Terror in the skies, Again?
bhanwara
http://womenswallstreet.com/WWS/article_landing.aspx?titleid=1&articleid=711
which has been showing up in a lot of the ngs, including the one's
listed here.
To begin with, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck,
and quacks like a duck, the possibility that it's a duck
does need to be investigated.
That having said, it's not clear exactly what Ms. Jacobsen
is complaining about.
It seems like the situation was handled extremely well
and professionally. Why should one paranoid cowardly
journalist be expected to have control over the situation,
and not the professionals?
The Air Marshals travel incognito, as normal passengers.
That's a big asset they have. Should they all have
revealed themselves immediately and blown their
cover, to save Ms. Jacobsen from getting paranoid?
The air hostess went so far as to reveal the presence
of Air Marshals to Ms. Jacobsen as a personal person-to-person
favor. She mentioned this would put her career in danger.
And what does Ms. Jacobsen do? She broadcasts
this information all over the place, trying to make sure
the air hostess's career encounters some turbulence.
Just because the poor air hostess felt bad about
Ms. Jacobsen's distress and wanted her to feel
a little bit better.
Ms. Jacobsen's publishing this "confidential" information
was either the act of a very selfish journalist
or a paranoid coward.
What would she have preferred? That anybody
she finds personally suspicious be taken into custody
immediately?
Or should all the passengers be encouraged to
take things in their own hands immediately
when they see anything suspicious?
Or should journalists do all "screening"? How
exactly does Ms. Jacobsen know no attention
was paid by authorities to these suspicious
individuals. In fact, she investigated and
found the suspicious individuals were investigated
by FBI and other agencies. So what makes
her think the situation was ignored? Why
does she feel compelled to add stupid
suggestions of her own?
The authorities know that reckless profiling
will only increase the alienation, besides
setting bad precedents and doing little good.
Just because it will make little Ms. Jacobsen
feel better, doesn't mean it IS a better
way to control things.
Air travel is bad enough, and there are many
yellow-bellied cowards who are being forced to
take flights for various reason, and therefore who
create a very tense environment in air travel. The
cowardlies are very much on edge -- there are people traveling
who feel extremely threatened and look red-faced and ready to
blow-up for so much as a child exclaiming while looking out the
window "Look, the wing is dipping" in the middle of a turn.
[Making one want to tap them on the shoulder
and explain, "Look Mr. Coward, it's normal
for a wing to dip when turning, the terrorists are
not taking over. Try looking out the window of
an airplane, flying can be fun."]
This is the time to listen to brave people, and
not to the cowards.
Irresponsible journalists like Ms. Jacobsen
should not be enocouraged to further worsen
the situation. If she did it just for publication,
it was a very selfish thing, not a helpful thing.
The information she published was confidential.
Her "sources" had not given permission, and
in fact had clearly indicated they wanted the
information to be kept confidential. She
displayed a total lack of journalistic ethics,
as did her publisher.
If she ignored journalistic ethics not from
selfishness but from cowardice and panic, it
is even more important to stop her from
spreading her cowardice and panic.
Miss L. Toe
> and quacks like a duck, the possibility that it's a duck
> does need to be investigated.
>
I think that should read:
the possibility that it's NOT a duck does need to be investigated.
> If she ignored journalistic ethics not from
> selfishness but from cowardice and panic, it
> is even more important to stop her from
> spreading her cowardice and panic.
But she has generated a lot of publicity for http://womenswallstreet.com
G.R. Patterson III
bhanwara wrote:
>
> If she ignored journalistic ethics not from
> selfishness but from cowardice and panic, it
> is even more important to stop her from
> spreading her cowardice and panic.
The obvious solution is to place her on the airlines' "cannot travel by air" list.
George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.
Ron Snipes
actions going on by the crew and marshalls is unknown. That being said, now
if we error, we need to do it on the side of safety. Examples:
Turn seat belt sign ON to seat the passengers. Then if they still kept
getting up, start decending to below 10,000' so if there was an Event, the
decompresson would not be Explosive and passengers can breathe. Had I of
been on the flight, anxious would not have described me.
I flew recently from RDU to Nashville, Tn. A new announcement was
made....New FAA regulations prohibit passengers from congregating near the
front Lav.
On the return flight, we had not reached cruise altitude and an elderly lady
stood up to go to the Lav up front. She was in a window seat, so the other
two people had to get up. The Cabin crew made it extremely clear, for them
to sit back down. No if's, and's or buts. They sat back down till the seat
belt light went off.
Tell us the truth about TWA-800, Mr. Clinton!
ron
"bhanwara" <bhan...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:50fd4c57.04072...@posting.google.com...
Darkwing Duck (The Duck, The Myth, The Legend)
"Ron Snipes" <r...@isiscabling.com> wrote in message
news:fpRNc.64917$%t6.2...@roc.nntpserver.com...
> I just happen to disagree with your take on this event bhanwaram, the
exact
> actions going on by the crew and marshalls is unknown. That being said,
now
> if we error, we need to do it on the side of safety. Examples:
>
> Turn seat belt sign ON to seat the passengers. Then if they still kept
> getting up, start decending to below 10,000' so if there was an Event, the
> decompresson would not be Explosive and passengers can breathe. Had I of
> been on the flight, anxious would not have described me.
A bullet hole will not cause explosive decompression. Seems simple to me,
have the flight crew drop the air pressure in the plane low enough that you
HAVE to sit in your seat with your oxygen mask on, tough to cause mayhem if
you passout from hypoxia.
CLK
eastern men moving back and forth throughout the cabin, or a "yellow
bellied" passenger (as described), it would be the latter. Most people in
the US who witness a crime wait until the crime has occurred before calling
the cops, rather than before, e.g. people "casing" a house prior to the
burglary, people walking into a store with a mask on, etc. These types are
usually seen prior to their crime but the "good" citizen who has witnessed
this behavior didn't want to embarrass anyone. So they shut up like the
sheep who are so critical here, and hoped for the best.
"bhanwara" <bhan...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:50fd4c57.04072...@posting.google.com...
NW_PILOT
losing our civil liberties and our rights that make us free! If every time
something happens and they remove one of our civil liberties and our rights
the terrorists have achieved their objective, instead of restricting our
freedoms every time something happens they should be giving us more freedoms
and more civil liberties while working on securing out borders from non
citizens. I am not saying put up a wall as I feel that would make us
prizioners of our own country.
The media says that a national ID system is wrong, well what the hell do you
think a birth certificate and passport is? As Americans we should have a way
to identify ourselves as such if we chouse to travel outside our country's
borders and not with early 1900's technology. We should not be hassled at
our own borders while re-entering our country of citizen ship. I don't mind
being hassled when entering someone else country I expect it.
As for airport security!!! I believe it should not be made a law or
regulation! I think that is like the helmet laws some states have a plain
violation of our rights to be stupid. A right that most people value. I
think that if the airlines really gave a dam about security they would make
it their own company policy's to have even more heightened security that
dose not discriminate & requires everyone follow the policy if they chouse
to go on that airline.
Airline / Passanger Terminal Security
Only permits carrying on of necessity/enteraiment items such as books,
laptops, diapers, bottles of milk, food, & medications ect but has to be in
a clear conatiner or a see through netted bag. (sounds like some policy
schools have)
Requires you to go through a metal detctor twice "schools require this for
our children"
Reqiures a pat down search "cop's do it prior to giving you a ride"
Requires Photo ID and must be displayed while beyond the security check
point "some of our childrens schools also require this and children will not
even be let on the school bus with out it being displayed"
Now the above is not law it is company policy you have the choice to fly or
not if you dont like it take a bus (except school bus in some areas) or a
train.
When the government makes airport security a law or regulation then it take
away our civil liberties and freedom's. If it is company's policy for
heightened security then it dose not. It give us Americans a choice to not
fly, take a bus, a train or a airline with less security.
This reply may get me flamed so it be! maby for spelling, punctuation, or
you just don't like what I have written. To the flamers I say go for it
flame away it don't bother me you have the right to do so and I have the
right not to read and respond to your replies and I will not.
This is all my opinion.
pantagruel
"NW_PILOT" <ste...@fqu2.com> wrote in message
news:uKqdnVC5aIe...@comcast.com...
> Terror is not in the skies! Terror to me is in our own goverment, we are
> losing our civil liberties and our rights that make us free! If every time
> something happens and they remove one of our civil liberties and our
rights
> the terrorists have achieved their objective, instead of restricting our
> freedoms every time something happens they should be giving us more
freedoms
> and more civil liberties while working on securing out borders from non
> citizens. I am not saying put up a wall as I feel that would make us
> prizioners of our own country.
Name one civil liberty you or anyone else in the US has lost. You can't ( or
at least honestly). Several groups, including the ACLU, has done studies and
cannot identify anyone who has. Besides under the Patriot Act anyone whose
civil liberties has been violated has the right to sue and no one has yet to
file a complaint.
Steve
>cannot identify anyone who has. Besides under the Patriot Act anyone whose
>civil liberties has been violated has the right to sue and no one has yet to
>file a complaint.
That means everyone has already filed a complaint. :)
Michael 182
"pantagruel" <showme...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2DVNc.1404$cK....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Several groups, including the ACLU, has done studies and
> cannot identify anyone who has.
Not sure they would agree with this:
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207
NW_PILOT
"pantagruel" <showme...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2DVNc.1404$cK....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
The right to remain silent!!!! now when a cop ask's you your name when
walking down the street minding your own business you have to tell him/her
or if you dont they will take you to jail. That's just wrong!!!! Around here
the police like to abuse power and harass people just walking down the
street. I used to never tell them my name when they used to play their games
but now I have to that just BS.
Bill Gamelson
>>walking down the street minding your own business you have to tell him/her
>>or if you dont they will take you to jail. That's just wrong!!!! Around
here
>>the police like to abuse power and harass people just walking down the
>>street. I used to never tell them my name when they used to play their
games
>>but now I have to that just BS.
I believe it is a law in most states that a person over the age of 18 must
carry a photo ID and if requested by a law enforcement officer that person
must show that photo ID. I really don't see the problem with this.
