"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:vnr6llq0oc1273@corp.supernews.com... If you use the trespass model as a valid basis to view the DNCL, which, after all, is the one we're debating, then the inconsistency which you now admit exists points to the fact that the DNCL is faulty, not the trespass laws.

You can if you want. But if you admit the DNCL is faulty, then why are you
disagreeing with the judge for blocking it?
My reason for not letting someone use my stuff doesn't matter. It's my stuff and I have the right to control who uses it.

Good for you.

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:vnr6rhuo6j337@corp.supernews.com... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:yOKcnUVdjsgoBOCiXTWJkA@comcast.com... "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:vnr4sg5ngpug2b@corp.supernews.com... get involved. Well? What's the significant government interest if someone trespasses on my property? Why have you never answered that one? Because the answer is obvious if you look up trespass laws. There are
laws against trespass. The government decided that a long time ago. But I
still have no idea why you keep wanting to discuss trespass since it's irrelevant to the DNC list. Because you're not that smart. But you've still avoided the question.
You keep making the case that the government must have a significant interest
in a law. That's why you say that the government would never enact a law
which prevents others from using my phone. So I'm challenging your assertion.
If you're right, then you must be able to describe the governments'
significant interest in trespass. Why don't you answer that one? It's the
underpinning of your argument.

I have answered that. The "use" of your phone, as you seem to think others
calling you are using your phone and their phone at the same time, is what
the law refers to as de minimus use. The use is so insignificant as to not
be important. If you think there should be a law against someone "using"
your phone by calling you, I suggest you try to get one enacted as there is
no such law now.

Real trespass is so obviously different I would think a two year old could
understand it. But all of which has zero to do with the DNC list as it has
nothing to do with anyone "using" your phone. Although how they could use
your phone at the same time you use your phone escapes me. Maybe you have
one of those new multi-tasking phones.

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

"Morely 'spam is theft' Dotes" <MorelyDotes@spamblocked.com> wrote in
message news:Xns94095EC976876MorelyDotesspamblock@216.99.2 11.247... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in news:ldmdnUd_YoRsi-CiU- KYiQ@comcast.com: It's still to insignificant for the government to be concerned with and there is no law that addresses it. When did we start discussing spam in NANAE? I thought this was an argument about the national DNC list.

We weren't. Someone seems to think that someone calling you on the phone is
trespassing on your property.

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:__adnSdcEpjNO-CiU-KYjA@comcast.com... "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:vnr6llq0oc1273@corp.supernews.com... If you use the trespass model as a valid basis to view the DNCL, which, after all, is the one we're debating, then the inconsistency
which you now admit exists points to the fact that the DNCL is faulty, not the trespass laws. You can if you want. But if you admit the DNCL is faulty, then why are you disagreeing with the judge for blocking it?

My position is this. The sum total of the DNCL could have been better
worded, the FTC's argument was weak, and the judge wrongly decided the case.
Now that we're here however, the FTC, with congress if need be, should
modify the rule and/or enabling legislation to make the focus of it be that
the consumer retains the right to decide who uses his stuff.
My reason for not letting someone use my stuff doesn't matter. It's my stuff and I have the right to control who uses it. Good for you.

I'll take that as a concession.

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:79-cncgYN5fDOuCiU-KYhA@comcast.com... "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:vnr6rhuo6j337@corp.supernews.com... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:yOKcnUVdjsgoBOCiXTWJkA@comcast.com... "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:vnr4sg5ngpug2b@corp.supernews.com... > get involved. Well? What's the significant government interest if someone > trespasses on my property? Why have you never answered that one? > Because the answer is obvious if you look up trespass laws. There are laws against trespass. The government decided that a long time ago. But I still have no idea why you keep wanting to discuss trespass since it's irrelevant to the DNC list. Because you're not that smart. But you've still avoided the question. You keep making the case that the government must have a significant
interest in a law. That's why you say that the government would never enact a law which prevents others from using my phone. So I'm challenging your assertion. If you're right, then you must be able to describe the governments' significant interest in trespass. Why don't you answer that one? It's the underpinning of your argument. I have answered that. The "use" of your phone, as you seem to think others calling you are using your phone and their phone at the same time, is what the law refers to as de minimus use. The use is so insignificant as to not be important. If you think there should be a law against someone "using" your phone by calling you, I suggest you try to get one enacted as there
is no such law now.

Try again. Why is someone trespassing on my property so significant that
the government has a role? It's your assertion, you should be able to
defend it.
Real trespass is so obviously different I would think a two year old could understand it. But all of which has zero to do with the DNC list as it has nothing to do with anyone "using" your phone. Although how they could use your phone at the same time you use your phone escapes me. Maybe you have one of those new multi-tasking phones.


Your assertion was that the government had to have a significant interest in
getting involved. I'm simply asking you to demonstate that if this is so
universal as to be applied to the DNCL, you should be able to demonstrate
the application of this principle in other situations (i.e., trespass). Can
you or can you not?

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:Pd6cnSGqVIIXOuCiU-KYhA@comcast.com... "Morely 'spam is theft' Dotes" <MorelyDotes@spamblocked.com> wrote in message news:Xns94095EC976876MorelyDotesspamblock@216.99.2 11.247... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in news:ldmdnUd_YoRsi-CiU- KYiQ@comcast.com: It's still to insignificant for the government to be concerned with
and there is no law that addresses it. When did we start discussing spam in NANAE? I thought this was an
argument about the national DNC list. We weren't. Someone seems to think that someone calling you on the phone
is trespassing on your property.

You really are pretty thick aren't you. I've told you explicitly that I
believe no such thing but that I'm using the situation of trespass to
demonstrate an application of the law. For you to keep asserting to the
contrary is purposeful stupidity. You can't defend your position so the sum
total of your response is, as Vinny Barberrino would say, "whaaa". Good
luck with that. You've gotten very good at it.

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:vnra7pagkt6eb3@corp.supernews.com... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:__adnSdcEpjNO-CiU-KYjA@comcast.com... "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:vnr6llq0oc1273@corp.supernews.com... If you use the trespass model as a valid basis to view the DNCL, which, after all, is the one we're debating, then the inconsistency which you now admit exists points to the fact that the DNCL is faulty, not
the trespass laws. You can if you want. But if you admit the DNCL is faulty, then why are
you disagreeing with the judge for blocking it? My position is this. The sum total of the DNCL could have been better worded, the FTC's argument was weak, and the judge wrongly decided the
case. Now that we're here however, the FTC, with congress if need be, should modify the rule and/or enabling legislation to make the focus of it be
that the consumer retains the right to decide who uses his stuff. My reason for not letting someone use my stuff doesn't matter. It's
my stuff and I have the right to control who uses it. Good for you. I'll take that as a concession.

