| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
It can't happen here...
|
|
F...... A Straik it is the TRUTH!
cuhulin |
I am not a hacker! You think I hack DirecTV? YOU go ask DirecTV 1 800
godirectv.I never hack anything! cuhulin |
My name is James Larry Ryan 1304 Denson Ave Jackson,Mississippi Zip
Code,39209.Phone number, Area Code 601 923 0733.You go tell DirecTV or anybody YOU! think I! am a hacker! My DirectTV snail mail paid in full bill showed up here last week,$49.79 (forty nine dollars and seventy nine cents) Something YOU wish to say about my little doggy now? YOU SOB!!!!!!! YOU are the kind of a "person" I would NOT! give one drop of water too (dumb as I am,I probally would though) if YOU were laying on a desert floor dieing of thirst. cuhulin (James Larry Ryan) |
Layyyy me downnnn on this cold lonesome desert,,,,, t'will beeeee this
gritus sand and rocks,,,,,, a cactus 'will beeeeee my pillowwwwwww,,,,, scorpions will climb into my socks,,,,,,,,,,, old Marriot Hotels song/jingle.I give credit to Marriot Hotels company for that. cuhulin |
The real crime,,,,, rickets,,,,,, is you being you.
cuhulin |
|
Look,if you have the equipment to listen to anything,,, that is your
RIGHT to listen in. cuhulin |
wrote in message ... Every American Citizen has the RIGHT to listen to ANY and ALL Electronic Transmissions,Period! cuhulin Actually, you don't, cuhulin. Newer radio scanners for the public are required by law not to be capable of eavesdropping on cellular phone frequencies. Many states have outlawed radar detectors (which, of course, do nothing but listen for an electronic transmission). So, the reality is: "Every American citizen SHOULD have the right to listen to any and all electronic transmissions, period." -- Stinger |
|
"Andrew Oakley" wrote in message ... On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:11:11 -0500, wrote: Look,if you have the equipment to listen to anything,,, that is your RIGHT to listen in. No, you have the FREEDOM to listen in. It's only a RIGHT if there are laws to back it up, such as a Constitution or a Bill/Act of Parliament/Congress. Do you understand the difference between a RIGHT and a FREEDOM? -- Actually, rights are given by birth [God given], Freedom is the ability to act upon those rights. |
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:11:31 GMT, Andrew Oakley
wrote: On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:11:11 -0500, wrote: Look,if you have the equipment to listen to anything,,, that is your RIGHT to listen in. No, you have the FREEDOM to listen in. It's only a RIGHT if there are laws to back it up, such as a Constitution or a Bill/Act of Parliament/Congress. Do you understand the difference between a RIGHT and a FREEDOM? There is none in a perfect world. That being said, ''freedom'' is a relative concept. A right is something you are born with. |
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:50:44 +0900, "Brenda Ann"
wrote: "Andrew Oakley" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:11:11 -0500, wrote: Look,if you have the equipment to listen to anything,,, that is your RIGHT to listen in. No, you have the FREEDOM to listen in. It's only a RIGHT if there are laws to back it up, such as a Constitution or a Bill/Act of Parliament/Congress. Do you understand the difference between a RIGHT and a FREEDOM? -- Actually, rights are given by birth [God given], Freedom is the ability to act upon those rights. The concept of a God ''granting'' rights makes no sense. My rights are inherent. |
DaviD - " My rights are inherent. "
|
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:50:44 +0900, "Brenda Ann"
wrote: "Andrew Oakley" wrote in message .. . It's only a RIGHT if there are laws to back it up, such as a Constitution or a Bill/Act of Parliament/Congress. Actually, rights are given by birth [God given], Freedom is the ability to act upon those rights. Ah, now I understand where I'm having trouble understanding this conversation. Am I right in now thinking that Cuhilin and yourself see this as a religious issue? In the UK there is a theoretical seperation of church and state (although strictly speaking the Church of England is part of the government, and funded through taxes). Therefore the concept of any right being "god-given" would be an abuse of politics, since it is generally frowned upon to mix religion and democratic politics (we do have a meritocratic parliamentary body called the House of Lords which does include Church of England Bishops though). Religion aside - is there actually a section in the US constitution that states that a person has a LEGAL right to listen to any transmission? That's what I though Cuhilin was talking about, and that struck me as odd; it would have all kinds of consequences regarding the legalisation of hacking. -- Andrew Oakley |
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 18:03:08 -0500, "Stinger"