--
Kerry Said "If You Don't Believe In The U.N. ... Or You Don't Believe Saddam
Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn't Vote For Me."
(Ronald Brownstein, "On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd," Los
Angeles Times, 1/31/03)
Bill Denton
simply verbally refuse to identify yourself.
Obviously, you cannot be required to carry any sort of ID in the normal
course of your life.
"Bill Gamelson" <bill.g...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:GAWNc.6777$te2....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
Peter Gottlieb
"pantagruel" <showme...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2DVNc.1404$cK....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
I was prevented from flying for months and now have to cancel randomly due
to stadium or other TFRs; anotherwords, I have had my right to the use of
the airspace restricted or removed.
Traveling into and from NYC myself and others are now subject to search. A
neighbor's daughter was searched and busted because they found she had a
joint in her pocket. This violates the right to not be searched without
cause.
A fan website (one of the TV sci-fi series) was busted and the FBI acquired
all the financial records of the webmaster by using Patriot Act rules,
without even asking a judge. This shows that anyone, for any perceived
offense, can and will have provisions of the Patriot Act used against them.
Search and seizure without a court order is now allowed and practiced.
That's only off the top of my head.
I am not affiliated with the ALCU or any other group but as a citizen I am
most definitely concerned and this has my attention.
Peter
bhanwara
and do not help in any way -- they should not even
use their anxious heads to provide any suggestions.
If you are having heart surgery, would you prefer
anxious surgeons, or calm collected surgeons?
Would you want anxious surgeons thinking out
loud, and giving advice to the calm ones in their
jittery voices? Do you think such advice would
have any sense in it?
What would you like these anxious jittery surgeons to
be doing? I personally would prefer them to
tape their mouths shut, so they don't mess
up the calm collected folks. If they don't
have any of the right stuff in them, they have no
business making it unnecessarily dangerous for me.
(Of course, I would hope I do not have the
bad luck of encountering such anxious and
irresponsible surgeons, or fellow passengers
for that matter.)
Peter Gottlieb
"Bill Denton" <bdent...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41083959$0$2818$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
> IIRC, recent court rulings prohibit the police from taking any action if
you
> simply verbally refuse to identify yourself.
>
> Obviously, you cannot be required to carry any sort of ID in the normal
> course of your life.
>
The recent court case (IANAL and IIRC) set the precedent that you *do* have
to identify yourself and *do* have to carry ID (I don't think it has to be
photo ID though).
Halt! Vhere are your PAPERS?!?
Bill Denton
are not suspected of a crime) you are neither required to carry any sort of
ID or to identify yourself to any law enforcement officer.
"Peter Gottlieb" <ng-repl...@icq.net> wrote in message
news:O2XNc.15952$09.23...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Rich Carr
> In the US, as per the Supreme Court, under ordinary circumstances (i.e. you
> are not suspected of a crime) you are neither required to carry any sort of
> ID or to identify yourself to any law enforcement officer.
Have a cite for that? Contrary to your assertion, try a search on
"Supreme Court police identification privacy". Here's one hit:
Juliana L Holm
> Name one civil liberty you or anyone else in the US has lost. You can't ( or
> at least honestly). Several groups, including the ACLU, has done studies and
> cannot identify anyone who has. Besides under the Patriot Act anyone whose
> civil liberties has been violated has the right to sue and no one has yet to
> file a complaint.
Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
--
Julie
**********
Check out my Travel Pages (non-commercial) at
http://www.dragonsholm.org/travel.htm
Really Me
> "pantagruel" <showme...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2DVNc.1404$cK....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Name one civil liberty you or anyone else in the US has lost.
> Traveling into and from NYC myself and others are now subject to search. A
> neighbor's daughter was searched and busted because they found she had a
> joint in her pocket. This violates the right to not be searched without
> cause.
Why did she consent to the search with a joint in her pocket?
>
Really Me
Bill Denton wrote:
> In the US, as per the Supreme Court, under ordinary circumstances (i.e. you
> are not suspected of a crime) you are neither required to carry any sort of
> ID or to identify yourself to any law enforcement officer.
The most recent ruling said the police can ask you for ID and state law
can require you to carry ID.
Really Me
> In rec.travel.usa-canada pantagruel <showme...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Name one civil liberty you or anyone else in the US has lost. You can't ( or
>>at least honestly). Several groups, including the ACLU, has done studies and
>>cannot identify anyone who has. Besides under the Patriot Act anyone whose
>>civil liberties has been violated has the right to sue and no one has yet to
>>file a complaint.
>
>
> Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
>
The Supremes get to interpret this.
The Supremes recently rules that you can be forced to show ID.
WRE
their seats and headed for the lavatories. Say what? And the Air Marshals
and the flight attendants just sat there and watched? I don't care whether
these guys are white, black, Asian, Muslim, or whatever, you leave you seat
when the fasten seat belt light goes on...you get one warning and then you
are in deep doo-doo. The plane is making an emergency landing and you guys
are going to be fined/jailed. Resist going to your seat and I the pilot am
going to announce that all passengers put on their seat belts and the plane
is going to do some barrel rolls and then an emergency decent to the nearest
airport.
A few head bangs on the ceiling should make them think again..........
"bhanwara" <bhan...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:50fd4c57.04072...@posting.google.com...
Peter Gottlieb
> In the US, as per the Supreme Court, under ordinary circumstances (i.e.
you
> are not suspected of a crime) you are neither required to carry any sort
of
> ID or to identify yourself to any law enforcement officer.
>
Darn, can't find a really good reference, but here is mention of it:
http://www.newscentral.tv/uploads/franchise/point/point-20040707.shtml
Peter Gottlieb
"Really Me" <real...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:AeYNc.99451$Cy4....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
I don't know all the details. Perhaps she forgot it was there or felt they
were only looking for weapons/bombs. I was on a train where a few officers
demanded to search some guy (white, medium hair, not in suit) and when he
said no they arrested him; apparently when they want to search you, you
cannot say no.
Really Me
>
> Darn, can't find a really good reference, but here is mention of it:
>
> http://www.newscentral.tv/uploads/franchise/point/point-20040707.shtml
Yeah, what a shame.. If the police don't like the color of your skin,
then they can stop you when you are doing nothing wrong, and demand ID.
What's next "white only" drinking fountains and seating sections?
This is a giant step backwards.......
Roger Halstead
<bdent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In the US, as per the Supreme Court, under ordinary circumstances (i.e. you
>are not suspected of a crime) you are neither required to carry any sort of
>ID or to identify yourself to any law enforcement officer.
You sho nuff do! Well, only in part. You do not have to cary the ID,
but you are now required to identify yourself any time you are asked
by law enforcement.
US Supreme court rulling July 22nd. (Hiibel/Nevada)
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead
(remove nospam)> wrote:
>She states that as soon as the fasten seat belt light came on...the men left
>their seats and headed for the lavatories. Say what? And the Air Marshals
I've had to catch a connecting flight ("we got a runner") with no tome
to stop for the necessities. I mentioned this to the flight
attendant, she said, "go". The aisle was so steep I just braced my
legs and slid to the back. Man, what a relief.
OTOH, climbing out of Detroit a few years back, a passenger across the
aisle was obviously turning GREEN. She kept turning and looking over
her shoulder at the restroom. Finally she unbuckled and stepped into
the aisle. Again it was so steep she slid to the back. One stu opened
the door and the other pushed her in, fortunately is was soon enough.
All these rules are the main reason I will fly commercial only as a
last resort such as in the case of life and death. Mainly mine. I can
think of no other reason I'd currently get on a commercial flight.
When I get too old to fly myself I'll either drive or stay home.
bhanwara
> Given the situation under discussion - if I had to trust a handful of middle
> eastern men moving back and forth throughout the cabin, or a "yellow
> bellied" passenger (as described), it would be the latter. Most people in
That wasn't the point, though. You aren't being asked to
automatically trust a handful of middle eastern men (and in fact,
not all middle eastern men will even be visually obvious to you!)
You are simply being asked to be calm in a dangerous
situation, and not to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.
If you would trust a panic-mode cowardly passenger over
calm professional authorities who are exerting good
control over the situation -- and if you would do this
just because you need to feel hostile -- I would think
you have problems.
Juliana L Holm
> If you would trust a panic-mode cowardly passenger over
> calm professional authorities who are exerting good
> control over the situation -- and if you would do this
> just because you need to feel hostile -- I would think
> you have problems.
This story was in the news recently. There were a lot of concerned passengers,
and some difference between the various law enforcement folks as to whether
they handled this correctly and what they did wrong.
While clearly this situation was not out of control, it wasn't well coordinated,
and it bothers me that now, almost 3 years after 9/11/2001, we aren't better
coordinated with regard to threats in airplanes.
Julie
bhanwara
> She states that as soon as the fasten seat belt light came on...the men left
> their seats and headed for the lavatories. Say what? And the Air Marshals
> and the flight attendants just sat there and watched? I don't care whether
"on"?
This is not even plausible. Either the reporter saw things
that didn't happen (I think this is called hallucination,
probably could happen in extreme paranoia), or meant to
write "off" instead of "on" but thought "on" would make
better copy.
Btw, the Air Marshals would indeed sit there and watch
if this were to really happen, this would be a situation
that flight attendants routinely handle (stopping passengers
from going to the lavatories when the seat-belt sign is on.)
But "came on" is not the typical scenario, "was on" is
typical, when somebody forgets to notice the fasten
seat belt light is not yet turned off, or fails to
notice it has been turned on again because of turbulence.
Juliana L Holm
>> She states that as soon as the fasten seat belt light came on...the men left
>> their seats and headed for the lavatories. Say what? And the Air Marshals
>> and the flight attendants just sat there and watched? I don't care whether
> "on"?
> This is not even plausible. Either the reporter saw things
> that didn't happen (I think this is called hallucination,
> probably could happen in extreme paranoia), or meant to
> write "off" instead of "on" but thought "on" would make
> better copy.
This was reported by NPR last night, and it indeedhappened when the seatbelt
sign went on.
> Btw, the Air Marshals would indeed sit there and watch
> if this were to really happen, this would be a situation
> that flight attendants routinely handle (stopping passengers
> from going to the lavatories when the seat-belt sign is on.)
> But "came on" is not the typical scenario, "was on" is
> typical, when somebody forgets to notice the fasten
> seat belt light is not yet turned off, or fails to
> notice it has been turned on again because of turbulence.
Lansbury
nospam)> wrote:
>She states that as soon as the fasten seat belt light came on...the men left
>their seats and headed for the lavatories. Say what? And the Air Marshals
>and the flight attendants just sat there and watched?
That was the bit that convinced me it was at the best a highly exaggerated
story. I just do not believe either the cabin crew or sky marshals taking no
action at all.
-
Lansbury
www.uk-air.net
FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup
G.R. Patterson III
Really Me wrote:
>
> The most recent ruling said the police can ask you for ID and state law
> can require you to carry ID.
The Christian Science Monitor -
"In upholding his conviction and the mandatory identity-disclosure law, the majority
justices also said the law only requires that a suspect disclose his or her name,
rather than requiring production of a driver's license or other document."
George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.
Bill Denton
one...
Being required to identify yourself is not the same thing as being required
to produce some type of identity document.
A person that a police officer reasonably suspects of criminal activity does
not enjoy the same status as does an ordinary citizen who is simply going
about his/her business.
This was my original statement: "In the US, as per the Supreme Court, under
ordinary circumstances (i.e. you are not suspected of a crime) you are
neither required to carry any sort of ID or to identify yourself to any law
enforcement officer."
Here are the sources I'm presenting:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57604-2004Jun21.html and
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0622/p01s01-usju.html
Here's the law: "Nevada's law says that police may detain anyone "under
circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is
committing or is about to commit a crime," and that "any person so detained
shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other
inquiry.""
And here's the facts of the case: "The decision stems from the case of Larry
Hiibel, who was arrested in May 2000 after he refused a deputy sheriff's
repeated demand that he produce some form of identification.
The encounter took place at the side of a road in Humboldt County, Nev. The
deputy had received a report of a man striking a woman in a pickup truck.
When the deputy arrived at the scene, Mr. Hiibel was standing outside a
pickup truck that was parked on the shoulder of the road. His daughter was
sitting inside the truck.
The deputy asked Hiibel 11 times to produce identification. Hiibel
repeatedly refused, saying he'd done nothing wrong. The deputy placed him
under arrest in accord with a Nevada law that permits police to detain
criminal suspects for up to 60 minutes to compel them to identify
themselves.
Hiibel refused to comply."
Continuing: "He was charged and convicted of violating the mandatory
identity law, a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail. His
conviction was affirmed by a state appeals court and the Nevada Supreme
Court."
Some information from another story: "By a vote of 5 to 4, the court ruled
that Larry Dudley Hiibel's constitutional rights to be free of unreasonable
arrest and to remain silent were not violated when Deputy Lee Dove arrested
him for refusing to give his name after Dove stopped Hiibel and questioned
him near Winnemucca, Nev., on May 21, 2000."
Note that we are working from reporting here, as opposed to the actual legal
documents. I mention this so I may note that one account indicates the
deputy requested a driver's license; another indicates the deputy only
requested that Hiibel provide his name. The incident took place in or about
a motor vehicle on a public roadway, which probably led to an initial
request for a driver's license.
Here's an important point made by SCOTUS: "In upholding his conviction and
the mandatory identity-disclosure law, the majority justices also said the
law only requires that a suspect disclose his or her name, rather than
requiring production of a driver's license or other document." You only have
to give police your name; you do not have to produce any documents.
And the original law limited the scope of this power to: persons being
detained by police "under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the
person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime,"
So, all of this leads to the conclusion: ""In the US, as per the Supreme
Court, under ordinary circumstances (i.e. you are not suspected of a crime)
you are neither required to carry any sort of ID or to identify yourself to
any law enforcement officer."
Coincidentally, my original statement...
"Bill Denton" <bdent...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41083ed7$0$2817$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
Paul Sengupta
"Juliana L Holm" <jh...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote in message
news:ceau37$dv5l$1...@osf1.gmu.edu...
> In rec.travel.usa-canada bhanwara <bhan...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > "WRE" <bob...@nospam.fmtc.net (remove nospam)> wrote in message
news:<ce9l8h$5q4d$1...@news3.infoave.net>...
> >> She states that as soon as the fasten seat belt light came on...the men
left
> >> their seats and headed for the lavatories. Say what? And the Air
Marshals
> >> and the flight attendants just sat there and watched? I don't care
whether
>
> > "on"?
>
> > This is not even plausible. Either the reporter saw things
> > that didn't happen (I think this is called hallucination,
> > probably could happen in extreme paranoia), or meant to
> > write "off" instead of "on" but thought "on" would make
> > better copy.
>
> This was reported by NPR last night, and it indeedhappened when the
seatbelt
> sign went on.
Natural reaction on most flights. People waiting patiently in their
seats for the toilets to become free, maybe crossing their legs.
As soon as the seat belt light comes on during the descent, it's
"ok, got to rush to the toilet now or I won't get another chance
for maybe half an hour".
Paul
CLK
Look Chicken Little, quit playing "what if" games and deal with reality.
Tell us when you have been stopped by the police for no reason and have had
your rights abused. Please specify which "right" you lost during the
exchange. Let's just deal with reality not "maybe this could happen." So
childish.
"Really Me" <real...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h_YNc.99463$hY4....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
Paul Sengupta
news:ce9l8h$5q4d$1...@news3.infoave.net...
> going to announce that all passengers put on their seat belts and the
plane
> is going to do some barrel rolls and then an emergency decent to the
nearest
> airport.
>
> A few head bangs on the ceiling should make them think again..........
Just to be pedantic, a properly executed barrel roll should be
in positive-g all the way round, so no one would hit their head
on the ceiling.
Another take on the seat belt sign thing, airlines from the US
often put their seat belt signs on far too often and for far too long
at any one time. Any hint of turbulence and on they go. It's usually
different for airlines from other parts of the world.
The US airlines are afraid of legal action should anyone claim
they've hurt themselves even in light turbulence, so for legal reasons
the seatbelt signs go on when in actual fact it's unnecessary. If
people then choose to move about, they can't sue.
Paul
Dick Locke
This is the part of the story that is both most frightening and least
plausible. Notice she said the FA s were belted in and then seven men
used two lavatories for an average of four minutes each. That would
mean they were belted in 16 minutes prior to landing and felt it was
too risky to stand up and do something. Unless flying through
extremely bumpy air (rare in LA) this doesn't happen.
james_anatidae
Very well said. (reposted to alt.best.of.internet)
--
"I'll find Fry's coffin, get his corpse and keep it under my mattress to
remind me that he's really dead. That'll prove I'm not insane!"
Goliath & Wildwing's Storage Room
http://anatidae.homestead.com/
jenn
>>>The right to remain silent!!!! now when a cop ask's you your name when
>>>walking down the street minding your own business you have to tell him/her
>>>or if you dont they will take you to jail. That's just wrong!!!! Around
>
> here
>
>>>the police like to abuse power and harass people just walking down the
>>>street. I used to never tell them my name when they used to play their
>
> games
>
>>>but now I have to that just BS.
>
>
> I believe it is a law in most states that a person over the age of 18 must
> carry a photo ID and if requested by a law enforcement officer that person
> must show that photo ID. I really don't see the problem with this.
>
>
you are confusing the US with some authoritarian state somewhere --
until the recent SC ruling [by the most lawless corrupt court in
history] identifying yourself to authority was not required
now police can harrass with impunity
jenn
> In the US, as per the Supreme Court, under ordinary circumstances (i.e. you
> are not suspected of a crime) you are neither required to carry any sort of
> ID or to identify yourself to any law enforcement officer.
until recently overturned by the SC
jenn
> She states that as soon as the fasten seat belt light came on...the men left
> their seats and headed for the lavatories. Say what? And the Air Marshals
> and the flight attendants just sat there and watched? I don't care whether
> these guys are white, black, Asian, Muslim, or whatever, you leave you seat
> when the fasten seat belt light goes on...you get one warning and then you
> are in deep doo-doo. The plane is making an emergency landing and you guys
> are going to be fined/jailed. Resist going to your seat and I the pilot am
> going to announce that all passengers put on their seat belts and the plane
> is going to do some barrel rolls and then an emergency decent to the nearest
> airport.
>
> A few head bangs on the ceiling should make them think again..........
I have not been on a flight in years when the fasten seat belt signs
EVER went off -- I just doubt this story. If this had happened the way
she described then our bullying FAs would have insisted these people be
seated. I have been on numerous flights where people have been ushered
back to their seats near the end of the flight. This whole story is
very fishy.
Steven P. McNicoll
"jenn" <je...@hmplce.com> wrote in message
news:ceb8s0$1s4$9...@news.vanderbilt.edu...
> Bill Denton wrote:
>
> > In the US, as per the Supreme Court, under ordinary circumstances (i.e.
you
> > are not suspected of a crime) you are neither required to carry any sort
of
> > ID or to identify yourself to any law enforcement officer.
>
> until recently overturned by the SC
>
So if you're arrested for refusing to identify yourself to police, must the
police then advise you of your right to remain silent?
Bill Denton
"Steven P. McNicoll" <ronca...@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5_9Oc.19458$iK.1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> That was actually referenced in one of the dissents...
>
What was the response?
Darryl
> In the US, as per the Supreme Court, under ordinary circumstances (i.e. you
> are not suspected of a crime) you are neither required to carry any sort of
> ID or to identify yourself to any law enforcement officer.
Others have said it, but it bears repeating:
In the US, as per the RECENT Supreme Court ruling, under ordinary
circumstances, you are REQUIRED to identify yourself at the request of
a law enforcement officer. Failure to provide your name is grounds
for arrest. Providing a false name is grounds for arrest.
The fact that small but long-standing rights are being removed by
court rulings, yet people continue to parrot what they were taught in
their highschool "Law & You" classes indicates WHY these rights are
being removed so effectively without clamor.
chip...chip...chip....
Bill Denton
B. You DO NOT have to identify yourself UNLESS the police reasonably believe
you committed, are committing or are about to commit a crime,
C. You do not have to identify yourself under any circumstances unless you
live in a state where a law exists requiring you to do so.
You may be correct about rights being removed, but that's a different
subject. And on this subject, it appears you don't have the slightest idea
what you are talking about.
You can find the Supreme Courts opinion here:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/21june20041210/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-5554.pdf
"Darryl" <Dar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:470400ed.04072...@posting.google.com...
phantom
wrote:
>This is a comment about the following URL:
>
>http://womenswallstreet.com/WWS/article_landing.aspx?titleid=1&articleid=711
>
>which has been showing up in a lot of the ngs, including the one's
>listed here.
>
>To begin with, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck,
>and quacks like a duck, the possibility that it's a duck
>does need to be investigated.
>
>That having said, it's not clear exactly what Ms. Jacobsen
>is complaining about.
I'll tell you what she's complaining about since your'e too fucking
stupid to see it:
That we are sacrificing political correctness for security.
>
>It seems like the situation was handled extremely well
>and professionally. Why should one paranoid cowardly
>journalist be expected to have control over the situation,
>and not the professionals?
Where did she wanted that?
>
>The Air Marshals travel incognito, as normal passengers.
>That's a big asset they have. Should they all have
>revealed themselves immediately and blown their
Who said they should have?
>cover, to save Ms. Jacobsen from getting paranoid?
She wasn't paranoid. She was reacting to real events that were going
on around her. These events were confirmed by others.
Was the whole fucking plane nuts, too?
>
>The air hostess went so far as to reveal the presence
>of Air Marshals to Ms. Jacobsen as a personal person-to-person
>favor. She mentioned this would put her career in danger.
>And what does Ms. Jacobsen do? She broadcasts
>this information all over the place, trying to make sure
>the air hostess's career encounters some turbulence.
>Just because the poor air hostess felt bad about
>Ms. Jacobsen's distress and wanted her to feel
>a little bit better.
>
>Ms. Jacobsen's publishing this "confidential" information
>was either the act of a very selfish journalist
>or a paranoid coward.
It was the act of a person sharing an experience she had and in my
case one I very much wanted to hear about.
I also wrote letters to ALL my government officials as well as Norman
Mineta calling for his resignation.
>
>What would she have preferred? That anybody
>she finds personally suspicious be taken into custody
>immediately?
No, idiot. That policies are changed so that what should be common
sense isn't replaced by ACLU-like horseshit.
>
>Or should all the passengers be encouraged to
>take things in their own hands immediately
>when they see anything suspicious?
What article did you read? She never suggested that.
>
>Or should journalists do all "screening"? How
Another suggestion you're tossing in the mouth of the author?
>exactly does Ms. Jacobsen know no attention
>was paid by authorities to these suspicious
>individuals. In fact, she investigated and
>found the suspicious individuals were investigated
>by FBI and other agencies. So what makes
>her think the situation was ignored? Why
>does she feel compelled to add stupid
>suggestions of her own?
Name them.
>
>The authorities know that reckless profiling
>will only increase the alienation, besides
I could give a fuck less how many Muslims are alienated. If they
don't like it - get the fuck OUT and when you get back to your country
of origin, start pumping two into the back of the heads of everyone
who seeks to harm the country you were just tossed out of and
obviously loved living in or you wouldn't have been here to begin
with.
Start cleaning up your own fucking mess.
>setting bad precedents and doing little good.
>Just because it will make little Ms. Jacobsen
>feel better, doesn't mean it IS a better
>way to control things.
Islamic fucking CRAP propaganda.
>
>Air travel is bad enough, and there are many
>yellow-bellied cowards who are being forced to
>take flights for various reason, and therefore who
>create a very tense environment in air travel. The
It's the Muslims on board that flight that created the tension.
I really hope - honestly - that if this kind of thing happens again -
that one of these allah-dick-sucking-fucks gets his goddamn head blown
the fuck off.
I'd LOVE to sit on that jury and LAUGH at his family as I acquit the
Federal Air Marshall.
>cowardlies are very much on edge -- there are people traveling
>who feel extremely threatened and look red-faced and ready to
>blow-up for so much as a child exclaiming while looking out the
>window "Look, the wing is dipping" in the middle of a turn.
>[Making one want to tap them on the shoulder
>and explain, "Look Mr. Coward, it's normal
>for a wing to dip when turning, the terrorists are
>not taking over. Try looking out the window of
>an airplane, flying can be fun."]
>
>This is the time to listen to brave people, and
>not to the cowards.
This is time we should start deporting Islamic fucks out of OUR
country.
We'll get there. After Osama's next attack I'm sure US citizens will
have had enough out of the pieces of shit like those who were on
Jacobsons jet.
Fuck 'em.
They deserve all that's coming to 'em.
>
>Irresponsible journalists like Ms. Jacobsen
>should not be enocouraged to further worsen
>the situation. If she did it just for publication,
>it was a very selfish thing, not a helpful thing.
>The information she published was confidential.
>Her "sources" had not given permission, and
What sources you stupid fuck?
>in fact had clearly indicated they wanted the
>information to be kept confidential. She
>displayed a total lack of journalistic ethics,
>as did her publisher.
You're out of your fucking mind you terrorist supporting scumbag piece
of shit.
>
>If she ignored journalistic ethics not from
>selfishness but from cowardice and panic, it
>is even more important to stop her from
>spreading her cowardice and panic.
Go back into the fucking HOLE you came out of scumbag.
You're propaganda is taken for what it is:
SHIT.
Exactly like what's between your ears.
Go suck allahs dick - let muhammad pump a nice load up your ass and
you'll feel better in no time.
Bill Pittman
phantom <phantom@the_opera.com> wrote:
> I'll tell you what she's complaining about since your'e too fucking
> stupid to see it:
>
> That we are sacrificing political correctness for security.
No, I don't think that's what YOU think she's saying. Then we would end
up with security, and NOT with PC.
Get your words straight. Then perhaps you will be able to communicate.
--
Bill Pittman; change for e-mail as indicated
aaronw
wrote:
>This is a comment about the following URL:
>
>http://womenswallstreet.com/WWS/article_landing.aspx?titleid=1&articleid=711
FYI:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/skyterror.asp
aw
gatt
> B. You DO NOT have to identify yourself UNLESS the police reasonably
believe
> you committed, are committing or are about to commit a crime,
Nevertheless, in many communities if you do not present photo ID on demand
you will be detained. If you're in a vehicle, that makes it subject to
towing (or roadside vandalism). Once you go through the administrative
nonsense and they let you go, or the case is thrown out, they've already
demolished whatever immediate plans you had.
Never been a problem to me. If a cop asks for my ID, I show it to 'em and if
I don't have it, I tell them so.
> C. You do not have to identify yourself under any circumstances unless you
> live in a state where a law exists requiring you to do so.
VERY significant. You have to know the law for the particular state you're
in.
-c
Casey Wilson
"phantom" <phantom@the_opera.com> wrote in message
news:1rgig0tpa5moa4fhj...@4ax.com...
> I'll tell you what she's complaining about since your'e too f*****g
> stupid to see it:
<<<< multiple expletives deleted >>>>>>>>
> You're out of your f*****g mind you terrorist supporting scumbag piece
> of s**t.
>
My 11-year-old grandaughter wants to know if everybody on the aviation
newsgroups talks as dirty as you.
Do you have children? Do you use this kind of language in front of
them? ... in normal public conversations? Don't bother to reply, to me
anyway, you've graduated to my kill file.
gatt
"Really Me" <real...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:AeYNc.99451
< >This violates the right to not be searched without cause.
Some friends of mine had their vehicle searched because there was an Altoids
can on the dash. Probable cause. So, according to the officer that
searched them and found nothing, is Visine. If you have allergies or bad
breath and your remedy is visible outside the vehicle, they can search you.
If you're busted, however, there are lawyers who can get you off the hook
easily.
> Why did she consent to the search with a joint in her pocket?
In Oregon, the cop is as likely to throw it away or put in his pocket as he
is to bust you for it. This happened to the daughter of a friend of mine
( her boyfriend, actually, but she was in the car with him.)
-c
Max Mustermann
"Really Me" (Michael Voight of Cisco) is a troll. He's been doing this for more
than 10 years. He can't help himself, it's the only thing he knows how to do.
Just LART his ass, forward every single one of his mindless idiotic troll posts
to his employer:
About rogue Cisco employee and netkook/troll/usenet flooder
Michael Voight, alias "Really Me", "mrtravel", "mrtravelkay", etc.
Currently posting as Really Me <real...@gmail.com>.
His work e-mail address is <mvo...@cisco.com>.
Michael D. Voight
111 Bean Creek Rd, No. 118
Scotts Valley, CA 95066-4148
(831) 438-2485
mrtr...@sbcglobal.net .
He is pedophile Gary Burnore's partner in crime. Gary Burnore is a convicted
sex offender/child molester and the biggest kook in the history of the net.
The idiot works for Cisco in their Scotts Valley, California
Technical Assistance Center (TAC) and apparently they don't
keep him busy enough so he has to troll usenet newsgroups all day long from
work.
He's been trolling,harassing posters, and flooding newsgroups for over 10 years.
***WARNING: THIS IDIOT HAS BEEN CAUGHT FORGING PEOPLE'S IDENTITIES ON USENET
AND CANCELLING THEIR POSTS.***
If you are one of his victims, or are simply fed up with his trolling/newsgroup
flooding, forward his posts to ab...@cisco.com .
He works in technical support, so forward them to t...@cisco.com too.
See further below for more Cisco contact information.
He often posts through sbcglobal and prodigy, so forward them to
ab...@prodigy.net and ab...@sbcglobal.net as well.
His main hangout is alt.visa.us.marriage-based, a sleazy newsgroup where
foreigners wanting to immigrate to the US hook up with losers like Voight who
are willing to marry them for money so they can get their green card. Voight is
a pro at this, handing out daily advice on how to be a sleazoid like him and
sell green cards.
