|
|
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:42:53 -0700, "=> Vox Populi ©" <vox@popu.li>
wrote:
What are you a Xerox machine poxie?
|
|
|
"Archibald" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:3FC4BF8F.C62785EA@privacy.net...
> The Todal wrote:
> >
> > "Archibald" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> > news:3FC478B3.6CF2E7D8@privacy.net...
> > > Malicious Obsessive Stan Mould wrote:
> >
|
|
|
"The Todal" <the_todalnospam@msn.com> wrote in message
news:bq2efk$1t0a34$1@ID-164291.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Archibald" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:3FC478B3.6CF2E7D8@privacy.net...
> > Malicious Obsessive Stan Mould wrote:
> >
>
|
|
|
John Q. Smith wrote:
> A Thanksgiving Prayer
> by William S. Burroughs
>
> Thanks for the wild turkey and the passenger pigeons, destined to be
> #@($ out through wholesome American guts.
>
> Thanks for a continent to despoil and poison.
>
> Than
|
|
|
"Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote...
> Well I'll set you a challenge - go to Hyde Park, speakers corner, drag
> out your soap box and start sprouting about "nothing illegal about
> being a paedophile" - see how long you last! After all
|
|
|
"Wesley Serra" <wserra@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:jp58svc824q650o6sq2m7jn371fv91e7ef@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:43:37 GMT, "Curtis Rowell"
> <curtis_rowell@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >been an IT professional, working in enterprise so
|
|
|
"Ken Taylor" <ken123@xtra.co.nz> wrote...
> "serf" <serf@nospamthanx.com> wrote...
> >
> > "Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote...
> > >
> > >
> > > Neither is it a "crime" to be an active "criminal" according to that
> > > "logic"!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Thoth" <Thoth@unlisted.net> wrote in message
news:3FC400AA.2EFE649F@unlisted.net...
> Society for the protection of the unwary from unethical attorneys wrote,
in
> part:
>
> > It seems to me that the Rowells can hardly . . . .
>
> Are you actua
|
|
|
In message <bq2e97$1t1439$1@ID-164291.news.uni-berlin.de>, The Todal
<the_todalnospam@msn.com> writes
>No more publishing of private addresses and no more bickering.
>Nobody wants to read it, nobody wants to read the retaliatory posts that
>follow.
|
|
|
Thomas Anantharaman <tsa@biostat.wisc.edu> wrote in news:_%Bwb.8749
$MC5.8118@fe14.private.usenetserver.com:
> Can the Federal Government actually require a state to enforce federal
> law ? I thought most Federal mandates were enforced by threat of
|
|
|
"Archibald" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:3FC478B3.6CF2E7D8@privacy.net...
> Malicious Obsessive Stan Mould wrote:
>
> > Well, at least we agree that the odious and unintelligent ***********
makes stupidly
> > obscure remarks
>
> Please
|
|
|
"MAK" <none@mail.com> wrote in news:mjzwb.97886$Dw6.485981@attbi_s02:
> If the state passes the law first, can the federal government negate
> it after the fact?
>
Yes.
|
|
|
"Stan Mould" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:bq0ik3$1sk4b2$1@ID-204250.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> Well, at least we agree that the odious and unintelligent M*** D***** of
> 22 ************************************* makes stupidly
> obscure rem
|
|
|
"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bq1087$ovr$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <0YQvb.26871$KI4.347@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Society for the protection of the unwary from unethical attorneys
<cnm4urights@tampabay.rr.com> w
|
|
|
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:14:58 GMT, Seppo Renfors
<Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
>> Maybe you'd like to arrange your sentences - and preferably your
>> thoughts - into an order that makes them comprehensible. As it is,
>> they seem to be the resul
|
|
|
"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bpjun2$5q3$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <e57ub.192797$RP2.115034@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
> Curtis <NOYB@NOYB.COM> wrote:
> >"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
> >news
|
|
|
In article <JL2xb.88629$86.1068117@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
Curtis Rowell <curtis_rowell@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:bq1087$ovr$1@panix5.panix.com...
>> In article <0YQvb.26871$KI4.347@twister.tampab
|
|
|
"serf" <serf@nospamthanx.com> wrote in message
news:bq0luf$fro$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote in message
> news:3FC293E6.A3C2BC9E@not.pollis.net.au...
> >
> >
> > Neither is it a "crime" to be an acti
|
|
|
bigbrian wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 04:52:02 GMT, Seppo Renfors
> <Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
>
> incomprehensible gibberish
>
> Maybe you'd like to arrange your sentences - and preferably your
> thoughts - into an order that mak
|
|
|
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 04:25:02 GMT, Seppo Renfors
<Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
>.... and well done too! It was a bloody good game.
It was certainly entertaining to say the least. But even I have to
admit that the number of handling errors we m
|
|
|
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:49:28 GMT, Seppo Renfors
<Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
>> The same way you might tell that a person is heterosexual even though
>> you don't know whether they have ever indulged in a sexual act with a
>> member of the opp
|
|
|
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 04:52:02 GMT, Seppo Renfors
<Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
incomprehensible gibberish
Maybe you'd like to arrange your sentences - and preferably your
thoughts - into an order that makes them comprehensible. As it is,
they
|
|
|
The Todal wrote:
>
> "Archibald" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:3FC478B3.6CF2E7D8@privacy.net...
