To: Redleg Duke
'Troll'? What kind of slam is that? retty week if you ask me. I imagine that very few of you that responded -so far- even bothered to read my attached commentary? Oh, sure, deny it. But based on the opposition that I've read so far, no one has touched on the points I made regarding the government cost to administer and enforce. This isn't going to be free to taxpayers! Free market solutions that currently exist. Just like one of you pointed out by bringing up 'spam controls'. And last but not least, further 'protections' offered by our 'leaders'.
I'm beginning to feel like on of the billygoats in here and SOME of YOU are the trolls; whatever that means.
To: LowCountryJoe
And last but not least, further 'protections' offered by our 'leaders'. Who is our quote leader end-quote? I have a leader without quotes.
37 posted on
11/11/2003 10:58:34 AM PST by
Naspino
(I am in no way associated with the views expressed in your posts.)
To: LowCountryJoe
You make "feel like a billygoat", you certainly remind me of another barnyard animal, troll.
I read your comments and they are pointless, unless of course you are trolling for tears.
41 posted on
11/11/2003 11:05:57 AM PST by
Redleg Duke
(Stir the pot...don't let anything settle to the bottom where the lawyers can feed off of it!)
To: LowCountryJoe
Obviously you have not heard about this:
A Federal Appeals court today upheld the "Do not post bad things about the government" list, citing the constitutional duty of government to protect its citizens commentary that could cause them to form conflicting views about government policy. The list, modeled after the popular telemarketing "do-not-call" list, requires all online posters especially newbies to download a list of unacceptable articles such as those criticizing the popular "do-not-call" list, and face penalties up to and including banning for posting unauthorized articles. Such articles are considered to be trespassing on the personal property of forum participants who have paid for their computers and internet access.
44 posted on
11/11/2003 11:08:57 AM PST by
palmer
(They've reinserted my posting tube)
To: LowCountryJoe
...points I made regarding the government cost to administer and enforce... I'd much prefer my tax dollars to be spent on something that benefits myself. This has actually been one of the few things that the congresscritters have done in that last twenty years that qualifies as a worthy expenditure. Hey, they could alsways defund the "Endowment for the Arts".
56 posted on
11/11/2003 11:19:25 AM PST by
GingisK
To: LowCountryJoe
I'll address your issue of the use of government funds to maintain the Do-Not-Call List!
I'd rather my tax dollars be used for this than to support your liberal National Public Radio that I'm sure you listen.
No Sympathy!!
To: LowCountryJoe
Are you or are you not in favor of the Do Not Call list?
164 posted on
11/11/2003 1:47:01 PM PST by
Darksheare
(Proving that there are alternate perceptions of surreality Since Oct 2, 2000.)
To: LowCountryJoe
Free market solutions that currently exist. The telemarketers brought this on themselves by wilfully circumventing the existing free market solutions (e.g. blocking their Caller ID tags, reprogramming their dialers to evade the TeleZapper[tm], etc. Frankly, they ought to have been busted for phone phreaking -- if some pimple-faced teenager runs a wardialer, it's a federal felony, and we're supposed to have one law for all in this Republic.
375 posted on
11/17/2003 11:01:14 AM PST by
steve-b
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson