you need (usually) to identify yourself. If you wish to do business with most people you will have to identify yourself. But if a guy who's identity is evident for anyone to see asks for your identity you say it is a secret. -- cheers, John B.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web