Author Topic: Carlbrook  (Read 704442 times)

0 Members and 12 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Ganja

  • Posts: 606
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Carlbrook
« Reply #2415 on: January 16, 2007, 08:12:37 PM »
Quote from: ""Guest""
This bum I see down by the highway every day on my way to work holds up a sign that says he's a disabled vet, and feeling bad for him I give him a dollar now and then. Last week I took the same route home, unlike I normally do and I saw watched him walk a block away and get in a chevy tahoe, a nicer car than I drive. I pulled up next to him and asked why he was begging for money with such a nice car, he told me, "it's Karen, this all goes back to Karen." I just drove away in shock.

 :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Carlbrook
« Reply #2416 on: January 16, 2007, 08:15:00 PM »
You darn forniscators need to stop Gang-Stalking me.
Who is driving by my house making horn noises in a 3-2-1 pattern?
What did I ever do to you?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Ganja

  • Posts: 606
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Carlbrook
« Reply #2417 on: January 16, 2007, 08:16:25 PM »
Quote from: ""CharIy""
You darn forniscators need to stop Gang-Stalking me.
Who is driving by my house making horn noises in a 3-2-1 pattern?
What did I ever do to you?

How you doin' there, Charly.  :lol:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline psy

  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 5606
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://homepage.mac.com/psyborgue/
Carlbrook
« Reply #2418 on: January 16, 2007, 08:20:08 PM »
Quote from: ""Guest""
Psy! Where ya been? We haven't seen you on the group for a while. What's been going on with you? You seem bothered.


Nope.  Just getting my sleep schedule back on normal (day awake, night sleep) time.  Why?  Long story.

I've been busy recently but not bothered.  and tired.. and typing while tired... and...  should probably hit submit before i fall asleep (were it not for the insomnia).
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Benchmark Young Adult School - bad place [archive.org link]
Sue Scheff Truth - Blog on Sue Scheff
"Our services are free; we do not make a profit. Parents of troubled teens ourselves, PURE strives to create a safe haven of truth and reality." - Sue Scheff - August 13th, 2007 (fukkin surreal)

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Carlbrook
« Reply #2419 on: January 16, 2007, 08:22:29 PM »
Quote from: ""psy""
Quote from: ""Guest""
Psy! Where ya been? We haven't seen you on the group for a while. What's been going on with you? You seem bothered.

Nope.  Just getting my sleep schedule back on normal (day awake, night sleep) time.  Why?  Long story.

No problem; I withdraw the question.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Carlbrook
« Reply #2420 on: January 16, 2007, 08:23:49 PM »
The evidence before the court is incontravertible.
Theres no need for the jury to retire.
In all my years of judging I have never heard before,
Of someone more deserving of the full penalty of the law.
The way you made them suffer,
Your exquisite wife and mother,
Fills me with the urge to deficate! -- no, judge, the jury!
Since, my friend, you have revealed your deepest fear,
I sentence you to be exposed before your peers.
Tear down the wall!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Charly

  • Posts: 262
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Carlbrook
« Reply #2421 on: January 17, 2007, 10:50:36 AM »
Just a note to offer my apology and retraction of some things I said (passed on after hearing from someone else) in the past:

1. I have no personal information on Deborah's relationship with her son and anything I said about custody of her son has no basis.  I also have no information indicating that Deborah used different logins on the forum.

2. Any impersonations of DJ, Julie or others were done in jest. I have no personal information about DJ's departure from HLA and I retract any remarks about him being fired and any jokes about improper relations with children.

3. Any insulting remarks towards Robert Bruce that may have crossed the line into untrue "facts" are retracted and I apologize.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Carlbrook
« Reply #2422 on: January 17, 2007, 10:54:28 AM »
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anne Bonney

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5006
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Carlbrook
« Reply #2423 on: January 17, 2007, 11:00:23 AM »
That was me posting a pic of Karen.  Problems logging in and posting.  could someone get rid of the duplicate please?  Thx.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
traight, St. Pete, early 80s
AA is a cult http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult.html

The more boring a child is, the more the parents, when showing off the child, receive adulation for being good parents-- because they have a tame child-creature in their house.  ~~  Frank Zappa

Offline Dr Fucktard

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1069
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Carlbrook
« Reply #2424 on: January 17, 2007, 11:02:53 AM »
Quote from: ""Charly""
Just a note to offer my apology and retraction of some things I said (passed on after hearing from someone else) in the past:

1. I have no personal information on Deborah's relationship with her son and anything I said about custody of her son has no basis.  I also have no information indicating that Deborah used different logins on the forum.

2. Any impersonations of DJ, Julie or others were done in jest. I have no personal information about DJ's departure from HLA and I retract any remarks about him being fired and any jokes about improper relations with children.

3. Any insulting remarks towards Robert Bruce that may have crossed the line into untrue "facts" are retracted and I apologize.

Thank you for your honesty with the group, Charly. Now have a seat on Front Row? and start busting your ass!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Carlbrook
« Reply #2425 on: January 17, 2007, 04:49:42 PM »
Posted 2/14/2006 9:45 PM
 
E-Mail Newsletters  
   
Cyberstalking law opens debate on what's annoying
By Richard Willing, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON ? It didn't get much publicity, but an anti-stalking bill passed by Congress recently makes it a federal crime to "annoy" someone over the Internet.
And that's really beginning to bug some people.

"It's a stupid law that has slipped in under the radar," says Clinton Fein, a San Francisco-based artist who runs annoy.com, a website that he says offers "unique and irreverent" commentary on politics and culture. "Who says what's officially annoying? Is that a business we really want our government to be in?"

The law makes it a crime to anonymously "annoy, abuse, threaten or harass" another person over the Internet.

Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington inserted the provision into legislation that reauthorized the federal Violence Against Women Act. It carries a prison sentence of up to two years and an unspecified fine for those convicted of violations. President Bush signed the bill into law Jan. 5.

McDermott said he was prompted to act by the case of Joelle Ligon, a Seattle woman who was sent menacing e-mails, falsely accused of résumé-padding in messages to co-workers and impersonated in sex-oriented Internet chat rooms from 1998 to 2003.

Some of the communications were traced to a former boyfriend in South Carolina. He was sentenced to five years of probation and 500 hours of community service after he was prosecuted under a federal telecommunications law that protects against harassment.

To eliminate questions over whether phone law applied to the Internet, McDermott pressed for the new legislation. The language "annoy, abuse, threaten or harass" was taken directly from the telephone law.

Mike DeCesare, a spokesman for McDermott, says the new law is not intended to curb free speech.

"This is about bad people doing bad things. ... It relates to somebody who does something to somebody else," he says. "It's not about posting something on a message board. It's got to be direct, one-to-one communication."

No one has been prosecuted under the new law, DeCesare says.

Critics aren't satisfied. Fein says it is unclear whether the law refers to annoying "conduct" or simply an e-mail whose message irritates its recipient.

"No one knows what this means," Fein says. "That in itself has a chilling effect."

Barry Steinhardt, a lawyer who specializes in privacy issues at the American Civil Liberties Union in New York City, says the new law's chief problem is the "subjective nature" of the word annoy. "Words like threaten, harass and abuse can be defined by what a reasonable person understands them to mean," he says. "Anyone who's ever had their spam filter stop something they wanted, or let something through that they didn't, knows that deciding what is annoying is something else again."

He says the ACLU is considering whether to ask a federal court to declare the new law unconstitutional because it's too vague.

A scholar who specializes in cyber law says the law could be difficult to overturn. Susan Brenner, a University of Dayton law professor and a consultant to the Secret Service on cyber laws, says courts likely would read "annoy" together with the words that follow it ? "abuse, threaten or harass" ? and conclude that the law refers to specific behavior.

In 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit used that reasoning to uphold the conviction of Erik Bowker, an Ohio man who had stalked a Youngstown television reporter via telephone.

But in 1999, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., ruled that a man could not be prosecuted for "annoying" conduct because he had telephoned the U.S. attorney seven times to complain about a case that had been brought against him. The calls, the court found, were political speech protected by the First Amendment.

David Hudson, a lawyer with the First Amendment Center, a speech-rights advocacy group in Nashville, says the different ways that courts have interpreted the word "annoy" make the new anti-stalking law "ripe for a challenge."
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Carlbrook
« Reply #2426 on: January 17, 2007, 04:51:27 PM »
Someone should use that law to sue Karen and get her to stop harrassing the posters on fornits!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Ganja

  • Posts: 606
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Carlbrook
« Reply #2427 on: January 17, 2007, 04:54:33 PM »
:rofl: Yes they should, indeed. ::bwahaha::
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline hanzomon4

  • Posts: 1334
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Carlbrook
« Reply #2428 on: January 17, 2007, 05:06:30 PM »
Here's the act Title 18 110A, 2261A(federal)... It's not bullshit unless some tries to us it to further their own bull. It's useful in cases involving real threats of harm transmitted over any facility of interstate commerce. The wording is important but subjective, how does the law define "reasonable fear"?. Either way like any law it can be exploited or used for good.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
i]Do something real, however, small. And don\'t-- don\'t diss the political things, but understand their limitations - Grace Lee Boggs[/i]
I do see the present and the future of our children as very dark. But I trust the people\'s capacity for reflection, rage, and rebellion - Oscar Olivera

Howto]

Offline hanzomon4

  • Posts: 1334
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Carlbrook
« Reply #2429 on: January 17, 2007, 05:23:31 PM »
Hey I found another federal law on forced labor, do any of you program vets feel that this applies to your program experience...
Title 18 77, 1589
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
i]Do something real, however, small. And don\'t-- don\'t diss the political things, but understand their limitations - Grace Lee Boggs[/i]
I do see the present and the future of our children as very dark. But I trust the people\'s capacity for reflection, rage, and rebellion - Oscar Olivera

Howto]