Breaking Bernie Ward Story,...
Bill Hale
anywhere yet. Was on KGO's 2 PM news,...
Ben
Bernie Ward, a popular San Francisco radio talk show host and former
Catholic priest, has been indicted on federal child pornography
charges, authorities said today.
Ward, 56, surrendered to federal authorities earlier today but the
specifics of the allegations against him are under seal, authorities
said.
Ward hosts a nightly news talk program on KGO 810 AM as well as
GodTalk on Sundays. He had been a priest with the Society of the
Precious Blood order.
NickCC
> I'll let you folks flesh out. Taken off air. I can't find anything
> anywhere yet. Was on KGO's 2 PM news,...
He was INDICTED on federal child porn charges related to his criticism
of Dianne Feinstein on the air (not to mention the Bush
administration). KGO Radio says it was due to some research done on a
book four years ago.
George Grapman
> I'll let you folks flesh out. Taken off air. I can't find anything
> anywhere yet. Was on KGO's 2 PM news,...
>
>
Sorry to confuse you with facts.
He has been charged with child pornography charges in federal court
which he says relate to research on a book. Remember, courts have ruled
that simply having certain matter on your computer can make you criminal
regardless of how or why they are there.
Sorry to take your audience waiting in suspense away from you.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/06/BAFHTPMQD.DTL&tsp=1
BOPOHOK
> anywhere yet. Was on KGO's 2 PM news,...
Without Bernie KGO won't be the same.
He will be missed.
God help him...
tweaked
news:fl%5j.29149$lD6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:
> Bill Hale wrote:
>> I'll let you folks flesh out. Taken off air. I can't find anything
>> anywhere yet. Was on KGO's 2 PM news,...
>>
>>
> The 3 p.m. news has Jack Swanson saying he will remain on the air.
> Sorry to confuse you with facts.
>
>
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/06/BAFHTPMQD.D
> TL&tsp=1
KGO's website says differently
http://www.kgoam810.com/Article.asp?id=527431&spid=15884
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
BOPOHOK
...
> The 3 p.m. news has Jack Swanson saying he will remain on the air.
From KGO website @15:42:
<<KGO's Operations Director Jack Swanson says, "Bernie Ward has been a
valued, long-time employee of KGO Radio. We were just recently made
aware of these serious charges and are surprised and concerned by
their nature. As the matter is currently pending in federal court, we
will have no additional comment at this time. A substitute host will
do the 10pm - 1am, Monday - Friday broadcast and the Sunday morning
Godtalk broadcast.">>
George Grapman
Sorry, I was on the phone at the time and heard the "will do
the...broadcast" and assumed that they meant Ward would do it.
Lysander Spooner
'conspiracy to silence a powerful anti-establishment voice' excuse.
What excuse would YOU use if you got busted for child porn images? If you
haven't 'researched' the topic yourself, how would you know child porn is
bad? I guess some of us just have that innate ability...
At the trial, maybe Big Bernie will have an expert witness testify that
Bernie is so fat he can't even grab his weiner to play with it, thus the
KIDDIE PORN ON BERNIE WARD'S COMPUTER(S) would have been for research-only.
I'm sure if Bernie ever molested a kid, it was also strictly for research.
I'm going to go research speeding laws now.
BYE-BYE BERNIE!
"George Crapman" <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote in message
news:fl%5j.29149$lD6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
tweaked
ac56-374...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Ive said to myself for years that Bernie was a pedophile. Can't remember
the specifics for sure now, but he carried on way too long on air about the
subject at one point. The way he talked, I thought he was covering
something up. This does not surprise me at all and I do not believe the
defense.
Phin
Phin
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 15:52:43 -0800, "Lysander Spooner"
<lspo...@bpm.org> wrote:
John Higdon
wrote:
> Ive said to myself for years that Bernie was a pedophile. Can't remember
> the specifics for sure now, but he carried on way too long on air about the
> subject at one point. The way he talked, I thought he was covering
> something up. This does not surprise me at all and I do not believe the
> defense.
