wrote:
wrote:
http://news.com.com/2102-1028_3-6022...=st.util.print

Guess this means you've got to start using your real name in your
posts, eh, Brain?

he does

No, he does not.

I challenge you to find ONE "hot-ham-and-cheese" post wherein he's
signed his name and/or callsign to it.

he uses his choosen signature per the electronic ducments act (or
whatever the name was fro alowing signatures over the interenet

Hitting the bottle again, I see, Markie.

as was my sgattack sig file my signature to my post even fromt he fake
email adies

As was your WHAT?

In any case, the article mentioned the likelyhood of not being
able to enforce this, however it will be interesting to see if any case
law is developed from it in the near future.

it would indeed the provsion wereajoke amoug lawyers before the bill
was even signed

Probably.

But then they let YOU loose on society, so there's all sorts of
degrees of humor, Markie...

It also suggested the likelyhood that anonymous tipsters might be
detered by this law. I doubt it. However I also believe that if you
have a complaint to make, there's more strength in standing up for what
you believe in and putting your name on it rather than slinging mud
from behind anonymity.

depends on ones goal of course

No, it doesn't.

If you don't have the strength of conviction of your own words to
put your name behind them, why make them?

I reiterate the question.

Steve, K4YZ