Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #423305
| From | "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity, rec.arts.tv |
| Subject | Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics |
| Followup-To | alt.dev.null |
| Date | 2015-09-21 13:18 +0000 |
| Organization | albasani.net |
| Message-ID | <mtp03g$1g9$6@news.albasani.net> (permalink) |
| References | <P4ZKx.3315$qY1.757@fx17.iad> <3af4dc-0v.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <mto49c$7hf$3@news.albasani.net> <dpj4dc-ce1.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
Followups directed to: alt.dev.null
<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 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.
You brought it up, dude.
>>>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.
I don't. You talk at cross purposes and you don't make your point, you
raise a term from the Second Amendment then deny you were using it as
an example. If you believe I agreed with you, then it was with a valid,
pursuassive argument that you didn't actually make on Usenet.
>>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.
You brought it up, dude. At this point, you're just trolling.
>>>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.
Uh, you DIDN'T make a point and you DIDN'T find an example of any point
you claimed you might make. What point that you failed to make, what was
it that you didn't write did you wish me to comment on?
I'm out.
Back to rec.arts.sf.written | 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 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 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-21 22:16 -0700
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 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 "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2015-09-20 20:49 +0000
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-09-23 15:49 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 16:20 -0700
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 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-21 14:49 -0700
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 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-19 06:14 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics puppetsock <puppet_sock@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-23 07:44 -0700
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 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-21 14:33 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 19:43 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-22 10:28 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 18:48 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 15:41 -0700
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 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 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-20 12:03 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-21 13:51 -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 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-19 17:27 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 20:53 -0400
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 petertrei@gmail.com - 2015-09-20 14:10 -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 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-20 11:57 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-09-21 13:54 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-21 14:55 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Shawn Wilson <ikonoqlast@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 15:05 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 19:53 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-22 10:30 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-19 19:07 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-09-23 14:55 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-09-23 14:58 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-09-23 18:38 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 16:18 -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 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-19 17:22 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Shawn Wilson <ikonoqlast@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 13:07 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Chrysi Cat <chrysicat@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 15:09 -0600
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics Shawn Wilson <ikonoqlast@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 13:08 -0700
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 Shawn Wilson <ikonoqlast@gmail.com> - 2015-09-19 10:26 -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 anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2015-09-18 17:14 -0700
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 patmpowers@gmail.com - 2015-09-18 12:38 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics patmpowers@gmail.com - 2015-09-19 20:40 -0700
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Persecute Global Warming Skeptics Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> - 2015-09-22 19:48 -0400
Re: Scientists Ask Obama To Persecute Global Warming Skeptics Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-23 12:06 -0700
csiph-web