From: "-=jd=-"

I see absolutely nothing wrong with it at all. In fact, I think it serves
as an *excellent* demonstration that "Free Speech" works both ways -AND-
that those who proclaim it the loudest seems to be the last to realize
that fact!

Cry me a river...

And you have the nerve to call other people pathetic?

You've snapped.



Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

-=jd=- wrote:

I see absolutely nothing wrong with it at all. In fact, I think it serves
as an *excellent* demonstration that "Free Speech" works both ways -AND-
that those who proclaim it the loudest seems to be the last to realize
that fact!

Cry me a river...

The email was sent in an expectation of privacy and was a request
NOT to bother his employers. A public disclosure of it is about the
same as a wire tap on an unknowing person. It stinks.

How would you feel if someone close to you lost a job because of
some unimportant newsgroup BS?



mike

m II wrote:

-=jd=- wrote:

I see absolutely nothing wrong with it at all. In fact, I think it serves
as an *excellent* demonstration that "Free Speech" works both ways -AND-
that those who proclaim it the loudest seems to be the last to realize
that fact!

Cry me a river...

The email was sent in an expectation of privacy and was a request
NOT to bother his employers. A public disclosure of it is about the
same as a wire tap on an unknowing person. It stinks.

How would you feel if someone close to you lost a job because of
some unimportant newsgroup BS?

Perhaps you might elaborate on how such a thing could occur.

dxAce wrote ...

Damn, it must be easier to get someone fired these days than I thought.
So, someone contacted Louisville Tech... just what did they say?
Bryant posts at RRS? Fire him?

I didn't see anything in his posts that would give any employer
grounds to fire him.

So the debate got "lively" at times. Grounds to fire him? I don't
see it. It's not like he was making terrorist threats.

-=jd=- wrote:
On Thu 17 Jun 2004 11:53:20a, m II wrote in
message news:Q7jAc.48510$Ds.9055@clgrps12:


-=jd=- wrote:


I see absolutely nothing wrong with it at all. In fact, I think it
serves as an *excellent* demonstration that "Free Speech" works both
ways -AND- that those who proclaim it the loudest seems to be the last
to realize that fact!

Cry me a river...

The email was sent in an expectation of privacy and was a request
NOT to bother his employers.


And what was N8KDV's repeated (ad-nauseum) public demands in here that the
spammer *cease* emailing him? You *honestly* do not have the capacity to
see the entire view - only the limited range of a single thread, and then
pass judgement based solely on that limited view? Come now!



A public disclosure of it is about the same as a wire tap on an
unknowing person. It stinks.


After the volume of public demands to stop emailing N8KDV, how in the
world do you rationalize that MWB had even the *slightest* reasonable and
prudent expectation of privacy in further spamming N8KDV? It doesn't stink
at all - It smells wonderful! You appear to have a rather limited and
skewed sense of what an unauthorized wire-tap is. There is simply *zero*
comparison...


How would you feel if someone close to you lost a job because of
some unimportant newsgroup BS?



I would feel sincerely embarrassed for you that you actually fell for that
line of BS!

You bought into that hook-line-sinker, didn't you? Forgive me for
chuckling at your expense. What kind of job exposes you to termination
because of a silly flame-war on usenet?

One that objects to the use of company resources and time.....
.....well you fill in the rest.

ocom (Michael Bryant) wrote ...

Gone,

Awwwww don't go professor. You post some good SWL catches.

And we need a token kommie-krat to kick around sometimes.

So stick around.

Right guys?

"m II" wrote in message
news:Q7jAc.48510$Ds.9055@clgrps12...
-=jd=- wrote:

I see absolutely nothing wrong with it at all. In fact, I think it
serves
as an *excellent* demonstration that "Free Speech" works both ways -AND-
that those who proclaim it the loudest seems to be the last to realize
that fact!

Cry me a river...

The email was sent in an expectation of privacy and was a request
NOT to bother his employers. A public disclosure of it is about the
same as a wire tap on an unknowing person. It stinks.

How would you feel if someone close to you lost a job because of
some unimportant newsgroup BS?

Yup, ratting to someones employer about some Usenet BS would warrant an ass
kicking. Beware people, what comes around goes around.

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Wed 16 Jun 2004 10:24:25p, dxAce wrote in
message :


Personally, I'm growing tired of the Fat Boy's antics.

By the way, he works at:

http://www.louisvilletech.com/conten...=&siteid=&app=

Steve
Holland, MI
Drake R7, R8 and R8B

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm


I had strong suspicions that the foot-prints up and down MWB's back were
your size...

Bryant needs to learn that freedom-of-speech works both ways. If he wants
to leverage his right to free speech in an unethical manner, then he (by
default) agrees to be called on it and have that speech attributed
(correctly and properly) directly to himself.

Shame on him and anyone who defends or agrees with MWB's behavior &
tactics. If they want to blame someone, thay can look squarely at MWB...

What a load of crap.

"LW" wrote in message
om...
ocom (Michael Bryant) wrote ...

Gone,

Awwwww don't go professor. You post some good SWL catches.

And we need a token kommie-krat to kick around sometimes.

So stick around.

Right guys?

Agreed. Though I don't blame him if he leaves. We need to find the dirtbag
who ratted to his employer.

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...

What kind of job exposes you to termination because of a silly flame-war on
usenet?

Most of them if your posting from work.