OT: Get involved Geeks! Your civil rights are being threatened!

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Jamie Kahn Genet, Nov 15, 2009.

  1. [I'm not usually one to bring up activist stuff like this, but it has me
    so incensed I feel I've no other choice. Too often Geeks fail to make
    their voices heard and that really has to stop, or we're going to wake
    up one day and realise our freedoms have just slipped away from us while
    we were not paying attention.]

    <http://www.eff.org/issues/acta>

    In brief: the RIAA, MPAA and other lobby groups failed to have their way
    with the usual law making apparatus, so now they're trying to go behind
    your backs and slip their provisions into law via treaty with no public
    consultation.

    Namely:

    If you're merely _accused_ (no proof needed) by a copyright holder of
    being a violator three times you can be banned from using the internet
    without investigation, trial or any official government involvement.
    Your details will also be circulated among all other ISPs preventing
    them from accepting your business.

    They want increased penalties for copyright violation totally out of
    line with penalties for other non-violent crime.

    They want increased search and seizure powers, and not just at borders.

    It goes on, so I encourage you to read the above webpage and other
    material linked from there. Decide for yourself whether this, IMHO,
    undemocratic, unethical, immoral invasion of your civil liberties and
    rights is acceptable to you. Is this the kind of world you want to live
    in?

    If you're in the US write your congressman and senator to demand that
    this treaty not be ratified with the above provisions. Also contact the
    groups lobbying for the change and ask them why they consider attacking
    copyright violators is more important that civil rights and the very
    spirit of democracy. Public shame hasn't worked well so far on these
    groups, but I'll bet an economic boycott would! Though how much do you
    want to bet they'll try and say falling profits indicate piracy rather
    than any backlash from a public disgusted by their actions?

    If you live outside the US contact your government representatives and
    tell them loss of your rights and liberties are not worth the benefits
    from signing this trade treaty. Tell them to demand a treaty without
    these undemocratic and totally unethical and utterly immoral provisions.

    However - regardless of your depth of feeling or even your stance on
    this issue, for goodness sake MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD! Don't just sit back
    and let big business writing your laws. Vote out and publically shame
    those who support actions you know to be wrong.

    I'm sorry if it's an uncomfortable truth for you, but ultimately you the
    voter are responsible for this. You need to make your voice heard and
    vote these jokers out. Or even stand for government yourself! Goodness
    knows we need more technically literate people in government. Geeks
    cannot continue to stand on the sidelines and just hope things work out.
    Please make your voice heard and get involved!

    Regards,
    Jamie Kahn Genet
    --
    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
     
    Jamie Kahn Genet, Nov 15, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jamie Kahn Genet

    Peter Guest

    Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
    > In brief: the RIAA, MPAA and other lobby groups failed to have their way
    > with the usual law making apparatus, so now they're trying to go behind
    > your backs and slip their provisions into law via treaty with no public
    > consultation.


    Yes, this is a bad business. The issue was raised earlier with s92a of the
    Copyright Act, and there was widespread public opposition. It appears that
    the plan is to get NZ locked into a secret international treaty that can't
    be debated by NZ citizens.

    Another example of the way global corporates lobby to tilt the rules in
    their favour.

    Remember, this is about legislating to support outdated business models, at
    the expense of present and future creativity.

    Some more on ACTA ...
    http://tracs.co.nz/gripping-hand/mount-up-people-the-real-fight-is-just-
    beginning/
    http://creativefreedom.org.nz/acta.html
    http://cio.co.nz/cio.nsf/opin/011D044C3E02D60DCC25766A0071C8CC


    Peter
     
    Peter, Nov 15, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jamie Kahn Genet

    thingy Guest

    On Nov 16, 6:50 am, (Jamie Kahn Genet)
    wrote:
    > [I'm not usually one to bring up activist stuff like this, but it has me
    > so incensed I feel I've no other choice. Too often Geeks fail to make
    > their voices heard and that really has to stop, or we're going to wake
    > up one day and realise our freedoms have just slipped away from us while
    > we were not paying attention.]
    >
    > <http://www.eff.org/issues/acta>
    >
    > In brief: the RIAA, MPAA and other lobby groups failed to have their way
    > with the usual law making apparatus, so now they're trying to go behind
    > your backs and slip their provisions into law via treaty with no public
    > consultation.
    >
    > Namely:
    >
    > If you're merely _accused_ (no proof needed) by a copyright holder of
    > being a violator three times you can be banned from using the internet
    > without investigation, trial or any official government involvement.
    > Your details will also be circulated among all other ISPs preventing
    > them from accepting your business.
    >
    > They want increased penalties for copyright violation totally out of
    > line with penalties for other non-violent crime.
    >
    > They want increased search and seizure powers, and not just at borders.
    >
    > It goes on, so I encourage you to read the above webpage and other
    > material linked from there. Decide for yourself whether this, IMHO,
    > undemocratic, unethical, immoral invasion of your civil liberties and
    > rights is acceptable to you. Is this the kind of world you want to live
    > in?
    >
    > If you're in the US write your congressman and senator to demand that
    > this treaty not be ratified with the above provisions. Also contact the
    > groups lobbying for the change and ask them why they consider attacking
    > copyright violators is more important that civil rights and the very
    > spirit of democracy. Public shame hasn't worked well so far on these
    > groups, but I'll bet an economic boycott would! Though how much do you
    > want to bet they'll try and say falling profits indicate piracy rather
    > than any backlash from a public disgusted by their actions?
    >
    > If you live outside the US contact your government representatives and
    > tell them loss of your rights and liberties are not worth the benefits
    > from signing this trade treaty. Tell them to demand a treaty without
    > these undemocratic and totally unethical and utterly immoral provisions.
    >
    > However - regardless of your depth of feeling or even your stance on
    > this issue, for goodness sake MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD! Don't just sit back
    > and let big business writing your laws. Vote out and publically shame
    > those who support actions you know to be wrong.
    >
    > I'm sorry if it's an uncomfortable truth for you, but ultimately you the
    > voter are responsible for this. You need to make your voice heard and
    > vote these jokers out. Or even stand for government yourself! Goodness
    > knows we need more technically literate people in government. Geeks
    > cannot continue to stand on the sidelines and just hope things work out.
    > Please make your voice heard and get involved!
    >
    > Regards,
    >  Jamie Kahn Genet
    > --
    > If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.


    There is also the free trade agreements to consider...usually we see
    that Holywood and the Pharmacuticals load up the so called free
    agreements with conditions like dumping Pharmac and draconian anti-
    piracy laws...and then of couse the lobbyists from farming etc nobble
    the deals internally anyway....

    Not to mention that the USA is a basket case financially.........

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Nov 16, 2009
    #3
  4. Peter <> wrote:

    > Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
    > > In brief: the RIAA, MPAA and other lobby groups failed to have their way
    > > with the usual law making apparatus, so now they're trying to go behind
    > > your backs and slip their provisions into law via treaty with no public
    > > consultation.

    >
    > Yes, this is a bad business. The issue was raised earlier with s92a of the
    > Copyright Act, and there was widespread public opposition. It appears that
    > the plan is to get NZ locked into a secret international treaty that can't
    > be debated by NZ citizens.
    >
    > Another example of the way global corporates lobby to tilt the rules in
    > their favour.
    >
    > Remember, this is about legislating to support outdated business models, at
    > the expense of present and future creativity.
    >
    > Some more on ACTA ...
    > http://tracs.co.nz/gripping-hand/mount-up-people-the-real-fight-is-just-
    > beginning/
    > http://creativefreedom.org.nz/acta.html
    > http://cio.co.nz/cio.nsf/opin/011D044C3E02D60DCC25766A0071C8CC
    >
    >
    > Peter


    Thanks Peter, I've been to the Creative Freedom Foundation website
    before and it's very good - they do an excellent job IMO.

    I agree about legislating to support outdated business models being
    dumb, but what truly galls me about all this is making big business the
    police when it comes to copyright violation. It's just horribly
    disturbing to me.

    I hope this treaty fails. What worries me is people's vigilance will
    lapse and it or the next effort will sneak into law :-(
    --
    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
     
    Jamie Kahn Genet, Nov 16, 2009
    #4
  5. Jamie Kahn Genet

    Roger_Nickel Guest

    On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:15:57 +1300, Peter wrote:

    > Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
    >> In brief: the RIAA, MPAA and other lobby groups failed to have their
    >> way with the usual law making apparatus, so now they're trying to go
    >> behind your backs and slip their provisions into law via treaty with no
    >> public consultation.

    >
    > Yes, this is a bad business. The issue was raised earlier with s92a of
    > the Copyright Act, and there was widespread public opposition. It
    > appears that the plan is to get NZ locked into a secret international
    > treaty that can't be debated by NZ citizens.
    >
    > Another example of the way global corporates lobby to tilt the rules in
    > their favour.
    >
    > Remember, this is about legislating to support outdated business models,
    > at the expense of present and future creativity.
    >
    > Some more on ACTA ...
    > http://tracs.co.nz/gripping-hand/mount-up-people-the-real-fight-is-just-
    > beginning/
    > http://creativefreedom.org.nz/acta.html
    > http://cio.co.nz/cio.nsf/opin/011D044C3E02D60DCC25766A0071C8CC
    >
    >
    > Peter


    For your amusement :-

    http://xkcd.com/294/
     
    Roger_Nickel, Nov 16, 2009
    #5
  6. Jamie Kahn Genet

    impossible Guest

    Re: Get involved Geeks! Your civil rights are being threatened!

    "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    news:1j99har.114vnoexfkeafN%...
    > [I'm not usually one to bring up activist stuff like this, but it has me
    > so incensed I feel I've no other choice. Too often Geeks fail to make
    > their voices heard and that really has to stop, or we're going to wake
    > up one day and realise our freedoms have just slipped away from us while
    > we were not paying attention.]
    >
    > <http://www.eff.org/issues/acta>
    >
    > In brief: the RIAA, MPAA and other lobby groups failed to have their way
    > with the usual law making apparatus, so now they're trying to go behind
    > your backs and slip their provisions into law via treaty with no public
    > consultation.
    >


    You seem to be confused about the law-making process in New Zealand. Laws
    are enacted by a vote of Parliament, not "via treaty". Lobbyists lobby --
    What else is new? But only elected MPs get to make decisions. Nothing can
    "slip" into law that MPs haven't approved. Are you trying to let Parliament
    off the hook by turning his into some kind of foreign conspiracy?

    > Namely:
    >
    > If you're merely _accused_ (no proof needed) by a copyright holder of
    > being a violator three times you can be banned from using the internet
    > without investigation, trial or any official government involvement.
    > Your details will also be circulated among all other ISPs preventing
    > them from accepting your business.
    >


    Such a drama queen! How is this different from any other provision in the
    terms and conditions of a service contract? Are you entitled to a trial by
    jury every time you fail to pay your bill? Or can the service provider
    simply cut your service off?

    If you would like to see internet piracy flourish under the status quo, with
    no consequences for theft of intellectual property, then have the guts to
    just say that. If not, then kindly suggest what laws you would prefer to see
    enacted -- and enforced -- to protect intellectuial property rights.

    > They want increased penalties for copyright violation totally out of
    > line with penalties for other non-violent crime.
    >


    For example.....?

    > They want increased search and seizure powers, and not just at borders.
    >


    And your source for this claim is....?

    > It goes on, so I encourage you to read the above webpage and other
    > material linked from there. Decide for yourself whether this, IMHO,
    > undemocratic, unethical, immoral invasion of your civil liberties and
    > rights is acceptable to you. Is this the kind of world you want to live
    > in?
    >
     
    impossible, Nov 16, 2009
    #6
  7. Re: Get involved Geeks! Your civil rights are being threatened!

    impossible <> wrote:

    > "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    > news:1j99har.114vnoexfkeafN%...
    > > [I'm not usually one to bring up activist stuff like this, but it has me
    > > so incensed I feel I've no other choice. Too often Geeks fail to make
    > > their voices heard and that really has to stop, or we're going to wake
    > > up one day and realise our freedoms have just slipped away from us while
    > > we were not paying attention.]
    > >
    > > <http://www.eff.org/issues/acta>
    > >
    > > In brief: the RIAA, MPAA and other lobby groups failed to have their way
    > > with the usual law making apparatus, so now they're trying to go behind
    > > your backs and slip their provisions into law via treaty with no public
    > > consultation.
    > >

    >
    > You seem to be confused about the law-making process in New Zealand. Laws
    > are enacted by a vote of Parliament, not "via treaty". Lobbyists lobby --
    > What else is new? But only elected MPs get to make decisions. Nothing can
    > "slip" into law that MPs haven't approved. Are you trying to let Parliament
    > off the hook by turning his into some kind of foreign conspiracy?


    My point - which I'd have thought pretty clear *sigh* - is the process
    of ratifying a treaty circumvents much of the usual lawmaking apparatus,
    including most of the public consultation and input. But feel free to
    prove me wrong :)

    > > Namely:
    > >
    > > If you're merely _accused_ (no proof needed) by a copyright holder of
    > > being a violator three times you can be banned from using the internet
    > > without investigation, trial or any official government involvement.
    > > Your details will also be circulated among all other ISPs preventing
    > > them from accepting your business.
    > >

    >
    > Such a drama queen! How is this different from any other provision in the
    > terms and conditions of a service contract? Are you entitled to a trial by
    > jury every time you fail to pay your bill? Or can the service provider
    > simply cut your service off?


    Are all other service providers barred from taking your business in the
    future? No. So it is extremely different. Obviously. Are you
    deliberately misunderstanding here? Because that is what it seems like.

    > If you would like to see internet piracy flourish under the status quo, with
    > no consequences for theft of intellectual property, then have the guts to
    > just say that. If not, then kindly suggest what laws you would prefer to see
    > enacted -- and enforced -- to protect intellectuial property rights.
    >
    > > They want increased penalties for copyright violation totally out of
    > > line with penalties for other non-violent crime.
    > >

    >
    > For example.....?


    Read the treaty or excerpts or even just the salient points summerised
    for you. The URL I provided and pages it links to are an excellent
    starting point. Peter's post also has some good info linked.

    > > They want increased search and seizure powers, and not just at borders.
    > >

    >
    > And your source for this claim is....?


    See above. Though we all know you won't be bothered since you can't even
    be bothered to see the difference between a contract being terminated
    due to failure to pay a bill and an accusation (with zero proof needed)
    being enough to cut you off from all service, everywhere, forever.

    Crawl back under your rock, Troll.

    > > It goes on, so I encourage you to read the above webpage and other
    > > material linked from there. Decide for yourself whether this, IMHO,
    > > undemocratic, unethical, immoral invasion of your civil liberties and
    > > rights is acceptable to you. Is this the kind of world you want to live
    > > in?
    > >



    --
    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
     
    Jamie Kahn Genet, Nov 16, 2009
    #7
  8. Jamie Kahn Genet

    impossible Guest

    Re: Get involved Geeks! Your civil rights are being threatened!

