Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #522461
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity, rec.arts.tv |
| Subject | Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics |
| Date | 2015-09-21 06:13 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <dpj4dc-ce1.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink) |
| References | <P4ZKx.3315$qY1.757@fx17.iad> <1s54dc-n1.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <mtnqr5$hgs$2@news.albasani.net> <3af4dc-0v.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <mto49c$7hf$3@news.albasani.net> |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <t4l0dc-5jh.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>>>>>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > In article <p26vcc-boc.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Not quite, for instead of some convoluted interpretation
>>>>>>>>of the RICO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> act, the charge would be something along the lines of
>>>>conspiracy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> to deprive constitutional rights.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > By doing nothing more than saying stuff that's unpopular.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The Court would have to overturn almost 200+ years of 1st
>>>>>>>>Amendment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > jurisprudence to uphold the notion that the state can
>>>>>>validly hold
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > people criminally liable for deprivation of civil rights
>>>>>>>>merely for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > saying "bad" stuff.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That would highly depend on exactly who said what and to whom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true.
>>>>>>>>This is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary course in a free society. The response to the
>>>>>>>>>>unreasoned is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the
>>>>>>>>straight-out lie,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simple truth. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357,
>>>>>>377 (1927)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Brandeis, J., concurring) ("If there be time to expose through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the
>>evil by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more
>>>>>>speech, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforced silence").
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The theory of our Constitution is "that the best test of
>>>>>>truth is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> power of the thought to get itself accepted in the
>>>>>>competition of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> market," Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919)
>>>>>>>>>>(Holmes, J.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dissenting).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 1st Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to
>>>>>>speech we do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not like, and for good reason. Freedom of speech and thought
>>>>>>>>flows not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable
>>>>>>>>>>rights of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person. And suppression of speech by the government can make
>>>>>>>>>>exposure of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsity more difficult, not less so. Society has the right
>>>>>>and civic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These
>>>>>>>>ends are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public
>>>>>>>>discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through content-based mandates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> U.S. vs. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2550
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "How can you develop a reputation as a straight shooter if
>>>>>>>>lying is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an option? Even if untruthful speech were not valuable for its
>>>>>>>>>>own sake,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its protection is clearly required to give breathing room to
>>>>>>truthful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-expression, which is unequivocally protected by the First
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Amendment."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> United States v. Alvarez, 638 F.3d 666, 675 (9th Cir. 2011)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The person doing the tipping in an insider trading case
>>who does no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>trading can be prosecuted even though the tipster has done nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>but speak.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Under United States Code Title 18, Section 871 a person can be
>>>>>>>>prosecuted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>for nothing more than speech.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You made me look it up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not just any speech; it has to be mailed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18 U.S.C. Sec. 871
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in
>>>>>>>>the mail or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier
>>>>>>any letter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any
>>>>>>>>threat to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the
>>President
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice
>>>>President or other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> officer next in the order of succession to the office of
>>>>>>>>President of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and
>>>>willfully
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise makes any such threat against the President,
>>>>>>President-elect,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vice President or other officer next in the order of
>>>>succession to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined
>>>>>>under this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nope; "or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hate statutory construction. You sure that's not meant to
>>>>broaden out
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what was being threatened, instead of relating to mailing?
>>If that was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meant to be any threat, what the hell is the point of addressing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the issue of mailing it in the first place?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>As people HAVE been convicted for what they said, but not mailed, yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>As to why it was worded that way, likely because when it was enacted
>>>>>>>>>>>>in 1917 mail was a common form of communications.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You're missing my point: If it's a criminal threat in ANY method of
>>>>>>>>>>> communication, then there's no purpose in mentioning the mails
>>>>at all. The
>>>>>>>>>>> statute would attempt to make the letter illegal before it's
>>mailed the
>>>>>>>>>>> moment ink is on paper.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You're missing my point: How that hell would anyone know what
>>the thinking
>>>>>>>>>>was behind the wording 98 years later other than making a guess?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try reading the words for comprehension, like anything else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Bullshit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If it were that simple there would be no court cases attempting to
>>>>>>>>determine the intent of the original authors, and there have been
>>>>>>>>a LOT of those.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>An excellent example is the amount of effort in determining the intent
>>>>>>>>of the framers in "A well regulated Militia".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The words "well regulated" and militia had far different meanings 230
>>>>>>>>years ago.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, they didn't. It's merely an old-fashioned term. It had a legal
>>meaning,
>>>>>>> and quite a bit of discussion from Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If it was cut and dry why any discussion at all?
>>>>>
>>>>> The meaning of "well-regulated militia" wasn't the controversial part of
>>>>> the amendment. The legal controversy was whether "the right to bear arms"
>>>>> had to be read together with "well-regulated militia". It really was a
>>>>> case of poorly executed legal drafting, sorry, Mr. Madison.
>>>>
>>>>So thus we have come full circle, through a long and arduous path, to
>>>>intent of the author.
>>>>
>>>>Q.E.D.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, but the intent of the author doesn't mean shit. Clearly,
>>> Scalia ignored it, paid attention to what he could make of the
>>> language instead in the Heller decision.
