Re: notifying particular thread to wake up.

On Oct 24, 1:56 am, nebulou...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Oct 21, 3:25 am, Owen Jacobson <angrybald...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 20, 8:54 pm, nebulou...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Oct 18, 2:51 pm, Owen Jacobson <angrybald...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip BS]

nor been able to cite a specific law or policy that people are violating
by making and sharing their educated [sic] guesses

I recall at least one Supreme Court case, but I don't have a cite
handy.

Find it and cite it, or admit that you're are lying.

No and no.

What? You thought you were in charge here? Heh -- funny. Sorry to
break it to you d00d but nope, you're not.[0]

Oh, not at all. I didn't expect you to follow through in the first
place. That doesn't stop me from offering you a chance, however
hostilely and bluntly.

Your refusal to cite *any* law or provide *any* case reference to
where someone was arrested, fined, or in any way censured, or to do
anything else that would let someone verify your statements, for
engaging in insults or for correlating publicly-available information
on usenet does, however, demonstrate that you actually have no idea if
it's illegal or against anyone's rules besides your own. You *think*
people are breaking the law, and you quite fervently believe it, but
you can't actually substantiate a single one of your "warnings". This
pattern repeats itself throughout your posts: beliefs, framed as
facts, posted without any verification or support whatsoever, followed
by months of defensive snivelling when someone calls you on it.

And, while nobody can actually stop you from saying you'll get the law
involved, since you can't even begin to tell anyone what law and they
might be breaking in any concrete way, nobody is going to take your
"warnings" seriously.

Frankly, if you weren't so harmless and amusing, I'd be quite tired of
you by now. Incompetence isn't half as much fun without your unique
derangement.

[0] The irony! The sheer, unmitigated hubris!

.

Relevant Pages

  • RE: Legality of blue tooth hacking
    ... "Any act that which information is obtained withOUT the owner's consent is breaking the law or violating the terms of employment. ... IMHO, it was an illegal act and in doing so, the security practice director should be removed from his position and summarily terminated, but since I guess the company he works for condoned his behavior, they stated "he is so smart" and allowed him to continue his presentation. ...
    (Pen-Test)
  • Re: The Goddess Can Write!
    ... Clinton ignored all warnings about Bin Laden which led to the death ... The Supreme Court issued an order prohibiting former President Clinton from arguing a case before the Supreme Court. ... And it succeeded only because Arkansas had already suspended him from practicing law for five years. ... THE CASE FOR BUSH ADMINISTRATION ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE OF 9-11 ATTACKS ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Damn Im Good!
    ... Not walk, Steve, run like the cowardly troll you are: ... I have argued that Bush is guilty of breaking the law; ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Damn Im Good!
    ... Not walk, Steve, run like the cowardly troll you are: ... I have argued that Bush is guilty of breaking the law; ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT Asshole sighting
    ... He IS breaking American law with the wiretaps. ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)