wrote: wrote in message ... Every American Citizen has the RIGHT to listen to ANY and ALL Electronic Transmissions,Period! Actually, you don't, cuhulin. Newer radio scanners for the public are required by law not to be capable of eavesdropping on cellular phone frequencies. Many states have outlawed radar detectors (which, of course, do nothing but listen for an electronic transmission). Thank-you! That's what I was trying to determine. Looks like the US laws are pretty much the same as the UK ones; you're only allowed to listen to specifically designated bands. So, the reality is: "Every American citizen SHOULD have the right to listen to any and all electronic transmissions, period." Maybe. Would have some pretty drastic implications on hacking and privacy law until use of encryption becomes defacto. -- Andrew Oakley |
"Andrew Oakley" wrote in message ... On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:50:44 +0900, "Brenda Ann" wrote: "Andrew Oakley" wrote in message .. . It's only a RIGHT if there are laws to back it up, such as a Constitution or a Bill/Act of Parliament/Congress. Actually, rights are given by birth [God given], Freedom is the ability to act upon those rights. Ah, now I understand where I'm having trouble understanding this conversation. Am I right in now thinking that Cuhilin and yourself see this as a religious issue? In the UK there is a theoretical seperation of church and state (although strictly speaking the Church of England is part of the government, and funded through taxes). Therefore the concept of any right being "god-given" would be an abuse of politics, since it is generally frowned upon to mix religion and democratic politics (we do have a meritocratic parliamentary body called the House of Lords which does include Church of England Bishops though). Religion aside - is there actually a section in the US constitution that states that a person has a LEGAL right to listen to any transmission? That's what I though Cuhilin was talking about, and that struck me as odd; it would have all kinds of consequences regarding the legalisation of hacking. I put the 'God given' in brackets because it's a common phrase used to denote something that we are given as a birthright. |
Whatever kinds of equipment you have that can pick up whatever kinds of
electronic transmission data,it is your Right and your FREEDOM to listen in to whatever kinds of electronic transmission data. cuhulin |
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 20:47:58 +0900, "Brenda Ann"
wrote: I put the 'God given' in brackets because it's a common phrase used to denote something that we are given as a birthright. The idea that a right to freedom needs to be granted by a ''supreme being'' is oxymoronic. |
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 13:27:32 GMT, David wrote:
The idea that a right to freedom needs to be granted by a ''supreme being'' is oxymoronic. Going waaaay off topic, being a humanist (sort of like an atheist, but with morals) I have a problem with the whole "supreme being" thing. I got stopped by a Christian preacher in the street earlier this year, in Glastonbury [1] of all places, asking me whether I believed in God. I said "You define God, and I'll tell you whether I believe in it or not." The stupid thing was - he couldn't define God. This guy had devoted his entire life to something he couldn't even define. If he'd had said "Well, God is a metaphor that I use to describe the emergent patterns [2] of human behaviour that assist with our species' survival, such as philanthropy [3]" then I'd have bought in to it. But the chap obviously hadn't actually considered what a god was. [1] A town closely associated with pre-Christian native North European religions and their "new age" revivals. Hippy central. Makes San Francisco look very conservative. [2] Emergent patterns are part of Chaos theory, they are larger effects caused by a combination of huge numbers of very small effects. For instance, there are more people who like babies than there are who dislike babies, and this small effect produces a larger effect of most babies being protected from harm. [3] The act of being nice to people without expecting a reward. -- Andrew Oakley |
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 15:44:31 +0100, Andrew Oakley