>>
>>And what does all this have to do with my original statement that
>>courts having to determine the intent of the author is not a rare
>>thing?
>
> It means EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. The "well-regulated militia" phrase
> refers to the militia clauses in the main body of the Constitution; that's
> not controversial either. Madison's intent was to link the right of the
> people to keep and bear arms to the formation of the militia, without
> addressing the keeping and bearing of arms for any other purpose.
>
> But that ain't what he wrote, is it. It's critical to convey meaning
> when drafting legislation; the Second Amendment was a failure due to
> its ambiguity. Thanks to Scalia's opinion in Heller, it's no longer ambiguous.
Your fixation on the 2nd Amendment and it's interpretation has already
been noted.
>>Take carefull note that in this I said "courts", NOT Supreme Court
>>nor did I offer a particular case involing the 2nd Amendment as
>>anything other than one fairly well known example and NOT an exhaustive
>>list of such cases.
>
> It doesn't matter if it's at trial court or appellate court level. The
> judge says what the law is. Legislative intent can come up at trial.
Good.
I'm glad you agree with me.
> In fact, both sides are usually required to make all arguments at trial
> in order to have something to appeal if the trial judge rules against their
> side. Senate and House committees often include guidance to courts that
> they call "legislative intent", written at the direction of the committee
> chairman and not necessarily the opinion of the member of Congress or
> Senator that actually drafted the language. It's not precedent and
> it can certainly be ignored. Sometimes it discusses aspects of the law
> that never made it into the actual bill.
>
> They're legislators. If they wanted the law interpreted in a specific
> manner, it had to be drafted in the legislation itself; opinions that
> "Apply provision A in these circumstances but not in the following
> circumstances" stated as legislative intent don't actually guide courts.
> I have no idea when Congress started issuing "intent" to guide courts;
> I suppose in the 1930s. My state legislature doesn't do anything like that.
>
> The more traditional way of determining legislative intent is to read
> arguments in support and oppose made on the floor and possibly in committee.
> You may have to look for debate on the provision from a previous session,
> given how common it is that provisions from bills that died get
> reintroduced in identical language in subsequent sessions.
Your fixation on Federal law is noted.
>>I'm sure with a bit of digging I can find a case where the intent of
>>the author was subject to interpretation in a traffic case.
That you ramble on and on about Federal law and totally ignore the
last sentence is noted.
--
Jim Pennino
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-18 10:50 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 14:53 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 15:33 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-18 20:03 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 18:03 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-18 17:13 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:06 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 23:04 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-19 04:48 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:08 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 13:22 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 13:43 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 13:54 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-19 15:51 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-21 20:54 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-21 14:03 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-21 14:45 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-22 05:43 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-21 22:16 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-22 01:29 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 09:35 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-19 18:12 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 13:22 -0500
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-19 18:42 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 13:58 -0500
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-19 20:13 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 12:54 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 16:30 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 13:22 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-19 22:23 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 17:10 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 01:15 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-19 22:33 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 03:09 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 00:45 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 20:17 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 05:35 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 00:20 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 01:20 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 15:28 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 17:22 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 18:18 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-20 11:31 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 18:50 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-20 19:06 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 20:49 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 18:46 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 20:53 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 21:31 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 19:08 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-20 23:17 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 23:36 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 23:34 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-21 00:00 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-21 00:06 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-21 02:16 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-21 02:42 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-21 04:57 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-21 05:23 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-21 06:13 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-21 13:18 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-21 14:21 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 18:24 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2015-09-19 00:46 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 04:09 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2015-09-19 11:57 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 16:23 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 17:43 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> - 2015-09-19 18:00 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 18:59 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> - 2015-09-20 15:11 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-20 15:24 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 18:44 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-20 18:40 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 19:18 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 15:54 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> - 2015-09-20 17:17 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 19:05 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-09-20 20:30 -0600
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-09-20 16:03 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> - 2015-09-20 17:22 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 18:51 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-29 03:20 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 00:29 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 23:17 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-19 23:19 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 23:57 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-20 00:01 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-20 00:06 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-20 08:24 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-20 08:29 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 12:04 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-09-20 16:00 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 07:42 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-09-20 15:57 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 18:48 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-20 23:27 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-20 23:33 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 17:25 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-09-20 10:52 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-20 08:30 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 09:33 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2015-09-19 11:57 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 13:07 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-19 16:13 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 16:21 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 13:33 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 20:17 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 17:28 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 00:54 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2015-09-19 22:32 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Mike M <mike@xenocyte.com> - 2015-09-20 06:01 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-20 11:47 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics BTR1701 <address_is@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-20 15:51 -0500
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-20 16:55 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 23:56 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-20 23:35 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 03:31 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 23:09 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-19 20:34 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-21 06:26 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-23 07:15 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics csampson@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson) - 2015-09-21 01:22 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> - 2015-09-19 17:51 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-18 12:59 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-09-18 13:10 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-18 17:14 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-18 22:41 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-18 23:03 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-21 05:54 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-21 01:06 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-21 07:42 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-21 02:02 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-21 20:32 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-21 16:49 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-22 06:02 +0200
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Persecute Global Warming Skeptics Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> - 2015-09-22 19:48 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-23 05:47 +0200
csiph-web