I concede that your stuff is your stuff. Nothing else.

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:vnrafs4p6abad3@corp.supernews.com... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:79-cncgYN5fDOuCiU-KYhA@comcast.com... "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:vnr6rhuo6j337@corp.supernews.com... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:yOKcnUVdjsgoBOCiXTWJkA@comcast.com... > "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message > news:vnr4sg5ngpug2b@corp.supernews.com... > > get involved. Well? What's the significant government interest
if > someone > > trespasses on my property? Why have you never answered that one? > > > > Because the answer is obvious if you look up trespass laws. There
are laws > against trespass. The government decided that a long time ago. But I still > have no idea why you keep wanting to discuss trespass since it's irrelevant > to the DNC list. Because you're not that smart. But you've still avoided the question. You keep making the case that the government must have a significant interest in a law. That's why you say that the government would never enact a law which prevents others from using my phone. So I'm challenging your
assertion. If you're right, then you must be able to describe the governments' significant interest in trespass. Why don't you answer that one? It's the underpinning of your argument. I have answered that. The "use" of your phone, as you seem to think
others calling you are using your phone and their phone at the same time, is
what the law refers to as de minimus use. The use is so insignificant as to
not be important. If you think there should be a law against someone "using" your phone by calling you, I suggest you try to get one enacted as there is no such law now. Try again. Why is someone trespassing on my property so significant that the government has a role? It's your assertion, you should be able to defend it.

No, using your phone is not trespassing. They are two different things. Quit
talking about trespassing when you mean phone calls. If you insist that a
phone call = trespass, please say so. Then I can just add you to the kook
filter.
Real trespass is so obviously different I would think a two year old
could understand it. But all of which has zero to do with the DNC list as it
has nothing to do with anyone "using" your phone. Although how they could
use your phone at the same time you use your phone escapes me. Maybe you
have one of those new multi-tasking phones. Your assertion was that the government had to have a significant interest
in getting involved. I'm simply asking you to demonstate that if this is so universal as to be applied to the DNCL, you should be able to demonstrate the application of this principle in other situations (i.e., trespass).
Can you or can you not?

What principle? The DNCL is based on your established right to privacy. It
is not based on any trespassing laws.

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:h7ScnWFv8pBXIOCiU-KYuQ@comcast.com... "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:vnra7pagkt6eb3@corp.supernews.com... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:__adnSdcEpjNO-CiU-KYjA@comcast.com... "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:vnr6llq0oc1273@corp.supernews.com... > > If you use the trespass model as a valid basis to view the DNCL, > which, after all, is the one we're debating, then the inconsistency which > you now admit exists points to the fact that the DNCL is faulty, not the > trespass laws. > You can if you want. But if you admit the DNCL is faulty, then why are you disagreeing with the judge for blocking it? My position is this. The sum total of the DNCL could have been better worded, the FTC's argument was weak, and the judge wrongly decided the case. Now that we're here however, the FTC, with congress if need be, should modify the rule and/or enabling legislation to make the focus of it be that the consumer retains the right to decide who uses his stuff. > My reason for not letting someone use my stuff doesn't matter. It's my > stuff and I have the right to control who uses it. > Good for you. I'll take that as a concession. I concede that your stuff is your stuff. Nothing else.

You don't concede that I therefore retain control of who can use it?

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:5BWdnVGFt8nHI-CiU-KYiA@comcast.com... "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:vnrafs4p6abad3@corp.supernews.com... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:79-cncgYN5fDOuCiU-KYhA@comcast.com... "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:vnr6rhuo6j337@corp.supernews.com... > > "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message > news:yOKcnUVdjsgoBOCiXTWJkA@comcast.com... > > "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message > > news:vnr4sg5ngpug2b@corp.supernews.com... > > > get involved. Well? What's the significant government interest if > > someone > > > trespasses on my property? Why have you never answered that
one? > > > > > > > Because the answer is obvious if you look up trespass laws. There are laws > > against trespass. The government decided that a long time ago. But
I still > > have no idea why you keep wanting to discuss trespass since it's > irrelevant > > to the DNC list. > > Because you're not that smart. But you've still avoided the
question. You > keep making the case that the government must have a significant interest in > a law. That's why you say that the government would never enact a
law which > prevents others from using my phone. So I'm challenging your assertion. If > you're right, then you must be able to describe the governments' significant > interest in trespass. Why don't you answer that one? It's the underpinning > of your argument. > I have answered that. The "use" of your phone, as you seem to think others calling you are using your phone and their phone at the same time, is what the law refers to as de minimus use. The use is so insignificant as to not be important. If you think there should be a law against someone
"using" your phone by calling you, I suggest you try to get one enacted as
there is no such law now. Try again. Why is someone trespassing on my property so significant
that the government has a role? It's your assertion, you should be able to defend it. No, using your phone is not trespassing. They are two different things.
Quit talking about trespassing when you mean phone calls. If you insist that a phone call = trespass, please say so. Then I can just add you to the kook filter.

I don't know how many more ways to tell you that trespassing is just an
analogy. but you seem to resort to this brain lock whenever I ask you to
defend your position. You've made the statement over and over again that
the government needs an to have a significant interest in a situation in
order to get involved. If that were universally true, you'd be able to
explain what the significant government interest is if someone trespasses on
my property. I'm not saying that trespass has any relevance to the DNCL.
It only has relevance to your assertion to the sign interest issue.

So why can't you answer the question?

Look, it's pretty clear that you've boxed yourself into a corner here and
that you don't know how to get out. Just be an adult about it and address
it head on. You've tried to poke a hole in my argument that the government
could or should protect the use of my stuff by asserting that the government
must have a significant interest in order to do so. Well, if that were true
WRT my stuff, why isn't it true WRT my trespassing on my property? Forget
the DNCL for the moment and let's just focus on your assertion regarding
significant interest. Why can't you explain where the significant interest
is WRT trespass? If you're convinced you're right, why do you avoid
answering the question?
Real trespass is so obviously different I would think a two year old could understand it. But all of which has zero to do with the DNC list as it has nothing to do with anyone "using" your phone. Although how they could use your phone at the same time you use your phone escapes me. Maybe you have one of those new multi-tasking phones. Your assertion was that the government had to have a significant
interest in getting involved. I'm simply asking you to demonstate that if this is
so universal as to be applied to the DNCL, you should be able to
demonstrate the application of this principle in other situations (i.e., trespass). Can you or can you not? What principle? The DNCL is based on your established right to privacy. It is not based on any trespassing laws.

More obfuscation. You've asserted a principle that the government needs a
significant interest to get involved. Where's the significance in the case
of trespass? It's really just that simple. I don't know why asking this
question leads you to believe that I'm saying that trespass is relevant to
the DNCL.

Tell you what; forget the DNCL for now. Based upon your assertion as I've
described above, just answer the question. Why are you so afraid to do so?

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:vnrmmr54qvmob4@corp.supernews.com... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:h7ScnWFv8pBXIOCiU-KYuQ@comcast.com... "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:vnra7pagkt6eb3@corp.supernews.com... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:__adnSdcEpjNO-CiU-KYjA@comcast.com... > "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message > news:vnr6llq0oc1273@corp.supernews.com... > > > > If you use the trespass model as a valid basis to view the DNCL, > > which, after all, is the one we're debating, then the
inconsistency which > > you now admit exists points to the fact that the DNCL is faulty,
not the > > trespass laws. > > > > You can if you want. But if you admit the DNCL is faulty, then why
are you > disagreeing with the judge for blocking it? My position is this. The sum total of the DNCL could have been better worded, the FTC's argument was weak, and the judge wrongly decided the case. Now that we're here however, the FTC, with congress if need be, should modify the rule and/or enabling legislation to make the focus of it be that the consumer retains the right to decide who uses his stuff. > > My reason for not letting someone use my stuff doesn't matter.
It's my > > stuff and I have the right to control who uses it. > > > > Good for you. I'll take that as a concession. I concede that your stuff is your stuff. Nothing else. You don't concede that I therefore retain control of who can use it?

Depends on what you call "use". Since you persist in the whacky notion that
anyone calling you is using you phone, no. Then in that case you can't
prevent that.

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:vnrne1899jn7b8@corp.supernews.com... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:5BWdnVGFt8nHI-CiU-KYiA@comcast.com... "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:vnrafs4p6abad3@corp.supernews.com... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:79-cncgYN5fDOuCiU-KYhA@comcast.com... > "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message > news:vnr6rhuo6j337@corp.supernews.com... > > > > "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message > > news:yOKcnUVdjsgoBOCiXTWJkA@comcast.com... > > > "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message > > > news:vnr4sg5ngpug2b@corp.supernews.com... > > > > get involved. Well? What's the significant government
interest if > > > someone > > > > trespasses on my property? Why have you never answered that one? > > > > > > > > > > Because the answer is obvious if you look up trespass laws.
There are > laws > > > against trespass. The government decided that a long time ago.
But I > still > > > have no idea why you keep wanting to discuss trespass since it's > > irrelevant > > > to the DNC list. > > > > Because you're not that smart. But you've still avoided the question. > You > > keep making the case that the government must have a significant interest > in > > a law. That's why you say that the government would never enact a law > which > > prevents others from using my phone. So I'm challenging your assertion. > If > > you're right, then you must be able to describe the governments' > significant > > interest in trespass. Why don't you answer that one? It's the > underpinning > > of your argument. > > > > I have answered that. The "use" of your phone, as you seem to think others > calling you are using your phone and their phone at the same time,
is what > the law refers to as de minimus use. The use is so insignificant as
to not > be important. If you think there should be a law against someone "using" > your phone by calling you, I suggest you try to get one enacted as there is > no such law now. Try again. Why is someone trespassing on my property so significant that the government has a role? It's your assertion, you should be able to defend it. No, using your phone is not trespassing. They are two different things. Quit talking about trespassing when you mean phone calls. If you insist that
a phone call = trespass, please say so. Then I can just add you to the
kook filter. I don't know how many more ways to tell you that trespassing is just an analogy. but you seem to resort to this brain lock whenever I ask you to defend your position.

Because everytime I do, you insist on your whacky assertion that anyone
calling you is using your phone and then you say, " I have the right to
control who uses it." So there is nothing to defend since nobody is using
your phone and nobody is trespassing.
You've made the statement over and over again that the government needs an to have a significant interest in a situation in order to get involved. If that were universally true, you'd be able to explain what the significant government interest is if someone trespasses
on my property.

The government has decided there is an interest in preserving private
property rights. Therefore they prohibit trespassing. Happy?
I'm not saying that trespass has any relevance to the DNCL. It only has relevance to your assertion to the sign interest issue.

Sign interest issue?
So why can't you answer the question? Look, it's pretty clear that you've boxed yourself into a corner here and that you don't know how to get out. Just be an adult about it and address it head on. You've tried to poke a hole in my argument that the
government could or should protect the use of my stuff by asserting that the
government must have a significant interest in order to do so. Well, if that were
true WRT my stuff, why isn't it true WRT my trespassing on my property?

Because when someone calls you they're not using your stuff. If you think
they are, call the police and have them arrested for trespass to chattles.
Forget the DNCL for the moment and let's just focus on your assertion regarding significant interest. Why can't you explain where the significant
interest is WRT trespass?

See above. Or google for private property. It's pretty obvious that if the
government didn't enforce trespass laws there would be anarchy with people
wandering into other people's homes.
Your assertion was that the government had to have a significant interest in getting involved. I'm simply asking you to demonstate that if this is so universal as to be applied to the DNCL, you should be able to demonstrate the application of this principle in other situations (i.e.,
trespass). Can you or can you not? What principle? The DNCL is based on your established right to privacy.
It is not based on any trespassing laws. More obfuscation. You've asserted a principle that the government needs a significant interest to get involved. Where's the significance in the
case of trespass? It's really just that simple.

Only an idiot couldn't see the harm to soceity if anyone could enter your
home without permission.
I don't know why asking this question leads you to believe that I'm saying that trespass is relevant to the DNCL.

Because you keep trying to equate a phone call to someone "using my stuff"
as you put it.