wrote: On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 13:27:32 GMT, David wrote: The idea that a right to freedom needs to be granted by a ''supreme being'' is oxymoronic. Going waaaay off topic, being a humanist (sort of like an atheist, but with morals) I have a problem with the whole "supreme being" thing. I got stopped by a Christian preacher in the street earlier this year, in Glastonbury [1] of all places, asking me whether I believed in God. I said "You define God, and I'll tell you whether I believe in it or not." The stupid thing was - he couldn't define God. This guy had devoted his entire life to something he couldn't even define. If he'd had said "Well, God is a metaphor that I use to describe the emergent patterns [2] of human behaviour that assist with our species' survival, such as philanthropy [3]" then I'd have bought in to it. But the chap obviously hadn't actually considered what a god was. [1] A town closely associated with pre-Christian native North European religions and their "new age" revivals. Hippy central. Makes San Francisco look very conservative. [2] Emergent patterns are part of Chaos theory, they are larger effects caused by a combination of huge numbers of very small effects. For instance, there are more people who like babies than there are who dislike babies, and this small effect produces a larger effect of most babies being protected from harm. [3] The act of being nice to people without expecting a reward. The closest I've ever come to ''believing'' is when I'm ''heaving'', aka praying at the porcelain altar. http://www.wright.edu/housing/genera...Toilet_JPG.htm |
In article ,
Andrew Oakley wrote: Thank-you! That's what I was trying to determine. Looks like the US laws are pretty much the same as the UK ones; you're only allowed to listen to specifically designated bands. It was more general than that. The section in the Communications Act of 1934 set the policy for many years that you could listen to anything (on the radio) but you were not allowed to divulge it to a third party or otherwise act on what you heard. (Tapping wire communications was always illegal). It was a strange patchwork. Setting up a satellite dish back in the 60's and 70's was treated as more like wiretapping than reception, as the receiving equipment was not commonly available and the band used was lisenced for Point to Point use, so receivers were supposed to be liscened. So BUD TVRO systems were sort of a civil disobedience thing until they were legalized. In the mid-late 1980s the cell phone industry paid Congress for the "Electronics Communications Privacy Act" which criminalized listening to cell phone calls and made receivers that could receive cell phone calls contraband. Mark Zenier Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com) |
"Andrew Oakley" wrote in message ... On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 13:27:32 GMT, David wrote: The idea that a right to freedom needs to be granted by a ''supreme being'' is oxymoronic. Going waaaay off topic, being a humanist (sort of like an atheist, but with morals) I'm getting really tired of hearing that. I'm an atheist, and I have morals. I'd appreciate if you'd reconsider the phrase. ;) |
"Beerbarrel" wrote in message ... On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 01:57:15 GMT, "Honus" wrote: I'm getting really tired of hearing that. I'm an atheist, That figures! What's really funny is that if you had a fraction of the intellect that you think you do, you'd realize that wasn't a slam on me at all. Even your own miserable attempts at witticisms go over your head. |
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:09:15 GMT, "Honus"
wrote: "Beerbarrel" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 18:05:15 GMT, "Honus" wrote: "Beerbarrel" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 01:57:15 GMT, "Honus" wrote: I'm getting really tired of hearing that. I'm an atheist, That figures! What's really funny is that if you had a fraction of the intellect that you think you do, you'd realize that wasn't a slam on me at all. Even your own miserable attempts at witticisms go over your head. Hey, I never said I was intelligent. However, I am smart enough to know that you are the group pin head. Which only goes to show how dumb you really are. Like I said.....I ain't no physiscist, but I knows what matters It ain't you. |
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 03:03:14 GMT, "Honus"
wrote: "Beerbarrel" wrote in message .. . Like I said.....I ain't no physiscist, but I knows what matters It ain't you. Oh, you can call yourself a physiscist if you want to. No one will complain, or correct you. At least I won't. See what I mean? I actually thought that you would have been too stupid to catch that. Congrats on picking up that part of the joke. What's funny is that if I'm so dumb why do you continue having a conversation with me? As a matter of fact, all the folks you call dumb are the only ones that you converse with except for Mike and we all know that he is missing a few tools from the shed. |
"Beerbarrel" wrote in message ... On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 03:03:14 GMT, "Honus" wrote: "Beerbarrel" wrote in message .. . Like I said.....I ain't no physiscist, but I knows what matters It ain't you. Oh, you can call yourself a physiscist if you want to. No one will complain, or correct you. At least I won't. See what I mean? I actually thought that you would have been too stupid to catch that. Congrats on picking up that part of the joke. What's -really- dumb is you trying to pretend that your mistake was intentional. What's funny is that if I'm so dumb why do you continue having a conversation with me? I'm easily entertained. As a matter of fact, all the folks you call dumb are the only ones that you converse with except for Mike and we all know that he is missing a few tools from the shed. And again, we see your deficiencies in the area of reading for comprehension. That's patently untrue, but you'll never admit it. I can live with that. |
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 03:21:11 GMT, "Honus"
wrote: "Beerbarrel" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 03:03:14 GMT, "Honus" wrote: "Beerbarrel" wrote in message .. . Like I said.....I ain't no physiscist, but I knows what matters It ain't you. Oh, you can call yourself a physiscist if you want to. No one will complain, or correct you. At least I won't. See what I mean? I actually thought that you would have been too stupid to catch that. Congrats on picking up that part of the joke. What's -really- dumb is you trying to pretend that your mistake was intentional. No...what's really dumb is your lack of ability to catch it. What's funny is that if I'm so dumb why do you continue having a conversation with me? I'm easily entertained. I'll say. I can't tell that by your childish responses. As a matter of fact, all the folks you call dumb are the only ones that you converse with except for Mike and we all know that he is missing a few tools from the shed. And again, we see your deficiencies in the area of reading for comprehension. That's patently untrue, but you'll never admit it. I can live that. Truth hurts don't it Honkus? I do believe that it is time to put Ace's tard label on you. I do have one simle question for you though. Do you even own a radio? |
"Beerbarrel" wrote in message ... On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 03:21:11 GMT, "Honus" wrote: "Beerbarrel" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 03:03:14 GMT, "Honus" wrote: "Beerbarrel" wrote in message .. . Like I said.....I ain't no physiscist, but I knows what matters It ain't you. Oh, you can call yourself a physiscist if you want to. No one will complain, or correct you. At least I won't. See what I mean? I actually thought that you would have been too stupid to catch that. Congrats on picking up that part of the joke. What's -really- dumb is you trying to pretend that your mistake was intentional. No...what's really dumb is your lack of ability to catch it. No, what's -really- dumb is you saying that I lack the ability to catch it when just a few lines above this you congratulate me for catching it!! What's funny is that if I'm so dumb why do you continue having a conversation with me? I'm easily entertained. I'll say. I can't tell that by your childish responses. You're projecting again. You asked me why I bother with you if you're such a dolt; I ask you the same thing. As a matter of fact, all the folks you call dumb are the only ones that you converse with except for Mike and we all know that he is missing a few tools from the shed. And again, we see your deficiencies in the area of reading for comprehension. That's patently untrue, but you'll never admit it. I can live that. Truth hurts don't it Honkus? I do believe that it is time to put Ace's tard label on you. The truth hurts? From you? I'll let you know...after I see some. I do have one simle question for you though. Do you even own a radio? I do indeed, and if you'd been paying attention you'd know that I do on occasion converse with people here other than the two village idiots, namely cuhulin and yourself. You just can't help but put your foot in it, can you? It's truly amazing how often you damn yourself with your own words. Little words, but still. |
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:13:24 GMT, "Honus"
wrote: "Beerbarrel" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 03:21:11 GMT, "Honus" wrote: "Beerbarrel" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 03:03:14 GMT, "Honus" wrote: "Beerbarrel" wrote in message .. . Like I said.....I ain't no physiscist, but I knows what matters It ain't you. Oh, you can call yourself a physiscist if you want to. No one will complain, or correct you. At least I won't. See what I mean? I actually thought that you would have been too stupid to catch that. Congrats on picking up that part of the joke. What's -really- dumb is you trying to pretend that your mistake was intentional. No...what's really dumb is your lack of ability to catch it. No, what's -really- dumb is you saying that I lack the ability to catch it when just a few lines above this you congratulate me for catching it!! What's funny