Did I miss something? Was there a guilty verdict handed down?
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
tweaked
news:skeptic-65F4D9...@news.announcetech.com:
>
> Did I miss something? Was there a guilty verdict handed down?
>
Nope, But his lawyer just said on air that he did in fact download the porn
and that the government was making a big deal out of a "mistake". Guilty.
sher...@mailcity.com
> Wow, so we've already got the 'Pete Townshend' excuse, as well as the
> 'conspiracy to silence a powerful anti-establishment voice' excuse.
>
> What excuse would YOU use if you got busted for child porn images? If you
> haven't 'researched' the topic yourself, how would you know child porn is
> bad? I guess some of us just have that innate ability...
>
> At the trial, maybe Big Bernie will have an expert witness testify that
> Bernie is so fat he can't even grab his weiner to play with it, thus the
> KIDDIE PORN ON BERNIE WARD'S COMPUTER(S) would have been for research-only.
> I'm sure if Bernie ever molested a kid, it was also strictly for research.
>
> I'm going to go research speeding laws now.
>
> BYE-BYE BERNIE!
>
>
> news:fl%5j.29149$lD6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> > Bill Hale wrote:
> >> I'll let you folks flesh out. Taken off air. I can't find anything
> >> anywhere yet. Was on KGO's 2 PM news,...
>
> > The 3 p.m. news has Jack Swanson saying he will remain on the air. Sorry
> > to confuse you with facts.
> > He has been charged with child pornography charges in federal court
> > which he says relate to research on a book. Remember, courts have ruled
> > that simply having certain matter on your computer can make you criminal
> > regardless of how or why they are there.
> > Sorry to take your audience waiting in suspense away from you.
>
Pete Townsend was never convicted but he has to register as a sex
offender
Bill Z.
> Wow, so we've already got the 'Pete Townshend' excuse, as well as the
> 'conspiracy to silence a powerful anti-establishment voice' excuse.
>
> What excuse would YOU use if you got busted for child porn images? If you
> haven't 'researched' the topic yourself, how would you know child porn is
> bad? I guess some of us just have that innate ability...
>
> "George Crapman" <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote in message
> news:fl%5j.29149$lD6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> > Remember, courts have ruled that simply having certain matter on
> > your computer can make you criminal regardless of how or why they
> > are there.
To answer Lysander's first question, it is unfortunately very easy to
plant images on someone's computer without that person's knowledge.
The easiest way is to send images in HTML-formatted email, setting the
image size to one or two pixels in height and width. No matter what
the image is, it will be displayed as at most four dots, each in its
own color. You probably won't notice that it is there. To display
it, your computer will decode the image (in email it will be base-64
encoded) and most likely cache it in a file. Then, after the file is
deleted, remnants of the image will appear on your hard drive. This
works because setting the image size in HTML simply scales an image
file to that size: it may display as 4 pixels, but be actually a full
sized image. For example, if you have a site logo on a home page, you
might want to halve the size of it on other pages - scaling the image
means that you don't have to send two copies over the network. This
behavior was built into HTML for efficiency reasons. If you have a
site logo on a home page, you might want to halve the size of it on
other pages, and scaling the image means that you don't have to send
two copies over the network just to change the size.
If the images are all in a directory names "photos", you'll probably
have a lot of explaining to do, but that is not always the case.
In case anyone has trouble understanding the issue, it is *not* to
protect people into child pornography but how to protect innocent
people who might be framed by some person with a grudge against them.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
Phin
can definitively clear his name, which is unlikely since he admits to
downloading them... he's going to always be open to attack on it,
every show, by hostile callers.
Even calling him 'Uncle Bernie' anymore is going to be mega-creepy!
Very sad.