--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:loqcnUHUy_m0eOCiU-KYhw@comcast.com... "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:vnrmmr54qvmob4@corp.supernews.com... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:h7ScnWFv8pBXIOCiU-KYuQ@comcast.com... "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:vnra7pagkt6eb3@corp.supernews.com... > > "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message > news:__adnSdcEpjNO-CiU-KYjA@comcast.com... > > "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message > > news:vnr6llq0oc1273@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > If you use the trespass model as a valid basis to view the
DNCL, > > > which, after all, is the one we're debating, then the inconsistency > which > > > you now admit exists points to the fact that the DNCL is faulty, not the > > > trespass laws. > > > > > > > You can if you want. But if you admit the DNCL is faulty, then why are you > > disagreeing with the judge for blocking it? > > My position is this. The sum total of the DNCL could have been
better > worded, the FTC's argument was weak, and the judge wrongly decided
the case. > Now that we're here however, the FTC, with congress if need be,
should > modify the rule and/or enabling legislation to make the focus of it
be that > the consumer retains the right to decide who uses his stuff. > > > > My reason for not letting someone use my stuff doesn't matter. It's my > > > stuff and I have the right to control who uses it. > > > > > > > Good for you. > > I'll take that as a concession. > I concede that your stuff is your stuff. Nothing else. You don't concede that I therefore retain control of who can use it? Depends on what you call "use". Since you persist in the whacky notion
that anyone calling you is using you phone, no. Then in that case you can't prevent that.

there you go again, more obfuscation. you've already said that I don't own
my phone, so your answer here is disingenuous. If I own a radio, do I
retain control over who has use of it?

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 20:12:52 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote:
"Crosscut" <yes@its.me.yup> wrote in message
So let's say someone intruded on my property after I've told them not to,and the reason was because I didn't liked what they were saying. If Ipresscharges, the government would prosecute them for trespass. If thedefendants tried to claim it was really an issue of free-speech, justbecause the underlying reason for my actions was their speech, they'dlose.Trespass was the offense, not the speech. Unless your property was a public accomodation,it isn't. next!

Oh?

Then how come you have to allow nonprofits, charities, politicians, and
"religions" to *use* your property?

I think I'm done with this thread. I've got better things to do than piss
into the wind.

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:vnrq8i8dffi6ba@corp.supernews.com... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:loqcnUHUy_m0eOCiU-KYhw@comcast.com... Depends on what you call "use". Since you persist in the whacky notion that anyone calling you is using you phone, no. Then in that case you can't prevent that. there you go again, more obfuscation. you've already said that I don't
own my phone,

Really? Please show me where I said that?

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:22:35 -0400, "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote:
"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in messagenews:vnr4jrr8cigqa6@corp.supernews.com... Then why do you keep trying to divert this to discussion about trespassif trespass has nothing to do with the DNC list? It was an a-n-a-l-o-g-y. How else do your want me to say it? I can keep someone from entering my property regardless of the reasons. It might be because of what they want to say, but that doesn't give them 1st amendment protection to enter my property. Same with calling my phone. It's *my* phone and it doesn't matter what they want to say. I can't keep them from saying it, but I can keep them from using my phone to say it. IOW, inboth cases, free speech isn't the basis for the offense.Yes, and do you know how to follow an analogy? If so, you would realize howfaulty your analogy is. But when someone follows your analogy using the DNCexample and points out to you that if trespass laws were designed the sameway as the DNC list, then people from charities would be allowed to trespassbecause the DNC list gives those trespassers special privileges, you simplychange from it being an analogy to saying nobody can trespass. Which is whyyour analogy is useless.

No, his analogy is fine. It's the telemarketslime *law* that's useless,
because it forces private citizens attempting to quietly enjoy the sanctity
of their own homes the same restrictions placed upon proprietors of public
accomodations.

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:fsCdnbMLGvs0e-CiU-KYuA@comcast.com... "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:vnrne1899jn7b8@corp.supernews.com... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:5BWdnVGFt8nHI-CiU-KYiA@comcast.com... "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:vnrafs4p6abad3@corp.supernews.com... > > "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message > news:79-cncgYN5fDOuCiU-KYhA@comcast.com... > > "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message > > news:vnr6rhuo6j337@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message > > > news:yOKcnUVdjsgoBOCiXTWJkA@comcast.com... > > > > "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message > > > > news:vnr4sg5ngpug2b@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > get involved. Well? What's the significant government interest if > > > > someone > > > > > trespasses on my property? Why have you never answered that one? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because the answer is obvious if you look up trespass laws. There are > > laws > > > > against trespass. The government decided that a long time ago. But I > > still > > > > have no idea why you keep wanting to discuss trespass since
it's > > > irrelevant > > > > to the DNC list. > > > > > > Because you're not that smart. But you've still avoided the question. > > You > > > keep making the case that the government must have a significant > interest > > in > > > a law. That's why you say that the government would never enact
a law > > which > > > prevents others from using my phone. So I'm challenging your assertion. > > If > > > you're right, then you must be able to describe the governments' > > significant > > > interest in trespass. Why don't you answer that one? It's the > > underpinning > > > of your argument. > > > > > > > I have answered that. The "use" of your phone, as you seem to
think others > > calling you are using your phone and their phone at the same time, is what > > the law refers to as de minimus use. The use is so insignificant
as to not > > be important. If you think there should be a law against someone "using" > > your phone by calling you, I suggest you try to get one enacted as there > is > > no such law now. > > Try again. Why is someone trespassing on my property so significant that > the government has a role? It's your assertion, you should be able
to > defend it. No, using your phone is not trespassing. They are two different
things. Quit talking about trespassing when you mean phone calls. If you insist
that a phone call = trespass, please say so. Then I can just add you to the kook filter. I don't know how many more ways to tell you that trespassing is just an analogy. but you seem to resort to this brain lock whenever I ask you
to defend your position. Because everytime I do, you insist on your whacky assertion that anyone calling you is using your phone and then you say, " I have the right to control who uses it." So there is nothing to defend since nobody is using your phone and nobody is trespassing.

More slip and slide and the rediculous combining or statements to create a
smoke screen. Defend your position. That's all I ask.
You've made the statement over and over again that the government needs an to have a significant interest in a situation in order to get involved. If that were universally true, you'd be able to explain what the significant government interest is if someone
trespasses on my property. The government has decided there is an interest in preserving private property rights. Therefore they prohibit trespassing. Happy?

Finally! Whew. I can't belive it took that long to pin you down. you've
obviously back off your notion that there had to be some finacial interest,
so let's remember that.

Now that we've established that there can be some basis, other than finacial
loss, for the government to decide that they have an interest, it's
perfectly logical that the government could decide that they have a
significant interest in who uses the belongings of others. Specifically,
they could decide that they have an interst in who uses my phone, my
electricity, and my phone service.

If they do that (which I maintain is implicit in many different places in
the law such as theft of services, etc.), let's say in the DNCL, then
someone who uses my stuff but who's been told not to would be violating the
law. See? Free speech is not the issue.
I'm not saying that trespass has any relevance to the DNCL. It only has relevance to your assertion to the sign interest issue. Sign interest issue?

Moron.
So why can't you answer the question? Look, it's pretty clear that you've boxed yourself into a corner here
and that you don't know how to get out. Just be an adult about it and
address it head on. You've tried to poke a hole in my argument that the government could or should protect the use of my stuff by asserting that the government must have a significant interest in order to do so. Well, if that were true WRT my stuff, why isn't it true WRT my trespassing on my property? Because when someone calls you they're not using your stuff. If you think they are, call the police and have them arrested for trespass to chattles.

Technically I could. As a practical matter, the police won't enforce it for
many reasons. First of all, by allowing my number to be published or
otherwise circulated, I've implicitly invited them to call me. Second, I'd
have to prove that I've specifically notified them not to call. Then
there's the whole issue of jurisdiction. My home town cop isn't gonna press
charges against someone in another state.

That's why the feds need to get involved. The DNCL serves as prior
notification to the telemarketers that I don't want them calling me. It
also provides a mechanism to establish that the unauthorized use of my
phone, etc, is an offense which the Feds can prosecute. And keep in mind, I
wouldn't notify them not to call because of what they might say, but because
of who they are.
Forget the DNCL for the moment and let's just focus on your assertion regarding significant interest. Why can't you explain where the significant interest is WRT trespass? See above. Or google for private property. It's pretty obvious that if the government didn't enforce trespass laws there would be anarchy with people wandering into other people's homes.

and indiscriminately disturbing people at all hours of the day or night thus
making their lives miserable.
> Your assertion was that the government had to have a significant interest in > getting involved. I'm simply asking you to demonstate that if this
is so > universal as to be applied to the DNCL, you should be able to demonstrate > the application of this principle in other situations (i.e., trespass). Can > you or can you not? What principle? The DNCL is based on your established right to
privacy. It is not based on any trespassing laws. More obfuscation. You've asserted a principle that the government needs
a significant interest to get involved. Where's the significance in the case of trespass? It's really just that simple. Only an idiot couldn't see the harm to soceity if anyone could enter your home without permission.

Then why'd you have such a hard time answering the question? It was pretty
simple.

And only a moron can't see the harm in having telemarketers ruin the peace,
quiet, and solace of the home. IOW, your argument that the government has
no compelling interest in keeping telemarketers from calling the house is
just *your* opinion. If the public decides that it is significant, then it
is.
I don't know why asking this question leads you to believe that I'm saying that trespass is relevant
to the DNCL. Because you keep trying to equate a phone call to someone "using my stuff" as you put it.

so where did I say that ever lead to trespass?

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:47:45 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote:
"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in messagenews:bqGdnejPH5tiDuCiU-KYvA@comcast.com... "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:vnr4jrr8cigqa6@corp.supernews.com... > > Then why do you keep trying to divert this to discussion abouttrespass if > trespass has nothing to do with the DNC list? It was an a-n-a-l-o-g-y. How else do your want me to say it? I cankeep someone from entering my property regardless of the reasons. It mightbe because of what they want to say, but that doesn't give them 1stamendment protection to enter my property. Same with calling my phone. It's *my* phone and it doesn't matter what they want to say. I can't keep themfrom saying it, but I can keep them from using my phone to say it. IOW, in both cases, free speech isn't the basis for the offense. Yes, and do you know how to follow an analogy? If so, you would realizehow faulty your analogy is. But when someone follows your analogy using theDNC example and points out to you that if trespass laws were designed the same way as the DNC list, then people from charities would be allowed totrespass because the DNC list gives those trespassers special privileges, yousimply change from it being an analogy to saying nobody can trespass. Which iswhy your analogy is useless.Right. If trespass laws were designed like the DNCL was decided so far bythe courts, I wouldn't have any choice but to allow charities on myproperty. Thanks for making my point. Now all you have to do is reverse itbecause we're not debating how the trespass laws were decided, but how theDNCL was. If you use the trespass model as a valid basis to view the DNCL,which, after all, is the one we're debating, then the inconsistency whichyou now admit exists points to the fact that the DNCL is faulty, not thetrespass laws.My reason for not letting someone use my stuff doesn't matter. It's mystuff and I have the right to control who uses it.

It's pointless to try to reason with him. He's like a spammer saying "shut
up and eat your spam, it doesn't cost you anything to JPD, so stop whining."

"Crosscut" <yes@its.me.yup> wrote in message
news:fcqrnvcpr6ko9sdjue6gim47k1p9jgqc12@4ax.com... On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 20:12:52 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net>
wrote:"Crosscut" <yes@its.me.yup> wrote in message >So let's say someone intruded on my property after I've told them not
to, >and the reason was because I didn't liked what they were saying. If Ipress >charges, the government would prosecute them for trespass. If the >defendants tried to claim it was really an issue of free-speech, just >because the underlying reason for my actions was their speech, they'dlose. >Trespass was the offense, not the speech. Unless your property was a public accomodation,it isn't. next! Oh? Then how come you have to allow nonprofits, charities, politicians, and "religions" to *use* your property?

I don't.
I think I'm done with this thread. I've got better things to do than piss into the wind.

Then you're gonna have an uneventful life. After all, that's all you know
how to do.

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:08:56 -0400, "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote:
"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in messagenews:vnrmmr54qvmob4@corp.supernews.com... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:h7ScnWFv8pBXIOCiU-KYuQ@comcast.com... "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:vnra7pagkt6eb3@corp.supernews.com... > > "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message > news:__adnSdcEpjNO-CiU-KYjA@comcast.com... > > "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message > > news:vnr6llq0oc1273@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > If you use the trespass model as a valid basis to view the DNCL, > > > which, after all, is the one we're debating, then theinconsistency > which > > > you now admit exists points to the fact that the DNCL is faulty,not the > > > trespass laws. > > > > > > > You can if you want. But if you admit the DNCL is faulty, then whyare you > > disagreeing with the judge for blocking it? > > My position is this. The sum total of the DNCL could have been better > worded, the FTC's argument was weak, and the judge wrongly decided the case. > Now that we're here however, the FTC, with congress if need be, should > modify the rule and/or enabling legislation to make the focus of it be that > the consumer retains the right to decide who uses his stuff. > > > > My reason for not letting someone use my stuff doesn't matter.It's my > > > stuff and I have the right to control who uses it. > > > > > > > Good for you. > > I'll take that as a concession. > I concede that your stuff is your stuff. Nothing else. You don't concede that I therefore retain control of who can use it?Depends on what you call "use". Since you persist in the whacky notion thatanyone calling you is using you phone, no. Then in that case you can'tprevent that.

