XPost: alt.usenet.kooks, alt.fan.art-bell, alt.fucknozzles   
   XPost: rec.arts.poems, alt.fluff-girl.pinku-sensei   
   From: thisemail@isamunge.com   
      
   On 3/13/09 11:02 AM, in article   
   eIOdnWC7Ep3E-ifUnZ2dnUVZ_r3inZ2d@centurytel.net, "John "C"" wrote:   
      
   >   
   > "Marcia"  wrote in message   
   > news:C5DFCCE0.16BC6%what@wherever.com...   
   >> in article 2l91pv.igb.17.3@news.alt.net, Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries at   
   >> nimue@databasix.com wrote on 3/12/09 9:01 PM:   
   >>   
   >>> Marcia wrote:   
   >>>> in article 2l8vtm.ac0.17.2@news.alt.net, Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries at   
   >>>> nimue@databasix.com wrote on 3/12/09 8:18 PM:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> marcia wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Mar 12, 7:52 pm, Dead Kitten   
   >    
   >>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>> marcia wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 7:13 pm, Dead Kitten   
   >    
   >>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> marcia wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 6:38 pm, Dead Kitten   
   >>>>>>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> marcia wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 6:27 pm, Dead Kitten   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Marcia wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> I thought the copy & paste issue was resolved in Barrett   
   > v.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Rosenthal, as an application of Section 230 of The   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Communications Decency Act. * Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40   
   > Cal.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> 4th 33 (2006)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Immunity was upheld for an individual internet user from   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> liability for republication of defamatory statement on a   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> listserv. The court found the defendant to be a "user of   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> interactive computer services" and thus immune from   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> liability for posting information passed to her by the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> author.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> And here we have ANOTHER e-attorney.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> My, my.  Who would have guessed that AUK had so many law   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> experts.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Disprove what I've written   
   >>>>>>>>>>> You aren't an attorney, therefore all your legal "advice" is   
   >>>>>>>>>>> pure shit. Hope that helps!   
   >>>>>>>>>> I researched it   
   >>>>>>>>> Yes, I'm sure your Wikipedia and Google skills are very   
   > powerful,   
   >>>>>>>>> but that doesn't make you an attorney.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> I researched it   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Repeating yourself isn't going to help.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Prove me wrong, dumbass.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Prove that you're an attorney.  Until you do, you are wrong by   
   >>>>>>> default.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> False assumption, retard. Can you prove the facts wrong?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> He'll do this as long as you keep arguing with him.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> If you stop, he'll do something else.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> IOW, you are being trolled. It's meaningless.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I was just copying spooge. :)   
   >>>   
   >>> Well, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but I've noticed   
   > that   
   >>> Aratzio doesn't like it when Mike imitates him.   
   >>   
   >> I really wish everyone would just kiss and make up. Or get along, at   
   > least.   
   >>   
   >> ISTM all the parties involved in this particular *ahem* "problem" are   
   > really   
   >> decent people who hold a lot of the same values and philosophies, but   
   > can't   
   >> seem to get past some nasty incidents.   
   >   
   > That's the goal of the "New AUK" ...a Nice place to post...free of   
   > back-biting and other such behavior...I'm glad that you're "On-Board" !!   
   > --   
   > King John I of AUK   
      
   Pffft. The goal of the self-appointed New AUK committee is to undermine our   
   First Amendment rights and try to act as a dictatorship. Good luck with   
   that. If you want to control people, you'll have to start a moderated   
   newsgroup.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)