On 06 Dec 2007 17:27:35 -0800, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
wrote:
John Slade
"George Grapman" <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote in message
news:fl%5j.29149$lD6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> Bill Hale wrote:
>> I'll let you folks flesh out. Taken off air. I can't find anything
>> anywhere yet. Was on KGO's 2 PM news,...
>>
>>
> The 3 p.m. news has Jack Swanson saying he will remain on the air. Sorry
> to confuse you with facts.
> He has been charged with child pornography charges in federal court
> which he says relate to research on a book. Remember, courts have ruled
> that simply having certain matter on your computer can make you criminal
> regardless of how or why they are there.
No shit. At any given moment anyone can have thousands of prono pictures
of any kind on their PC in their inbox. That's why I use web based e-mail.
Also if you go to many sites they have porno popups and ads on the pages
themselves that will remain on your computer in the temporary Internet
cache. Basically if they want to get someone, they just send them a shit
load of e-mails with kiddie porn and then nab them. I'm fairly sure Bernie
Ward isn't into kiddie porn and he probably won't suffer much from this
fiasco. From what I hear, it's from research done for a book four years ago.
I hope Bernie speaks about this tonight.
John
Phoeni...@yahoo.com
> "George Grapman" <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote in message
>
> news:fl%5j.29149$lD6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> > Bill Hale wrote:
> >> I'll let you folks flesh out. Taken off air. I can't find anything
> >> anywhere yet. Was on KGO's 2 PM news,...
>
> I hope Bernie speaks about this tonight.
>
> John
Berrnie Ward is OFF the air until further notice, a substitute will
host the 10pm KGO has been reporting that all afternoon. The images
were found on his AOL account and his bust is part of a larger
federal investigation which is why it took 4 years. Ward is going
down. Bye bye uncle Bernie.
leansto...@democrat.com
My recollection is Pete Townsend used his credit card to buy the porn
or join the service, something like that. I think the act of using a
credit card really seals your fate, though like you said, not much
happened to Townsend.
I think there are also some issues regarding what is legal in various
countries. That is, what might be child porn in the states is legal in
Europe., but the internet is international.
I hope one of the KGO hosts gets a legal expert on the air to clear
this stuff up. I always wondered what these people were getting
convicted of.
I attended a seminar at Berkeley regarding first amendment photograph
rights.
http://www.thefirstamendment.org/
One of the shocking things I learned is you could get charge for child
pornography if you photographed a wet tshirt contest that revealed too
much. [Think copius amounts of water and a part of a camel, and an
underage female.]
If anyone from KGO is reading this, thefirstamdendment.org group is
based in Oakland and has lawyers on staff .They might be worth
contacting.
John Higdon
<d3bf8a2d-e0c4-41b7...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
sher...@mailcity.com wrote:
> Pete Townsend was never convicted but he has to register as a sex
> offender
That's the leverage the criminal justice system uses to keep people that
annoy them in check: "just register as a sex offender and you can go
home". What that means is you waive your legal rights for life.
Bill Z.
> Nevertheless, I'd say his career as a talk show host is over unless he
> can definitively clear his name, which is unlikely since he admits to
> downloading them... he's going to always be open to attack on it,
> every show, by hostile callers.
If he admitted it, he's toast. He should have known better, but it is
technically possible to get these images onto your computer without
you having any idea that it is being done. In general, that is worth
keeping in mind - so you allow enough time for all the facts to come
out before lambasting some guy.
Rivergoat
I support Townshend....I don't support being Uncle Ernie in real life,
however....
gvk...@yahoo.com
himself but for his family.
I'm not a great fan of his show since I find it rather offensive how
he attacks too many callers.
I call it T-Ball talk, where the skilled host maneuvers the caller
into just the right position (the Tee) and then swings away at them
with a bat until they're dizzy, unable to respond, then cuts them off,
or they, totally flustered, hang up........whereupon the host notches
up another win much to the delight of his adoring audience. Gets real
boring after a while. Thats what I call T-Ball talk. Bernie was a
expert at that dance.
But like I've said, I do tune in from time to time, just to see whats
on and over the many years I've gotten the impression that while
being rather unkind on-air, he had a good heart in most of his off-
air affairs. I remember him saying on God Talk about how, forgetting
all the religious stuff, that "kindness" was the most important thing
for people follow as a guide. Not that he kept that in mind while
doing his show.
I must say though he has set himself in a place where he seems to be
in exactly the same position that he has attacked so quickly when
others are caught up in a media storm.
What comes to mind is how he almost reveled in joy at the hypocrisy of
the Rev. Ted Haggard, Senator Larry Craig, Rep. Mark Foley, etc.
none of whom, were accused of a felony nor anything involving
children. (Foley's victims were of age by the time he went after them)
Not that he accused them instantly of crimes, but rather the glee he
took, even without full facts, as he went after their blatant
hypocrisy.
There was something about his reveling in their downfall that took on
just a bit too much fervor and joy.
That and the endless attacks on the depravity of the Catholic priests
as well as almost all aspects of church leadership. It was such a huge
thing with Bernie that it makes you wonder if it wasn't the same kind
of extreme opposite position that he always brought up about Haggard
and company, where they were so weirdly against that which they were
secretly doing.
So, if he is truly innocent, until that is decided, he has left
himself in almost the same position that he found those others. And
in that position he attacked them mercilessly even before all the
facts were in. No presumption of innocence for those others. Now he
finds himself in the same position. The wheel of life turns.
I must say, from the response of his lawyer it appears at the very
least he did technically violate the law. A clearer understanding of
how that could occur, even without intent, is found in this audio clip
of a San Jose defense lawyer who was interviewed on the law and the
internet.
http://podcast.kcbs.com/kcbs/789756.mp3
If what his lawyer said about a "mistake" is true AND what that
podcast of the lawyer said, then I'd say he is probably going to be
technically guilty even if without evil intent.
"He is just being prosecuted for a mistake he made (more than) three
years ago," said his lawyer.
Taking all that into account, do you really want to take even a
technical case to a jury, or do you want to take a plea to a lesser
charge?
You have to wonder, four years ago, 2003, didn't we ALL already know
about the dangers of even getting close to any internet web site that
involved children in even suggestive situations, let alone, true
pornography.
What a blunder if he was truly ignorant of the legal aspects of his
actions. ESPECIALLY for someone in the public light and especially
for someone attacking the Bush administration nightly.
Why not just hand your enemy a ax to cut off your head.
Well, if the facts truly show more than just foolish behavior I will
be saddened and shocked.
But I'm gonna have to see some real evidence of both the crimes and of
the "book" that was being researched.
Prior to this news, I'd have said there wasn't any possibility he
could be involved in such activity. We'll have to see all the facts.
Hoping he turns out to be just foolish since the other possibility
would disappoint so many who thought so well of him. Its all hard to
imagine.
Whatever the circumstances and facts reveal, the man probably needs
some of that "kindness" he spoke about. And some prayers whether he
be innocent or fallen.
John Slade
<Phoeni...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a7ade368-4b9a-4b3c...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
I really don't think much will happen to him. At best the charges
will get dropped and he will be back on the air in a short time. At worst he
will be found guilty, get a little time and be back on the air after his
time is served. Bernie Ward is too popular a host to stay off the air for
long.
John
Phoeni...@yahoo.com
> <Phoenix_94...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
The charges will not be dropped, & if found guilty Ward will have to
register as a sex offender for life & will never work in radio again.
Liberal hosts are a dime a dozen after a few weeks off the air nobody
will remeber him.
RWW
> But I'm gonna have to see some real evidence of both the crimes and of
> the "book" that was being researched.
I would absolve him if he can produce dated copies of manuscripts,
manuscript outlines or afidavits of people associated with a
the book project that corroborate his need for child porno images
for the research.
If he can't produce documentation, I would view it as an
excuse after the fact.
If he has the documentation to prove positive that his Child
Porno was part of a book, I think he *might* win a jury trial.
But doubtful.
If not, I predict he will plea bargain.
Prediction: Plea Deal. 2 Misdemeanor Counts. Suspended Sentence.
No Jail. No sex offendor registration if good behavior for 5 years.
DonBeppino
> I'll let you folks flesh out. Taken off air. I can't find anything
> anywhere yet. Was on KGO's 2 PM news,...
It couldn't have happened to a nicer commie scumbag hypocrite
c*cksucker! I made myself an ice cold Martini and drank a toast to the
Feds.
Ol' fatbastard Bernie should take himself a dive off the GGBridge if
these allegations are true, which I'm bettinmg they are. Pity for his
family, though. Unthoughtful, sub-human bastard that he is, I feel for
his family and the crap they'll have to put up with for the rest of
their lives all because this fat sick pig couldn't control his
pedophiliac behavior. As another poster stated, he protested WAY too
much on this subject in the past. That is a known sign of guilt.
See ya, Bern...have fun in the joint!
aesth...@gmail.com
is basically over. if you're accused of doing anything with the words
"child" and "pornography" attached to it, that is a stain on your file
that never goes away.
Jim Bianchi
And if so, guilty of WHAT? Unfortunately, accusations of child
pornography bring to mind images of photos of, say, 3 year old kids being
sexually abused (which, to my mind, IS child pornography), whereas a photo
of, say, a 17.5 year old nude girl posing by herself, is equally considered
to be child pornography in the eyes of the law. I've only heard one answer
to the question (answered by Bernies' lawyer), 'what was the nature of the
two images found in Bernies' AOL cache?' The answer was a non-commital "they
were child pornography." Olive witch, of course, tells us nothing at all.
--
ji...@sonic.net
Linux: gawk, date, finger, wait, unzip, touch, nice, suck, strip, mount,
fsck, umount, make clean, sleep. (Who needs porn when you have /usr/bin?)
Lysander Spooner
"John Slade" <sa...@candyman.com> wrote in message
news:CQ16j.69285$RX.2...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
> I hope Bernie speaks about this tonight.
>
> John
That shows what sort of fantasy-land you're in.
Lysander Spooner
news:87odd35...@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Some guy," maybe, but in the case of Big Bernie --which is what most of
us are discussing-- it seems
like he's admitted *exchanging* child porn imagery, with the excuse after
being caught & charged being that
it was research for a book.
I hope that to further his 'research' into the matter, he's locked away
for at least a couple years. A side benefit is that he'll finally
lose weight.
Mike Van Pelt
<gvk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I must say though he has set himself in a place where
>he seems to be in exactly the same position that he has
>attacked so quickly when others are caught up in a media
>storm.
>
>What comes to mind is how he almost reveled in joy at the
>hypocrisy of the Rev. Ted Haggard, Senator Larry Craig,
I hope it isn't true. Not because I like Bernie or his
program; I've made my detestation of his program known
here often enough, and I hit the "off" or "another station,
any other station" button at the first hint of his voice.
I've never wished for anything horrible to happen to him.
But as they say, karma's a bitch, ain't it?
Maybe if he does eventually get found innocent, he'll gain
a bit of compassion for the accused he disagrees with. (But
based on his past performance, I somehow doubt it, alas.)
Given that his lawyer apparantly admits that Bernie not
only received but also *sent* this material, I think it
doesn't look very good for him at all, though. Anybody can
accidentally click on a link to something nasty without
wanting to. (Has anyone who got swindled into clicking a
link to goatse *wanted* to see that? Ever?) Sending it is
a whole lot harder to explain.
--
Mike Van Pelt | Wikipedia. The roulette wheel of knowledge.
mvp at calweb.com | --Blair P. Houghton
KE6BVH
Mark Elder
If I receive something by mistake it is DELETED on the spot. I don't save
it, I don't move it, I don't ignore it. I just delete it. Yahoo will send
spam to my inbox that doesn't have my address listed. A lot of it is porn.
I delete it and i'm done with it. In my mind, that is enough proof that it
was mistakenly sent to me.
If I was keeping it around for some reason.....any reason.........
Four years later Bernies "mistake" is still haunting him.
Mark
"RWW" <R...@rww.net> wrote in message
news:X156j.6632$AR7....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
Samson
article that he wrote after downloading and sending the stuff?
\Samson
John Slade
<Phoeni...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7131d73f-9987-4033...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Yea except you probably hang on their every word and call in.
I bet this is the same weirdo that called Ray last night talking
about "Uncle Bernie".
John
John Slade
"Lysander Spooner" <lspo...@bpm.org> wrote in message
news:fuKdnbWVd9y9v8Ta...@comcast.com...
At the time I posted this it was said that Bernie Ward would be doing the
show. He would have said something about it but not go into details. I've
seen a lot of these things happen and when Rush Limbaugh got caught
shoveling pills down his pie hole, he made statements about it on the air
while the case was going on. It was all supposedly some vast left wing
conspiracy and Rush being a dope head had nothing to do with it.
John
John Higdon
"Mark Elder" <elde...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If I receive something by mistake it is DELETED on the spot. I don't save
> it, I don't move it, I don't ignore it. I just delete it. Yahoo will send
> spam to my inbox that doesn't have my address listed. A lot of it is porn.
> I delete it and i'm done with it. In my mind, that is enough proof that it
> was mistakenly sent to me.
Unless you serve your own email (as I have always done), you have no
idea how many copies of your "private" email, inbound our outbound,
exist and in whose hands it might be.
None whatsoever.
Ciccio
news:skeptic-F0A1B9...@news.announcetech.com...
> Unless you serve your own email (as I have always done), you have no
> idea how many copies of your "private" email, inbound our outbound,
> exist and in whose hands it might be.
>
> None whatsoever.
Thus, the rule of the days of the old Net..."Treat your e-mail like an open
postcard." That rule has, however, fallen into general disuse by newcomers
during the past 10-15 years.
Ciccio
Chilly8
"NickCC" <nixi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0b30bffb-2aaf-4fb9...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 6, 2:26 pm, Bill Hale <hold...@holdout.best.vwh.net> wrote:
>> I'll let you folks flesh out. Taken off air. I can't find anything
>> anywhere yet. Was on KGO's 2 PM news,...
>
> of Dianne Feinstein on the air (not to mention the Bush
> administration). KGO Radio says it was due to some research done on a
> book four years ago.
That is possible. The Christian Rigiht, whos has controlled the govrnment,
in
some manner, since 1995, will do ANYTHING to SILENCE the opposition.
This could be the right-wing religious nuts wanting to silence their
opponents.
This is why I say the Christian Right MUST be REMOVED from goverments
worldwide.
Bill Z.
> "Bill Z." <nob...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:87odd35...@nospam.pacbell.net...
> > Phin <som...@somewhere.net> writes:
> >
> >> Nevertheless, I'd say his career as a talk show host is over unless he
> >> can definitively clear his name, which is unlikely since he admits to
> >> downloading them... he's going to always be open to attack on it,
> >> every show, by hostile callers.
> >
> > If he admitted it, he's toast. He should have known better, but it is
> > technically possible to get these images onto your computer without
> > you having any idea that it is being done. In general, that is worth
> > keeping in mind - so you allow enough time for all the facts to come
> > out before lambasting some guy.
>
> "Some guy," maybe, but in the case of Big Bernie --which is what
> most of us are discussing-- it seems like he's admitted *exchanging*
> child porn imagery, with the excuse after being caught & charged
> being that it was research for a book.
What I described is why in general one should withhold judgement until
all the facts are in. It's something all of us should be concerned about.