    "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    news:1j9b20b.1kzgilh2tofueN%...
    > impossible <> wrote:
    >
    >> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    >> news:1j99har.114vnoexfkeafN%...
    >> > [I'm not usually one to bring up activist stuff like this, but it has
    >> > me
    >> > so incensed I feel I've no other choice. Too often Geeks fail to make
    >> > their voices heard and that really has to stop, or we're going to wake
    >> > up one day and realise our freedoms have just slipped away from us
    >> > while
    >> > we were not paying attention.]
    >> >
    >> > <http://www.eff.org/issues/acta>
    >> >
    >> > In brief: the RIAA, MPAA and other lobby groups failed to have their
    >> > way
    >> > with the usual law making apparatus, so now they're trying to go behind
    >> > your backs and slip their provisions into law via treaty with no public
    >> > consultation.
    >> >

    >>
    >> You seem to be confused about the law-making process in New Zealand. Laws
    >> are enacted by a vote of Parliament, not "via treaty". Lobbyists lobby --
    >> What else is new? But only elected MPs get to make decisions. Nothing
    >> can
    >> "slip" into law that MPs haven't approved. Are you trying to let
    >> Parliament
    >> off the hook by turning his into some kind of foreign conspiracy?

    >
    > My point - which I'd have thought pretty clear *sigh* - is the process
    > of ratifying a treaty circumvents much of the usual lawmaking apparatus,
    > including most of the public consultation and input. But feel free to
    > prove me wrong :)
    >


    Deep breath -- slowly now, don't faint.

    Treaty ratification does not "circumvent the usual lawmaking apparatus" in
    anyway. Treaties are ratified ( or not) by a vote of Parliament. Some
    treaties, like TRIPS (which NZ is already a party to), obligate signatories
    to enact and enforce their treaty obligations. But this again is entirely up
    to Parliament, which is free to interpret NZ's treaty obligations any way it
    sees fit.

    >> > Namely:
    >> >
    >> > If you're merely _accused_ (no proof needed) by a copyright holder of
    >> > being a violator three times you can be banned from using the internet
    >> > without investigation, trial or any official government involvement.
    >> > Your details will also be circulated among all other ISPs preventing
    >> > them from accepting your business.
    >> >

    >>
    >> Such a drama queen! How is this different from any other provision in the
    >> terms and conditions of a service contract? Are you entitled to a trial
    >> by
    >> jury every time you fail to pay your bill? Or can the service provider
    >> simply cut your service off?

    >
    > Are all other service providers barred from taking your business in the
    > future? No. So it is extremely different. Obviously. Are you
    > deliberately misunderstanding here? Because that is what it seems like.
    >
    >> If you would like to see internet piracy flourish under the status quo,
    >> with
    >> no consequences for theft of intellectual property, then have the guts to
    >> just say that. If not, then kindly suggest what laws you would prefer to
    >> see
    >> enacted -- and enforced -- to protect intellectuial property rights.
    >>
    >> > They want increased penalties for copyright violation totally out of
    >> > line with penalties for other non-violent crime.
    >> >

    >>
    >> For example.....?

    >
    > Read the treaty or excerpts or even just the salient points summerised
    > for you. The URL I provided and pages it links to are an excellent
    > starting point. Peter's post also has some good info linked.
    >


    Can't find it, and I strongly suspect it doesn't actually exist. Burden of
    proof is on you -- it's your claim so back it up...if you can, that is.

    >> > They want increased search and seizure powers, and not just at borders.
    >> >

    >>
    >> And your source for this claim is....?

    >
    > See above.


    Again, I can't find it, and again I strongly suspect it doesn't actually
    exist. Burden of proof is on you -- it's your claim so back it up...if you
    can, that is.

    Wild, unsupported accusations put you in disreputable company.

    > Though we all know you won't be bothered since you can't even
    > be bothered to see the difference between a contract being terminated
    > due to failure to pay a bill and an accusation (with zero proof needed)
    > being enough to cut you off from all service, everywhere, forever.
    >


    More nonsense! If your internet connection has been used to pirate
    copyrighted materials that you have no legal right to obtain, then the ISP
    can easily demonstrate this from its logs. Care to test that evidence? Feel
    free! It's your right as a citizen. But do understand that as a citizen you
    also have a responsibility obey the law.
     
    impossible, Nov 17, 2009
    #8
  9. Re: Get involved Geeks! Your civil rights are being threatened!

    impossible <> wrote:

    > "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    > news:1j9b20b.1kzgilh2tofueN%...
    > > impossible <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:1j99har.114vnoexfkeafN%...
    > >> > [I'm not usually one to bring up activist stuff like this, but it has
    > >> > me
    > >> > so incensed I feel I've no other choice. Too often Geeks fail to make
    > >> > their voices heard and that really has to stop, or we're going to wake
    > >> > up one day and realise our freedoms have just slipped away from us
    > >> > while
    > >> > we were not paying attention.]
    > >> >
    > >> > <http://www.eff.org/issues/acta>
    > >> >
    > >> > In brief: the RIAA, MPAA and other lobby groups failed to have their
    > >> > way
    > >> > with the usual law making apparatus, so now they're trying to go behind
    > >> > your backs and slip their provisions into law via treaty with no public
    > >> > consultation.
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> You seem to be confused about the law-making process in New Zealand. Laws
    > >> are enacted by a vote of Parliament, not "via treaty". Lobbyists lobby --
    > >> What else is new? But only elected MPs get to make decisions. Nothing
    > >> can
    > >> "slip" into law that MPs haven't approved. Are you trying to let
    > >> Parliament
    > >> off the hook by turning his into some kind of foreign conspiracy?

    > >
    > > My point - which I'd have thought pretty clear *sigh* - is the process
    > > of ratifying a treaty circumvents much of the usual lawmaking apparatus,
    > > including most of the public consultation and input. But feel free to
    > > prove me wrong :)
    > >

    >
    > Deep breath -- slowly now, don't faint.
    >
    > Treaty ratification does not "circumvent the usual lawmaking apparatus" in
    > anyway. Treaties are ratified ( or not) by a vote of Parliament. Some
    > treaties, like TRIPS (which NZ is already a party to), obligate signatories
    > to enact and enforce their treaty obligations. But this again is entirely up
    > to Parliament, which is free to interpret NZ's treaty obligations any way it
    > sees fit.


    A vote not requiring the same public consultation process as a regular
    law being made. But thanks for making my own point for me :)

    > >> > Namely:
    > >> >
    > >> > If you're merely _accused_ (no proof needed) by a copyright holder of
    > >> > being a violator three times you can be banned from using the internet
    > >> > without investigation, trial or any official government involvement.
    > >> > Your details will also be circulated among all other ISPs preventing
    > >> > them from accepting your business.
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> Such a drama queen! How is this different from any other provision in the
    > >> terms and conditions of a service contract? Are you entitled to a trial
    > >> by
    > >> jury every time you fail to pay your bill? Or can the service provider
    > >> simply cut your service off?

    > >
    > > Are all other service providers barred from taking your business in the
    > > future? No. So it is extremely different. Obviously. Are you
    > > deliberately misunderstanding here? Because that is what it seems like.
    > >
    > >> If you would like to see internet piracy flourish under the status quo,
    > >> with
    > >> no consequences for theft of intellectual property, then have the guts to
    > >> just say that. If not, then kindly suggest what laws you would prefer to
    > >> see
    > >> enacted -- and enforced -- to protect intellectuial property rights.
    > >>
    > >> > They want increased penalties for copyright violation totally out of
    > >> > line with penalties for other non-violent crime.
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> For example.....?

    > >
    > > Read the treaty or excerpts or even just the salient points summerised
    > > for you. The URL I provided and pages it links to are an excellent
    > > starting point. Peter's post also has some good info linked.
    > >

    >
    > Can't find it, and I strongly suspect it doesn't actually exist. Burden of
    > proof is on you -- it's your claim so back it up...if you can, that is.


    I shall enjoy showing you up as being full of shit :)

    <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/11/leaked-acta-internet-provisions-th
    ree-strikes-and->

    <http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/11/04/238414/acta-talks-foc
    us-on-three-strikes-no-appeal-deal-for-software.htm>

    <http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r23296203-Leaked-ACTA-Internet-Provisio
    ns-Three-Strikes-and-a-Global>

    <http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=1
    0607376>

    Took me about five seconds of googling and following links. Guess you're
    just incrediably lazy and/or inept.

    > >> > They want increased search and seizure powers, and not just at borders.
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> And your source for this claim is....?

    > >
    > > See above.

    >
    > Again, I can't find it, and again I strongly suspect it doesn't actually
    > exist. Burden of proof is on you -- it's your claim so back it up...if you
    > can, that is.
    >
    > Wild, unsupported accusations put you in disreputable company.


    Again you're full of shit and it is my great pleasure to show you up
    (again with only a few seconds googling) :)

    <http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3660/125/>

    and so much more simply googling ACTA plus appropriate keywords. I'd
    accuse you of being a lazy arsehole, but in fact you're just a troll.
    Well, I hope you're a troll. I like to think no one here would be stupid
    enough to throw away their various rights and freedoms that would be
    curtailed should ACTA in it's current form come to pass.

    > > Though we all know you won't be bothered since you can't even
    > > be bothered to see the difference between a contract being terminated
    > > due to failure to pay a bill and an accusation (with zero proof needed)
    > > being enough to cut you off from all service, everywhere, forever.
    > >

    >
    > More nonsense! If your internet connection has been used to pirate
    > copyrighted materials that you have no legal right to obtain, then the ISP
    > can easily demonstrate this from its logs. Care to test that evidence? Feel
    > free! It's your right as a citizen. But do understand that as a citizen you
    > also have a responsibility obey the law.


    Used? No, you've only been ACCUSED. That is all it would take. THAT is
    the point. *very deep and long sigh* Bugger off you offensive little
    troll.
    --
    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
     
    Jamie Kahn Genet, Nov 17, 2009
    #9
  10. Jamie Kahn Genet

    impossible Guest

    Re: Get involved Geeks! Your civil rights are being threatened!

    "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    news:1j9d7ua.gd17otz7sbkdN%...
    > impossible <> wrote:
    >
    >> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    >> news:1j9b20b.1kzgilh2tofueN%...
    >> > impossible <> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    >> >> news:1j99har.114vnoexfkeafN%...
    >> >> > [I'm not usually one to bring up activist stuff like this, but it
    >> >> > has
    >> >> > me
    >> >> > so incensed I feel I've no other choice. Too often Geeks fail to
    >> >> > make
    >> >> > their voices heard and that really has to stop, or we're going to
    >> >> > wake
    >> >> > up one day and realise our freedoms have just slipped away from us
    >> >> > while
    >> >> > we were not paying attention.]
    >> >> >
    >> >> > <http://www.eff.org/issues/acta>
    >> >> >
    >> >> > In brief: the RIAA, MPAA and other lobby groups failed to have their
    >> >> > way
    >> >> > with the usual law making apparatus, so now they're trying to go
    >> >> > behind
    >> >> > your backs and slip their provisions into law via treaty with no
    >> >> > public
    >> >> > consultation.
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> You seem to be confused about the law-making process in New Zealand.
    >> >> Laws
    >> >> are enacted by a vote of Parliament, not "via treaty". Lobbyists
    >> >> lobby --
    >> >> What else is new? But only elected MPs get to make decisions. Nothing
    >> >> can
    >> >> "slip" into law that MPs haven't approved. Are you trying to let
    >> >> Parliament
    >> >> off the hook by turning his into some kind of foreign conspiracy?
    >> >
    >> > My point - which I'd have thought pretty clear *sigh* - is the process
    >> > of ratifying a treaty circumvents much of the usual lawmaking
    >> > apparatus,
    >> > including most of the public consultation and input. But feel free to
    >> > prove me wrong :)
    >> >

    >>
    >> Deep breath -- slowly now, don't faint.
    >>
    >> Treaty ratification does not "circumvent the usual lawmaking apparatus"
    >> in
    >> anyway. Treaties are ratified ( or not) by a vote of Parliament. Some
    >> treaties, like TRIPS (which NZ is already a party to), obligate
    >> signatories
    >> to enact and enforce their treaty obligations. But this again is entirely
    >> up
    >> to Parliament, which is free to interpret NZ's treaty obligations any way
    >> it
    >> sees fit.

    >
    > A vote not requiring the same public consultation process as a regular
    > law being made.


    Public consultation is **never** required in order for Parliament to
    legislate. Where did youi get that fool idea? Sometimes consultation
    happens, sometimes it doesn't. Like everything else, it's up to our
    democratically elected representatives in Parliament to decide.

    > But thanks for making my own point for me :)


    Are you 12?

    >
    >> >> > Namely:
    >> >> >
    >> >> > If you're merely _accused_ (no proof needed) by a copyright holder
    >> >> > of
    >> >> > being a violator three times you can be banned from using the
    >> >> > internet
    >> >> > without investigation, trial or any official government involvement.
    >> >> > Your details will also be circulated among all other ISPs preventing
    >> >> > them from accepting your business.
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> Such a drama queen! How is this different from any other provision in
    >> >> the
    >> >> terms and conditions of a service contract? Are you entitled to a
    >> >> trial
    >> >> by
    >> >> jury every time you fail to pay your bill? Or can the service provider
    >> >> simply cut your service off?
    >> >
    >> > Are all other service providers barred from taking your business in the
    >> > future? No. So it is extremely different. Obviously. Are you
    >> > deliberately misunderstanding here? Because that is what it seems like.
    >> >
    >> >> If you would like to see internet piracy flourish under the status
    >> >> quo,
    >> >> with
    >> >> no consequences for theft of intellectual property, then have the guts
    >> >> to
    >> >> just say that. If not, then kindly suggest what laws you would prefer
    >> >> to
    >> >> see
    >> >> enacted -- and enforced -- to protect intellectuial property rights.
    >> >>
    >> >> > They want increased penalties for copyright violation totally out of
    >> >> > line with penalties for other non-violent crime.
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> For example.....?
    >> >
    >> > Read the treaty or excerpts or even just the salient points summerised
    >> > for you. The URL I provided and pages it links to are an excellent
    >> > starting point. Peter's post also has some good info linked.
    >> >

    >>
    >> Can't find it, and I strongly suspect it doesn't actually exist. Burden
    >> of
    >> proof is on you -- it's your claim so back it up...if you can, that is.

    >
    > I shall enjoy showing you up as being full of shit :)
    >


    First of all, it's time you learn how to properly post links. Second of all,
    you're about to demonstrate how completely idotic you really are.

    > <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/11/leaked-acta-internet-provisions-th

    ree-strikes-and->
    >


    Nothing there but a blog. I assume this is where you crib all your rants.
    But there's nothing in that blog to support your claim of "increased
    penalties for copyright violation totally out of line with penalties for
    other non-violent crime".

    > <http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/11/04/238414/acta-talks-foc
    > us-on-three-strikes-no-appeal-deal-for-software.htm>
    >


    Nothing there but another blog. Do you ever read anything else? Like
    oirignal source documents? Are you really that big a fool that you will
    trust anything you read on the internet so long as it conforms to your
    ideological predilictions? No wonder you're so lost.

    Anyway...there's nothing in that blog either to support your claim of
    "increased penalties for copyright violation totally out of line with
    penalties for other non-violent crime".


    > <http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r23296203-Leaked-ACTA-Internet-Provisio
    > ns-Three-Strikes-and-a-Global>
    >


    <yawn> More bloggery with zero evidence to back your claim.

    > <http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=1
    > 0607376>
    >


    A blog brought to you by Telecom. How low can you go?! And still no evidence
    to support your claim


    > Took me about five seconds of googling and following links. Guess you're
    > just incrediably lazy and/or inept.
    >


    Took me less time than that to completely expose your "references".

    >> >> > They want increased search and seizure powers, and not just at
    >> >> > borders.
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> And your source for this claim is....?
    >> >
    >> > See above.

    >>
    >> Again, I can't find it, and again I strongly suspect it doesn't actually
    >> exist. Burden of proof is on you -- it's your claim so back it up...if
    >> you
    >> can, that is.
    >>
    >> Wild, unsupported accusations put you in disreputable company.

    >
    > Again you're full of shit and it is my great pleasure to show you up
    > (again with only a few seconds googling) :)
    >


    Are you sure you want to humiliate yourself again, fool? Guess so...

    > <http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3660/125/>
    >


    Another blog for you to crib, but again no evidence. When will you learn?

    > and so much more simply googling ACTA plus appropriate keywords. I'd
    > accuse you of being a lazy arsehole, but in fact you're just a troll.
    > Well, I hope you're a troll. I like to think no one here would be stupid
    > enough to throw away their various rights and freedoms that would be
    > curtailed should ACTA in it's current form come to pass.
    >


    Do be sure to post that citation you have in support of a "right" to
    internet piracy.

    >> > Though we all know you won't be bothered since you can't even
    >> > be bothered to see the difference between a contract being terminated
    >> > due to failure to pay a bill and an accusation (with zero proof needed)
    >> > being enough to cut you off from all service, everywhere, forever.
    >> >

    >>
    >> More nonsense! If your internet connection has been used to pirate
    >> copyrighted materials that you have no legal right to obtain, then the
    >> ISP
    >> can easily demonstrate this from its logs. Care to test that evidence?
    >> Feel
    >> free! It's your right as a citizen. But do understand that as a citizen
    >> you
    >> also have a responsibility obey the law.

    >
    > Used? No, you've only been ACCUSED. That is all it would take. THAT is
    > the point.


    Poor you, the thought of having to abandon internet piracy is really
    FREAKING you out, isn't it? Get a grip. Get a job. Purchase the intellectual
    property you can afford.
     
    impossible, Nov 18, 2009
    #10
  11. Re: Get involved Geeks! Your civil rights are being threatened!

    impossible <> wrote:

    > "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    > news:1j9d7ua.gd17otz7sbkdN%...
    > > impossible <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:1j9b20b.1kzgilh2tofueN%...
    > >> > impossible <> wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    > >> >> news:1j99har.114vnoexfkeafN%...
    > >> >> > [I'm not usually one to bring up activist stuff like this, but it
    > >> >> > has
    > >> >> > me
    > >> >> > so incensed I feel I've no other choice. Too often Geeks fail to
    > >> >> > make
    > >> >> > their voices heard and that really has to stop, or we're going to
    > >> >> > wake
    > >> >> > up one day and realise our freedoms have just slipped away from us
    > >> >> > while
    > >> >> > we were not paying attention.]
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > <http://www.eff.org/issues/acta>
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > In brief: the RIAA, MPAA and other lobby groups failed to have their
    > >> >> > way
    > >> >> > with the usual law making apparatus, so now they're trying to go
    > >> >> > behind
    > >> >> > your backs and slip their provisions into law via treaty with no
    > >> >> > public
    > >> >> > consultation.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >> You seem to be confused about the law-making process in New Zealand.
    > >> >> Laws
    > >> >> are enacted by a vote of Parliament, not "via treaty". Lobbyists
    > >> >> lobby --
    > >> >> What else is new? But only elected MPs get to make decisions. Nothing
    > >> >> can
    > >> >> "slip" into law that MPs haven't approved. Are you trying to let
    > >> >> Parliament
    > >> >> off the hook by turning his into some kind of foreign conspiracy?
    > >> >
    > >> > My point - which I'd have thought pretty clear *sigh* - is the process
    > >> > of ratifying a treaty circumvents much of the usual lawmaking
    > >> > apparatus,
    > >> > including most of the public consultation and input. But feel free to
    > >> > prove me wrong :)
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> Deep breath -- slowly now, don't faint.
    > >>
    > >> Treaty ratification does not "circumvent the usual lawmaking apparatus"
    > >> in
    > >> anyway. Treaties are ratified ( or not) by a vote of Parliament. Some
    > >> treaties, like TRIPS (which NZ is already a party to), obligate
    > >> signatories
    > >> to enact and enforce their treaty obligations. But this again is entirely
    > >> up
    > >> to Parliament, which is free to interpret NZ's treaty obligations any way
    > >> it
    > >> sees fit.

    > >
    > > A vote not requiring the same public consultation process as a regular
    > > law being made.

    >
    > Public consultation is **never** required in order for Parliament to
    > legislate. Where did youi get that fool idea? Sometimes consultation
    > happens, sometimes it doesn't. Like everything else, it's up to our
    > democratically elected representatives in Parliament to decide.
    >
    > > But thanks for making my own point for me :)

    >
    > Are you 12?


    If I was I'd still be twice the man you are.

    > >> >> > Namely:
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > If you're merely _accused_ (no proof needed) by a copyright holder
    > >> >> > of
    > >> >> > being a violator three times you can be banned from using the
    > >> >> > internet
    > >> >> > without investigation, trial or any official government involvement.
    > >> >> > Your details will also be circulated among all other ISPs preventing
    > >> >> > them from accepting your business.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Such a drama queen! How is this different from any other provision in
    > >> >> the
    > >> >> terms and conditions of a service contract? Are you entitled to a
    > >> >> trial
    > >> >> by
    > >> >> jury every time you fail to pay your bill? Or can the service provider
    > >> >> simply cut your service off?
    > >> >
    > >> > Are all other service providers barred from taking your business in the
    > >> > future? No. So it is extremely different. Obviously. Are you
    > >> > deliberately misunderstanding here? Because that is what it seems like.
    > >> >
    > >> >> If you would like to see internet piracy flourish under the status
    > >> >> quo,
    > >> >> with
    > >> >> no consequences for theft of intellectual property, then have the guts
    > >> >> to
    > >> >> just say that. If not, then kindly suggest what laws you would prefer
    > >> >> to
    > >> >> see
    > >> >> enacted -- and enforced -- to protect intellectuial property rights.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> > They want increased penalties for copyright violation totally out of
    > >> >> > line with penalties for other non-violent crime.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >> For example.....?
    > >> >
    > >> > Read the treaty or excerpts or even just the salient points summerised
    > >> > for you. The URL I provided and pages it links to are an excellent
    > >> > starting point. Peter's post also has some good info linked.
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> Can't find it, and I strongly suspect it doesn't actually exist. Burden
    > >> of
    > >> proof is on you -- it's your claim so back it up...if you can, that is.

    > >
    > > I shall enjoy showing you up as being full of shit :)
    > >

    >
    > First of all, it's time you learn how to properly post links. Second of all,
    > you're about to demonstrate how completely idotic you really are.
    >
    > > <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/11/leaked-acta-internet-provisions-th

    > ree-strikes-and->
    > >

    >
    > Nothing there but a blog. I assume this is where you crib all your rants.
    > But there's nothing in that blog to support your claim of "increased
    > penalties for copyright violation totally out of line with penalties for
    > other non-violent crime".


    LOL. Just admit you're wrong. Calling everything a blog is a pathetic
    attempt at misdirection at best. I note you even disregard articles that
    link to the actual leaded documents. I guess nothing is true unless it
    supports your position? You going to try and call them just a blog? :-D

    > > <http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/11/04/238414/acta-talks-foc
    > > us-on-three-strikes-no-appeal-deal-for-software.htm>
    > >

    >
    > Nothing there but another blog. Do you ever read anything else? Like
    > oirignal source documents? Are you really that big a fool that you will
    > trust anything you read on the internet so long as it conforms to your
    > ideological predilictions? No wonder you're so lost.


    Amusing you mention original source documents which are linked to
    multiple times and directly contradict you :-D But you're not too
    bright, are you?

    > Anyway...there's nothing in that blog either to support your claim of
    > "increased penalties for copyright violation totally out of line with
    > penalties for other non-violent crime".
    >
    >
    > > <http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r23296203-Leaked-ACTA-Internet-Provisio
    > > ns-Three-Strikes-and-a-Global>
    > >

    >
    > <yawn> More bloggery with zero evidence to back your claim.
    >
    > > <http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=1
    > > 0607376>
    > >

    >
    > A blog brought to you by Telecom. How low can you go?! And still no evidence
    > to support your claim
    >
    >
    > > Took me about five seconds of googling and following links. Guess you're
    > > just incrediably lazy and/or inept.
    > >

    >
    > Took me less time than that to completely expose your "references".
    >
    > >> >> > They want increased search and seizure powers, and not just at
    > >> >> > borders.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >> And your source for this claim is....?
    > >> >
    > >> > See above.
    > >>
    > >> Again, I can't find it, and again I strongly suspect it doesn't actually
    > >> exist. Burden of proof is on you -- it's your claim so back it up...if
    > >> you
    > >> can, that is.
    > >>
    > >> Wild, unsupported accusations put you in disreputable company.

    > >
    > > Again you're full of shit and it is my great pleasure to show you up
    > > (again with only a few seconds googling) :)
    > >

    >
    > Are you sure you want to humiliate yourself again, fool? Guess so...
    >
    > > <http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3660/125/>
    > >

    >
    > Another blog for you to crib, but again no evidence. When will you learn?
    >
    > > and so much more simply googling ACTA plus appropriate keywords. I'd
    > > accuse you of being a lazy arsehole, but in fact you're just a troll.
    > > Well, I hope you're a troll. I like to think no one here would be stupid
    > > enough to throw away their various rights and freedoms that would be
    > > curtailed should ACTA in it's current form come to pass.
    > >

    >
    > Do be sure to post that citation you have in support of a "right" to
    > internet piracy.


    Please tell me a) when I said that and b) why (which should be good for
    a laugh) why you seem to think that is my position? Actually don't
    bother with b. We all know it's just a sad attempt to attack and
    discredit me. The same pathetic stunt the groups behind these provisions
    like to pull.

    Is this what you're reduced to? Out and out lying to desperately try and
    save face?

    > >> > Though we all know you won't be bothered since you can't even
    > >> > be bothered to see the difference between a contract being terminated
    > >> > due to failure to pay a bill and an accusation (with zero proof needed)
    > >> > being enough to cut you off from all service, everywhere, forever.
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> More nonsense! If your internet connection has been used to pirate
    > >> copyrighted materials that you have no legal right to obtain, then the
    > >> ISP
    > >> can easily demonstrate this from its logs. Care to test that evidence?
    > >> Feel
    > >> free! It's your right as a citizen. But do understand that as a citizen
    > >> you
    > >> also have a responsibility obey the law.

    > >
    > > Used? No, you've only been ACCUSED. That is all it would take. THAT is
    > > the point.

    >
    > Poor you, the thought of having to abandon internet piracy is really
    > FREAKING you out, isn't it? Get a grip. Get a job. Purchase the intellectual
    > property you can afford.


    I have and I do. But your pathetic attempts to try and change this from
    outrage over an attack on civil liberties and due process (to name only
    two outrages), into some kind of support of piracy is sad. Very sad.
    Worse it fools no one and instead makes it crystal clear what kind of
    person you are - a liar and a fool.

    Maybe next time you'll try to be a bit more cleaver in your attempts to
    twist the truth. Better luck then arsehole.
    --
    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
     
    Jamie Kahn Genet, Nov 18, 2009
    #11
  12. Re: Get involved Geeks! Your civil rights are being threatened!

    impossible <> wrote:

    > First of all, it's time you learn how to properly post links. Second of all,
    > you're about to demonstrate how completely idotic you really are.


    Oh, and I meant to say add there is nothing wrong with my links at all.
    All are formatted 100% properly. Maybe you just need a decent
    newsreader? :) I'm only guessing, but I bet it's the angle brackets
    <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt> (to link just one RFC that will
    explain the long established usage to you) your piece of crap newsreader
    fails to understand.
    --
    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
     
    Jamie Kahn Genet, Nov 18, 2009
    #12
  13. Jamie Kahn Genet

    impossible Guest

    Re: Get involved Geeks! Your civil rights are being threatened!

    "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    news:1j9dtco.1d8sivh1qon1rsN%...
    > impossible <> wrote:
    >
    >> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    >> news:1j9d7ua.gd17otz7sbkdN%...
    >> > impossible <> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    >> >> news:1j9b20b.1kzgilh2tofueN%...
    >> >> > impossible <> wrote:
    >> >> >
    >> >> >> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    >> >> >> news:1j99har.114vnoexfkeafN%...
    >> >> >> > [I'm not usually one to bring up activist stuff like this, but it
    >> >> >> > has
    >> >> >> > me
    >> >> >> > so incensed I feel I've no other choice. Too often Geeks fail to
    >> >> >> > make
    >> >> >> > their voices heard and that really has to stop, or we're going to
    >> >> >> > wake
    >> >> >> > up one day and realise our freedoms have just slipped away from
    >> >> >> > us
    >> >> >> > while
    >> >> >> > we were not paying attention.]
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> > <http://www.eff.org/issues/acta>
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> > In brief: the RIAA, MPAA and other lobby groups failed to have
    >> >> >> > their
    >> >> >> > way
    >> >> >> > with the usual law making apparatus, so now they're trying to go
    >> >> >> > behind
    >> >> >> > your backs and slip their provisions into law via treaty with no
    >> >> >> > public
    >> >> >> > consultation.
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> You seem to be confused about the law-making process in New
    >> >> >> Zealand.
    >> >> >> Laws
    >> >> >> are enacted by a vote of Parliament, not "via treaty". Lobbyists
    >> >> >> lobby --
    >> >> >> What else is new? But only elected MPs get to make decisions.
    >> >> >> Nothing
    >> >> >> can
    >> >> >> "slip" into law that MPs haven't approved. Are you trying to let
    >> >> >> Parliament
    >> >> >> off the hook by turning his into some kind of foreign conspiracy?
    >> >> >
    >> >> > My point - which I'd have thought pretty clear *sigh* - is the
    >> >> > process
    >> >> > of ratifying a treaty circumvents much of the usual lawmaking
    >> >> > apparatus,
    >> >> > including most of the public consultation and input. But feel free
    >> >> > to
    >> >> > prove me wrong :)
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> Deep breath -- slowly now, don't faint.
    >> >>
    >> >> Treaty ratification does not "circumvent the usual lawmaking
    >> >> apparatus"
    >> >> in
    >> >> anyway. Treaties are ratified ( or not) by a vote of Parliament. Some
    >> >> treaties, like TRIPS (which NZ is already a party to), obligate
    >> >> signatories
    >> >> to enact and enforce their treaty obligations. But this again is
    >> >> entirely
    >> >> up
    >> >> to Parliament, which is free to interpret NZ's treaty obligations any
    >> >> way
    >> >> it
    >> >> sees fit.
    >> >
    >> > A vote not requiring the same public consultation process as a regular
    >> > law being made.

    >>
    >> Public consultation is **never** required in order for Parliament to
    >> legislate. Where did youi get that fool idea? Sometimes consultation
    >> happens, sometimes it doesn't. Like everything else, it's up to our
    >> democratically elected representatives in Parliament to decide.
    >>
    >> > But thanks for making my own point for me :)

    >>
    >> Are you 12?

