? aluger, in gentlemanly defense, wrote:
?? aluger, because he is a big damn hotshot showoff, wrote:
??? aluger, preemptively, in defense of his buddy, wrote:
> At Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:08:17 -0700, Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >At 1:11 PM -0500 4/24/01, Aimee Farr wrote:
> >>Mike said, quoting me, quoting Tim: (I'm on lunch - billable hour sink
> >this place.)
> >>
> >>> Further, I don't think individuals owe any obligation to the law as
> to
> >>> the participants, form, content or retention of private
> communications.
> >>
> >>Recognizing that the law does not agree with you, that's a
> valid opinion.
> >
> >Show me the law on who can *participate* in private communications.
>
> See Generally: Several penal codes re: probation prohibiting individuals
> from conducting certain communications with felons, minors,
> foreign nationals
> (in the case of espionage) and etc. See also, the oil embargo.
>
> >Show me the law on what *form* private communications must have, may
> >have, may not have, etc.
>
> Feel free to review any number of banking regulations that stipulate the
> nature and form of otherwise private dealings between two actors.
>
> >Show me the law on what *content* is permitted in private communications.
>
> See Generally: Criminal Law - Conspiracy.
>
> >Show me the law on *retention* of private communications.
>
> See financial record keeping requirements imposed even on private
> companies,
> import export firms, taxation, etc. See also, currency
> reporting requirements
> for other wise "private" transactions. See also, regulations for record
> retention in the transaction of firearms. etc. etc.
>
> >I can think of various laws about child porn, death threats,
> >classified secrets, etc., which affect some of the above, but these
> >are "clearly special cases" and it is a mistake to confuse laws about
> >child porn, for example, with disputing Mike's general point that the
> >law simply does not regulate private communications.
>
> Well, suffice it to say that there are a lot of "clearly special cases."
>
> >Not as to participants, form, content, or retention.
>
> See above.
See woman [[[[*fiendishly*]]]] working on a response to May's poodle attack.
See woman's face when......
I am reflecting on the evils I have suffered through, just to get one
handful of the hair of that dog that bit me. And then you run in and STEAL
it out from my little hand.
This just in: May says you have no hair. Next, he will claim you have
unwittingly stepped into his trap. Yep....sure 'nuff.
You have 1st chair, Mr. Hushmail jacket, but it is not worth your time.
'oil embargo?'
~Aimee