When he isn't giving out advice on how to commit federal crimes on
alt.visa.us.marriage-based he is usually on rec.travel.air flooding that
newsgroup with trolls and harassing posters and picking retarded fights with the
regular posters there.
He also tends to post a lot in the personals and penpals newsgroups as well as
the support groups for fat people, lonely folks, and for depression. Obviously
after his Russian Internet brides get their green cards they flee, leaving him
lonely and desperate for company. Maybe that's why he keeps a P.O. Box at the
post office, so he can get his personals mail there:
Voight, Michael
P.O. Box 67016,
Scotts Valley, CA 95067
(408) 461-8707
He also seems to frequent the teenage newsgroups. Creepy.....
The idiot is a two-time high school dropout and had to join the Marines because
even the Army rejected him!
He's got a daughter in Orange County that one of his ex-wives had the
intelligence to take away from him. Lord only knows what could have
happened to her if she had continued to live with the kook. The other kids he
has belong to his previous Russian sleazy brides, and since they come and go so
do the kids. It wouldn't hurt to let Cisco know what kind of deviant sexual
pervert they have working for them.
Many people have wondered how Cisco ever hired such a psycho. It cheapens their
image and credibility in the corporate world after all. Well, they didn't hire
him directly, he came as baggage when they acquired the company he used to work
for, TGV Software. His e-mail address there used to be <mvo...@tgv.com>.
All intelligent members of the usenet community have killfiled him, so he takes
great pains to get past their killfiles by rubbing his only two cerebral neurons
together and coming up with gems like: mrtrav <mrt...@mtr.mrt.trm>, mrtrav3
<mr...@aa.aa>, mrraveltay <mrrav...@me.igpay.atinlay>, and mrtravelkay
<mrtra...@a.aa>, and mtravelkay <a....@aaa.aaa> and <""a.a\"@a,a,a>.
Some of his other trolling aliases are Network Guy,
<starryst...@sbcglobal.net>, sleepydoc <slee...@verizon.net>, jlhunt
<jlh...@huntbros.com>, and Lost 5 of 8 <se...@loveme.fun>, mrt <m...@mrt.com>,
news.sf.sbcglobal.net <no...@none.none>, not-nomen
<no...@none.none>,<uclais...@ucla.edd>, David Tanner
<dtann...@dtanner.org>, Jeff Davies <te...@test.test>, BobTheBuilder
<no...@build.me.an.ark>, Bill Clarkj <bi...@billclarkpresents.com>, and nonomen
(notn...@notnomen.ed.ca). Lately he's had some gender confusion and has been
posting as women, most recently as JerseyGirl <jerse...@hotmail.com> and
Kathy Stoltz <kathy...@hotmail.com> the latest. Perhaps he's thinking of
getting a sex change.
It would be a good idea to call Cisco at 1-800-553-2447 and ask to speak with a
supervisor and explain that you are EXTREMELY unhappy that this idiot spends his
whole day at work playing on the internet on company time. THEY WILL NOT LIKE
THAT.
Then write to corporate headquarters explaining what this idiot is doing and
telling them HOW BAD IT IS FOR THEIR COMPANY IMAGE. They will LOVE that you
brought this to their attention:
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Then also call them. You should always follow up email or letters with phone
calls. Always ask for supervisors or managers. Try to get as far up as
possible.
(408)526-4000
(800)553-NETS or
(800)553-6387
Contact Investor Relations and tell them you are interested in investing in
their company but won't do so until they get rid of this asshole who is wasting
company resources:
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Investor Relations Department
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134-1706
Phone: (408) 526-8890
Fax: (408) 526-4545
Email: investor-...@cisco.com
Might as well contact customer service too, they LOVE to hear about this type of
stuff:
USA 1 800 553 6387
ic-sup...@cisco.com
cs-sup...@cisco.com
Then finally, send letters with copies of his nasty posts addressed
personally to each one of the OFFICERS of the company using the
headquarters address. Believe me, they READ your complaints and
are VERY INTERESTED in them, especially if it's about one of their employees.
They will take a PERSONAL interest in rooting this ASSHOLE out of their company:
John Morgridge, Chairman
Phone: (408) 526-8229
Fax: (408) 526-4100
morg...@cisco.com
John Chambers, President, CEO
Phone: (408) 526-8222
Fax: (408) 526-4100
cham...@cisco.com
Larry Carter, CFO, Sr. VP-Fin. and Admin., Sec., Director
Phone: (408) 526-8211
Fax: (408) 526-4100
Email: lca...@cisco.com
Richard Justice, Sr. VP, Worldwide Field Operations
Phone: (408) 527-7371
Fax: (408) 526-4100
Email: jus...@cisco.com
Brad Boston,Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer
Phone: (408) 526-7008
Fax: (408) 526-8220
Email: bbo...@cisco.com
Susan Lori Bostrom
Senior Vice President, Internet Business Solutions Group
Phone: (408) 527-5648
Fax: (408) 526-4100
Email: sbos...@cisco.com
Howard S. Charney
Senior Vice President, Office of the President
Phone: (408) 526-8300
Fax: (408) 526-4100
Email: cha...@cisco.com
Kate DCamp
Senior Vice President, Human Resources
Phone: (408) 527-9530
Fax: (408) 526-4100
Email: kdc...@cisco.com
Gail Morales
Manager, Human Resources, Employment
Phone: (408) 527-6654
Fax: (408) 526-4100
Email: gmor...@cisco.com
Peggy Lynch
Employee Benefits
Phone: (408) 526-8859
Fax: (408) 527-6080
Email: ply...@cisco.com
Mario Mazzola
Senior Vice President and Chief Development Officer
Phone: (408) 526-5535
Fax: (408) 526-4100
Email: maz...@cisco.com
Betsy Rafael
Vice President and Corporate Controller
Phone: (408) 525-0164
Fax: (408) 526-4100
Email: bra...@cisco.com
Claudia Ceniceros
Manager, Public Relations
Phone: (408) 525-4700
Fax: (408) 526-4100
Email: ccen...@cisco.com
Write, call, and fax:
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, California 95134-1706, USA
Phone: (408) 526-4000
Fax: (408) 526-4100
(800)553-NETS = (800)553-6387
Have fun!
Really Me
> CLK <c...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"What's next "white only" drinking fountains and seating sections?"
>>
>>Look Chicken Little, quit playing "what if" games and deal with reality.
>>Tell us when you have been stopped by the police for no reason and have had
>>your rights abused. Please specify which "right" you lost during the
>>exchange. Let's just deal with reality not "maybe this could happen." So
>>childish.
>>
>>
>>"Really Me" <real...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:h_YNc.99463$hY4....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>Peter Gottlieb wrote:
>>>
>>>>Darn, can't find a really good reference, but here is mention of it:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.newscentral.tv/uploads/franchise/point/point-20040707.shtml
>>>
>>>Yeah, what a shame.. If the police don't like the color of your skin,
>>>then they can stop you when you are doing nothing wrong, and demand ID.
>>>
>>>What's next "white only" drinking fountains and seating sections?
>>>This is a giant step backwards.......
>
>
> "Really Me" (Michael Voight of Cisco) is a troll. He's been doing this for more
> than 10 years. He can't help himself, it's the only thing he knows how to do.
> Just LART his ass, forward every single one of his mindless idiotic troll posts
> to his employer:
I don't know who this Voight guy is, nor what is meant by LART, but is
really sounds like you want people to harass him and/or his employer for
me making posts at 3 AM. Did he email you from work or something at the
same time, so you think this was him using up his employer's bandwidth.
if so, then I don't envy him working at that time. I just got back to
Marin after spending a few days in Oregon visiting my grandchildren.
I notice that your punk ass is hiding behind an anonymous remailer, and
possibly multiple hops through remailers at that. You sound like the
person that needs a life. After all, his comments appeared to be
germaine, and in direct response to the conversation. Your comments, on
the other hand, were not.
Oh, by the way, FUCK YOU.!!
Peter Gottlieb
But...
Any and all circumstances turn into "suspicion" at the will of the police
officer;
Any unlawful activity gets the full use of laws intended to deal with the
most heinous terrorism;
In practice police are demanding ID and not just an answer.
And more.
I support the police - they are essential and it is a tough, all-consuming
and at times very depressing job. However, they are their own worse enemy
at times. I have been witness to some eggregious police behavior and as a
citizen there is nothing that can be done. Even reformers on the inside
have at times met with bad results.
There will be no easy "solution," but it is clear there must be better forms
of checks-and-balances than presently exist.
"Bill Denton" <bdent...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41090c53$0$2848$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
phantom
wrote:
>
>"phantom" <phantom@the_opera.com> wrote in message
>news:1rgig0tpa5moa4fhj...@4ax.com...
>
>> I'll tell you what she's complaining about since your'e too f*****g
>> stupid to see it:
>
> <<<< multiple expletives deleted >>>>>>>>
>
>> You're out of your f*****g mind you terrorist supporting scumbag piece
>> of s**t.
>>
>
> My 11-year-old grandaughter wants to know if everybody on the aviation
>newsgroups talks as dirty as you.
Usenet is NOT an appropriate place for an 11 year old you stupid fuck.
If reading my post was your first clue to that, you're parental skills
need a major overhaul.
And yeah, I write exactly the way I talk at times. And sometimes it
includes a few "fucks" and "motherfuckers".
Especially when I read Islamic propaganda like the SHIT I just posted
about.
phantom
<wpittma...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>In article <1rgig0tpa5moa4fhj...@4ax.com>,
> phantom <phantom@the_opera.com> wrote:
>
>> I'll tell you what she's complaining about since your'e too fucking
>> stupid to see it:
>>
>> That we are sacrificing political correctness for security.
>
>No, I don't think that's what YOU think she's saying. Then we would end
>up with security, and NOT with PC.
>
>Get your words straight. Then perhaps you will be able to communicate.
I stand corrected. I misplaced the words.
Tom Sixkiller
"Steven P. McNicoll" <ronca...@nospamearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5_9Oc.19458$iK.1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
What if you're a mime?
BTW, LIH, "Identify yourself to police" means give then name, address, and
DOB", it does not mean "Let me see your papers".