Yeah, just like those anti-e-commerce-radicals who insist that spammers are
"using their computers." Why don't they just shut up already and Just Press
Delete and Not Answer the Phone?

"Crosscut" <yes@its.me.yup> wrote in message
news:i8rrnvgqncig4i05c77dbbikaqfd3q6jte@4ax.com... On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:22:35 -0400, "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com>
wrote:"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in messagenews:vnr4jrr8cigqa6@corp.supernews.com... > > Then why do you keep trying to divert this to discussion about
trespassif > trespass has nothing to do with the DNC list? It was an a-n-a-l-o-g-y. How else do your want me to say it? I can
keep someone from entering my property regardless of the reasons. It might
be because of what they want to say, but that doesn't give them 1st
amendment protection to enter my property. Same with calling my phone. It's
*my* phone and it doesn't matter what they want to say. I can't keep them
from saying it, but I can keep them from using my phone to say it. IOW, inboth cases, free speech isn't the basis for the offense.Yes, and do you know how to follow an analogy? If so, you would realize
howfaulty your analogy is. But when someone follows your analogy using the
DNCexample and points out to you that if trespass laws were designed the
sameway as the DNC list, then people from charities would be allowed to
trespassbecause the DNC list gives those trespassers special privileges, you
simplychange from it being an analogy to saying nobody can trespass. Which is
whyyour analogy is useless. No, his analogy is fine. It's the telemarketslime *law* that's useless, because it forces private citizens attempting to quietly enjoy the
sanctity of their own homes the same restrictions placed upon proprietors of public accomodations.

No, the DNCL rule is trying to do exactly the opposite.

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:45:15 -0400, "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote:
"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in messagenews:vnr6rhuo6j337@corp.supernews.com... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:yOKcnUVdjsgoBOCiXTWJkA@comcast.com... "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:vnr4sg5ngpug2b@corp.supernews.com... > get involved. Well? What's the significant government interest if someone > trespasses on my property? Why have you never answered that one? > Because the answer is obvious if you look up trespass laws. There arelaws against trespass. The government decided that a long time ago. But Istill have no idea why you keep wanting to discuss trespass since it's irrelevant to the DNC list. Because you're not that smart. But you've still avoided the question.You keep making the case that the government must have a significant interestin a law. That's why you say that the government would never enact a lawwhich prevents others from using my phone. So I'm challenging your assertion.If you're right, then you must be able to describe the governments'significant interest in trespass. Why don't you answer that one? It's theunderpinning of your argument.I have answered that. The "use" of your phone, as you seem to think otherscalling you are using your phone and their phone at the same time, is whatthe law refers to as de minimus use. The use is so insignificant as to notbe important. If you think there should be a law against someone "using"your phone by calling you, I suggest you try to get one enacted as there isno such law now.

So, if everyone who is affected by this decision were to call the court (or
anyone else, for that matter) to voice their displeasure with the ruling,
it's "de minimus" and the whiners should just shut up and let it ring?

Just like you'd suggest if ten thousand telemarketslime, calling on behalf of
"charities", were to call *your* line each day, *denying* you the use of your
telephone?

If the law does not scale, it is bad -- it is wrong.

The law does not scale.
Real trespass is so obviously different I would think a two year old couldunderstand it.

YOU obviously don't, or else you'd answer his question. You insist that a
law has to have a compelling government interest. OK, fine. Where's the
compelling government interest in the trespass law?

But all of which has zero to do with the DNC list as it hasnothing to do with anyone "using" your phone.

Bull****. Otherwise, they wouldn't be in court *demanding* the "right" to use
it in the first place.


Although how they could useyour phone at the same time you use your phone escapes me. Maybe you haveone of those new multi-tasking phones.

Oh, that's right -- they can't! You've found the magic loophole. If we
don't want the telemarketslime using our phones, all we have to do is use
them *ourselves* 24 hours a day.

Wow, why didn't *I* think of that?

Oh, that's right. I'm not "special."

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 14:23:19 -0400, "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote:
What principle? The DNCL is based on your established right to privacy. Itis not based on any trespassing laws.

Really?

Why are telemarketslime representing "charities" allowed to violate my
privacy?

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:15:19 -0400, "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote:
You've made the statement over and over again that the government needs an to have a significant interest in a situation in order to get involved. If that were universally true, you'd be able to explain what the significant government interest is if someone trespasseson my property.The government has decided there is an interest in preserving privateproperty rights. Therefore they prohibit trespassing. Happy?

Circular logic AKA "bull****".

WHAT is the "interest"?

He asks you to back up your claim that there must be a compelling government
interest, and you answer it by saying, in essence, "because they said so"?

What a prick!

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 23:23:38 -0400, Stephen K. Gielda
<steve@No-Spam-packetderm.com> wrote:
In article <4p8pnvoo6on238bergnbu3otasljjkov7l@4ax.com>, yes@its.me.yupsays... To argue that the price is but a small value is immaterial. The logic does not scale. If even a *fraction* of the number of "deserving charities" decide to call me, I will be denied *all* use of my phone, and they will have misappropriated *all* of the money I pay the phone company for my service.Wait, that can't be true because they are just individual entitiesexercising their right to call. Just like how all the people who callthat judge are individuals and because of that are in no way denyingthat judge (clerk) use of their phone (as per your previous argumentsabout calling that judge/clerk), the same must hold true for thecharities. Right? Or is this more hypocrisy of "it's a denial ofservice if done to me but not if I'm part of it being done to anotherbecause my reasons are more just"?

It's either way you want it, sonny.

If it's "anything goes", then they can STFU and eat their [fone]spam when
everybody and his brother calls them to "voice his opinion". If *they* have
a "right" to the sanctity of *their* privacy -- and to use their property on
*their* terms -- then so do I.

