December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

victory.txt
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From frbspd(a)crl.com Thu Nov 13 11:41:55 1997 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 01:48:43 -0800 (PST) From: Stephen Dunifer <frbspd(a)crl.com> To: Barry Alexander <peyote(a)netcom.com> Subject: FRB legal victory ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FREE RADIO BERKELEY & MICROPOWER BROADCASTING At 7 PM on Wednesday, November 12 attorneys for Stephen Dunifer & Free Radio Berkeley received a 14 page decision via fax from Federal District Court Judge Claudia Wilken announcing her ruling in favor of Stephen Dunifer and Free Radio Berkeley. Her ruling denies the FCC's motion for summary judgement for a permanent injunction, states that she has jurisdiction in this case and that the FCC's regulatory structure is unconstitutional. Further, she orders the FCC to submit within 14 days a brief on the constitutional issues raised. Essentially Judge Claudia Wilken affirms all the merits and arguments raised by the defense attorneys for Stephen Dunifer and Free Radio Berkeley. Stay tuned for further details. The full text of the decision will be posted ASAP. A victory party will take place on Saturday evening, November 15 in Berkeley. Place to be announced as soon as one is secured. Everyone is invited. Stephen Dunifer Free Radio Berkeley

1 0

wilkenrules.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

JUDGE WILKEN DENIES FCC MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT!!! Press Release Follows. To Go Directly To The Full Text Of Judge Wilken's Decision, Click Here National Lawyers Guild Committee on Democratic Communications 558 Capp Street, San Francisco 94110 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE COURT REJECTS FCC'S CONSTITUTIONAL CATCH 22 United States District Court Judge Claudia Wilken has rejected another attempt by the Federal Communications Commission to silence Berkeley Micro Radio Broadcaster Stephen Dunifer, founder of Free Radio Berkeley. In a 13 page opinion released on November 12, 1997, Judge Wilken once again rejected the government's motion for an injunction to silence micro radio broadcasts by local radio pioneer Stephen Dunifer. In 1995, Judge Wilken rejected the government's first motion for a preliminary injunction against Dunifer's broadcasts. At that time the Court found merit in Dunifer's argument that the FCC's ban on low power, affordable FM broadcasting was a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech to all in the United States. In a blatant attempt to avoid facing its First Amendment obligations the FCC then urged Wilken to permanently enjoin Dunifer from Broadcasting and at the same time argued that she could not even consider the issue of whether its rules, which prevent him from getting a license, are unconstitutional. In a Kafkaesqe argument, the Commission argued that Wilken had jurisdiction to issue an injunction, but no jurisdiction to hear Dunifer's constitutional arguments. The government claimed that only the higher federal courts could consider the constitutional question. In her November 12 decision rejecting the Government's position, Judge Wilken pointed to the fact that the FCC had taken exactly the opposite position in the 1994 case of Dougan vs FCC. In that case, an Arizona micro radio broadcaster had appealed an FCC fine (for broadcasting without a license) to the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeal, and the FCC had argued that the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction over the case, and that it had to be heard by the District Court. The Court of Appeals agreed with the FCC and sent the case back to the District Court. Judge Wilken noted that the Arizona broadcaster had raised the same constitutional arguments in the Court of Appeals that Dunifer is raising. The Court ruled that in sending all of the issues in the Arizona case to the District Court, the Appeals Court recognized that the District Court had jurisdiction over all aspects of the case. In denying the Government's motion for an injunction "without prejudice," Judge Wilken ordered the Government to file a further brief on the question of whether the unconstitutionality of the FCC's ban on micro radio is a valid legal defense to an injunction against broadcasting at low power without a license. Dunifer's attorneys, Louis