    >
    > If I was I'd still be twice the man you are.
    >
    >> >> >> > Namely:
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> > If you're merely _accused_ (no proof needed) by a copyright
    >> >> >> > holder
    >> >> >> > of
    >> >> >> > being a violator three times you can be banned from using the
    >> >> >> > internet
    >> >> >> > without investigation, trial or any official government
    >> >> >> > involvement.
    >> >> >> > Your details will also be circulated among all other ISPs
    >> >> >> > preventing
    >> >> >> > them from accepting your business.
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Such a drama queen! How is this different from any other provision
    >> >> >> in
    >> >> >> the
    >> >> >> terms and conditions of a service contract? Are you entitled to a
    >> >> >> trial
    >> >> >> by
    >> >> >> jury every time you fail to pay your bill? Or can the service
    >> >> >> provider
    >> >> >> simply cut your service off?
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Are all other service providers barred from taking your business in
    >> >> > the
    >> >> > future? No. So it is extremely different. Obviously. Are you
    >> >> > deliberately misunderstanding here? Because that is what it seems
    >> >> > like.
    >> >> >
    >> >> >> If you would like to see internet piracy flourish under the status
    >> >> >> quo,
    >> >> >> with
    >> >> >> no consequences for theft of intellectual property, then have the
    >> >> >> guts
    >> >> >> to
    >> >> >> just say that. If not, then kindly suggest what laws you would
    >> >> >> prefer
    >> >> >> to
    >> >> >> see
    >> >> >> enacted -- and enforced -- to protect intellectuial property
    >> >> >> rights.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> > They want increased penalties for copyright violation totally out
    >> >> >> > of
    >> >> >> > line with penalties for other non-violent crime.
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> For example.....?
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Read the treaty or excerpts or even just the salient points
    >> >> > summerised
    >> >> > for you. The URL I provided and pages it links to are an excellent
    >> >> > starting point. Peter's post also has some good info linked.
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> Can't find it, and I strongly suspect it doesn't actually exist.
    >> >> Burden
    >> >> of
    >> >> proof is on you -- it's your claim so back it up...if you can, that
    >> >> is.
    >> >
    >> > I shall enjoy showing you up as being full of shit :)
    >> >

    >>
    >> First of all, it's time you learn how to properly post links. Second of
    >> all,
    >> you're about to demonstrate how completely idotic you really are.
    >>
    >> > <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/11/leaked-acta-internet-provisions-th

    >> ree-strikes-and->
    >> >

    >>
    >> Nothing there but a blog. I assume this is where you crib all your rants.
    >> But there's nothing in that blog to support your claim of "increased
    >> penalties for copyright violation totally out of line with penalties for
    >> other non-violent crime".

    >
    > LOL. Just admit you're wrong. Calling everything a blog is a pathetic
    > attempt at misdirection at best. I note you even disregard articles that
    > link to the actual leaded documents. I guess nothing is true unless it
    > supports your position? You going to try and call them just a blog? :-D
    >
    >> > <http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/11/04/238414/acta-talks-foc
    >> > us-on-three-strikes-no-appeal-deal-for-software.htm>
    >> >

    >>
    >> Nothing there but another blog. Do you ever read anything else? Like
    >> oirignal source documents? Are you really that big a fool that you will
    >> trust anything you read on the internet so long as it conforms to your
    >> ideological predilictions? No wonder you're so lost.

    >
    > Amusing you mention original source documents which are linked to
    > multiple times and directly contradict you :-D But you're not too
    > bright, are you?
    >
    >> Anyway...there's nothing in that blog either to support your claim of
    >> "increased penalties for copyright violation totally out of line with
    >> penalties for other non-violent crime".
    >>
    >>
    >> > <http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r23296203-Leaked-ACTA-Internet-Provisio
    >> > ns-Three-Strikes-and-a-Global>
    >> >

    >>
    >> <yawn> More bloggery with zero evidence to back your claim.
    >>
    >> > <http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=1
    >> > 0607376>
    >> >

    >>
    >> A blog brought to you by Telecom. How low can you go?! And still no
    >> evidence
    >> to support your claim
    >>
    >>
    >> > Took me about five seconds of googling and following links. Guess
    >> > you're
    >> > just incrediably lazy and/or inept.
    >> >

    >>
    >> Took me less time than that to completely expose your "references".
    >>
    >> >> >> > They want increased search and seizure powers, and not just at
    >> >> >> > borders.
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> And your source for this claim is....?
    >> >> >
    >> >> > See above.
    >> >>
    >> >> Again, I can't find it, and again I strongly suspect it doesn't
    >> >> actually
    >> >> exist. Burden of proof is on you -- it's your claim so back it up...if
    >> >> you
    >> >> can, that is.
    >> >>
    >> >> Wild, unsupported accusations put you in disreputable company.
    >> >
    >> > Again you're full of shit and it is my great pleasure to show you up
    >> > (again with only a few seconds googling) :)
    >> >

    >>
    >> Are you sure you want to humiliate yourself again, fool? Guess so...
    >>
    >> > <http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3660/125/>
    >> >

    >>
    >> Another blog for you to crib, but again no evidence. When will you learn?
    >>
    >> > and so much more simply googling ACTA plus appropriate keywords. I'd
    >> > accuse you of being a lazy arsehole, but in fact you're just a troll.
    >> > Well, I hope you're a troll. I like to think no one here would be
    >> > stupid
    >> > enough to throw away their various rights and freedoms that would be
    >> > curtailed should ACTA in it's current form come to pass.
    >> >

    >>
    >> Do be sure to post that citation you have in support of a "right" to
    >> internet piracy.

    >
    > Please tell me a) when I said that and b) why (which should be good for
    > a laugh) why you seem to think that is my position? Actually don't
    > bother with b. We all know it's just a sad attempt to attack and
    > discredit me. The same pathetic stunt the groups behind these provisions
    > like to pull.
    >
    > Is this what you're reduced to? Out and out lying to desperately try and
    > save face?
    >
    >> >> > Though we all know you won't be bothered since you can't even
    >> >> > be bothered to see the difference between a contract being
    >> >> > terminated
    >> >> > due to failure to pay a bill and an accusation (with zero proof
    >> >> > needed)
    >> >> > being enough to cut you off from all service, everywhere, forever.
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> More nonsense! If your internet connection has been used to pirate
    >> >> copyrighted materials that you have no legal right to obtain, then the
    >> >> ISP
    >> >> can easily demonstrate this from its logs. Care to test that evidence?
    >> >> Feel
    >> >> free! It's your right as a citizen. But do understand that as a
    >> >> citizen
    >> >> you
    >> >> also have a responsibility obey the law.
    >> >
    >> > Used? No, you've only been ACCUSED. That is all it would take. THAT is
    >> > the point.

    >>
    >> Poor you, the thought of having to abandon internet piracy is really
    >> FREAKING you out, isn't it? Get a grip. Get a job. Purchase the
    >> intellectual
    >> property you can afford.

    >
    > I have and I do. But your pathetic attempts to try and change this from
    > outrage over an attack on civil liberties and due process (to name only
    > two outrages), into some kind of support of piracy is sad.


    Your pretense that this is a "civil liberties" issue has been exposed, and
    you clearly have no answer to that.

    > Very sad.
    > Worse it fools no one and instead makes it crystal clear what kind of
    > person you are - a liar and a fool.
    >


    If only you had an argument backed by evidence. Instead you are exposed as a
    blow-hard drama queen with a taste for piracy.

    > Maybe next time you'll try to be a bit more cleaver in your attempts to
    > twist the truth. Better luck then arsehole.
    > --


    You've been making things up, and I caught you out. Too bad for you!
     
    impossible, Nov 18, 2009
    #13
  14. Re: Get involved Geeks! Your civil rights are being threatened!

    impossible <> wrote:

    > "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    > news:1j9dtco.1d8sivh1qon1rsN%...
    > > impossible <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:1j9d7ua.gd17otz7sbkdN%...
    > >> > impossible <> wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    > >> >> news:1j9b20b.1kzgilh2tofueN%...
    > >> >> > impossible <> wrote:
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    > >> >> >> news:1j99har.114vnoexfkeafN%...
    > >> >> >> > [I'm not usually one to bring up activist stuff like this, but it
    > >> >> >> > has
    > >> >> >> > me
    > >> >> >> > so incensed I feel I've no other choice. Too often Geeks fail to
    > >> >> >> > make
    > >> >> >> > their voices heard and that really has to stop, or we're going to
    > >> >> >> > wake
    > >> >> >> > up one day and realise our freedoms have just slipped away from
    > >> >> >> > us
    > >> >> >> > while
    > >> >> >> > we were not paying attention.]
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> > <http://www.eff.org/issues/acta>
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> > In brief: the RIAA, MPAA and other lobby groups failed to have
    > >> >> >> > their
    > >> >> >> > way
    > >> >> >> > with the usual law making apparatus, so now they're trying to go
    > >> >> >> > behind
    > >> >> >> > your backs and slip their provisions into law via treaty with no
    > >> >> >> > public
    > >> >> >> > consultation.
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> You seem to be confused about the law-making process in New
    > >> >> >> Zealand.
    > >> >> >> Laws
    > >> >> >> are enacted by a vote of Parliament, not "via treaty". Lobbyists
    > >> >> >> lobby --
    > >> >> >> What else is new? But only elected MPs get to make decisions.
    > >> >> >> Nothing
    > >> >> >> can
    > >> >> >> "slip" into law that MPs haven't approved. Are you trying to let
    > >> >> >> Parliament
    > >> >> >> off the hook by turning his into some kind of foreign conspiracy?
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > My point - which I'd have thought pretty clear *sigh* - is the
    > >> >> > process
    > >> >> > of ratifying a treaty circumvents much of the usual lawmaking
    > >> >> > apparatus,
    > >> >> > including most of the public consultation and input. But feel free
    > >> >> > to
    > >> >> > prove me wrong :)
    > >> >> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Deep breath -- slowly now, don't faint.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Treaty ratification does not "circumvent the usual lawmaking
    > >> >> apparatus"
    > >> >> in
    > >> >> anyway. Treaties are ratified ( or not) by a vote of Parliament. Some
    > >> >> treaties, like TRIPS (which NZ is already a party to), obligate
    > >> >> signatories
    > >> >> to enact and enforce their treaty obligations. But this again is
    > >> >> entirely
    > >> >> up
    > >> >> to Parliament, which is free to interpret NZ's treaty obligations any
    > >> >> way
    > >> >> it
    > >> >> sees fit.
    > >> >
    > >> > A vote not requiring the same public consultation process as a regular
    > >> > law being made.
    > >>
    > >> Public consultation is **never** required in order for Parliament to
    > >> legislate. Where did youi get that fool idea? Sometimes consultation
    > >> happens, sometimes it doesn't. Like everything else, it's up to our
    > >> democratically elected representatives in Parliament to decide.
    > >>
    > >> > But thanks for making my own point for me :)
    > >>
    > >> Are you 12?

    > >
    > > If I was I'd still be twice the man you are.
    > >
    > >> >> >> > Namely:
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> > If you're merely _accused_ (no proof needed) by a copyright
    > >> >> >> > holder
    > >> >> >> > of
    > >> >> >> > being a violator three times you can be banned from using the
    > >> >> >> > internet
    > >> >> >> > without investigation, trial or any official government
    > >> >> >> > involvement.
    > >> >> >> > Your details will also be circulated among all other ISPs
    > >> >> >> > preventing
    > >> >> >> > them from accepting your business.
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> Such a drama queen! How is this different from any other provision
    > >> >> >> in
    > >> >> >> the
    > >> >> >> terms and conditions of a service contract? Are you entitled to a
    > >> >> >> trial
    > >> >> >> by
    > >> >> >> jury every time you fail to pay your bill? Or can the service
    > >> >> >> provider
    > >> >> >> simply cut your service off?
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > Are all other service providers barred from taking your business in
    > >> >> > the
    > >> >> > future? No. So it is extremely different. Obviously. Are you
    > >> >> > deliberately misunderstanding here? Because that is what it seems
    > >> >> > like.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >> If you would like to see internet piracy flourish under the status
    > >> >> >> quo,
    > >> >> >> with
    > >> >> >> no consequences for theft of intellectual property, then have the
    > >> >> >> guts
    > >> >> >> to
    > >> >> >> just say that. If not, then kindly suggest what laws you would
    > >> >> >> prefer
    > >> >> >> to
    > >> >> >> see
    > >> >> >> enacted -- and enforced -- to protect intellectuial property
    > >> >> >> rights.
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> > They want increased penalties for copyright violation totally out
    > >> >> >> > of
    > >> >> >> > line with penalties for other non-violent crime.
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> For example.....?
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > Read the treaty or excerpts or even just the salient points
    > >> >> > summerised
    > >> >> > for you. The URL I provided and pages it links to are an excellent
    > >> >> > starting point. Peter's post also has some good info linked.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Can't find it, and I strongly suspect it doesn't actually exist.
    > >> >> Burden
    > >> >> of
    > >> >> proof is on you -- it's your claim so back it up...if you can, that
    > >> >> is.
    > >> >
    > >> > I shall enjoy showing you up as being full of shit :)
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> First of all, it's time you learn how to properly post links. Second of
    > >> all,
    > >> you're about to demonstrate how completely idotic you really are.
    > >>
    > >> > <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/11/leaked-acta-internet-provisions-th
    > >> ree-strikes-and->
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> Nothing there but a blog. I assume this is where you crib all your rants.
    > >> But there's nothing in that blog to support your claim of "increased
    > >> penalties for copyright violation totally out of line with penalties for
    > >> other non-violent crime".

    > >
    > > LOL. Just admit you're wrong. Calling everything a blog is a pathetic
    > > attempt at misdirection at best. I note you even disregard articles that
    > > link to the actual leaded documents. I guess nothing is true unless it
    > > supports your position? You going to try and call them just a blog? :-D
    > >
    > >> > <http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/11/04/238414/acta-talks-foc
    > >> > us-on-three-strikes-no-appeal-deal-for-software.htm>
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> Nothing there but another blog. Do you ever read anything else? Like
    > >> oirignal source documents? Are you really that big a fool that you will
    > >> trust anything you read on the internet so long as it conforms to your
    > >> ideological predilictions? No wonder you're so lost.

    > >
    > > Amusing you mention original source documents which are linked to
    > > multiple times and directly contradict you :-D But you're not too
    > > bright, are you?
    > >
    > >> Anyway...there's nothing in that blog either to support your claim of
    > >> "increased penalties for copyright violation totally out of line with
    > >> penalties for other non-violent crime".
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> > <http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r23296203-Leaked-ACTA-Internet-Provisio
    > >> > ns-Three-Strikes-and-a-Global>
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> <yawn> More bloggery with zero evidence to back your claim.
    > >>
    > >> > <http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=1
    > >> > 0607376>
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> A blog brought to you by Telecom. How low can you go?! And still no
    > >> evidence
    > >> to support your claim
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> > Took me about five seconds of googling and following links. Guess
    > >> > you're
    > >> > just incrediably lazy and/or inept.
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> Took me less time than that to completely expose your "references".
    > >>
    > >> >> >> > They want increased search and seizure powers, and not just at
    > >> >> >> > borders.
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> And your source for this claim is....?
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > See above.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Again, I can't find it, and again I strongly suspect it doesn't
    > >> >> actually
    > >> >> exist. Burden of proof is on you -- it's your claim so back it up...if
    > >> >> you
    > >> >> can, that is.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Wild, unsupported accusations put you in disreputable company.
    > >> >
    > >> > Again you're full of shit and it is my great pleasure to show you up
    > >> > (again with only a few seconds googling) :)
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> Are you sure you want to humiliate yourself again, fool? Guess so...
    > >>
    > >> > <http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3660/125/>
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> Another blog for you to crib, but again no evidence. When will you learn?
    > >>
    > >> > and so much more simply googling ACTA plus appropriate keywords. I'd
    > >> > accuse you of being a lazy arsehole, but in fact you're just a troll.
    > >> > Well, I hope you're a troll. I like to think no one here would be
    > >> > stupid
    > >> > enough to throw away their various rights and freedoms that would be
    > >> > curtailed should ACTA in it's current form come to pass.
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> Do be sure to post that citation you have in support of a "right" to
    > >> internet piracy.

    > >
    > > Please tell me a) when I said that and b) why (which should be good for
    > > a laugh) why you seem to think that is my position? Actually don't
    > > bother with b. We all know it's just a sad attempt to attack and
    > > discredit me. The same pathetic stunt the groups behind these provisions
    > > like to pull.
    > >
    > > Is this what you're reduced to? Out and out lying to desperately try and
    > > save face?
    > >
    > >> >> > Though we all know you won't be bothered since you can't even
    > >> >> > be bothered to see the difference between a contract being
    > >> >> > terminated
    > >> >> > due to failure to pay a bill and an accusation (with zero proof
    > >> >> > needed)
    > >> >> > being enough to cut you off from all service, everywhere, forever.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >> More nonsense! If your internet connection has been used to pirate
    > >> >> copyrighted materials that you have no legal right to obtain, then the
    > >> >> ISP
    > >> >> can easily demonstrate this from its logs. Care to test that evidence?
    > >> >> Feel
    > >> >> free! It's your right as a citizen. But do understand that as a
    > >> >> citizen
    > >> >> you
    > >> >> also have a responsibility obey the law.
    > >> >
    > >> > Used? No, you've only been ACCUSED. That is all it would take. THAT is
    > >> > the point.
    > >>
    > >> Poor you, the thought of having to abandon internet piracy is really
    > >> FREAKING you out, isn't it? Get a grip. Get a job. Purchase the
    > >> intellectual
    > >> property you can afford.

    > >
    > > I have and I do. But your pathetic attempts to try and change this from
    > > outrage over an attack on civil liberties and due process (to name only
    > > two outrages), into some kind of support of piracy is sad.

    >
    > Your pretense that this is a "civil liberties" issue has been exposed, and
    > you clearly have no answer to that.
    >
    > > Very sad.
    > > Worse it fools no one and instead makes it crystal clear what kind of
    > > person you are - a liar and a fool.
    > >

    >
    > If only you had an argument backed by evidence. Instead you are exposed as a
    > blow-hard drama queen with a taste for piracy.
    >
    > > Maybe next time you'll try to be a bit more cleaver in your attempts to
    > > twist the truth. Better luck then arsehole.
    > > --

    >
    > You've been making things up, and I caught you out. Too bad for you!


    It's amusing. You take the truth (that you're the one outright
    lying/delusional/whatever by this stage) and twist it 180º.

    So I ask again - just who are you trying to fool? You've already been
    proven catagorically wrong at this stage. Be a decent person. Admit
    you're wrong in your accusations and that you're now distorting and
    twisting the truth to try and cover it (only it's an extremely poor
    attempt - you basically take the truth and what you've just shown
    yourself to be and try to say it's what the other person is. The trouble
    is everything is documented in past posts, hell even in just the quoted
    material :-D ).

    It's not that you've not been proven wrong and now a liar. All anyone
    has to do is read back through the last couple posts to see that. It's
    that _you_ need to say it. You need to face up to the truth like a man.
    If you can't do it publically, then at least do it privately. Talk to
    someone to trust. Or talk to someone outside your social circle if it's
    too embarrassing. But do face up to the truth. You really will feel
    better, cliched as that sounds.

    Because I honestly believe you're sane and know that you're the one who
    has been proven wrong here. And that saying "You've been making things
    up, and I caught you out" is a lie. You know it. The evidence posted
    above makes it irrefutably clear. I believe you know this and are not as
    delusional as you make out. You just can't admit you were in the wrong.
    So talk to someone about this. Don't be an anti-social jerk. It's a poor
    way of socialising. There are better ways and trolling is not the only
    way to get attention. THere are more positive ways if only you're
    prepared to make a change in your life.

    Well, I hope if only privately you decide to be a better man. Because
    quite frankly you're doing an awful job of being a lier and a jerk. At
    least learn that you can't erase past posts or even quoted material
    right above your writing from people's minds (or archives of course!).
    I'm sorry, but it is truly pathetic to lie when only centimeters above
    your lie is proof it's a lie. Hell, you know what? If nothing else at
    LEAST make a better effort at lying and distorting the truth. Even if
    you can't be a decent person try to do what you do well. Do at LEAST
    that much.

    Regards,
    Jamie Kahn Genet
    --
    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
     
    Jamie Kahn Genet, Nov 18, 2009
    #14
  15. Jamie Kahn Genet

    impossible Guest

    Re: Get involved Geeks! Your civil rights are being threatened!

    "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    news:1j9edd7.1xpqqo8pmcxzuN%...
    > impossible <> wrote:
    >
    >> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    >> news:1j9dtco.1d8sivh1qon1rsN%...
    >> > impossible <> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    >> >> news:1j9d7ua.gd17otz7sbkdN%...
    >> >> > impossible <> wrote:
    >> >> >
    >> >> >> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    >> >> >> news:1j9b20b.1kzgilh2tofueN%...
    >> >> >> > impossible <> wrote:
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    >> >> >> >> news:1j99har.114vnoexfkeafN%...
    >> >> >> >> > [I'm not usually one to bring up activist stuff like this, but
    >> >> >> >> > it
    >> >> >> >> > has
    >> >> >> >> > me
    >> >> >> >> > so incensed I feel I've no other choice. Too often Geeks fail
    >> >> >> >> > to
    >> >> >> >> > make
    >> >> >> >> > their voices heard and that really has to stop, or we're going
    >> >> >> >> > to
    >> >> >> >> > wake
    >> >> >> >> > up one day and realise our freedoms have just slipped away
    >> >> >> >> > from
    >> >> >> >> > us
    >> >> >> >> > while
    >> >> >> >> > we were not paying attention.]
    >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> > <http://www.eff.org/issues/acta>
    >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> > In brief: the RIAA, MPAA and other lobby groups failed to have
    >> >> >> >> > their
    >> >> >> >> > way
    >> >> >> >> > with the usual law making apparatus, so now they're trying to
    >> >> >> >> > go
    >> >> >> >> > behind
    >> >> >> >> > your backs and slip their provisions into law via treaty with
    >> >> >> >> > no
    >> >> >> >> > public
    >> >> >> >> > consultation.
    >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> You seem to be confused about the law-making process in New
    >> >> >> >> Zealand.
    >> >> >> >> Laws
    >> >> >> >> are enacted by a vote of Parliament, not "via treaty". Lobbyists
    >> >> >> >> lobby --
    >> >> >> >> What else is new? But only elected MPs get to make decisions.
    >> >> >> >> Nothing
    >> >> >> >> can
    >> >> >> >> "slip" into law that MPs haven't approved. Are you trying to
    >> >> >> >> let
    >> >> >> >> Parliament
    >> >> >> >> off the hook by turning his into some kind of foreign
    >> >> >> >> conspiracy?
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> > My point - which I'd have thought pretty clear *sigh* - is the
    >> >> >> > process
    >> >> >> > of ratifying a treaty circumvents much of the usual lawmaking
    >> >> >> > apparatus,
    >> >> >> > including most of the public consultation and input. But feel
    >> >> >> > free
    >> >> >> > to
    >> >> >> > prove me wrong :)
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Deep breath -- slowly now, don't faint.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Treaty ratification does not "circumvent the usual lawmaking
    >> >> >> apparatus"
    >> >> >> in
    >> >> >> anyway. Treaties are ratified ( or not) by a vote of Parliament.
    >> >> >> Some
    >> >> >> treaties, like TRIPS (which NZ is already a party to), obligate
    >> >> >> signatories
    >> >> >> to enact and enforce their treaty obligations. But this again is
    >> >> >> entirely
    >> >> >> up
    >> >> >> to Parliament, which is free to interpret NZ's treaty obligations
    >> >> >> any
    >> >> >> way
    >> >> >> it
    >> >> >> sees fit.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > A vote not requiring the same public consultation process as a
    >> >> > regular
    >> >> > law being made.
    >> >>
    >> >> Public consultation is **never** required in order for Parliament to
    >> >> legislate. Where did youi get that fool idea? Sometimes consultation
    >> >> happens, sometimes it doesn't. Like everything else, it's up to our
    >> >> democratically elected representatives in Parliament to decide.
    >> >>
    >> >> > But thanks for making my own point for me :)
    >> >>
    >> >> Are you 12?
    >> >
    >> > If I was I'd still be twice the man you are.
    >> >
    >> >> >> >> > Namely:
    >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> > If you're merely _accused_ (no proof needed) by a copyright
    >> >> >> >> > holder
    >> >> >> >> > of
    >> >> >> >> > being a violator three times you can be banned from using the
    >> >> >> >> > internet
    >> >> >> >> > without investigation, trial or any official government
    >> >> >> >> > involvement.
    >> >> >> >> > Your details will also be circulated among all other ISPs
    >> >> >> >> > preventing
    >> >> >> >> > them from accepting your business.
    >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> Such a drama queen! How is this different from any other
    >> >> >> >> provision
    >> >> >> >> in
    >> >> >> >> the
    >> >> >> >> terms and conditions of a service contract? Are you entitled to
    >> >> >> >> a
    >> >> >> >> trial
    >> >> >> >> by
    >> >> >> >> jury every time you fail to pay your bill? Or can the service
    >> >> >> >> provider
    >> >> >> >> simply cut your service off?
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> > Are all other service providers barred from taking your business
    >> >> >> > in
    >> >> >> > the
    >> >> >> > future? No. So it is extremely different. Obviously. Are you
    >> >> >> > deliberately misunderstanding here? Because that is what it seems
    >> >> >> > like.
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> If you would like to see internet piracy flourish under the
    >> >> >> >> status
    >> >> >> >> quo,
    >> >> >> >> with
    >> >> >> >> no consequences for theft of intellectual property, then have
    >> >> >> >> the
    >> >> >> >> guts
    >> >> >> >> to
    >> >> >> >> just say that. If not, then kindly suggest what laws you would
    >> >> >> >> prefer
    >> >> >> >> to
    >> >> >> >> see
    >> >> >> >> enacted -- and enforced -- to protect intellectuial property
    >> >> >> >> rights.
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> > They want increased penalties for copyright violation totally
    >> >> >> >> > out
    >> >> >> >> > of
    >> >> >> >> > line with penalties for other non-violent crime.
    >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> For example.....?
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> > Read the treaty or excerpts or even just the salient points
    >> >> >> > summerised
    >> >> >> > for you. The URL I provided and pages it links to are an
    >> >> >> > excellent
    >> >> >> > starting point. Peter's post also has some good info linked.
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Can't find it, and I strongly suspect it doesn't actually exist.
    >> >> >> Burden
    >> >> >> of
    >> >> >> proof is on you -- it's your claim so back it up...if you can, that
    >> >> >> is.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > I shall enjoy showing you up as being full of shit :)
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> First of all, it's time you learn how to properly post links. Second
    >> >> of
    >> >> all,
    >> >> you're about to demonstrate how completely idotic you really are.
    >> >>
    >> >> > <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/11/leaked-acta-internet-provisions-th
    >> >> ree-strikes-and->
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> Nothing there but a blog. I assume this is where you crib all your
    >> >> rants.
    >> >> But there's nothing in that blog to support your claim of "increased
    >> >> penalties for copyright violation totally out of line with penalties
    >> >> for
    >> >> other non-violent crime".
    >> >
    >> > LOL. Just admit you're wrong. Calling everything a blog is a pathetic
    >> > attempt at misdirection at best. I note you even disregard articles
    >> > that
    >> > link to the actual leaded documents. I guess nothing is true unless it
    >> > supports your position? You going to try and call them just a blog? :-D
    >> >
    >> >> > <http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/11/04/238414/acta-talks-foc
    >> >> > us-on-three-strikes-no-appeal-deal-for-software.htm>
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> Nothing there but another blog. Do you ever read anything else? Like
    >> >> oirignal source documents? Are you really that big a fool that you
    >> >> will
    >> >> trust anything you read on the internet so long as it conforms to your
    >> >> ideological predilictions? No wonder you're so lost.
    >> >
    >> > Amusing you mention original source documents which are linked to
    >> > multiple times and directly contradict you :-D But you're not too
    >> > bright, are you?
    >> >


    Clearly you haven't been able to find a single document to back your claims
    up. Multiple blogs written by your ideological mates do not constitute
    evidence of any sort. They are merely bits of propaganda. Show me a document
    produced by any of the parties to the treaty negotiations that support your
    claim that want "they want increased penalties for copyright violation
    totally out of line with penalties for other non-violent crime".

    >> >> Anyway...there's nothing in that blog either to support your claim of
    >> >> "increased penalties for copyright violation totally out of line with
    >> >> penalties for other non-violent crime".
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> > <http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r23296203-Leaked-ACTA-Internet-Provisio
    >> >> > ns-Three-Strikes-and-a-Global>
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> <yawn> More bloggery with zero evidence to back your claim.
    >> >>
    >> >> > <http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=1
    >> >> > 0607376>
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> A blog brought to you by Telecom. How low can you go?! And still no
    >> >> evidence
    >> >> to support your claim
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> > Took me about five seconds of googling and following links. Guess
    >> >> > you're
    >> >> > just incrediably lazy and/or inept.
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> Took me less time than that to completely expose your "references".
    >> >>
    >> >> >> >> > They want increased search and seizure powers, and not just at
    >> >> >> >> > borders.
    >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> And your source for this claim is....?
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> > See above.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Again, I can't find it, and again I strongly suspect it doesn't
    >> >> >> actually
    >> >> >> exist. Burden of proof is on you -- it's your claim so back it
    >> >> >> up...if
    >> >> >> you
    >> >> >> can, that is.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Wild, unsupported accusations put you in disreputable company.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Again you're full of shit and it is my great pleasure to show you up
    >> >> > (again with only a few seconds googling) :)
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> Are you sure you want to humiliate yourself again, fool? Guess so...
    >> >>
    >> >> > <http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3660/125/>
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> Another blog for you to crib, but again no evidence. When will you
    >> >> learn?
    >> >>
    >> >> > and so much more simply googling ACTA plus appropriate keywords. I'd
    >> >> > accuse you of being a lazy arsehole, but in fact you're just a
    >> >> > troll.
    >> >> > Well, I hope you're a troll. I like to think no one here would be
    >> >> > stupid
    >> >> > enough to throw away their various rights and freedoms that would be
    >> >> > curtailed should ACTA in it's current form come to pass.
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> Do be sure to post that citation you have in support of a "right" to
    >> >> internet piracy.
    >> >
    >> > Please tell me a) when I said that and b) why (which should be good for
    >> > a laugh) why you seem to think that is my position?


    See line above. What exactly are the " various rights and freedoms that
    would be curtailed should ACTA in it's current form come to pass". Since you
    don't even know what "ACTA in it's current form" looks like, that's probably
    hard to say. But it's your claim, so back it up, fool.

    > Actually don't
    >> > bother with b. We all know it's just a sad attempt to attack and
    >> > discredit me. The same pathetic stunt the groups behind these
    >> > provisions
    >> > like to pull.
    >> >
    >> > Is this what you're reduced to? Out and out lying to desperately try
    >> > and
    >> > save face?
    >> >


    Exposing ideologically driven propagandists like you is one my right as a
    citizen. I'm still waiting for you to produce evidence of your claims.

    >> >> >> > Though we all know you won't be bothered since you can't even
    >> >> >> > be bothered to see the difference between a contract being
    >> >> >> > terminated
    >> >> >> > due to failure to pay a bill and an accusation (with zero proof
    >> >> >> > needed)
    >> >> >> > being enough to cut you off from all service, everywhere,
    >> >> >> > forever.
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> More nonsense! If your internet connection has been used to pirate
    >> >> >> copyrighted materials that you have no legal right to obtain, then
    >> >> >> the
    >> >> >> ISP
    >> >> >> can easily demonstrate this from its logs. Care to test that
    >> >> >> evidence?
    >> >> >> Feel
    >> >> >> free! It's your right as a citizen. But do understand that as a
    >> >> >> citizen
    >> >> >> you
    >> >> >> also have a responsibility obey the law.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Used? No, you've only been ACCUSED. That is all it would take. THAT
    >> >> > is
    >> >> > the point.
    >> >>
    >> >> Poor you, the thought of having to abandon internet piracy is really
    >> >> FREAKING you out, isn't it? Get a grip. Get a job. Purchase the
    >> >> intellectual
    >> >> property you can afford.
    >> >
    >> > I have and I do. But your pathetic attempts to try and change this from
    >> > outrage over an attack on civil liberties and due process (to name only
    >> > two outrages), into some kind of support of piracy is sad.

    >>
    >> Your pretense that this is a "civil liberties" issue has been exposed,
    >> and
    >> you clearly have no answer to that.
    >>
    >> > Very sad.
    >> > Worse it fools no one and instead makes it crystal clear what kind of
    >> > person you are - a liar and a fool.
    >> >

    >>
    >> If only you had an argument backed by evidence. Instead you are exposed
    >> as a
    >> blow-hard drama queen with a taste for piracy.
    >>
    >> > Maybe next time you'll try to be a bit more cleaver in your attempts to
    >> > twist the truth. Better luck then arsehole.
    >> > --

    >>
    >> You've been making things up, and I caught you out. Too bad for you!

    >
    > It's amusing. You take the truth (that you're the one outright
    > lying/delusional/whatever by this stage) and twist it 180º.
    >
    > So I ask again - just who are you trying to fool? You've already been
    > proven catagorically wrong at this stage.


    LOL. You have zero evidence for your claims. And with ample opportunity to
    dig around and find something credible, you've come up toally empty.

    Time for your rant now.

    > Be a decent person. Admit
    > you're wrong in your accusations and that you're now distorting and
    > twisting the truth to try and cover it (only it's an extremely poor
    > attempt - you basically take the truth and what you've just shown
    > yourself to be and try to say it's what the other person is. The trouble
    > is everything is documented in past posts, hell even in just the quoted
    > material :-D ).
    >
    > It's not that you've not been proven wrong and now a liar. All anyone
    > has to do is read back through the last couple posts to see that. It's
    > that _you_ need to say it. You need to face up to the truth like a man.
    > If you can't do it publically, then at least do it privately. Talk to
    > someone to trust. Or talk to someone outside your social circle if it's
    > too embarrassing. But do face up to the truth. You really will feel
    > better, cliched as that sounds.
    >
    > Because I honestly believe you're sane and know that you're the one who
    > has been proven wrong here. And that saying "You've been making things
    > up, and I caught you out" is a lie. You know it. The evidence posted
    > above makes it irrefutably clear. I believe you know this and are not as
    > delusional as you make out. You just can't admit you were in the wrong.
    > So talk to someone about this. Don't be an anti-social jerk. It's a poor
    > way of socialising. There are better ways and trolling is not the only
    > way to get attention. THere are more positive ways if only you're
    > prepared to make a change in your life.
    >
    > Well, I hope if only privately you decide to be a better man. Because
    > quite frankly you're doing an awful job of being a lier and a jerk. At
    > least learn that you can't erase past posts or even quoted material
    > right above your writing from people's minds (or archives of course!).
    > I'm sorry, but it is truly pathetic to lie when only centimeters above
    > your lie is proof it's a lie. Hell, you know what? If nothing else at
    > LEAST make a better effort at lying and distorting the truth. Even if
    > you can't be a decent person try to do what you do well. Do at LEAST
    > that much.



    Done now? Then be a good boy and go find some evidence to back your claims.
     
    impossible, Nov 18, 2009
    #15
  16. Re: Get involved Geeks! Your civil rights are being threatened!

    impossible <> wrote:

    > "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    > news:1j9edd7.1xpqqo8pmcxzuN%...
    > > impossible <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:1j9dtco.1d8sivh1qon1rsN%...
    > >> > impossible <> wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    > >> >> news:1j9d7ua.gd17otz7sbkdN%...
    > >> >> > impossible <> wrote:
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    > >> >> >> news:1j9b20b.1kzgilh2tofueN%...
    > >> >> >> > impossible <> wrote:
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    > >> >> >> >> news:1j99har.114vnoexfkeafN%...
    > >> >> >> >> > [I'm not usually one to bring up activist stuff like this, but
    > >> >> >> >> > it
    > >> >> >> >> > has
    > >> >> >> >> > me
    > >> >> >> >> > so incensed I feel I've no other choice. Too often Geeks fail
    > >> >> >> >> > to
    > >> >> >> >> > make
    > >> >> >> >> > their voices heard and that really has to stop, or we're going
    > >> >> >> >> > to
    > >> >> >> >> > wake
    > >> >> >> >> > up one day and realise our freedoms have just slipped away
    > >> >> >> >> > from
    > >> >> >> >> > us
    > >> >> >> >> > while
    > >> >> >> >> > we were not paying attention.]
    > >> >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >> > <http://www.eff.org/issues/acta>
    > >> >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >> > In brief: the RIAA, MPAA and other lobby groups failed to have
    > >> >> >> >> > their
    > >> >> >> >> > way
    > >> >> >> >> > with the usual law making apparatus, so now they're trying to
    > >> >> >> >> > go
    > >> >> >> >> > behind
    > >> >> >> >> > your backs and slip their provisions into law via treaty with
    > >> >> >> >> > no
    > >> >> >> >> > public
    > >> >> >> >> > consultation.
    > >> >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> >> You seem to be confused about the law-making process in New
    > >> >> >> >> Zealand.
    > >> >> >> >> Laws
    > >> >> >> >> are enacted by a vote of Parliament, not "via treaty". Lobbyists
    > >> >> >> >> lobby --
    > >> >> >> >> What else is new? But only elected MPs get to make decisions.
    > >> >> >> >> Nothing
    > >> >> >> >> can
    > >> >> >> >> "slip" into law that MPs haven't approved. Are you trying to
    > >> >> >> >> let
    > >> >> >> >> Parliament
    > >> >> >> >> off the hook by turning his into some kind of foreign
    > >> >> >> >> conspiracy?
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> > My point - which I'd have thought pretty clear *sigh* - is the
    > >> >> >> > process
    > >> >> >> > of ratifying a treaty circumvents much of the usual lawmaking
    > >> >> >> > apparatus,
    > >> >> >> > including most of the public consultation and input. But feel
    > >> >> >> > free
    > >> >> >> > to
    > >> >> >> > prove me wrong :)
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> Deep breath -- slowly now, don't faint.
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> Treaty ratification does not "circumvent the usual lawmaking
    > >> >> >> apparatus"
    > >> >> >> in
    > >> >> >> anyway. Treaties are ratified ( or not) by a vote of Parliament.
    > >> >> >> Some
    > >> >> >> treaties, like TRIPS (which NZ is already a party to), obligate
    > >> >> >> signatories
    > >> >> >> to enact and enforce their treaty obligations. But this again is
    > >> >> >> entirely
    > >> >> >> up
    > >> >> >> to Parliament, which is free to interpret NZ's treaty obligations
    > >> >> >> any
    > >> >> >> way
    > >> >> >> it
    > >> >> >> sees fit.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > A vote not requiring the same public consultation process as a
    > >> >> > regular
    > >> >> > law being made.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Public consultation is **never** required in order for Parliament to
    > >> >> legislate. Where did youi get that fool idea? Sometimes consultation
    > >> >> happens, sometimes it doesn't. Like everything else, it's up to our
    > >> >> democratically elected representatives in Parliament to decide.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> > But thanks for making my own point for me :)
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Are you 12?
    > >> >
    > >> > If I was I'd still be twice the man you are.
    > >> >
    > >> >> >> >> > Namely:
    > >> >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >> > If you're merely _accused_ (no proof needed) by a copyright
    > >> >> >> >> > holder
    > >> >> >> >> > of
    > >> >> >> >> > being a violator three times you can be banned from using the
    > >> >> >> >> > internet
    > >> >> >> >> > without investigation, trial or any official government
    > >> >> >> >> > involvement.
    > >> >> >> >> > Your details will also be circulated among all other ISPs
    > >> >> >> >> > preventing
    > >> >> >> >> > them from accepting your business.
    > >> >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> >> Such a drama queen! How is this different from any other
    > >> >> >> >> provision
    > >> >> >> >> in
    > >> >> >> >> the
    > >> >> >> >> terms and conditions of a service contract? Are you entitled to
    > >> >> >> >> a
    > >> >> >> >> trial
    > >> >> >> >> by
    > >> >> >> >> jury every time you fail to pay your bill? Or can the service
    > >> >> >> >> provider
    > >> >> >> >> simply cut your service off?
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> > Are all other service providers barred from taking your business
    > >> >> >> > in
    > >> >> >> > the
    > >> >> >> > future? No. So it is extremely different. Obviously. Are you
    > >> >> >> > deliberately misunderstanding here? Because that is what it seems
    > >> >> >> > like.
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >> If you would like to see internet piracy flourish under the
    > >> >> >> >> status
    > >> >> >> >> quo,
    > >> >> >> >> with
    > >> >> >> >> no consequences for theft of intellectual property, then have
    > >> >> >> >> the
    > >> >> >> >> guts
    > >> >> >> >> to
    > >> >> >> >> just say that. If not, then kindly suggest what laws you would
    > >> >> >> >> prefer
    > >> >> >> >> to
    > >> >> >> >> see
    > >> >> >> >> enacted -- and enforced -- to protect intellectuial property
    > >> >> >> >> rights.
    > >> >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> >> > They want increased penalties for copyright violation totally
    > >> >> >> >> > out
    > >> >> >> >> > of
    > >> >> >> >> > line with penalties for other non-violent crime.
    > >> >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> >> For example.....?
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> > Read the treaty or excerpts or even just the salient points
    > >> >> >> > summerised
    > >> >> >> > for you. The URL I provided and pages it links to are an
    > >> >> >> > excellent
    > >> >> >> > starting point. Peter's post also has some good info linked.
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> Can't find it, and I strongly suspect it doesn't actually exist.
    > >> >> >> Burden
    > >> >> >> of
    > >> >> >> proof is on you -- it's your claim so back it up...if you can, that
    > >> >> >> is.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > I shall enjoy showing you up as being full of shit :)
    > >> >> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >> First of all, it's time you learn how to properly post links. Second
    > >> >> of
    > >> >> all,
    > >> >> you're about to demonstrate how completely idotic you really are.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/11/leaked-acta-internet-provision
    > >> >> s-th ree-strikes-and-> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Nothing there but a blog. I assume this is where you crib all your
    > >> >> rants.
    > >> >> But there's nothing in that blog to support your claim of "increased
    > >> >> penalties for copyright violation totally out of line with penalties
    > >> >> for
    > >> >> other non-violent crime".
    > >> >
    > >> > LOL. Just admit you're wrong. Calling everything a blog is a pathetic
    > >> > attempt at misdirection at best. I note you even disregard articles
    > >> > that
    > >> > link to the actual leaded documents. I guess nothing is true unless it
    > >> > supports your position? You going to try and call them just a blog? :-D
    > >> >
    > >> >> > <http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/11/04/238414/acta-tal
    > >> >> > ks-foc us-on-three-strikes-no-appeal-deal-for-software.htm>
    > >> >> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Nothing there but another blog. Do you ever read anything else? Like
    > >> >> oirignal source documents? Are you really that big a fool that you
    > >> >> will
    > >> >> trust anything you read on the internet so long as it conforms to your
    > >> >> ideological predilictions? No wonder you're so lost.
    > >> >
    > >> > Amusing you mention original source documents which are linked to
    > >> > multiple times and directly contradict you :-D But you're not too
    > >> > bright, are you?
    > >> >

    >
    > Clearly you haven't been able to find a single document to back your claims
    > up. Multiple blogs written by your ideological mates do not constitute
    > evidence of any sort. They are merely bits of propaganda. Show me a document
    > produced by any of the parties to the treaty negotiations that support your
    > claim that want "they want increased penalties for copyright violation
    > totally out of line with penalties for other non-violent crime".


    You mean the leak that was linked to multiple times by highly reputable
    sites and is found linked hundreds of times with a quick google search
    just in case you need even MORE corroboration? _That_ document?

    You mean the other information gained via freedom of information act
    requests linked to in several of the pages I provided links to?

    You mean the official info released on ACTA that is again linked to and
    easily googled?

    Sorry, you missed it while you were on the floor having a tantrum about
    reality not existing. Maybe if you bunch up your little first and cry
    harder reality will just up and disappear? Unlikely, but you try, ok?

    > >> >> Anyway...there's nothing in that blog either to support your claim of
    > >> >> "increased penalties for copyright violation totally out of line with
    > >> >> penalties for other non-violent crime".
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >> > <http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r23296203-Leaked-ACTA-Internet-Pr
    > >> >> > ovisio ns-Three-Strikes-and-a-Global>
    > >> >> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >> <yawn> More bloggery with zero evidence to back your claim.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> > <http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&obje
    > >> >> > ctid=1 0607376>
    > >> >> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >> A blog brought to you by Telecom. How low can you go?! And still no
    > >> >> evidence
    > >> >> to support your claim
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >> > Took me about five seconds of googling and following links. Guess
    > >> >> > you're
    > >> >> > just incrediably lazy and/or inept.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Took me less time than that to completely expose your "references".
    > >> >>
    > >> >> >> >> > They want increased search and seizure powers, and not just at
    > >> >> >> >> > borders.
    > >> >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> >> And your source for this claim is....?
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> > See above.
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> Again, I can't find it, and again I strongly suspect it doesn't
    > >> >> >> actually
    > >> >> >> exist. Burden of proof is on you -- it's your claim so back it
    > >> >> >> up...if
    > >> >> >> you
    > >> >> >> can, that is.
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> Wild, unsupported accusations put you in disreputable company.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > Again you're full of shit and it is my great pleasure to show you up
    > >> >> > (again with only a few seconds googling) :)
    > >> >> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Are you sure you want to humiliate yourself again, fool? Guess so...
    > >> >>
    > >> >> > <http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3660/125/>
    > >> >> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Another blog for you to crib, but again no evidence. When will you
    > >> >> learn?
    > >> >>
    > >> >> > and so much more simply googling ACTA plus appropriate keywords. I'd
    > >> >> > accuse you of being a lazy arsehole, but in fact you're just a
    > >> >> > troll.
    > >> >> > Well, I hope you're a troll. I like to think no one here would be
    > >> >> > stupid
    > >> >> > enough to throw away their various rights and freedoms that would be
    > >> >> > curtailed should ACTA in it's current form come to pass.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Do be sure to post that citation you have in support of a "right" to
    > >> >> internet piracy.
    > >> >
    > >> > Please tell me a) when I said that and b) why (which should be good for
    > >> > a laugh) why you seem to think that is my position?

    >
    > See line above. What exactly are the " various rights and freedoms that
    > would be curtailed should ACTA in it's current form come to pass". Since you
    > don't even know what "ACTA in it's current form" looks like, that's probably
    > hard to say. But it's your claim, so back it up, fool.


    Already done multiple times. But you were holding your breath and
    turning blue while you told over and over... *yawn*

    > > Actually don't
    > >> > bother with b. We all know it's just a sad attempt to attack and
    > >> > discredit me. The same pathetic stunt the groups behind these
    > >> > provisions
    > >> > like to pull.
    > >> >
    > >> > Is this what you're reduced to? Out and out lying to desperately try
    > >> > and
    > >> > save face?
    > >> >

    >
    > Exposing ideologically driven propagandists like you is one my right as a
    > citizen. I'm still waiting for you to produce evidence of your claims.


    Yeah, cause all the earlier evidence was... what was that again? Blogs?
    Right. Everything including the actual leaked documents were blogs. It's
    all blogs so isn't actual evidence. Do you even know what 'blog' means?
    Guess not... *shakes head*

    > >> >> >> > Though we all know you won't be bothered since you can't even
    > >> >> >> > be bothered to see the difference between a contract being
    > >> >> >> > terminated
    > >> >> >> > due to failure to pay a bill and an accusation (with zero proof
    > >> >> >> > needed)
    > >> >> >> > being enough to cut you off from all service, everywhere,
    > >> >> >> > forever.
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> More nonsense! If your internet connection has been used to pirate
    > >> >> >> copyrighted materials that you have no legal right to obtain, then
    > >> >> >> the
    > >> >> >> ISP
    > >> >> >> can easily demonstrate this from its logs. Care to test that
    > >> >> >> evidence?
    > >> >> >> Feel
    > >> >> >> free! It's your right as a citizen. But do understand that as a
    > >> >> >> citizen
    > >> >> >> you
    > >> >> >> also have a responsibility obey the law.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > Used? No, you've only been ACCUSED. That is all it would take. THAT
    > >> >> > is
    > >> >> > the point.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Poor you, the thought of having to abandon internet piracy is really
    > >> >> FREAKING you out, isn't it? Get a grip. Get a job. Purchase the
    > >> >> intellectual
    > >> >> property you can afford.
    > >> >
    > >> > I have and I do. But your pathetic attempts to try and change this from
    > >> > outrage over an attack on civil liberties and due process (to name only
    > >> > two outrages), into some kind of support of piracy is sad.
    > >>
    > >> Your pretense that this is a "civil liberties" issue has been exposed,
    > >> and
    > >> you clearly have no answer to that.
    > >>
    > >> > Very sad.
    > >> > Worse it fools no one and instead makes it crystal clear what kind of
    > >> > person you are - a liar and a fool.
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> If only you had an argument backed by evidence. Instead you are exposed
    > >> as a
    > >> blow-hard drama queen with a taste for piracy.
    > >>
    > >> > Maybe next time you'll try to be a bit more cleaver in your attempts to
    > >> > twist the truth. Better luck then arsehole.
    > >> > --
    > >>
    > >> You've been making things up, and I caught you out. Too bad for you!

    > >
    > > It's amusing. You take the truth (that you're the one outright
    > > lying/delusional/whatever by this stage) and twist it 180º.
    > >
    > > So I ask again - just who are you trying to fool? You've already been
    > > proven catagorically wrong at this stage.

    >
    > LOL. You have zero evidence for your claims. And with ample opportunity to
    > dig around and find something credible, you've come up toally empty.
    >
    > Time for your rant now.


    Time for you ignore reality. Close your eyes, plug your ears and yell at
    the top of your lungs till the uncomfortable truth passes.

    > > Be a decent person. Admit
    > > you're wrong in your accusations and that you're now distorting and
    > > twisting the truth to try and cover it (only it's an extremely poor
    > > attempt - you basically take the truth and what you've just shown
    > > yourself to be and try to say it's what the other person is. The trouble
    > > is everything is documented in past posts, hell even in just the quoted
    > > material :-D ).
    > >
    > > It's not that you've not been proven wrong and now a liar. All anyone
    > > has to do is read back through the last couple posts to see that. It's
    > > that _you_ need to say it. You need to face up to the truth like a man.
    > > If you can't do it publically, then at least do it privately. Talk to
    > > someone to trust. Or talk to someone outside your social circle if it's
    > > too embarrassing. But do face up to the truth. You really will feel
    > > better, cliched as that sounds.
    > >
    > > Because I honestly believe you're sane and know that you're the one who
    > > has been proven wrong here. And that saying "You've been making things
    > > up, and I caught you out" is a lie. You know it. The evidence posted
    > > above makes it irrefutably clear. I believe you know this and are not as
    > > delusional as you make out. You just can't admit you were in the wrong.
    > > So talk to someone about this. Don't be an anti-social jerk. It's a poor
    > > way of socialising. There are better ways and trolling is not the only
    > > way to get attention. THere are more positive ways if only you're
    > > prepared to make a change in your life.
    > >
    > > Well, I hope if only privately you decide to be a better man. Because
    > > quite frankly you're doing an awful job of being a lier and a jerk. At
    > > least learn that you can't erase past posts or even quoted material
    > > right above your writing from people's minds (or archives of course!).
    > > I'm sorry, but it is truly pathetic to lie when only centimeters above
    > > your lie is proof it's a lie. Hell, you know what? If nothing else at
    > > LEAST make a better effort at lying and distorting the truth. Even if
    > > you can't be a decent person try to do what you do well. Do at LEAST
    > > that much.

    >
    >
    > Done now? Then be a good boy and go find some evidence to back your claims.


    So you're saying the leaked ACTA document linked to multiple times on
    the pages I reference is a fake? The the Washington Post and NZ Herald
    to name just two reputable news outlets are lying? No, you're just
    refusing to accept reality in any shape or form. Because if you did that
    you would be addmitting you're full of shit, and you cannot do that.
    Ever.

    It doesn't matter how wrong you are, how often it's proved. I could
    reharsh all the evidence time and time again. Hell - I could hand
    deliver you hard copy of the relevant documents and you'd dismiss them.
    You simply cannot admit you were wrong when you lied and lied again
    about there being no evidence and even trying to say I fabricated the
    whole thing.
    Wow - I must have serious skills to falsify a leak from an international
    treaty negotiation. Damn! I fooled all the best media outlets in the
    freakin' world! Woohoo! Go me! :-D

    You're sad, pathetic and the longer you draw out your refusal to accept
    truth as it slaps you about the face, the stupider you look. Frankly
    it's reached the point where you're more embarrassing than amusing, so I
    must say goodbye.

    But hey - you keep on refusing the reality mere centimeters above this
    for whoever still gives enough of a shit about your pathetic inability
    to deal with reailty. You'd probably crack at this point if you examined
    your own issues in even the most cursory fashion.

    *a most welcome plonk of one severly mentally ill troll*

    P.S. Liar liar, pants on fire (since you can't man up as an adult and
    admit you're wrong and then lied like the scum you are...)
    --
    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
     
    Jamie Kahn Genet, Nov 18, 2009
    #16
  17. Re: Get involved Geeks! Your civil rights are being threatened!

    Oh, actually just one more post. You know what's truly satisfying here?

    I'm right, I've told the truth, and I've proved it many times over. I'm
    a decent person who has not lied and tried to twist and distort the
    truth like you. I also don't hide behind an online nick and invalid
    email. I'm open about who I am and what I stand for. And who and what I
    stand against (take a long look at yourself).

    You've shown yourself up as a liar (and an awful one at that LOL) and
    general bad person. You're scum. You're rather pathetic breed of troll.
    You hide your identity because you know what a revolting person you are
    and it frightens you to think of the people you know in RL discovering
    exactly what kind of person you really are. Me - I have nothing to be
    shamed of and it feels great :) I just want you to know how good it
    feels to be a decent person compared with scum like you that tries to
    drag everyone else down to your level.

    In short: I win. What's really neat is I hardly had to try at all. You
    showed your true colours with barely any prompting on my part.

    No doubt you now want to have a good troll and ignore reaility and turn
    the facts about 180º once more. Oh dear, you're killfiled.... awww... I
    win two times over :-D Not _only_ am I a good person and you're lying
    scum, but I get to silence you forever.
    Of course it helps having a decent Usenet client with a regular
    expression killfile. I'm sure being the pathetic little troll you are
    you'll try and change your details when too many people have killfiled
    you. Sorry - I'll have you killfiled again in secnds then too. I just
    keep winning over and over. It may have something to do with me being a
    decent person who doesn't lie :)
    --
    "The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe
    is that it has never tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes (Bill
    Watterson)
     
    Jamie Kahn Genet, Nov 18, 2009
    #17
  18. Jamie Kahn Genet

    impossible Guest

    Re: Get involved Geeks! Your civil rights are being threatened!

    "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    news:1j9eo4e.1s477iy1bu0bevN%...
    > impossible <> wrote:
    >
    >> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    >> news:1j9edd7.1xpqqo8pmcxzuN%...
    >> > impossible <> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    >> >> news:1j9dtco.1d8sivh1qon1rsN%...
    >> >> > impossible <> wrote:
    >> >> >
    >> >> >> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    >> >> >> news:1j9d7ua.gd17otz7sbkdN%...
    >> >> >> > impossible <> wrote:
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    >> >> >> >> news:1j9b20b.1kzgilh2tofueN%...
    >> >> >> >> > impossible <> wrote:
    >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> >> "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in
    >> >> >> >> >> message
    >> >> >> >> >> news:1j99har.114vnoexfkeafN%...
    >> >> >> >> >> > [I'm not usually one to bring up activist stuff like this,
    >> >> >> >> >> > but
    >> >> >> >> >> > it
    >> >> >> >> >> > has
    >> >> >> >> >> > me
    >> >> >> >> >> > so incensed I feel I've no other choice. Too often Geeks
    >> >> >> >> >> > fail
    >> >> >> >> >> > to
    >> >> >> >> >> > make
    >> >> >> >> >> > their voices heard and that really has to stop, or we're
    >> >> >> >> >> > going
    >> >> >> >> >> > to
    >> >> >> >> >> > wake
    >> >> >> >> >> > up one day and realise our freedoms have just slipped away
    >> >> >> >> >> > from
    >> >> >> >> >> > us
    >> >> >> >> >> > while
    >> >> >> >> >> > we were not paying attention.]
    >> >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> >> > <http://www.eff.org/issues/acta>
    >> >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> >> > In brief: the RIAA, MPAA and other lobby groups failed to
    >> >> >> >> >> > have
    >> >> >> >> >> > their
    >> >> >> >> >> > way
    >> >> >> >> >> > with the usual law making apparatus, so now they're trying
    >> >> >> >> >> > to
    >> >> >> >> >> > go
    >> >> >> >> >> > behind
    >> >> >> >> >> > your backs and slip their provisions into law via treaty
    >> >> >> >> >> > with
    >> >> >> >> >> > no
    >> >> >> >> >> > public
    >> >> >> >> >> > consultation.
    >> >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> >> You seem to be confused about the law-making process in New
    >> >> >> >> >> Zealand.
    >> >> >> >> >> Laws
    >> >> >> >> >> are enacted by a vote of Parliament, not "via treaty".
    >> >> >> >> >> Lobbyists
    >> >> >> >> >> lobby --
    >> >> >> >> >> What else is new? But only elected MPs get to make
    >> >> >> >> >> decisions.
    >> >> >> >> >> Nothing
    >> >> >> >> >> can
    >> >> >> >> >> "slip" into law that MPs haven't approved. Are you trying to
    >> >> >> >> >> let
    >> >> >> >> >> Parliament
    >> >> >> >> >> off the hook by turning his into some kind of foreign
    >> >> >> >> >> conspiracy?
    >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> > My point - which I'd have thought pretty clear *sigh* - is the
    >> >> >> >> > process
    >> >> >> >> > of ratifying a treaty circumvents much of the usual lawmaking
    >> >> >> >> > apparatus,
    >> >> >> >> > including most of the public consultation and input. But feel
    >> >> >> >> > free
    >> >> >> >> > to
    >> >> >> >> > prove me wrong :)
    >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> Deep breath -- slowly now, don't faint.
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> Treaty ratification does not "circumvent the usual lawmaking
    >> >> >> >> apparatus"
    >> >> >> >> in
    >> >> >> >> anyway. Treaties are ratified ( or not) by a vote of Parliament.
    >> >> >> >> Some
    >> >> >> >> treaties, like TRIPS (which NZ is already a party to), obligate
    >> >> >> >> signatories
    >> >> >> >> to enact and enforce their treaty obligations. But this again is
    >> >> >> >> entirely
    >> >> >> >> up
    >> >> >> >> to Parliament, which is free to interpret NZ's treaty
    >> >> >> >> obligations
    >> >> >> >> any
    >> >> >> >> way
    >> >> >> >> it
    >> >> >> >> sees fit.
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> > A vote not requiring the same public consultation process as a
    >> >> >> > regular
    >> >> >> > law being made.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Public consultation is **never** required in order for Parliament
    >> >> >> to
    >> >> >> legislate. Where did youi get that fool idea? Sometimes
    >> >> >> consultation
    >> >> >> happens, sometimes it doesn't. Like everything else, it's up to
    >> >> >> our
    >> >> >> democratically elected representatives in Parliament to decide.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> > But thanks for making my own point for me :)
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Are you 12?
    >> >> >
    >> >> > If I was I'd still be twice the man you are.
    >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> >> > Namely:
    >> >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> >> > If you're merely _accused_ (no proof needed) by a copyright
    >> >> >> >> >> > holder
    >> >> >> >> >> > of
    >> >> >> >> >> > being a violator three times you can be banned from using
    >> >> >> >> >> > the
    >> >> >> >> >> > internet
    >> >> >> >> >> > without investigation, trial or any official government
    >> >> >> >> >> > involvement.
    >> >> >> >> >> > Your details will also be circulated among all other ISPs
    >> >> >> >> >> > preventing
    >> >> >> >> >> > them from accepting your business.
    >> >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> >> Such a drama queen! How is this different from any other
    >> >> >> >> >> provision
    >> >> >> >> >> in
    >> >> >> >> >> the
    >> >> >> >> >> terms and conditions of a service contract? Are you entitled
    >> >> >> >> >> to
    >> >> >> >> >> a
    >> >> >> >> >> trial
    >> >> >> >> >> by
    >> >> >> >> >> jury every time you fail to pay your bill? Or can the service
    >> >> >> >> >> provider
    >> >> >> >> >> simply cut your service off?
    >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> > Are all other service providers barred from taking your
    >> >> >> >> > business
    >> >> >> >> > in
    >> >> >> >> > the
    >> >> >> >> > future? No. So it is extremely different. Obviously. Are you
    >> >> >> >> > deliberately misunderstanding here? Because that is what it
    >> >> >> >> > seems
    >> >> >> >> > like.
    >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> >> If you would like to see internet piracy flourish under the
    >> >> >> >> >> status
    >> >> >> >> >> quo,
    >> >> >> >> >> with
    >> >> >> >> >> no consequences for theft of intellectual property, then have
    >> >> >> >> >> the
    >> >> >> >> >> guts
    >> >> >> >> >> to
    >> >> >> >> >> just say that. If not, then kindly suggest what laws you
    >> >> >> >> >> would
    >> >> >> >> >> prefer
    >> >> >> >> >> to
    >> >> >> >> >> see
    >> >> >> >> >> enacted -- and enforced -- to protect intellectuial property
    >> >> >> >> >> rights.
    >> >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> >> > They want increased penalties for copyright violation
    >> >> >> >> >> > totally
    >> >> >> >> >> > out
    >> >> >> >> >> > of
    >> >> >> >> >> > line with penalties for other non-violent crime.
    >> >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> >> For example.....?
    >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> > Read the treaty or excerpts or even just the salient points
    >> >> >> >> > summerised
    >> >> >> >> > for you. The URL I provided and pages it links to are an
    >> >> >> >> > excellent
    >> >> >> >> > starting point. Peter's post also has some good info linked.
    >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> Can't find it, and I strongly suspect it doesn't actually exist.
    >> >> >> >> Burden
    >> >> >> >> of
    >> >> >> >> proof is on you -- it's your claim so back it up...if you can,
    >> >> >> >> that
    >> >> >> >> is.
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> > I shall enjoy showing you up as being full of shit :)
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> First of all, it's time you learn how to properly post links.
    >> >> >> Second
    >> >> >> of
    >> >> >> all,
    >> >> >> you're about to demonstrate how completely idotic you really are.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> <http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/11/leaked-acta-internet-provision
    >> >> >> s-th ree-strikes-and-> >
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Nothing there but a blog. I assume this is where you crib all your
    >> >> >> rants.
    >> >> >> But there's nothing in that blog to support your claim of
    >> >> >> "increased
    >> >> >> penalties for copyright violation totally out of line with
    >> >> >> penalties
    >> >> >> for
    >> >> >> other non-violent crime".
    >> >> >
    >> >> > LOL. Just admit you're wrong. Calling everything a blog is a
    >> >> > pathetic
    >> >> > attempt at misdirection at best. I note you even disregard articles
    >> >> > that
    >> >> > link to the actual leaded documents. I guess nothing is true unless
    >> >> > it
    >> >> > supports your position? You going to try and call them just a blog?
    >> >> > :-D
    >> >> >
    >> >> >> > <http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/11/04/238414/acta-tal
    >> >> >> > ks-foc us-on-three-strikes-no-appeal-deal-for-software.htm>
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Nothing there but another blog. Do you ever read anything else?
    >> >> >> Like
    >> >> >> oirignal source documents? Are you really that big a fool that you
    >> >> >> will
    >> >> >> trust anything you read on the internet so long as it conforms to
    >> >> >> your
    >> >> >> ideological predilictions? No wonder you're so lost.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Amusing you mention original source documents which are linked to
    >> >> > multiple times and directly contradict you :-D But you're not too
    >> >> > bright, are you?
    >> >> >

    >>
    >> Clearly you haven't been able to find a single document to back your
    >> claims
    >> up. Multiple blogs written by your ideological mates do not constitute
    >> evidence of any sort. They are merely bits of propaganda. Show me a
    >> document
    >> produced by any of the parties to the treaty negotiations that support
    >> your
    >> claim that want "they want increased penalties for copyright violation
    >> totally out of line with penalties for other non-violent crime".

    >
    > You mean the leak that was linked to multiple times by highly reputable
    > sites and is found linked hundreds of times with a quick google search
    > just in case you need even MORE corroboration? _That_ document?
    >
    > You mean the other information gained via freedom of information act
    > requests linked to in several of the pages I provided links to?
    >
    > You mean the official info released on ACTA that is again linked to and
    > easily googled?
    >
    > Sorry, you missed it while you were on the floor having a tantrum about
    > reality not existing. Maybe if you bunch up your little first and cry
    > harder reality will just up and disappear? Unlikely, but you try, ok?
    >
    >> >> >> Anyway...there's nothing in that blog either to support your claim
    >> >> >> of
    >> >> >> "increased penalties for copyright violation totally out of line
    >> >> >> with
    >> >> >> penalties for other non-violent crime".
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> > <http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r23296203-Leaked-ACTA-Internet-Pr
    >> >> >> > ovisio ns-Three-Strikes-and-a-Global>
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> <yawn> More bloggery with zero evidence to back your claim.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> > <http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&obje
    >> >> >> > ctid=1 0607376>
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> A blog brought to you by Telecom. How low can you go?! And still no
    >> >> >> evidence
    >> >> >> to support your claim
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> > Took me about five seconds of googling and following links. Guess
    >> >> >> > you're
    >> >> >> > just incrediably lazy and/or inept.
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Took me less time than that to completely expose your "references".
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> >> > They want increased search and seizure powers, and not just
    >> >> >> >> >> > at
    >> >> >> >> >> > borders.
    >> >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> >> And your source for this claim is....?
    >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> > See above.
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> Again, I can't find it, and again I strongly suspect it doesn't
    >> >> >> >> actually
    >> >> >> >> exist. Burden of proof is on you -- it's your claim so back it
    >> >> >> >> up...if
    >> >> >> >> you
    >> >> >> >> can, that is.
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> Wild, unsupported accusations put you in disreputable company.
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> > Again you're full of shit and it is my great pleasure to show you
    >> >> >> > up
    >> >> >> > (again with only a few seconds googling) :)
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Are you sure you want to humiliate yourself again, fool? Guess
    >> >> >> so...
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> > <http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3660/125/>
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Another blog for you to crib, but again no evidence. When will you
    >> >> >> learn?
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> > and so much more simply googling ACTA plus appropriate keywords.
    >> >> >> > I'd
    >> >> >> > accuse you of being a lazy arsehole, but in fact you're just a
    >> >> >> > troll.
    >> >> >> > Well, I hope you're a troll. I like to think no one here would be
    >> >> >> > stupid
    >> >> >> > enough to throw away their various rights and freedoms that would
    >> >> >> > be
    >> >> >> > curtailed should ACTA in it's current form come to pass.
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Do be sure to post that citation you have in support of a "right"
    >> >> >> to
    >> >> >> internet piracy.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Please tell me a) when I said that and b) why (which should be good
    >> >> > for
    >> >> > a laugh) why you seem to think that is my position?

    >>
    >> See line above. What exactly are the " various rights and freedoms that
    >> would be curtailed should ACTA in it's current form come to pass". Since
    >> you
    >> don't even know what "ACTA in it's current form" looks like, that's
    >> probably
    >> hard to say. But it's your claim, so back it up, fool.

    >
    > Already done multiple times. But you were holding your breath and
    > turning blue while you told over and over... *yawn*
    >
    >> > Actually don't
    >> >> > bother with b. We all know it's just a sad attempt to attack and
    >> >> > discredit me. The same pathetic stunt the groups behind these
    >> >> > provisions
    >> >> > like to pull.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Is this what you're reduced to? Out and out lying to desperately try
    >> >> > and
    >> >> > save face?
    >> >> >

    >>
    >> Exposing ideologically driven propagandists like you is one my right as a
    >> citizen. I'm still waiting for you to produce evidence of your claims.

    >
    > Yeah, cause all the earlier evidence was... what was that again? Blogs?
    > Right. Everything including the actual leaked documents were blogs. It's
    > all blogs so isn't actual evidence. Do you even know what 'blog' means?
    > Guess not... *shakes head*
    >
    >> >> >> >> > Though we all know you won't be bothered since you can't even
    >> >> >> >> > be bothered to see the difference between a contract being
    >> >> >> >> > terminated
    >> >> >> >> > due to failure to pay a bill and an accusation (with zero
    >> >> >> >> > proof
    >> >> >> >> > needed)
    >> >> >> >> > being enough to cut you off from all service, everywhere,
    >> >> >> >> > forever.
    >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> More nonsense! If your internet connection has been used to
    >> >> >> >> pirate
    >> >> >> >> copyrighted materials that you have no legal right to obtain,
    >> >> >> >> then
    >> >> >> >> the
    >> >> >> >> ISP
    >> >> >> >> can easily demonstrate this from its logs. Care to test that
    >> >> >> >> evidence?
    >> >> >> >> Feel
    >> >> >> >> free! It's your right as a citizen. But do understand that as a
    >> >> >> >> citizen
    >> >> >> >> you
    >> >> >> >> also have a responsibility obey the law.
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> > Used? No, you've only been ACCUSED. That is all it would take.
    >> >> >> > THAT
    >> >> >> > is
    >> >> >> > the point.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Poor you, the thought of having to abandon internet piracy is
    >> >> >> really
    >> >> >> FREAKING you out, isn't it? Get a grip. Get a job. Purchase the
    >> >> >> intellectual
    >> >> >> property you can afford.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > I have and I do. But your pathetic attempts to try and change this
    >> >> > from
    >> >> > outrage over an attack on civil liberties and due process (to name
    >> >> > only
    >> >> > two outrages), into some kind of support of piracy is sad.
    >> >>
    >> >> Your pretense that this is a "civil liberties" issue has been
    >> >> exposed,
    >> >> and
    >> >> you clearly have no answer to that.
    >> >>
    >> >> > Very sad.
    >> >> > Worse it fools no one and instead makes it crystal clear what kind
    >> >> > of
    >> >> > person you are - a liar and a fool.
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> If only you had an argument backed by evidence. Instead you are
    >> >> exposed
    >> >> as a
    >> >> blow-hard drama queen with a taste for piracy.
    >> >>
    >> >> > Maybe next time you'll try to be a bit more cleaver in your attempts
    >> >> > to
    >> >> > twist the truth. Better luck then arsehole.
    >> >> > --
    >> >>
    >> >> You've been making things up, and I caught you out. Too bad for you!
    >> >
    >> > It's amusing. You take the truth (that you're the one outright
    >> > lying/delusional/whatever by this stage) and twist it 180º.
    >> >
    >> > So I ask again - just who are you trying to fool? You've already been
    >> > proven catagorically wrong at this stage.

    >>
    >> LOL. You have zero evidence for your claims. And with ample opportunity
    >> to
    >> dig around and find something credible, you've come up toally empty.
    >>
    >> Time for your rant now.

    >
    > Time for you ignore reality. Close your eyes, plug your ears and yell at
    > the top of your lungs till the uncomfortable truth passes.
    >
    >> > Be a decent person. Admit
    >> > you're wrong in your accusations and that you're now distorting and
    >> > twisting the truth to try and cover it (only it's an extremely poor
    >> > attempt - you basically take the truth and what you've just shown
    >> > yourself to be and try to say it's what the other person is. The
    >> > trouble
    >> > is everything is documented in past posts, hell even in just the quoted
    >> > material :-D ).
    >> >
    >> > It's not that you've not been proven wrong and now a liar. All anyone
    >> > has to do is read back through the last couple posts to see that. It's
    >> > that _you_ need to say it. You need to face up to the truth like a man.
    >> > If you can't do it publically, then at least do it privately. Talk to
    >> > someone to trust. Or talk to someone outside your social circle if it's
    >> > too embarrassing. But do face up to the truth. You really will feel
    >> > better, cliched as that sounds.
    >> >
    >> > Because I honestly believe you're sane and know that you're the one who
    >> > has been proven wrong here. And that saying "You've been making things
    >> > up, and I caught you out" is a lie. You know it. The evidence posted
    >> > above makes it irrefutably clear. I believe you know this and are not
    >> > as
    >> > delusional as you make out. You just can't admit you were in the wrong.
    >> > So talk to someone about this. Don't be an anti-social jerk. It's a
    >> > poor
    >> > way of socialising. There are better ways and trolling is not the only
    >> > way to get attention. THere are more positive ways if only you're
    >> > prepared to make a change in your life.
    >> >
    >> > Well, I hope if only privately you decide to be a better man. Because
    >> > quite frankly you're doing an awful job of being a lier and a jerk. At
    >> > least learn that you can't erase past posts or even quoted material
    >> > right above your writing from people's minds (or archives of course!).
    >> > I'm sorry, but it is truly pathetic to lie when only centimeters above
    >> > your lie is proof it's a lie. Hell, you know what? If nothing else at
    >> > LEAST make a better effort at lying and distorting the truth. Even if
    >> > you can't be a decent person try to do what you do well. Do at LEAST
    >> > that much.

    >>
    >>
    >> Done now? Then be a good boy and go find some evidence to back your
    >> claims.

    >
    > So you're saying the leaked ACTA document linked to multiple times on
    > the pages I reference is a fake?


    I'm saying that you've lied about the contents of that document -- which I'm
    sure you've never read. Go on -- quote the original document. Show me where
    it indicates that there will be "increased penalties for copyright violation
    totally out of line with penalties for other non-violent crime". None of
    your blogs even make that claim. Why are you spo desperate to defend your
    outrights lies?

    > The the Washington Post and NZ Herald
    > to name just two reputable news outlets are lying?


    Neither of those reputable sources reported your claims, which of course are
    completely bogus.

    > No, you're just
    > refusing to accept reality in any shape or form. Because if you did that
    > you would be addmitting you're full of shit, and you cannot do that.
    > Ever.
    >
    > It doesn't matter how wrong you are, how often it's proved. I could
    > reharsh all the evidence time and time again. Hell - I could hand
    > deliver you hard copy of the relevant documents and you'd dismiss them.
    > You simply cannot admit you were wrong when you lied and lied again
    > about there being no evidence and even trying to say I fabricated the
    > whole thing.
    > Wow - I must have serious skills to falsify a leak from an international
    > treaty negotiation. Damn! I fooled all the best media outlets in the
    > freakin' world! Woohoo! Go me! :-D
    >
    > You're sad, pathetic and the longer you draw out your refusal to accept
    > truth as it slaps you about the face, the stupider you look. Frankly
    > it's reached the point where you're more embarrassing than amusing, so I
    > must say goodbye.
    >
    > But hey - you keep on refusing the reality mere centimeters above this
    > for whoever still gives enough of a shit about your pathetic inability
    > to deal with reailty. You'd probably crack at this point if you examined
    > your own issues in even the most cursory fashion.
    >
    > *a most welcome plonk of one severly mentally ill troll*
    >
    > P.S. Liar liar, pants on fire (since you can't man up as an adult and
    > admit you're wrong and then lied like the scum you are...)
    > --


    Liar, liar, pants on....?! ROFL. Good one, fool!
     
    impossible, Nov 19, 2009
    #18
  19. Jamie Kahn Genet

    impossible Guest

    Re: Get involved Geeks! Your civil rights are being threatened!

    "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    news:1j9eq8i.1ftlsh723wld7N%...
    > Oh, actually just one more post. You know what's truly satisfying here?
    >


    <snip>

    Yes, killfiling you
     
    impossible, Nov 19, 2009
    #19
  20. Jamie Kahn Genet

    Sailor Sam Guest

    Re: Get involved Geeks! Your civil rights are being threatened!

    impossible wrote:
    >
    > "Jamie Kahn Genet" <> wrote in message
    > news:1j9eq8i.1ftlsh723wld7N%...
    >> Oh, actually just one more post. You know what's truly satisfying here?
    >>
    >> No doubt you now want to have a good troll and ignore reaility and turn
    >> the facts about 180º once more. Oh dear, you're killfiled.... awww... I
    >> win two times over :-D Not _only_ am I a good person and you're lying
    >> scum, but I get to silence you forever.

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > Yes, killfiling you


    You seem to have snipped where Jamie had already done that to you. I've
    fixed that for you out of the goodness of my heart :)
     
    Sailor Sam, Nov 19, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Boomer

    Re: How to get the media involved?

    Boomer, Aug 21, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    806
    Boomer
    Aug 21, 2003
  2. slumpy

    Re: How to get the media involved?

    slumpy, Aug 21, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    427
    slumpy
    Aug 21, 2003
  3. °Mike°

    Re: How to get the media involved?

    °Mike°, Aug 21, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    542
    °Mike°
    Aug 21, 2003
  4. richard

    Since when do illegal aliens have civil rights?

    richard, Sep 2, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    431
    Aardvark
    Sep 3, 2009
  5. Peter Huebner
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    302
    ~misfit~
    Mar 31, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page