This is simple logic, and I'll accept it either way. Only ONE way *works*,
of course -- and I expect that if they pick the *wrong* way, they'll quickly
find out via a "continuing education course" provided by millions of
Americans -- by telephone.

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:vnrre62r2o1859@corp.supernews.com... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:fsCdnbMLGvs0e-CiU-KYuA@comcast.com... Because everytime I do, you insist on your whacky assertion that anyone calling you is using your phone and then you say, " I have the right to control who uses it." So there is nothing to defend since nobody is
using your phone and nobody is trespassing. More slip and slide and the rediculous combining or statements to create a smoke screen. Defend your position. That's all I ask.

I did, you just keep snipping it.
You've made the statement over and over again that the government needs an to have a significant interest in a situation
in order to get involved. If that were universally true, you'd be able
to explain what the significant government interest is if someone trespasses on my property. The government has decided there is an interest in preserving private property rights. Therefore they prohibit trespassing. Happy? Finally! Whew. I can't belive it took that long to pin you down. you've obviously back off your notion that there had to be some finacial
interest, so let's remember that.

When did I say financial interest? Please stop putting words in my mouth.
Did you find where I said you phone isn't yours? More whacky stuff.
Now that we've established that there can be some basis, other than
finacial loss, for the government to decide that they have an interest,

Which I never said.
it's perfectly logical that the government could decide that they have a significant interest in who uses the belongings of others. Specifically, they could decide that they have an interst in who uses my phone, my electricity, and my phone service.

Bzzzt. Of course you already snipped where I answered that previously
because I knew you'd go back to your whacky idea that anyone calling you on
the phone is "using" your belongings. Did you call the cops yet on those
evil doers using your stuff when the phone rings?
If they do that (which I maintain is implicit in many different places in the law such as theft of services, etc.), let's say in the DNCL, then someone who uses my stuff but who's been told not to would be violating
the law. See? Free speech is not the issue.

Bzzzt. Find the law that says someone can't call you because it's theft of
services.
I'm not saying that trespass has any relevance to the DNCL. It only has relevance to your assertion to the sign interest issue. Sign interest issue? Moron.

Troll.
*plonk*
It also provides a mechanism to establish that the unauthorized use of my phone, etc, is an offense which the Feds can prosecute.

What a kook.

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 19:53:57 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote:
"Crosscut" <yes@its.me.yup> wrote in messagenews:g45pnvcisqtdg1ep8l9it613hlhrda9n9k@4ax .com... On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:20:24 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net>wrote:"Crosscut" <yes@its.me.yup> wrote in messagenews:01qonv4qciikvd0vedii95caj837aajh82@4ax .com...> >The point that seems to be escaping you is that we may as well nothave> >judges if all they're gonna do is decide questions of law based uponpopular> >sentiment. That's what we have the legislative branch of governmentfor.>> *LMAO*>> What we have here is just the opposite -- judges deciding questionsupon> UNpopular sentiment! Unpopular, but, *very* well-heeled, and*extremely*> influential.>> Your argument boils down to "shut up and eat your spam" -- a remedythat I> will politely characterise as "discredited."If you've followed any of this you'd know that I think the decision waswrongly argued and decided. However, you seem to keep confusing the law,popular opinion, and motivation. Try to think a little logically. Ajudgehas no business deciding cases by taking a poll to see what the peoplewanthim to do. Then by all means let's get rid of juries, shall we?If they're made up of peaople like you, yes, let's get rid of juries. But I digress. My point is that the courts *are* deciding issues based on what *some* people want. Those people are called "interests", of the "special" type. I am merely pointing out the obvious.Then stop wasting my time.

I'm not. Next.

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 17:16:07 -0400, "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote:
"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message
So do you agree that if the rule is changed to include the use of anothers property (i.e., their phone) as an offense, the law would be fine?They would have to break into your house to use your phone.

So, if you posted your phone number here, none of the lurkers would be able
to "use" your phone?

Are you game to prove that theory of yours?

The "use" ofyour phone would be regarded as insignificant and there is no governmentinterest in it.

Then what is the government interest in prohibiting trespass? And please,
don't pull that same bull**** you did earlier, saying that their sayso was
the reason for it.

And for that matter, what is the government interest in the junk fax law?
After all, the cost of a junk fax is insignificant. Maybe two or three
CENTS. Can you *imagine* suing someone for *three cents*? You'd be thrown
out of court so fast you'd barely have time to pay the sanction the judge
levied you with for wasting the court's time.

There goes your "insignificant" argument right down the crapper, son.

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 20:08:51 -0400, "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote:
"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in messagenews:vnpet498ka7la1@corp.supernews.com... > > > > There is a LOT at stake here. > > > > > > No ****. > > > > No, there isn't as it has zero to do with using your property. Theuse of > > your property is not covered in the law in any way. > > Probably only because it wasn't argued. You can't just make **** up in a court argument. The law was not written about using anyone's property so it's not at issue. Well, apparently you can. The telemarketers argued free speech when itwas never an issue until they brought it up.No, read the law. The FTC made a distinction on what kind of speech in salescalls was allowed. So of course there is a First Amendment issue.

Since when does the First Amendment recognize *anyone's* "right" to compel me
to hear their message -- EVEN if their "message" is *ring* *ring* *ring*?

You're losing it. Scratch that -- you've lost it.

You are now arguing the spammer's Frea Speach! argument!