is that if I'm so dumb why do you continue having a conversation with me? I'm easily entertained. I'll say. I can't tell that by your childish responses. You're projecting again. You asked me why I bother with you if you're such a dolt; I ask you the same thing. As a matter of fact, all the folks you call dumb are the only ones that you converse with except for Mike and we all know that he is missing a few tools from the shed. And again, we see your deficiencies in the area of reading for comprehension. That's patently untrue, but you'll never admit it. I can live that. Truth hurts don't it Honkus? I do believe that it is time to put Ace's tard label on you. The truth hurts? From you? I'll let you know...after I see some. I do have one simle question for you though. Do you even own a radio? I do indeed, and if you'd been paying attention you'd know that I do on occasion converse with people here other than the two village idiots, namely cuhulin and yourself. You just can't help but put your foot in it, can you? It's truly amazing how often you damn yourself with your own words. Little words, but still. I can see by your responses that you are grasping at straws. Remember, Degens don't count. Tote it tard......hahahaha |
y'all,,,, Honus started that crap.I am saying again,,,,,, I do NOT! mess
around with my little female dog! www.cattledog.com cuhulin |
I do indeed, and if you'd been paying attention you'd know that I do on occasion converse with people here other than the two village idiots, namely cuhulin and yourself. It's difficult to pay attention when 99.9 percent of the posts that YOU make are childish responses to others. It gets tiring wading through all the useless mumbo jumbo that you post just to search for a radio post by you. Do you actually have another life other than usenet? You just can't help but put your foot in it, can you? It's truly amazing how often you damn yourself with your own words. Little words, but still. You just can't help responding can you? It's like leading a baby with candy....no wait you are a baby no wonder it works so well. Go tote that boom box boy! |
There are some guys out there who have smarts enough to build anything
that can pick up everything.I think I know of at least three of them whom get in this rec.radio.shortwave news group and they know who they are. cuhulin |
Watch out beer barrel,that's DxAce's line.
cuhulin |
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:33:40 -0500, wrote:
Watch out beer barrel,that's DxAce's line. cuhulin I know. I had to borrow it because honkus is a card carrying toter with a tecsun. |
"Beerbarrel" wrote in message ... I do indeed, and if you'd been paying attention you'd know that I do on occasion converse with people here other than the two village idiots, namely cuhulin and yourself. It's difficult to pay attention when 99.9 percent of the posts that YOU make are childish responses to others. It gets tiring wading through all the useless mumbo jumbo that you post just to search for a radio post by you. Do you actually have another life other than usenet? Then killfile me. Do you -really- need to be told that? You just can't help but put your foot in it, can you? It's truly amazing how often you damn yourself with your own words. Little words, but still. You just can't help responding can you? It's like leading a baby with candy....no wait you are a baby no wonder it works so well. Go tote that boom box boy! Impressive. Not only can you not come up with your own material, you pick the most cliched stuff in this corner of Usenet. You really do need help. Or more beer. |
wrote in message ... y'all,,,, Honus started that crap.I am saying again,,,,,, I do NOT! mess around with my little female dog! www.cattledog.com cuhulin Liar. You started it, right he http://www.bianca.com/interests/wome...612/10612.html quote Date: Fri Feb 27 03:00:27 2004 From: Flower Subject: i am 15 years old female and i want to have sex with my neighbors three male german sheapard dogs.is that ok? /quote Quit trying to blame me. You're the idiot for not changing your handle before you posted. |
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:44:28 GMT, "Honus"
wrote: wrote in message ... y'all,,,, Honus started that crap.I am saying again,,,,,, I do NOT! mess around with my little female dog! www.cattledog.com cuhulin Liar. You started it, right he http://www.bianca.com/interests/wome...612/10612.html quote Date: Fri Feb 27 03:00:27 2004 From: Flower Subject: i am 15 years old female and i want to have sex with my neighbors three male german sheapard dogs.is that ok? /quote Quit trying to blame me. You're the idiot for not changing your handle before you posted. But you don't stop even when your not being spoken too. Go tote that Tecsun! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:26 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com