Cub Driver
wrote:
>Usenet is NOT an appropriate place for an 11 year old you stupid fuck.
Plonk!
(Wouldn't you know that the potty-mouth is posting under the sobriquet
of "phantom"? I wonder how old he is, twelve?)
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: war...@mailblocks.com (put Cubdriver in subject line)
The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com
Bob Noel
war...@mailblocks.com wrote:
> Plonk!
>
> (Wouldn't you know that the potty-mouth is posting under the sobriquet
> of "phantom"? I wonder how old he is, twelve?)
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: war...@mailblocks.com (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com
something else to filter on besides the poster's name is crossposts.
For example, replying to posts with such groups as
talk.politics.mideast and alt.politics.bush is sure to
bring out valuable contributers who have difficulty spelling
various four-letter words.
--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.
David Megginson
> Usenet is NOT an appropriate place for an 11 year old you stupid f[...]
Let's end this thread, people:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/F/Formosas-Law.html
(I've killed the cross post to gazillions of non rec.aviation newsgroups --
they can deal with this one on their own.)
All the best,
David
Unknown
>going to announce that all passengers put on their seat belts and the plane
>is going to do some barrel rolls and then an emergency decent to the nearest
>airport.
A 65 year old lady fumbling for her seat belt to tighten it accidently
unbuckles it. Your barrel roll fractures her skull. The terrorists?
Indian accountants.. Your ass? Fired The lawsuit? Her Grandkids go to
Yale. Overreacting to a dumbass on a plane, priceless!
bhanwara
[...]
This guy is a perfect example of a very-scared person,
foul-mouthing all over. Someone pointed out to Mr. phantom
the case of an 11-year old grand-daughter reading the
aviation newsgroup, wanting Mr. "phantom" to try to keep
a bit civil. Futile effort to shame Mr. "phantom" into
anything -- mr. "phantom" simply exploded with more
foul-mouthing. As per him, 11-year olds shouldn't read
newsgroups, even one's expected to be civil (unlike, say,
a political newsgroups.)
It's a cause for concern if Mr. phantom forces himself to do
any actual aviation. I strongly doubt Mr. phantom
would be able to keep his head if he finds the
plan in an accidental stall with no instructor nearby.
He would probably foul-mouth more about Osama bin Laden
and the lib dems causing the plane to fly funny, put it
into a spin, and then have no idea what to do...
Though with any luck, the postings from Mr. phantom
into aviation newsgroups have nothing to do
with his knowing anything about aviation...
But there are a lot of people as scared as Mr. phantom,
and it's about time the direction of this changed.
Scared people take foolish actions -- as the autorities
pointed out Ms. Jacobsen was a danger to the
entire flight because of her paranoia. If instead
of hamrless musicians doing normal things (well,
not necessarily normal as per "oh no! they ate food!
oh look, they went to the restroom! Look, they are
talking!" Ms. Jacobsen) real terrorists were on the
plane, the last thing needed was a paranoid passenger
on the plane, creating general panic and stopping
anybody from handling the situation.
Bill Pittman
phantom <phantom@the_opera.com> wrote:
Since you're pretty good at misplacing words yourself, I don't think you
have any brief to call others "too fucking stupid".
Tom Sixkiller
"Cub Driver" <war...@mailblocks.com> wrote in message
news:v68kg0t1pal4kjrip...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 23:19:34 -0400, phantom <phantom@the_opera.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Usenet is NOT an appropriate place for an 11 year old you stupid fuck.
>
> Plonk!
>
> (Wouldn't you know that the potty-mouth is posting under the sobriquet
> of "phantom"? I wonder how old he is, twelve?)
>
That's pushing it, Dan.
bhanwara
>
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/skyterror.asp
In addition, there are some other interesting things:
The middle eastern men were talking Arabic all the
time, but then only time when they wanted to "mouth" something
instead of talking, was to "mouth" the English word "NO"!
They could easily have said "no" in Arabic, or at least have
mouthed it in Arabic!
So that doesn't sound like astute observation at all.
It sounds like paranoid hysyteria.
Given the level of paranoia, the "he didn't smile
back at me" makes perfect sense. Would you smile
back at somebody who has been giving you suspicious
glances all the time, and then paints a smile at
her face on top of all the terror written underneath?
Most people would find it insulting to see the terror
despite a friendly interaction a few minutes ago,
and a patently false smile would be even more insulting.
The whole purpose of the "friendly smile" was to
check out her suspicions. How could she expect
it to look real? Does she imagine she is a very
high quality actress? Or does she imagine people
are all morons that they can't tell actual friendly
smiles from totally fake ones?.
C J Campbell
network as are car bombers and charitable fronts. All of them are needed to
promote the goals of the terrorists. They do their work quite well.
AC
spout more of the uber-liberal 60s free love psychology that allowed 9/11 to
happen.
Not everyone is your brother, there are a lot of people who are living as
your brothers, but are just waiting for you to drop your guard. Call me
paranoid, or deal with the evidence that abounds, and always did. You
obviously haven't been affected directly by them, yet... Hence the
asbestos-coloured glasses.
M. de St. Darwin
> On 28 Jul 2004 07:33:01 -0700, bhan...@netscape.net (bhanwara)
> wrote:
[--]
>> That having said, it's not clear exactly what Ms. Jacobsen
>> is complaining about.
>
> I'll tell you what she's complaining about since your'e too fucking
> stupid to see it:
>
> That we are sacrificing political correctness for security.
Many in Al Anbar (Fallujah, Ramadi, etc.) think US forces are a menace to
security.
So they go and kill them, even if it isn't politically correct.
They also choose security.
The difference here, however, is that they are doing it in their own land.
[--]
> Go suck allahs dick - let muhammad pump a nice load up your ass and
> you'll feel better in no time.
You're a very derranged person... But you're funny, actually. :)
--
-darwin-
"I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent people. We're winning the
war."
-- Gen. Wodjakowski to Gen. Karpinski, referring to Abu Graib
Brian Burger
> Resist going to your seat and I the pilot am
> >going to announce that all passengers put on their seat belts and the plane
> >is going to do some barrel rolls and then an emergency decent to the nearest
> >airport.
"For every problem, there is one solution which is simple, neat and
wrong." - H. L. Mencken
> A 65 year old lady fumbling for her seat belt to tighten it accidently
> unbuckles it. Your barrel roll fractures her skull. The terrorists?
> Indian accountants.. Your ass? Fired The lawsuit? Her Grandkids go to
> Yale. Overreacting to a dumbass on a plane, priceless!
Where would we be without those Mastercard commercials to rip off, anyway?
:)
Brian.
Tom Sixkiller
"Gary L. Burnore" <gbur...@databasix.com> wrote in message
news:cees4a$hfj$9...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:20:16 GMT, "AC" <q...@dewy.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Cool, when you want to make a farce of the security status quo, why not
> >spout more of the uber-liberal 60s free love psychology that allowed 9/11
to
> >happen.
>
>
> Maybe YOU don't mind giving up more of YOUR rights, but those of us
> with a brain think otherwise.
Now there's a leap!
> You want that kind of security, move to
> israel.
And you want...what?
Tom Sixkiller
"M. de St. Darwin" <darwin...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:opsbzafanxf3mi31@paulo...
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 14:56:10 -0400, phantom <phantom@the_opera.com> wrote:
>
> > On 28 Jul 2004 07:33:01 -0700, bhan...@netscape.net (bhanwara)
> > wrote:
>
> [--]
> >> That having said, it's not clear exactly what Ms. Jacobsen
> >> is complaining about.
> >
> > I'll tell you what she's complaining about since your'e too fucking
> > stupid to see it:
> >
> > That we are sacrificing political correctness for security.
>
> Many in Al Anbar (Fallujah, Ramadi, etc.) think US forces are a menace to
> security.
> So they go and kill them, even if it isn't politically correct.
> They also choose security.
> The difference here, however, is that they are doing it in their own land.
That's got to be the most brain dead post this week.
Using their land as a "Safe House" from which (let's use the left's "Law
Enforcement analogy here) to commit their criminal activity...
The Left...it beats actually thinking. (Hell, the left claims that thought
is impotent).
Doc_Remington
> Bill Gamelson wrote:
>
> >>>The right to remain silent!!!! now when a cop ask's you your name when
> >>>walking down the street minding your own business you have to tell him/her
> >>>or if you dont they will take you to jail. That's just wrong!!!! Around
> >
> > here
> >
> >>>the police like to abuse power and harass people just walking down the
> >>>street. I used to never tell them my name when they used to play their
> >
> > games
> >
> >>>but now I have to that just BS.
> >
> >
> > I believe it is a law in most states that a person over the age of 18 must
> > carry a photo ID and if requested by a law enforcement officer that person
> > must show that photo ID. I really don't see the problem with this.
>
> you are confusing the US with some authoritarian state somewhere --
> until the recent SC ruling [by the most lawless corrupt court in
> history] identifying yourself to authority was not required
>
> now police can harrass with impunity
Moving fast to the USSR mandatory passport IDeing system aided by the
electronic age.
james_anatidae
news:65a6222620a1f106...@remail.amessage.info...
> CLK <c...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
<Same old crap deleted>
Goodbye yet again! <PLONK!!!!!!!!!>
james_anatidae
news:zOjOc.99$7g7....@news.uswest.net...
> > So if you're arrested for refusing to identify yourself to police, must
> the
> > police then advise you of your right to remain silent?
>
and
> DOB", it does not mean "Let me see your papers".
>
OFF>
james_anatidae
news:g4dOc.20451$PK5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> My 11-year-old grandaughter wants to know if everybody on the aviation
> newsgroups talks as dirty as you.
I'm sorry about the rest of replies posted by the people here. You really
shouldn't let anybody under 15 or so on USENET, as the people who posted
intelligent things here are 95% gone. What's left is the offal, and I've
seen far more sick and disturbing posts from them than the one you read,
believe me. USENET as a forum for serious discussion is in the grave right
now and is just waiting to be buried.