Hiken and Allen Hopper of San Francisco, will have an opportunity to rebut the government's arguments on this point. In response to pressure from the commercial broadcaster's lobby, the National Association of Broadcasters (N.A.B.), the FCC has in recent months been stepping up its campaign of harassment against the thousands of micro radio stations now on the air in this country. Hiken commented "The broadcast industry is clearly afraid of these little community stations which are speaking truth to its power. In trying to do the N.A.B.'s bidding, the FCC demonstrates that it is nothing but an enforcement arm of the commercial broadcast industry and the multi-national corporations which own it." The National Lawyers Guild's Committee on Democratic Communications has represented the Lawyers Guild, San Francisco's Media Alliance, and the Women's International News Gathering Services as a "Friend of the Court" (Amicus) in this case. In its Friend of the Court brief the Lawyers Guild pointed out that FCC regulations make it impossible for all but the very wealthy to even apply for a broadcast license. This, they told the Court, is the equivalent of saying anyone could speak from a soap box in the park, but the box had to be made of gold. Guild attorney Peter Franck commented "In an era when Disney owns ABC, the world's largest defense contractor owns NBC and CNN merges with Time which merges with Warner, and when 'public' broadcasting is told to get its money from corporations, micro radio may be our last best hope for democracy on the air ways." He continued "Judge Wilken's decision is a courageous rejection of the Government's attempt to use a legal Catch-22 to avoid facing the fact that its ban on micro radio flies in the face of the Constitution." The legal team representing Dunifer and the Amicae are very pleased with Judge Wilken's reasoned and thorough decision denying the FCC's motion to have the case resolved without a trial on the merits. For almost 70 years, the FCC has catered solely to the interests of commercial corporate giants, through their mouthpiece, the National Association of Broadcasters. These are the pirates, who have stolen the airwaves from the American people, and who represent corporate interests valued at more than 60 billion dollars. Only the Pentagon, the Silicon Valley and the transportation industries possess the financial wallop represented by the NAB and its constituents. Judge Wilken's decision represents a vision of what it would be like for the American people to be given back their own voice. The decision suggests the likely unconstitutionality of the entire regulatory structure underlying the FCC's ban on low power radio. It forewarns of the total failure of that agency to carry out its statutory obligation to regulate the airwaves in the public interest -- that is, in the interest of the American people, rather than the media monopolies that control our airwaves. The legal team welcomes the opportunity to have a court identify the real pirates of the airwaves -- not the thousands of microradio broadcasters who seek to communicate with the people of their communities, but rather the billionaire commercial interests that control the airwaves as if they own them. Is it General Electric, Westinghouse and the Disney Corporation that have the right to control local community radio, or is that a right that belongs to all of the American people, regardless of economic status? FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: Peter Franck, Counsel for Amicus 415-415-995-5055 pfranck(a)hbmvr.com (days) pfranck(a)a.crl.com(evs, wknds) http://www.368Hayes.com/nlg.cdc.html Alan Korn, Counsel for Amicus 415-362-5700 aakorn(a)igc.org Stephen Dunifer, Free Radio Berkeley 415-644-3779 frbspd(a)crl.com http://www.freeradio.org Louis Hiken Counsel for Stephen Dunifer 415-575-3220 hiken(a)igc.org http://www.368Hayes.com Allen Hopper Counsel for Stephen Dunifer 415-575-3222 lazlo(a)igc.org http://www.368Hayes.com SEE THE FULL TEXT OF JUDGE WILKEN'S DECISION TO STEPHEN DUNIFER/FREE RADIO BERKELEY INFORMATION PAGE TO FREE RADIO BERKELEY LEGAL BATTLE PAGE TO NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD INFORMATION PAGE TO THE OFFICIAL NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD WEB SITE TO NLG COMMITTEE ON DEMOCRATIC COMMUNICATIONS PAGE TO FREE RADIO BERKELEY WEB SITE BACK TO LAW OFFICES AT 368 HAYES STREET

1 0

HAYEKWEB: V Postrel on Hayek & 'Information'
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 03:59:29 EST Reply-To: Hayek Related Research <HAYEK-L(a)MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> Sender: Hayek Related Research <HAYEK-L(a)MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: GBRansom <GBRansom(a)AOL.COM> Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: HAYEKWEB: V Postrel on Hayek & 'Information' To: HAYEK-L(a)MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU >> Hayek on the Web << "Knowledge at a Cost" by Virginia I. Postrel, editor of _Reason_ magazine, on the Web at: http://www.reasonmag.com/opeds/vpasap0695.html >From "Knowledge at a Cost": ".. The "information is free" school of thought also tends to assume that information magically appears in computer networks. But deciding what to record and how means negotiating among people with different needs and knowledge bases. The marketing department of a steel company, for instance, wants products classified by how they're used, while manufacturing wants them classified by how they're made. A health insurer studied by Elihu Gerson and Susan Leigh Star of the Tremont Research Institute had a five-person unit devoted to resolving conflicts over how to code medical procedures. Doctors, customers, and various internal departments disagreed about what criteria should determine the codes and how narrow the categories should be. Yet everyone had to use the same system. The unit's job was essentially diplomacy: getting the different groups to agree on coding guidelines. "Traditionally, finding solutions to information systems problems has been framed as...arriving at the 'correct answer' via algorithmic procedures," write Gerson and Star. But in this case, there is no single correct answer. "Rather, there are multiple, possibly inconsistent, competing answers, none of which has a unique claim to validity." Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek, one of the earliest economic theorists of the role of knowledge, would have recognized the problem. Organizations overcome such difficulties through compromise and negotiation, or they break down. But society as a whole can avoid the "knowledge problem" only at the cost of stamping out individuality. In his classic 1945 essay, "The Use of Knowledge in Society," Hayek criticized economists who believed central planning would be simple. He wrote that "the knowledge...we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess." Those "bits" include not merely facts, but complex individual goals and preferences information that, by its very nature, can't be centralized. In our enthusiasm for the power of information technology, we would be foolish to forget its limitations. Information may be cheap, but knowledge still isn't free." A slightly shorter version of Postrel's article originally appeared in the June 5, 1995 issue of _Forbes ASAP_. Hayek on the Web is a regular feature of the Hayek-L list. --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>

1 0

HAYEKWEB: V Postrel on Hayek & 'Information' (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 11:47:23 -0500 > From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> > Subject: HAYEKWEB: V Postrel on Hayek & 'Information' > >> Hayek on the Web << > > "Knowledge at a Cost" by Virginia I. Postrel, editor of _Reason_ > magazine, on the Web at: > > http://www.reasonmag.com/opeds/vpasap0695.html > > >From "Knowledge at a Cost": > > ".. The "information is free" school of thought also tends to assume > that information magically appears in computer networks. It's "information wants to be free". A subtle but profound distinction. > Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek, one of the earliest economic theorists > of the role of knowledge, would have recognized the problem. > Organizations overcome such difficulties through compromise > and negotiation, or they break down. But society as a whole > can avoid the "knowledge problem" only at the cost of stamping > out individuality. It's a real pitty Hayek never tried 'cooperation' instead of 'compromise'. Oh, the short-short sightedness of ego and tryanny. What is the line of reasoning that the *only* solution for society is to stamp out individuality? Sounds more like wishful thinking from some brain-dead drone with no imagination or respect for others. Perhaps he should have stuck with economics and kept away from sociology. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | | We built your fort. We will not have it used against us. | | | | John Wayne - Allegheny Uprising | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Fw: Jim Bell Sentenced (fwd)
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: >Plea-bargaining = capitulation = self-censorship Now, Deft-Spinner Jim, you've switched from what we (you) did or did not do to what Jim did or did not do, which is what I was indelicately pointing out has been how we (you and me) self-censoringly plead our case for or against AP and USG, and thereby capitulate covertly while ineffectively protesting Jim's (and other terrorist targets') zap by USG-AP. And rightly so, what fool would want to take Jim's place, and that's what we're relieved to not be in, now that we've been shown an example. Chilled speech, it's called, finger-pointing about some fool going too far, and worse, getting caught. This time we're so pleased we didn't lose the lottery, as Shirley Jackson wrote, that we eagerly stone the winner, split some hairs, tut-tut, spin our fear and call it wisdom. Too bad that camouflaged cowardice (shrewdness) cahoots with IRS and Justice. Keep quiet about yourself, blame somebody else, luck may hold. That's what I'm doing, blaming wildly, hiding in a crowd of "we's" and now, thanks much, your equation for going along and getting ahead. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

1 0

Re: Fw: Jim Bell Sentenced (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 12:22:01 -0500 > From: John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> > Subject: Re: Fw: Jim Bell Sentenced (fwd) > Now, Deft-Spinner Jim, you've switched from what we (you) > did or did not do to what Jim did or did not do, which is what > I was indelicately pointing out has been how we (you and me) > self-censoringly plead our case for or against AP and USG, > and thereby capitulate covertly while ineffectively protesting > Jim's (and other terrorist targets') zap by USG-AP. Bullshit, your Burroughs-esk not withstanding. I believe Jim Bell's AP proposal is sheer insanity with no real merit other than clear and open endorsement of anarchy. I have always said this and will always say it. However, I *do* support his right to *talk* about it all he wants. When he or others begin to *act* upon it then I say do to them exactly what they are wanting to do to others - nail their hide to a wall. Violence has one and *only* one justification - immediate self-defence. His putting stink bombs in a federal building deserves some punishment. It is nothing more than a petty childish prank and should be treated as such. Bottem line with Jim Bell, he is a selfish child who refuses to grow up. Let him reap what he sows. The federal responce to this and other forms of civil disobedience are equealy without merit. My view: neither the feds or Jim Bell have two halves of a clue to rub together. > And rightly so, what fool would want to take Jim's place, and > that's what we're relieved to not be in, now that we've been > shown an example. Chilled speech, it's called, finger-pointing > about some fool going too far, and worse, getting caught. It certainly hasn't changed my beliefs or my plans to act on them one whit. The difference is that I believe the system can be fixed, yes it will take time, yes it will require a certain level of jamming unsavory morsels of the Constitution down some tyrants throats; but it is doable. Personaly, I would not plea bargain, I would not accept a court appointed attorney, I would claim political prisoner status, and further I would immediately appeal my conviction to the Supreme Court. I say this openly and in public in order to give the Feds one of two options: leave me alone and accept my civil disobedience for what it is or let's tango in the courts and let the supreme law of the land draw the lines in the sand. My faith in the strength of this country rests in the Constitution and the ideals it stands for. For a start: 1. I oppose the current tax laws. The Constitutional amendment was *never* legaly ratified and was never intended to make individual citizens pay 40% of their taxes to support the federal govt. 2. Agencies such as NOAA, FBI, BATF, NASA, etc. are not constitutional because there is *no* section of the Constitution that delegates those issues to the feds. Per the 10th they go to the states or the people unless an amendment is enacted. 3. The DoD is currently engaging in contracts that extend over the Constitutionaly mandated 2 year limit for anything other than naval forces. They also allow the use of military personnel and equipment by civil law enforcement - a clear violation of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution. 4. I oppose the extension of the inter-state commerce clause because regulation does not imply the level of law enforcement and the use of force that is currently employeed. I further object to the apparent skipping over of the last sentence of the inter-state commerce clause which clearly invokes the 9th and 10th. 5. The 14th Amendment does *not* extend *any* protection of rights to the states - only privileges and immunities. I further believe that such extension at the state level is a bad thing. 6. The fed's interest in doctor assissted suicides is misplaced. There is *no* mandate for this to be a federal issue. 7. The use of drugs is *not* mandated by the Constitution to be a federal issue. 8. The Constitution does not allow *any* seizing of private property, legaly or illegaly gained, without compensation to the owner of that property. 9. There is a whole raft of political party rules and regulations that limit the participation in government of many smaller organizations. These limits are un-Constitutional. If you or anyone else doesn't like the way it works then get an amendment passed that changes the way the rules operate. In short my main bitch is that the Supreme Court of the US doesn't say "Ain't our problem" nearly enough and when it does speak the question it should be asking is "Does the Constitution allow this power to the federal govt. within the constraints of the 9th and 10th?". Neither Congress or the Supreme Court act in a manner to honor either the letter or the spirit of the Constitution and in particular the 9th and 10th Amendments. I believe that *every* federal law and regulation *must* be able to demonstrate its lineage from one or more sentences in the Constitution before it is applicable and legal by the 10th. Personaly, I want to bring charges against Congress and the Supreme Court of the US for actions contrary to those granted them under the Constitution. In short, I want to impeach the whole kit and kaboodle. I also want to get an amendment passed such that representation in government is related to percentages of votes cast for individual parties and not the over all winning party of the votes counted. > Keep quiet about yourself, blame somebody else, luck may hold. I not only blame myself (as well as all citizens), but I expect to do something about it over the remainder of my life. I learned several lessons from Operation Sun Devil. The most important one was that if you compromise you loose. Phiber Optik and his ilk plea bargained and he went to jail. Mentor, Erik Bloodaxe, & Steve Jackson refused and they walk around free men to this day (it's interesting that these folks are all here in Austin). > That's what I'm doing, blaming wildly, hiding in a crowd of "we's" > and now, thanks much, your equation for going along and getting > ahead. > > Not that there's anything wrong with that. There's not? You sir, don't have one whit of morality, ethics, or empathy. Let alone any sort of sense of justice or liberty. I hope your happy licking the hands of your keepers. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | | We built your fort. We will not have it used against us. | | | | John Wayne - Allegheny Uprising | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Tell the fans, not the players
by Human Gus-Peter 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jam Choke, ravaging the Young and wringing the Bell, wroted: > From: John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> > Subject: Re: Fw: Jim Bell Sentenced (fwd) > Now, is it not true that we've self-censored ourselves into believing > Jim is just a fool, rather than a gutsy guy willing to do what most > of us will not, instead preferring covert self-censorship over the > all-too-easily opposed group-think kind. Spin-doctor alert. No need to announce yourself, Jim. Your name is in the From: header. Jim Bell plea bargained period. Had he had one iota of the 'guts' you so blithely banter about the case would be going to trial. Plea-bargaining = capitulation = self-censorship Spoken like a free man... I've sat at a lot of border crossings 'psychically willing' my sweat back into the pores of my body. I've been pulled over by the Men in Black on dark roads late at night, within sight of the towers where the Iron Curtain is personified in a chambered round which serves as a local currency price-tag on free speech. I've sat in courtrooms in which justice was an unwanted intruder and mere mention of it caused the dogs of war to growl and bare their teeth. (e.g. 'Bell' County, Texas) I've waited for interminable hours while interrogators were being brought in from distant places to shake me up, down and sideways to find a small vulnerable spot that could be ripped open with the one-sided sword of dark authority. I know the tune Bell's persecutors were playing. It is a dark and scary tune most effective when played to an audience of one. Anyone who thinks that Jim was imprisoned in America is a fool. Jim was in a Gulag, in Auschwitz, in a sweat box in a distant jungle. Bell was the target of an insidious physical, mental and emotional attack threatening the most deep-seated human impetus of all--survival. The methods used against Bell are the same methods used by despotic regimes throughout history and by the mind-benders who serve them. I've been the target of wanna-be local Nazis and I've been the target of the real McCoys. The hands pulling the strings in Jim's case were not amateur. They were the same hands that have massaged the minds of prisoners of war, defectors, political prisoners and compromised spooks. Anyone who believes that Jim received his right to legal counsel is likewise a fool. The difference between Bell's attorney and McVeigh's attorney is that established heavyweights get paid $15 million to sleepwalk their client to a conviction. The lightweights get paid with future political favors. Bell was unconstitutionally imprisoned, drugged, and subjected to sensory deprivation torture as punishment for exercising his right to think and speak freely. Anyone who attempts to justify this with weak claims that Bell was 'asking for it' is also justifying McVeigh's counter-attack on the Waco murderers, who, for those of you who are paying attention, are continuing to 'ask for it.' The Sympatico AP-BOT received bets on the times of demise of even some of the lowliest government paperwork shufflers involved in Jim's case. The Netcom AP-Bot received belated bets on the times of demise of *all* of the government casualties in the OKC offensive. (Definitely a political statement...) Jim's political statement *has* made a difference in the implementation of, and experimentatin with, AP-BOTs. His persecution has made those steps both real and meaningful for the participants. There is currently an AP-BOT accessible from an Eternity Server which is serving as a test of the ability of underground InterNet activity to become widespread and remain covert and untouchable in its operation. (For each unit bet on the choice of the individual, it is *required* to generate an extra unit which is automatically used to bet on the demise of the Big Guy. This requirement is designed to take the exercise beyond the realm of being merely a 'fun game.') Anyone who easily dismisses Jim Bell as a 'loon' is probably not in great danger of dropping their dime. Wavy Gravy is a loon. The Smothers Brothers were loons. Lenny Bruce, Cheech and Chong, Timothy Leary, Babba Ram Das, Ginsberg, Kerouac, Guerva, Patton... They were all capble, to a different extent, of knowing when it was safe to relax their anus, and when it was unwise to do so. When the government puts your ass in a vice and makes keeping your cheeks tight a condition of loosening it, the decision to spit or sing, or merely to remain passive, is an individual decision. It does not increase my respect for anyone if they choose to use someone else's trials and tribulations as a stick to beat their own tough-guy drum. Just as there are no athiests in foxholes, there are no tough guys in Gulags. There are only survivors...and not all who leave alive are survivors. Plain and simple: Jim Bell is a political pri$oner of the men, women and children who steal your money at gunpoint. Jim Bell's human and civil rights were violated more over vague public speech involving those who control the money spigot than were those of Terry McNichols over the violent deaths of over a hundred citizens. God help us all if anyone ever bombs the Treasury. UncleMonger

1 0

Re: Where is the c-p traffic?
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 12 Dec 97 at 22:48, Jim Choate wrote: > > Am I the only one to notice that traffic has dropped from about 100 > > messages/day to only a few? > You are getting *lots* of bounces if you were getting anything > like 100 messages per day. You're right. My number was high. On actual count, heavy days ran to 40-70 while light days varied all over the lower landscape. Pardon me all to hell for being EIGHTEEN BILLION ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE OFF, putz. Is 70 "anything like 100?" Or is it that _you_ have been missing the majority of list traffic and think c-p is a low-volume list, hmmm? Wouldn't that be choice? I suppose the other mail in my twice-daily 50-or-so message downloads _could_ have been the replies from heads of state and other annoyance mail I get. With so many filters for spam and high list noise it's difficult to keep track, but I'm accustomed to seeing more than 10 messages a day from this list. Seeing the c-p traffic drop to 10-15 messages per day for a few days caused me to suspect something might have been wrong. Nothing ever goes wrong, though, does it? Silly me! > > Does anyone know what is broken? > > At this point either your arithmetic or your memory. Either > way, it sounds like a personal problem. You're _so_ helpful! Courteous, too! I'll bet you have a lot of really good, close friends -- you know, the kind who wouldn't tell you if your hair is on fire. > > Does anyone care? Is the whole c-p list a giant MITM being run > > against a very few of us who are the only human participants? > > Damn, found out. Yeah, yeah. Your punishment in the afterlife will be to discover that this whole universe was really just a simulation to provide window dressing around the amusing Jim Choate personality module and to endure an eternity of junior high school students playing your own most embarrassing moments back into your trapped consciousness and watching the Squirm-o-Meter peg. Those private bathroom moments will no doubt win a lot of laughs. _I_ can be nasty when it's called for, but you're just plain ol' bitter. > > Isn't it odd that many key contributors to the list coincidentally > > live near nondescript neighborhood houses that bristle with > > antennae and are regularly visited by black helicopters and large > > unmarked vans? No, I didn't think so either. That's probably an > > unrelated operation. > Just exactly what kind of drugs are you taking? There is a > house rule you *must* bring enough for everyone. Yours have apparently accomplished a chemical humorectomy. That whooshing sound you hear is the humor flying like a U-2 over your head. Twisted humor, to be sure, but humor. In any case the house rule doesn't benefit you. Your severe swings preclude further ad hoc medication. > No helicopters, vans, jack-booted thugs, or anything else > around here dude. Get a grip! I'll bet you thought MIB was a pseudo documentary produced by the UFO crowd, huh? > Don't know about an opinion, a paranoia induced > hallucination for sure. Go back to your machines. They're humorless, too, except when one lets the blue smoke leak out just to piss you off. You know about the blue smoke, don't you? It's the essential ingredient that they seal into all electronic gadgets at the factory. If it ever leaks out, the gadget stops working. BlueSmokeMongerII

1 0

No Subject
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:30 AM 12/13/97 GMT, you wrote: > >Am I the only one to notice that traffic has dropped from about 100 >messages/day to only a few? Does anyone know what is broken? >Does anyone care? Is the whole c-p list a giant MITM being run >against a very few of us who are the only human participants? it's the digital implants digital imprants digitar imprints dogatell impunts

1 0

Airlines demanding SS #'s???
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 14 Dec 1997 at 08:12:31 -0600 Human Gus-Peter wrote: > The government misuses my Social Security Number to steal > my money. Where do I press charges? Can I place airline > employees under citizen's arrest when they demand it? Excuse ME? When did THIS begin?

4 3