> > Malicious Obsessive Stan Mould wrote:
> >
> > > Well, at least we agree that the odious and unintelligent ***********
> makes stupidly
|
|
|
The Todal wrote:
>
> "Stan Mould" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:bq0ik3$1sk4b2$1@ID-204250.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > Well, at least we agree that the odious and unintelligent M*** D***** of
> > 22 *************************************
|
|
|
In message <LMSwb.9873$VV6.225773@news.xtra.co.nz>, Ken Taylor
<ken123@xtra.co.nz> writes
>>
>So which part of statutory rape or sex with a minor is not pedophilia? Is it
>the label you object to??
>
>
The part which involves sex with a post-pub
|
|
|
Cynic wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:49:12 -0000, "Anon." <none@noone.com> wrote:
>
> >> If a paedophile with no history of offending commits a theft, should
> >> he be proscuted for being a paedophile, or a thief?
>
> >And how would you
|
|
|
Jon Thomas wrote:
>
> On 24 November 2003, Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
> >Jon Thomas wrote:
>
> >> On 24th November 2003, "Anon." wrote:
> >> (snipped)
>
> >> >"Seppo Renfors" wrote...
>
> >> >> Oh.... REALLY! So pedophilia is NOT a crime w
|
|
|
Paul Burridge <pb@osiris1.notthisbit.co.uk> wrote in message news:<d6v8svg6860al28l3e8bna6me2r1tke46n@4ax.com>...
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 04:25:02 GMT, Seppo Renfors
> <Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
>
> >.... and well done too! It was a bloody good
|
|
|
test
|
|
|
Cynic wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:53:47 GMT, Seppo Renfors
> <Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
>
> >Sigh..... police identifies pedophilia from the acts committed, these
> >acts are committed by pedophiles! These are very serious crimin
|
|
|
bigbrian wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:53:47 GMT, Seppo Renfors
> <Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >The Todal wrote:
> >>
> >> "Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote in message
> >> news:3FC293E6.A3C2BC9E@not.p
|
|
|
Paul Burridge wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:15:55 GMT, Seppo Renfors
> <Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote:
>
> >Oh come on..... a ONE MAN Team, is all you have - remove John
> >Wilkinson and the Pommy weather (rain) and you would get done b
|
|
|
Malicious Obsessive Stan Mould wrote:
> Well, at least we agree that the odious and unintelligent Mike Dean of
> 22 Accommodation Road, Horncastle, Lincs, LN9 5AS makes stupidly
> obscure remarks
Please stop posting what you think are people's hom
|
|
|
See SD v Dole, The fed govt threatened to with-hold 5 % of federal
matching funds for highways if state did not raise drinking law to 21.
Courts said was ok.
If the fed gove speaks in an area, the states cannot contradict.
The key is how st
|
|
|
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:43:37 GMT, "Curtis Rowell"
<curtis_rowell@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Wesley Serra" <wserra@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:evm4sv8a2snpc37h2qd42u0ger54donivo@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:50:31 GMT, "Curtis Rowell"
|
|
|
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 20:13:41 -0500, "Tee"
<crappolagozhere@netscape.net> wrote:
>A client of mine (I'm her bookkeeper) asked me to research getting her a
>trademark. She's an artist and does custom photo shoots as well as photo
>greeting cards. Th
|
|
|
"MAK" <none@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Xzawb.213520$mZ5.1597434@attbi_s54...
> Hello:
>
> A few questions about laws passed by an individual state. Are state
> laws considered to be null and void if they conflict with federal
law
> or the U
|
|
|
"Stan Mould" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:bq0i4b$1tg480$1@ID-204250.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Purfffffect" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:bpednv$1iiega$1@ID-199229.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > Oh, I don't know. He could enjoy
|
|
|
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:49:46 +1300, "Ken Taylor" <ken123@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
>"serf" <serf@nospamthanx.com> wrote in message
>news:bq0luf$fro$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> "Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.pollis.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:3FC293
|
|
|
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FC28B9D.21644BAF@sprintmail.com...
> Curtis Rowell wrote:
>
>
> > It isn't MY pyramid scheme and last I looked pyramid schemes were
illegal.
>
> (So you admit it's a pyramid sc
|
|
|
"Wesley Serra" <wserra@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:evm4sv8a2snpc37h2qd42u0ger54donivo@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:50:31 GMT, "Curtis Rowell"
> <curtis_rowell@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Don't bother to reply to my email address. It i
|
|
|
> So I understand that what you are saying is that YOU are either
incapable of
> doing anything constructive in that amount of time or, far
worse, you would
> rack up billable hours in pretrial time to line your pockets
with every
> nickle you can s
|
|
|
She should be looking for a different domain name.
Even if she had the trademark, theres no guarantee she'll get the domain
name.
"Tee" <crappolagozhere@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:bq0uoh$1tiark$1@ID-92443.news.uni-berlin.de...
> A client o
|
|
