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

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?

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 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.

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

73

Steve, K4YZ

On 10 Jan 2006 04:48:30 -0800, "K4YZ" 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?

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 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.

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

why do you do so yourself steve?

73

Steve, K4YZ

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

On 10 Jan 2006 04:48:30 -0800, "K4YZ" 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

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

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


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

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

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

73

Steve, K4YZ

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

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

On 10 Jan 2006 08:54:39 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote:

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.

lied again

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

hot ham and chees is his signature
you should look the arist curently known as prince but once had to be
called the arist formerly known as prince becuase he made his in to a
suqigle

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.

more lies about intoxication

more slader

Obey the TOS of AOL steve

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

As was your WHAT?

read the post


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.

they were my lawyer freind were joking about it before the signing

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

naother lie

lawyer had nothing to do with that


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.

another lie

it does indeed

the you 9and others) like to create the illusion that people agree
with you by making annmouse posts


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.

and censored my reply

Steve, K4YZ

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

wrote:
On 10 Jan 2006 08:54:39 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote:
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.

lied again

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.

hot ham and chees is his signature

No...it's not. It's a 'nickname'.

A signature is his NAME. The one mumsy and pops gave him.

Unless his parents were really insensitive, I bet his real name is
NOT "hot-ham-and-cheese"

you should look the arist curently known as prince but once had to be
called the arist formerly known as prince becuase he made his in to a
suqigle

That was a publicity ploy.

The courts still require his given name on all documents.

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.

more lies about intoxication

Nope.

more slader

What's "slader"...???

Obey the TOS of AOL steve

TOS me for accusing a drunk of being intoxicated, Mark...?!?!

And by the way...Although I generally have my AOL server open when
I post here, it's not necessary. So go ahead. Dropping (or getting
dropped from) AOL wouldn't even be a speedbump.

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

As was your WHAT?

read the post

It didn't do any good, Markie.

It still says "sgattack sig file" .

WTF is an "sgattack"...?!?!

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.

they were my lawyer freind were joking about it before the signing

Yet more vowels and consonants wasted in the ether.

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

naother lie

Nope.

lawyer had nothing to do with that

Somewhere along the way a lawyer was responsible or had some part
in it. I have no doubt that your continued imposition on society is in
much due to the workings of a lawyer.

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.

another lie

Nope.

it does indeed

Nope.

the you 9and others) like to create the illusion that people agree
with you by making annmouse posts

I don't create anything, Markie.

I respond to your posts either with " or
"

In either case, I always "sign" the bottom of the post with
"Steve, K4YZ"

I don't create bogus "posters", nor do I ask for or encourage
them.

Tough for you to accept, I know. but so far, with the exception of
Frankie (a twice-disgraced court martialed ex-serviceman) and Brain,
(himself archived as being decitful, dishonest and untrustworthy),
there's really NO support for you or your campaign in this forum.

Indeed, even when you SPECIFICALLY addressed your "colleagues" of
your intent to try and sanction my Nursing license and your request for
them to participate, they each told you "NO", in no uncertain terms.

Some friends.

And those few words of "support" for me here by both known and
unknown sources has been unsolicited, either in public or private.

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.

and censored my reply

No, I did not.

Steve, K4YZ

Maybe this will put the hammer down on 2test.

On 10 Jan 2006 10:18:38 -0800, "cmdr buzz corey"
wrote:

Maybe this will put the hammer down on 2test.

not likely

according a few lwayer friend of mine (we talking about this last
week)

a signature which is the requirementof the law is what ever the user
wants

to illustrate in test

if I says "lsfgjlgaselfgsadjl" is my signature then it is

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

wrote:
On 10 Jan 2006 10:18:38 -0800, "cmdr buzz corey"

according a few lwayer friend of mine (we talking about this last
week)

Uh huh...Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iight.

a signature which is the requirementof the law is what ever the user
wants

to illustrate in test

if I says "lsfgjlgaselfgsadjl" is my signature then it is

In your case, Markie, the courts will be satisfied with (and
probably would actually prefer) that you just make an "X".

Steve, K4YZ