Zenon Panoussis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Matthew Findley wrote: > > > This message contains improperly-formatted binary content, or attachment. > > Hotmail sucks. I sends 8-bit content without the right > "Content-transfer-encoding: 8-bit" headers. It's been so for years > and they don't seem to have any plans to fix it. >
I have no idea what your talking about..... I never wrote that? > > Yes only the end user gets prosecuted. You are the end user with freenet. > > What exactly are you getting at? > > I always try to keep this sort of discussions civilised and avoid > the use of invectives, but I have to admit you make it very hard > for me. > > The issue of the node operator himself downloading or inserting > illegal material has never been part of this discussion; that case > is clear enough to not need any discussion. This discussion is > about the liability of a node operator for transit files. So, if > X uploads kiddie porn to freenet and Y downloads it through my > node, you're saying I'm the end user? WTF is X then? WTF is Y? X is an uploader. If they see X uploading kiddy porn he will get in just as much trouble as anyone else caught uploading. Y is a downloader and he could be charged with possession if he gets caught with more on his computer. > I neither upload it nor download it, and you make me the end-user? You did upload. The content was on your computer and it was sent to another computer. This is the very definition of uploading. > > Matthew Findley, as far as I am concerned, this thread is over. > While you started by posting relatively serious FUD, you have by > now resorted to totally incoherent blathering, not worth wasting > any more time or bandwidth on. If your intention was to spread > FUD, you failed. If your intention was to come across the way > you do, you succeeded. > > [knowledge/intent vs lack of knowledge] > > > So you agree with me? Because you have a chance to stop it right now. Just > > turn the node off. > > No, you [deleted], I do not agree with you. That's plain and > obvious to everyone except you; a fact which, when put together > with your grammar, makes me start wondering whether you really > work for the DoJ. Are you sure it's not your daddy who's called > Matthew and works for the DoJ? Oh so now you want to get belligerent? > > And what exactly do you mean by "you have a chance to stop it > right now"? Because if I don't, then what? Will you come and > arrest me then? You and what army? Better start packing then, > because I have no plans whatsoever to stop running my node. On > the contrary, as soon as I get some time I'll try to put some > real work on my open freenet proxy. Do you honestly not remember what you posted not one message ago? Quote from you "What it all comes down to is that knowledge creates intent quasi-automatically, but only if you have a reasonable possibility to act and fail to do so." So riddle me this smartass. Do you not know how to turn your node off? Cause if you do then you have a reasonable chance to act. And we freaking agree. Because like you said, knowledge creates intent. And intent makes it a punishable crime. Or perhaps you've forgotten that too. Here's a reminder. Quote from you "In my village, intent to commit an illegal act is a prerequisite to the committment of that act constituting a penal offence." So, like it's like I said, we seem to be in agreement. Unless you want to try to claim you don't know how to turn your node off. > > [the system] > > That's another discussion dropped. If you really think that the > system you work for is not rotten, then that says something about > you, not about the system. > > > So your accusing the prosecutor of fabricating evidence.... > > Do you really think the government is out to get you? > > What does the DOJ have to gain by putting an innocent person behind bars? > > We don't have some sort of quota to make. > > Yes you do. The quota is one conviction per crime committed. That > makes the government look good. "We couldn't prevent the crime, > but we acted swiftly and we did get the perpetrator", that's what > government officials like to say on TV. If the convicted happens > to be innocent, too bad for him; the government couldn't care less. If that were so. Do you really think we would have let a big crime like the anthrax mailings go unpunished for so long? And lets not forget 9/11. Wow that's a pretty big quota to fill. We better get started framing people. > As noted at > http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/exonerations/Bentley.htm > the government will even coerce the wrongfully convicted out of > his right to compensation. You probably didn't even notice that > when you read the page, Yep I did miss that. Because it doesn't say that!!! It doesn't mention compensation any where on there. All it says was that he was seeking a new trial. Now lets think this through... what do people in jail need new trials for? Why to be released from prison of course. Which they did for him. Maybe they also talked him out of compensation as well. But it certainly doesn't say that in there. > it probably seemed perfectly normal to > you. To me it's hair raising. Everything I was ever taught to > regard as dishonourable and shameful pales and withers compared > to this. And it's your legal system permitting this kind of thing, > that same system which you work for and demand respect for. I'm > not sorry for you Matthew Findley, but I am sincerely sorry for > the American people, or at least for a big part of it. Yah... reading a one sided article from a group that is basically against the courts is a real good way to get the full picture. Lets go ask Microsoft why I should use Windows over Linux. I'm sure they'll tell me everything I need to know to make an informed choice. _______________________________________________ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
