You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   28-52   53-77   78-102   103-127   128-152   153-177   178-202 
 203-227   228-252   253-277   278-302   303-327   328-335     
 
Author Message
25 new of 335 responses total.
pthomas
response 53 of 335: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 19:29 UTC 2001

51: The MCL has no such requirement. You can be sure that one among the
numerous attorneys on M-Net would have discovered it when we started
having out-of-state directors.
jp2
response 54 of 335: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 19:30 UTC 2001

This response has been erased.

pthomas
response 55 of 335: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 19:31 UTC 2001

Besides, there doesn't seem to be much concern here when it comes to the
Berne Convention.
jp2
response 56 of 335: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 19:33 UTC 2001

This response has been erased.

tfbjr
response 57 of 335: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 19:39 UTC 2001

Did your campaign manager suggest you use the "pompous asshole" tactic?

Admit to being a troll and nothing more significant than that.

I'm going to become a paying member tonight so I can vote against you.
pthomas
response 58 of 335: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 19:40 UTC 2001

Just make sure you mail in that identification!
krj
response 59 of 335: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 19:41 UTC 2001

I love the flip-flop Jamie has done on the DMCA.  A year or so ago
he was into civil disobedience against it, when he posted the DeCSS
code on M-net; now he cites it as his authority when he uses his
back-door root powers to suppress an item in M-net's General conference
which portrays him in an unflattering light.

Let me repeat that for long-time Grexers, just in case you didn't 
get it the first time.

Jamie used his back-door root powers to quash an item in the M-net
conference.  This wasn't ancient history; it was last month.
jp2
response 60 of 335: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 19:41 UTC 2001

This response has been erased.

krj
response 61 of 335: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 19:42 UTC 2001

(er, "...an item in the M-net General conference.")
jp2
response 62 of 335: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 19:45 UTC 2001

This response has been erased.

tfbjr
response 63 of 335: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 20:15 UTC 2001

Again... you are an asshole.

This brings up the topic of speakerphones.  I have now called you an asshole
twice.  See how easy it is to be abrasive in this kind of disconnected
environment.

In person, I *probably* would have only said it once.  


But my expression would have been enough to cover the remainder of my attacks.
Much more efficient.
jp2
response 64 of 335: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 20:37 UTC 2001

This response has been erased.

tfbjr
response 65 of 335: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 20:47 UTC 2001

Hey... I spend my time and energy to point out your personal 
shortcomings so that you can become a better person.

Now, to pause the flame war...

I don't believe you are serious about your candidacy, so I don't see 
why you get angry when I have some fun with you.  The 
miscellaneous "shitdick" comments scream your tongue-in-cheek attitude 
toward being elected.

A candidate should be prepared for mudslinging in this day and age, but 
you provide your own mud.  

Calling me an asshole shows a lack of public relations etiquette not to 
mention a hot-headed attitude that makes you unlikely to be able to 
handle pressure.

I can call you an asshole in a public forum becuase I'm not a candidate.

Asshole.
glenda
response 66 of 335: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 20:48 UTC 2001

The only way you can help making Grexing a better experience is to go crawl
back under your rock.
edina
response 67 of 335: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 20:52 UTC 2001

Heheheh.  How quickly grex flares to Jamie.
jp2
response 68 of 335: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 21:22 UTC 2001

This response has been erased.

pthomas
response 69 of 335: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 21:23 UTC 2001

Grex has policies that directly violate Federal and international
law, and that open it to a lawsuit that could result in the dissolution
of the company...are you sure your money would be well-spent?

As a matter of fact, I would ask whether the current regime is "serious"
when they continue to support policies which they have been told by people
much more knowledgable about copyright law than I are illegal.
krj
response 70 of 335: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 21:47 UTC 2001

So, Jamie and Phil, you see it as the place of the board to override 
a membership vote?
jp2
response 71 of 335: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 21:53 UTC 2001

This response has been erased.

tfbjr
response 72 of 335: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 22:00 UTC 2001

re #68:  It should be clear that I'm not questioning legitimacy.  I'm 
questioning your ability.
senna
response 73 of 335: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 22:00 UTC 2001

Jamie is not saying the same things as Phil.  I wonder if Phil knows any of
the board members...
jp2
response 74 of 335: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 22:04 UTC 2001

This response has been erased.

jp2
response 75 of 335: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 22:17 UTC 2001

This response has been erased.

jp2
response 76 of 335: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 22:19 UTC 2001

This response has been erased.

pthomas
response 77 of 335: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 22:28 UTC 2001

Well, whatever they're serious about, it obviously isn't the law.

Is this a "principled stand" against capitalistic copyright laws that the 
Board is undertaking?
 0-24   25-49   28-52   53-77   78-102   103-127   128-152   153-177   178-202 
 203-227   228-252   253-277   278-302   303-327   328-335     
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss