> On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 02:53:22 GMT, Michael Sokolov said:
>> Factoid: we outnumber the pigs by 1000 to 1. Even if only 1% of us were
>> to go out and shoot a pig, we would still outnumber them 10 to 1! We
>> *CAN* win -- wake up, people!
> Yes, but shooting down an RFC1925-compliant porker may r
On 12/5/2010 11:32 AM, Michael Sokolov wrote:
Pretty much, I no longer care what you wrote. Go away. Seriously. Just
GO AWAY. Alt.politics is -->> thataway.
*plonk*
--
Die gedanken sind frei.
Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
> As someone who was personally connected to this (http://www.komonews.com/ne=
> ws/local/78088192.html), and this, http://www.komonews.com/news/local/68320=
> 537.html I feel pretty justified in telling you to keep this 'shoot a pig' =
> crap off the list.
To all uniform
> Factoid: we outnumber the pigs by 1000 to 1. Even if only 1% of us
> were
> to go out and shoot a pig, we would still outnumber them 10 to 1! We
> *CAN* win -- wake up, people!
Dude.
As someone who was personally connected to this
(http://www.komonews.com/news/local/78088192.html), and this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Adrian Chadd
wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 04, 2010, Ken Chase wrote:
>
>> And if they come and ask the same but without a court order is a bit
>> trickier and more confusing, and this list is a good place to track the
>> frequ
On Sat, Dec 04, 2010, Ken Chase wrote:
> And if they come and ask the same but without a court order is a bit trickier
> and more confusing, and this list is a good place to track the frequency of
> and
> responce to that kind of request.
Except of course when you're "asked" not to share what ha
On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 08:17:30PM -0600, Jorge Amodio said:
>> However, given the political climate and general network cluelessness in
the
>> government sector, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to spend an hour or
so
>> thinking what you'd do if the humorless guys in dark suits and sung
This nonsense is only non-operational until you suddenly find yourself in a
dire need to evade military patrols on a street while you're dragging a bag
full of equipment to your "backup" NOC.
Been there, done that.
What are your contingency plans for the event of a government order (illegal,
o
BTW, at this time only the server at NL seems to be responding
-J
On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 02:53:22 GMT, Michael Sokolov said:
> Factoid: we outnumber the pigs by 1000 to 1. Even if only 1% of us were
> to go out and shoot a pig, we would still outnumber them 10 to 1! We
> *CAN* win -- wake up, people!
Yes, but shooting down an RFC1925-compliant porker may require
On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 20:17:30 -0600
Jorge Amodio wrote:
> > However, given the political climate and general network cluelessness in the
> > government sector, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to spend an hour or so
> > thinking what you'd do if the humorless guys in dark suits and sunglasses
> >
On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 02:53:22AM +, Michael Sokolov wrote:
>
> Factoid: we outnumber the pigs by 1000 to 1. Even if only 1% of us were
> to go out and shoot a pig, we would still outnumber them 10 to 1! We
> *CAN* win -- wake up, people!
Is there really any need for this nonsense
Jorge Amodio wrote:
> If you get a court order I guess you have two choices, one is to
> comply with it and the other get used to wear a nice pair of matching
> bracelets until your attorney shows up.
Option 3: unleash your full firepower against the miscreants who have
dared to invade your soil
- Original Message -
> From: "Valdis Kletnieks"
>
> On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 19:24:46 EST, Bret Clark said:
> > On 12/04/2010 06:03 PM, Ken Gilmour wrote:
> > > Now Sarah Palin is suggesting Wikileaks are terrorists and should
> > > be taken offline with technical capabilities
>
> > Enough alr
> However, given the political climate and general network cluelessness in the
> government sector, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to spend an hour or so
> thinking what you'd do if the humorless guys in dark suits and sunglasses
> showed up with a court order to cut off your customer's access
On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 19:24:46 EST, Bret Clark said:
> On 12/04/2010 06:03 PM, Ken Gilmour wrote:
> > Now Sarah Palin is suggesting Wikileaks are terrorists and should be taken
> > offline with technical capabilities
> Enough already...this is not a political list!
However, given the political clim
> ++
<< (ie *2)
-J
++
Enough already...this is not a political list
--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
Disclaimer:
http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
+1
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Bret Clark wrote:
> On 12/04/2010 06:03 PM, Ken Gilmour wrote:
>>
>> Now Sarah Palin is suggesting Wikileaks are terrorists and should be taken
>> offline with technical capabilities
>> http://www.golem.de/1012/79848.html
>>
>> or for anyone who can't speak Ger
On 12/04/2010 06:03 PM, Ken Gilmour wrote:
Now Sarah Palin is suggesting Wikileaks are terrorists and should be taken
offline with technical capabilities
http://www.golem.de/1012/79848.html
or for anyone who can't speak German:
http://translate.google.ie/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.golem.de%
Now Sarah Palin is suggesting Wikileaks are terrorists and should be taken
offline with technical capabilities
http://www.golem.de/1012/79848.html
or for anyone who can't speak German:
http://translate.google.ie/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.golem.de%2F1012%2F79848.html&sl=de&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8
(
> Not the Department, not the Secretary, not the Joint Chiefs, just the lowly
> old spokesman, all by himself, who is "not aware." A weaker and less
> convincing denial can scarcely be imagined this side of the divorce court.
>
> And the CNN headline, while technical true :
>
> U.S. officials de
On Dec 4, 2010, at 10:45 AM, andrew.wallace wrote:
> Washington (CNN) -- U.S. officials at the Pentagon and State Department
> denied Friday knowing of any efforts to take down the WikiLeaks website or
> asking companies to do so.
>
> http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/03/wikileaks.takedo
23 matches
Mail list logo