As to the people who are going to post nasty replies, I really don't care
anymore.
bhanwara
and Ms. Jacobsen's fellow travelers were indeed involved
with anti-American forces. Here is a picture where
the leader of these particular Syrians (the one with
dark glasses sitting in first class) is clearly seen with a lady
who was partly responsible for a collective insanity that put 1 out
of 33 Americans in jail
http://www.nationalreview.com/images/pic_taylor_20040721a.jpg
The other gent in the picture was also known to invent fictional tales
not unlike Ms. Jacobsen's, e.g. a particular lady driving a cadillac.
(Perhaps he in fact saw a lady driving a cadillac, and just
like Ms. Jacobsen jumping to the "terrorist" conclusion,
automatically jumped to the "welfare" conclusion.
Maybe it was a pink cadillac he saw on MTV.)
Peter Gottlieb
"bhanwara" <bhan...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:50fd4c57.04080...@posting.google.com...
Max Mustermann
harrassmet / newsgroup flooding, sock puppetting now as Really Me
<real...@gmail.com> kooked:
>Max Mustermann wrote:
>> CLK <c...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"What's next "white only" drinking fountains and seating sections?"
>>>
>>>Look Chicken Little, quit playing "what if" games and deal with reality.
>>>Tell us when you have been stopped by the police for no reason and have had
>>>your rights abused. Please specify which "right" you lost during the
>>>exchange. Let's just deal with reality not "maybe this could happen." So
>>>childish.
>>>
>>>
>>>"Really Me" <real...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:h_YNc.99463$hY4....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>>Peter Gottlieb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Darn, can't find a really good reference, but here is mention of it:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.newscentral.tv/uploads/franchise/point/point-20040707.shtml
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, what a shame.. If the police don't like the color of your skin,
>>>>then they can stop you when you are doing nothing wrong, and demand ID.
>>>>
>>>>What's next "white only" drinking fountains and seating sections?
>>>>This is a giant step backwards.......
>>
>>
>> "Really Me" (Michael Voight of Cisco) is a troll. He's been doing this for
>> more
>> than 10 years. He can't help himself, it's the only thing he knows how to
>> do.
>> Just LART his ass, forward every single one of his mindless idiotic troll
>> posts
>> to his employer:
>
>I don't know who this Voight guy is, nor what is meant by LART, but is
>really sounds like you want people to harass him and/or his employer for
>me making posts at 3 AM. Did he email you from work or something at the
>same time, so you think this was him using up his employer's bandwidth.
>if so, then I don't envy him working at that time. I just got back to
>Marin after spending a few days in Oregon visiting my grandchildren.
Idiot.
You forget a month ago you were impersonating a woman named Kathy Stoltz
claiming to be a mother of three living in Phoenix. What a short memory you
have. But then that is true of most trolls.
Idiot.
After the last (incredibly stupid) stunts you pulled I told you I will forward
every single thing you post from now on to your employer. And now you're back
with the same old shit. Some people are gluttons for punishment.
>Oh, by the way, FUCK YOU.!!
Thanks. This will make a great addition to your (rapidly expanding) HR file at
Cisco.
-----------------------------------------
About rogue Cisco employee and netkook/troll/usenet flooder
Michael Voight, alias "Really Me", "mrtravel", "mrtravelkay", etc.
Currently posting as Really Me <real...@gmail.com>.
His work e-mail address is <mvo...@cisco.com>.
Michael D. Voight
111 Bean Creek Rd, No. 118
Scotts Valley, CA 95066-4148
(831) 438-2485
mrtr...@sbcglobal.net .
He is pedophile Gary Burnore's partner in crime. Gary Burnore is a convicted
sex offender/child molester and the biggest kook in the history of the net.
The idiot works for Cisco in their Scotts Valley, California
Technical Assistance Center (TAC) and apparently they don't
keep him busy enough so he has to troll usenet newsgroups all day long from
work.
He's been trolling,harassing posters, and flooding newsgroups for over 10 years.
***WARNING: THIS IDIOT HAS BEEN CAUGHT FORGING PEOPLE'S IDENTITIES ON USENET
AND CANCELLING THEIR POSTS.***
If you are one of his victims, or are simply fed up with his trolling/newsgroup
flooding, forward his posts to ab...@cisco.com .
He works in technical support, so forward them to t...@cisco.com too.
See further below for more Cisco contact information.
He often posts through sbcglobal and prodigy, so forward them to
ab...@prodigy.net and ab...@sbcglobal.net as well.
His main hangout is alt.visa.us.marriage-based, a sleazy newsgroup where
foreigners wanting to immigrate to the US hook up with losers like Voight who
are willing to marry them for money so they can get their green card. Voight is
a pro at this, handing out daily advice on how to be a sleazoid like him and
sell green cards.
When he isn't giving out advice on how to commit federal crimes on
alt.visa.us.marriage-based he is usually on rec.travel.air flooding that
newsgroup with trolls and harassing posters and picking retarded fights with the
regular posters there.
He also tends to post a lot in the personals and penpals newsgroups as well as
the support groups for fat people, lonely folks, and for depression. Obviously
after his Russian Internet brides get their green cards they flee, leaving him
lonely and desperate for company. Maybe that's why he keeps a P.O. Box at the
post office, so he can get his personals mail there:
Voight, Michael
P.O. Box 67016,
Scotts Valley, CA 95067
(408) 461-8707
He also seems to frequent the teenage newsgroups. Creepy.....
The idiot is a two-time high school dropout and had to join the Marines because
even the Army rejected him!
He's got a daughter in Orange County that one of his ex-wives had the
intelligence to take away from him. Lord only knows what could have
happened to her if she had continued to live with the kook. The other kids he
has belong to his previous Russian sleazy brides, and since they come and go so
do the kids. It wouldn't hurt to let Cisco know what kind of deviant sexual
pervert they have working for them.
Many people have wondered how Cisco ever hired such a psycho. It cheapens their
image and credibility in the corporate world after all. Well, they didn't hire
him directly, he came as baggage when they acquired the company he used to work
for, TGV Software. His e-mail address there used to be <mvo...@tgv.com>.
All intelligent members of the usenet community have killfiled him, so he takes
great pains to get past their killfiles by rubbing his only two cerebral neurons
together and coming up with gems like: mrtrav <mrt...@mtr.mrt.trm>, mrtrav3
<mr...@aa.aa>, mrraveltay <mrrav...@me.igpay.atinlay>, and mrtravelkay
<mrtra...@a.aa>, and mtravelkay <a....@aaa.aaa> and <""a.a\"@a,a,a>.
Some of his other trolling aliases are Network Guy,
<starryst...@sbcglobal.net>, sleepydoc <slee...@verizon.net>, jlhunt
<jlh...@huntbros.com>, and Lost 5 of 8 <se...@loveme.fun>, mrt <m...@mrt.com>,
news.sf.sbcglobal.net <no...@none.none>, not-nomen
<no...@none.none>,<uclais...@ucla.edd>, David Tanner
<dtann...@dtanner.org>, Jeff Davies <te...@test.test>, BobTheBuilder
<no...@build.me.an.ark>, Bill Clarkj <bi...@billclarkpresents.com>, and nonomen
(notn...@notnomen.ed.ca). Lately he's had some gender confusion and has been
posting as women, most recently as JerseyGirl <jerse...@hotmail.com> and
Kathy Stoltz <kathy...@hotmail.com> the latest. Perhaps he's thinking of
getting a sex change.
It would be a good idea to call Cisco at 1-800-553-2447 and ask to speak with a
supervisor and explain that you are EXTREMELY unhappy that this idiot spends his
whole day at work playing on the internet on company time. THEY WILL NOT LIKE
THAT.
Then write to corporate headquarters explaining what this idiot is doing and
telling them HOW BAD IT IS FOR THEIR COMPANY IMAGE. They will LOVE that you
brought this to their attention:
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Then also call them. You should always follow up email or letters with phone
calls. Always ask for supervisors or managers. Try to get as far up as
possible.
(408)526-4000
(800)553-NETS or
(800)553-6387
Contact Investor Relations and tell them you are interested in investing in
their company but won't do so until they get rid of this asshole who is wasting
company resources:
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Investor Relations Department
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134-1706
Phone: (408) 526-8890
Fax: (408) 526-4545
Email: investor-...@cisco.com
Might as well contact customer service too, they LOVE to hear about this type of
stuff:
USA 1 800 553 6387
ic-sup...@cisco.com
cs-sup...@cisco.com
Then finally, send letters with copies of his nasty posts addressed
personally to each one of the OFFICERS of the company using the
headquarters address. Believe me, they READ your complaints and
are VERY INTERESTED in them, especially if it's about one of their employees.
They will take a PERSONAL interest in rooting this ASSHOLE out of their company:
John Morgridge, Chairman
Phone: (408) 526-8229
Fax: (408) 526-4100
morg...@cisco.com
John Chambers, President, CEO
Phone: (408) 526-8222
Fax: (408) 526-4100
cham...@cisco.com
Larry Carter, CFO, Sr. VP-Fin. and Admin., Sec., Director
Phone: (408) 526-8211
Fax: (408) 526-4100
Email: lca...@cisco.com
Richard Justice, Sr. VP, Worldwide Field Operations
Phone: (408) 527-7371
Fax: (408) 526-4100
Email: jus...@cisco.com
Brad Boston,Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer
Phone: (408) 526-7008
Fax: (408) 526-8220
Email: bbo...@cisco.com
Susan Lori Bostrom
Senior Vice President, Internet Business Solutions Group
Phone: (408) 527-5648
Fax: (408) 526-4100
Email: sbos...@cisco.com
Howard S. Charney
Senior Vice President, Office of the President
Phone: (408) 526-8300
Fax: (408) 526-4100
Email: cha...@cisco.com
Kate DCamp
Senior Vice President, Human Resources
Phone: (408) 527-9530
Fax: (408) 526-4100
Email: kdc...@cisco.com
Gail Morales
Manager, Human Resources, Employment
Phone: (408) 527-6654
Fax: (408) 526-4100
Email: gmor...@cisco.com
Peggy Lynch
Employee Benefits
Phone: (408) 526-8859
Fax: (408) 527-6080
Email: ply...@cisco.com
Mario Mazzola
Senior Vice President and Chief Development Officer
Phone: (408) 526-5535
Fax: (408) 526-4100
Email: maz...@cisco.com
Betsy Rafael
Vice President and Corporate Controller
Phone: (408) 525-0164
Fax: (408) 526-4100
Email: bra...@cisco.com
Claudia Ceniceros
Manager, Public Relations
Phone: (408) 525-4700
Fax: (408) 526-4100
Email: ccen...@cisco.com
Write, call, and fax:
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, California 95134-1706, USA
Phone: (408) 526-4000
Fax: (408) 526-4100
(800)553-NETS = (800)553-6387
Have fun!
Max Mustermann
>On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 21:12:21 +0200, Max Mustermann
><anon...@remail.amessage.info> wrote:
>
>>Micha
>
>Hey [SMACK!]
Shut up, pedophile. Convicted sex offending pedophile cowards have
not right to speak.
From NC Convicted Sex Offender Registry
GARY LEE BURNORE
4201 BLAND ROAD APT J
RALEIGH NC 27609
TELEPHONE (919) 420-7691
Offense and Conviction Information:
Conviction Date: 03-13-1997
NC Statute: 14-202.1 - INDECENT LIBERTY MINOR
Sentence Imposed: PROBATION 3Y
Court County: SANTA CLARA, CA
NC sex offender registry number: (SRN 001693S3)
Registration Status: Registered
Possible Violations: None Reported
BURNORE,GARY LEE
Alias Names:
BURNORE,GARY LEE
Photo Date: 08-27-1997
SRN: 001693S3
Reported Date: 12-16-1997 Address Verified: NO
Street: 4201 BLAND ROAD APT J
City: RALEIGH State: NC Zip: 27609 County: WAKE
Race: W Sex: M Height: 5'08" Weight: 170 LBS. Hair: BRO Eyes: BLU
Birth Date(s): 10-13-1957
Scars, marks, tattoos:
State ID #: FBI #: Dept. Corr. #:
Contact County: WAKE Registration Date: 08-27-1997
Conviction Date: 03-13-1997 Release Date:
Court County: - SANTA CLARA, CA
Reported Date: 08-27-1997 Address Verified: NO
Street: 4201 BLAND ROAD
City: RALEIGH State: NC Zip: 27609 County: WAKE
Max Mustermann
>On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:20:16 GMT, "AC" <q...@dewy.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Cool, when you want to make a farce of the security status quo, why not
>>spout more of the uber-liberal 60s free love psychology that allowed 9/11 to
>>happen.
>
>Oh [SLAP!]
Shut up, pedophile. Convicted pedophiles have no right to speak.
NS
of communication.
During the past 10 years the newsgroups' content and quality of
"usership" has gone down to trashy style it is today. Furthermore,
the "membership" of users has been closed to the majority of the
public via various censorship measures taken by the few companies
(such as Supernews et al.) that now monopolize the newsgroups world.
But then, that's life: There's birth, maturity, and death. The USENET
entity is close to the death stage (actually it might have already died
and what we're seeing today is the few decaying remains that haven't
been burried yet, for lack of burial procedures on the net.)
NS
"james_anatidae" <parshal...@citcom.net> wrote in message
news:cefldu$9aro$3...@news3.infoave.net...
Larry Dighera
<3CePc.12973$wC3.9934@okepread07>::
>The USENET entity is close to the death stage
The imminent death of usenet has been predicted as long as I can
remember being aware of usenet, around 1984. Fortunately, because
there is no central usenet authority, it is difficult to kill it. As
long as news administrators are willing to dedicate the resources to
it, it will endure.
It was the influx of AOL and then At Home newbies sometime around 1993
or so that seemed to presage usenet's diminishing signal to noise
ratio. But, the pilots who post in this newsgroup by and large seem
to attempt sincere assistance and relevant communication with their
fellows, unlike some of the other newsgroups.
If anything will deliver a staggering blow to usenet, it is the sheer
volume of binary traffic that currently comprises over 90% if its
volume. When I first started relaying the news in 1984 at 2400 baud,
the volume was 1 to 2 megabytes daily. Today it's in the hundreds of
gigabytes IINM.
Andrew Gideon
> It was the influx of AOL and then At Home newbies sometime around 1993
> or so that seemed to presage usenet's diminishing signal to noise
> ratio.
The "never ending September", or some such. If I recall correctly,
Compuserve was the first of the kiddie services to connect.
> But, the pilots who post in this newsgroup by and large seem
> to attempt sincere assistance and relevant communication with their
> fellows, unlike some of the other newsgroups.
Some of the technical groups remain usable as well.
> If anything will deliver a staggering blow to usenet, it is the sheer
> volume of binary traffic that currently comprises over 90% if its
> volume. When I first started relaying the news in 1984 at 2400 baud,
> the volume was 1 to 2 megabytes daily. Today it's in the hundreds of
> gigabytes IINM.
It's pretty steadily remained a disk-full, then <grin>?
- Andrew
C J Campbell
> news:g4dOc.20451$PK5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> > My 11-year-old grandaughter wants to know if everybody on the aviation
> > newsgroups talks as dirty as you.
>
> I'm sorry about the rest of replies posted by the people here. You really
> shouldn't let anybody under 15 or so on USENET, as the people who posted
> intelligent things here are 95% gone.
You are fine as long as you stay away from the political and religious
groups, as well as those devoted to controversial things like homosexuality
or Boy Scouts.
Most of us would prefer that people who post on political groups not
crosspost into the aviation groups.
Richard Steiner
>True. Years ago the USENET newsgroups were an excellent form
>of communication.
I've not seen that much difference in the comp.* groups over the past
decade, to be honest. We have the same trolls now as we had then...
>During the past 10 years the newsgroups' content and quality of
>"usership" has gone down to trashy style it is today.
Keep in mind that it only takes a single user with time on their hands
to trash a newsgroup, and that much of the disruption we see here is
actually being done by a dozen or two people at most, mainly in threads
which are heavily crossposted.
>Furthermore, the "membership" of users has been closed to the majority
>of the public via various censorship measures taken by the few companies
>(such as Supernews et al.) that now monopolize the newsgroups world.
Huh? All of the ISPs I'm aware of locally (including TimeWarner's RR)
make USENET available to their users. It isn't always reliable in some
of those cases, but it's hardly being monopolized.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Eden Prairie, MN
OS/2 + eCS + Linux + Win95 + DOS + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
Applications analyst/designer/developer (14 yrs) seeking employment.
See web site above for resume/CV and background.
Paul Tomblin
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> It was the influx of AOL and then At Home newbies sometime around 1993
>> or so that seemed to presage usenet's diminishing signal to noise
>> ratio.
>
>The "never ending September", or some such. If I recall correctly,
>Compuserve was the first of the kiddie services to connect.
# sepdate
Mon Sep 3989 07:48:19 EDT 1993
Today is the 3989th day of the September that never ended.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I assume HR did send out the ad I wanted, not "apply for a cool job if
you're a clueless fuck".
-- The Flying Hamster, on the receiving end of too many CVs
bhanwara
> Hey dude, Michael Moore is waiting for your call...
Just kidding, I thought the picture would further
calm down the too-easily-scared, and so I put a link
along with some (what I thought were) funny-ish comments!
Flatch U. Lance
Why is it that so many people with the middle name "Lee" seem to be
such horrific scumbags?
Peter Gottlieb
"bhanwara" <bhan...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:50fd4c57.04080...@posting.google.com...
Belinda Knows
>On 2 Aug 2004 09:27:16 -0700, Flatch_...@yahoo.com (Flatch U.
>Why is it that people afraid to post with their own names trust
>remailers and info not listed on an OFFICIAL site?
Oh really, is that why you took out alt.usenet.kooks from your
followup, where people know the TRUTH about you..........????
Poor cowardly pedophile, ashamed of his past.
Where was your shame when your were violating the law (and a minor)?
Not to mention that the girl was the daughter of the woman you were
seeing at the time. What a disgusting lowly piece of shit you are,
cheating on your girlfriend with her underage daughter!
NS
"Richard Steiner" <rste...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:GkdDBpHp...@visi.com...
> Here in rec.travel.air, "NS" <Nort...@Tsion.com> spake unto us, saying:
>
> >True. Years ago the USENET newsgroups were an excellent form
> >of communication.
>
> I've not seen that much difference in the comp.* groups over the past
> decade, to be honest. We have the same trolls now as we had then...
The last 10 years have been fairly bad years because we've seen
continous degradation in the quality of the newsgroups' content.
We are comparing the quality of the last 10 years with that of
the period between pre-1980s and 1992 or so -- the difference is
enormous in the quality of posts as well as the quality of posters.
>
> >During the past 10 years the newsgroups' content and quality of
> >"usership" has gone down to trashy style it is today.
>
> Keep in mind that it only takes a single user with time on their hands
> to trash a newsgroup, and that much of the disruption we see here is
> actually being done by a dozen or two people at most, mainly in threads
> which are heavily crossposted.
That's the risk we take. In a free (speech?) society what one person calls
"trash" another calls "news" or "data" of a different nature. It's not the
spammers that cause "trash" but the censoring entities that do. It's an
indirect result of deciding for everyone else "who" can use the groups
and "who" shall not be allowed to use the groups. It's a long process
(many years) and is therefore hard to track.
>
> >Furthermore, the "membership" of users has been closed to the majority
> >of the public via various censorship measures taken by the few companies
> >(such as Supernews et al.) that now monopolize the newsgroups world.
>
> Huh? All of the ISPs I'm aware of locally (including TimeWarner's RR)
> make USENET available to their users. It isn't always reliable in some
> of those cases, but it's hardly being monopolized.
There's an important element the poster is skipping. Many of the newer
ISPs (created during the past 10 years or so) have opted to use specific
newsgroup feeds (like Supernews, for example.) When those feeds
decide to censor particular groups or persons, they don't give the ISPs
any say in the matter -- they turn off the connection to that group or
person and there's nothing the ISP can do about it except protest (so
what?) . That's censorship -- one entity deciding who can go and who
can stay, and it is NOT the ISP. As we've said before USENET is
practically dead, for many reasons -- it did it to itself.