All of us get tons of junk email and never read it, so who knows what
can actually be found on our computers. We should not have to worry
about being arrested or defamed because of something we are not in the
least responsible for.
Also, as I said, "if he admitted it, he's toast." There's really
nothing more to say about him regarding the crime than that, even if
he was in fact simply trying to write a book as he apparently claims.
Bill Z.
> If I receive something by mistake it is DELETED on the spot.
Really? Someone in the Whitehouse once thought that, and got caught
(it was a political scandal, not a child-porn thing). Deleting the
mail did not remove it from the mailbox - it simply marked the message
as deleted so the user agent wouldn't display it. To actually get rid
of it, you had to compact your mailbox, and even then remnants would
remain in the file system. A file system is typically organized into
fixed-sized blocks and when you delete a file, its blocks are simply
put onto a free list (or something equivalent). The block is
typically not overwritten to get rid of what was there (that takes
time and users expect deleting a file to be a fast operation).
Also, sometimes you don't want to delete spam but rather put in a
"junk" folder - some of the mail filters use rules to filter out
spam and need to be "trained" by having some examples of what you
think is spam and what isn't. Just because you are keeping it
somewhere for the spam filter doesn't mean you bothered to read it.
George Orwell
Ronn Owens: Bernie who?
Dr. Bill Wattenburgh: He always was a fat ignorant bastard. But
I didn't think he was that ignorant. Now he will really learn what
a bunghole is.
Ray Taliaferro: Ahhhh Bernie. The man was a legend in his own mind!
If he asks to show you a picture of his kids say noooooo!
Brian Copeland: I told the kids not to take candy from that man!
Gene Burns: Well the man can't be all bad. After all, he likes kids.
Len Tillem: Bernie, get a good lawyer! But not me!!!
Dr. Dean Edell: That man is the biggest asshole I have ever seen!
Karel: I second that commotion Dr. Dean!!!!
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
Mark Elder
around, but not in my inbox, and not in my "photos" folder or "I'm
researching a book" folder. It was mistakenly sent to me, I did not go
looking for it. I opened it, I viewed it, then deleted it. Intnet.
Mark
"Bill Z." <nob...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:87bq92f...@nospam.pacbell.net...
John Higdon
"Mark Elder" <elde...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Intent. Yes I viewed the e-mail, but then it was deleted. Yes, it is still
> around, but not in my inbox, and not in my "photos" folder or "I'm
> researching a book" folder. It was mistakenly sent to me, I did not go
> looking for it. I opened it, I viewed it, then deleted it. Intnet.
All it takes is the fact that it passed through your mailbox on your
provider's server. Did you know that law enforcement can, without your
knowledge, require your provider to fork everything that comes into your
mailbox to them. The fact that it appeared is the issue, not how you
disposed of it at the other end. Can you PROVE you didn't request it?
Can you PROVE you disposed of it immediately?
It isn't quite as cut and dried as you think it is. Don't you find it
even remotely troubling that with all the talk from government about all
they're interested in is catching terrorists with their warrant-less
snooping, all they seem to be turning up are alleged sex offenders?
Bill Z.
> Intent. Yes I viewed the e-mail, but then it was deleted. Yes, it is still
> around, but not in my inbox, and not in my "photos" folder or "I'm
> researching a book" folder. It was mistakenly sent to me, I did not go
> looking for it. I opened it, I viewed it, then deleted it. Intnet.
>
> Mark
The problem is that "intent" cannot be shown by examining server logs,
and proving intent in court is expensive.
Also, the law does not say anything about good intentions. It should,
but it doesn't. You know how slovenly these acts are drawn. (Some
readers will recognize this dialog - I'll leave others to guess where
it comes from, but it does make the point).
Mark Elder
"John Higdon" <ske...@IBOCisaCrock.org> wrote in message
> In article <rq6dnYtAbMVVe8fa...@comcast.com>,
> "Mark Elder" <elde...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Intent. Yes I viewed the e-mail, but then it was deleted. Yes, it is
>> still
>> around, but not in my inbox, and not in my "photos" folder or "I'm
>> researching a book" folder. It was mistakenly sent to me, I did not go
>> looking for it. I opened it, I viewed it, then deleted it. Intnet.
>
> All it takes is the fact that it passed through your mailbox on your
> provider's server. Did you know that law enforcement can, without your
> knowledge, require your provider to fork everything that comes into your
> mailbox to them.
Yes. I believe there was only one of the major players refused to turn
records over to the government.
The fact that it appeared is the issue, not how you
> disposed of it at the other end. Can you PROVE you didn't request it?
> Can you PROVE you disposed of it immediately?
>
As I stated before, most of the email that I am talking about doesn't even
have my address listed. Yahoo decided to drop it on me unsolicited.
Server logs would (should) back me up on when I viewed it and when I deleted
it. I probably shouldn't view it at all if I don't know who sent it, but it
happens.
> It isn't quite as cut and dried as you think it is.
I agree, but the actions that I have described, I would think, would never
lead to a Grand Jury Indictment of me.
Don't you find it
> even remotely troubling that with all the talk from government about all
> they're interested in is catching terrorists with their warrant-less
> snooping, all they seem to be turning up are alleged sex offenders?
Yes very. The latest is going after the owners of the buildings of medical
marijuana dispensarys. Will of the people by popular vote be damned.
Mark
John Higdon
"Mark Elder" <elde...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I agree, but the actions that I have described, I would think, would never
> lead to a Grand Jury Indictment of me.
I've heard those very words before. I hope you're right.
John Slade
Yea. A pal of mine that does law enforcement work has put a few people
in jail using data that was "deleted" by the user.
John
John Slade
<aesth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:deb44828-4f61-442f...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
First of all I think Bernie was doing it for research. Secondly I would
say Bernie was damned stupid in what he did. He goes out trading kiddie
porn? I mean didn't he think he could have run into an undercover cop. Not
to mention even though he was doing research, he could have done it using an
undercover cop like they do on that child predator show on NBC. For the
later reasons, I can say that I don't know for sure that he's innocent. I've
seen some of the nicest people do stuff that would absolutely shock you if
you heard they did it.
John
leansto...@democrat.com
> In article <l6adnbKtZN0NnsbanZ2dnUVZ_hOdn...@comcast.com>,
> "Mark Elder" <elder...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree, but the actions that I have described, I would think, would never
> > lead to a Grand Jury Indictment of me.
>
> I've heard those very words before. I hope you're right.
>
> --
> John Higdon
> +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
Many ham sandwiches have been indicted. Remember, you don't get to
defend yourself in front of the grand jury. It is all one sided.
The more I think about this sad story, I get the gut feeling that Pete
Wilson, had he lived, just plain couldn't shut his mouth about this.
He would have quit rather than be told to "shut up and play."
Ciccio
> I've seen some of the nicest people do stuff that would absolutely shock you if
> you heard they did it.
I know, just like some Catholic priests. Such wouldn't apply to Ward
though... Oh wait, never mind.
Ciccio
Bill Z.
> <aesth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:deb44828-4f61-442f...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > it is sad. even if he clears himself of the charges, his public career
> > is basically over. if you're accused of doing anything with the words
> > "child" and "pornography" attached to it, that is a stain on your file
> > that never goes away.
>
> First of all I think Bernie was doing it for research. Secondly I
> would say Bernie was damned stupid in what he did. He goes out trading
> kiddie porn?
Assuming what I've read is accurate, my guess is that he is guilty,
but violated the law out of ignorance rather than malice. The
judge would ideally give someone in that situation a suspended
sentence, but that might not be possible with mandatory sentencing
requirements for some crimes. So the only "fair" outcome might
be if the prosecutor agrees to a plea bargain.