Worth reading -

The constitutional smack-down at the heart of Do Not Call

By Dahlia Lithwick

http://slate.msn.com/id/2089192

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:FJqdnUSAFcvOaeCiU-KYhw@comcast.com... "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:vnrre62r2o1859@corp.supernews.com... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:fsCdnbMLGvs0e-CiU-KYuA@comcast.com... Because everytime I do, you insist on your whacky assertion that
anyone calling you is using your phone and then you say, " I have the right
to control who uses it." So there is nothing to defend since nobody is using your phone and nobody is trespassing. More slip and slide and the rediculous combining or statements to create
a smoke screen. Defend your position. That's all I ask. I did, you just keep snipping it. > You've made the statement over and over again that > the government needs an to have a significant interest in a
situation in > order to get involved. If that were universally true, you'd be able to > explain what the significant government interest is if someone trespasses on > my property. The government has decided there is an interest in preserving private property rights. Therefore they prohibit trespassing. Happy? Finally! Whew. I can't belive it took that long to pin you down.
you've obviously back off your notion that there had to be some finacial interest, so let's remember that. When did I say financial interest? Please stop putting words in my mouth. Did you find where I said you phone isn't yours? More whacky stuff. Now that we've established that there can be some basis, other than finacial loss, for the government to decide that they have an interest, Which I never said. it's perfectly logical that the government could decide that they have a significant interest in who uses the belongings of others.
Specifically, they could decide that they have an interst in who uses my phone, my electricity, and my phone service. Bzzzt. Of course you already snipped where I answered that previously because I knew you'd go back to your whacky idea that anyone calling you
on the phone is "using" your belongings. Did you call the cops yet on those evil doers using your stuff when the phone rings? If they do that (which I maintain is implicit in many different places
in the law such as theft of services, etc.), let's say in the DNCL, then someone who uses my stuff but who's been told not to would be violating the law. See? Free speech is not the issue. Bzzzt. Find the law that says someone can't call you because it's theft of services. > I'm not saying that trespass has any relevance to the DNCL. > It only has relevance to your assertion to the sign interest issue. Sign interest issue? Moron. Troll. *plonk* It also provides a mechanism to establish that the unauthorized use of my phone, etc, is an offense which the Feds can prosecute. What a kook.

You're a lying asshole. I've never snipped a thing. Never. The fact is
that you've retreated because you know that your position is hopeless. The
fact is that I own the phone and pay for the service and no one has the
right to use those if I explicitly say they can't. To the extent that the
DNCL does not make the use of what I pay for and what I own explicitly a
crime, it should be fixed and reestablished.

I have no responsibility to provide the means by which others exercise their
right to free speech.

Your game is up because, as much as you continually tried to smoke screen
your way out, I wouldn't let you. I made a shambles of your argument, you
know it, and I know it.

"Steve" <abc@def.inv> wrote in message
news:ppurnvcl3jdr01sh8ug2ourb1olnn592je@4ax.com... Worth reading - The constitutional smack-down at the heart of Do Not Call By Dahlia Lithwick http://slate.msn.com/id/2089192

another moron (the author of the article) who's fallen for the ridiculous
argument that free speech is the issue here.

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:48:27 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote:
"Crosscut" <yes@its.me.yup> wrote in messagenews:i8rrnvgqncig4i05c77dbbikaqfd3q6jte@4ax .com... On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:22:35 -0400, "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com>wrote:"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in messagenews:vnr4jrr8cigqa6@corp.supernews.com...>> >> > Then why do you keep trying to divert this to discussion abouttrespassif> > trespass has nothing to do with the DNC list?>> It was an a-n-a-l-o-g-y. How else do your want me to say it? I cankeep> someone from entering my property regardless of the reasons. It mightbe> because of what they want to say, but that doesn't give them 1stamendment> protection to enter my property. Same with calling my phone. It's*my*> phone and it doesn't matter what they want to say. I can't keep themfrom> saying it, but I can keep them from using my phone to say it. IOW, inboth> cases, free speech isn't the basis for the offense.Yes, and do you know how to follow an analogy? If so, you would realizehowfaulty your analogy is. But when someone follows your analogy using theDNCexample and points out to you that if trespass laws were designed thesameway as the DNC list, then people from charities would be allowed totrespassbecause the DNC list gives those trespassers special privileges, yousimplychange from it being an analogy to saying nobody can trespass. Which iswhyyour analogy is useless. No, his analogy is fine. It's the telemarketslime *law* that's useless, because it forces private citizens attempting to quietly enjoy thesanctity of their own homes the same restrictions placed upon proprietors of public accomodations.No, the DNCL rule is trying to do exactly the opposite.

No, it says I have to allow charities, politicians, etc. -- basically
*everyone* other than for-profit outfits -- to use my property.

It is *exactly* the way pubic accomodations are regulated.

Crosscut wrote:
It is *exactly* the way pubic accomodations are regulated.

Like other things discussed here, sort of depends on whose pubes,
doesn't it?

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 02:24:25 GMT, "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr."
<larrysheldon@cox.net> wrote:
Crosscut wrote: It is *exactly* the way pubic accomodations are regulated.Like other things discussed here, sort of depends on whose pubes,doesn't it?

Ah, nothing like a typo flame...

Or was it a joke?

(I'm too tired to dig out my sarcasm detector, sorry)

"Crosscut" <yes@its.me.yup> wrote in message
news:6fbsnvscdmko8gmegsuakgc4opuh0b75ib@4ax.com... On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:48:27 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net>
wrote:"Crosscut" <yes@its.me.yup> wrote in messagenews:i8rrnvgqncig4i05c77dbbikaqfd3q6jte@4ax .com... On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:22:35 -0400, "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com>wrote: >"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message >news:vnr4jrr8cigqa6@corp.supernews.com... >> >> > >> > Then why do you keep trying to divert this to discussion abouttrespass >if >> > trespass has nothing to do with the DNC list? >> >> It was an a-n-a-l-o-g-y. How else do your want me to say it? I cankeep >> someone from entering my property regardless of the reasons. It
mightbe >> because of what they want to say, but that doesn't give them 1stamendment >> protection to enter my property. Same with calling my phone. It's*my* >> phone and it doesn't matter what they want to say. I can't keep
themfrom >> saying it, but I can keep them from using my phone to say it. IOW,
in >both >> cases, free speech isn't the basis for the offense. > >Yes, and do you know how to follow an analogy? If so, you would
realizehow >faulty your analogy is. But when someone follows your analogy using
theDNC >example and points out to you that if trespass laws were designed thesame >way as the DNC list, then people from charities would be allowed totrespass >because the DNC list gives those trespassers special privileges, yousimply >change from it being an analogy to saying nobody can trespass. Which
iswhy >your analogy is useless. No, his analogy is fine. It's the telemarketslime *law* that's
useless, because it forces private citizens attempting to quietly enjoy thesanctity of their own homes the same restrictions placed upon proprietors of
public accomodations.No, the DNCL rule is trying to do exactly the opposite. No, it says I have to allow charities, politicians, etc. -- basically *everyone* other than for-profit outfits -- to use my property.

No, that's what the judge said

On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 06:42:42 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote:
"Crosscut" <yes@its.me.yup> wrote in messagenews:6fbsnvscdmko8gmegsuakgc4opuh0b75ib@4ax .com... On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:48:27 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net>wrote:"Crosscut" <yes@its.me.yup> wrote in messagenews:i8rrnvgqncig4i05c77dbbikaqfd3q6jte@4ax .com...> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:22:35 -0400, "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com>wrote:>> >"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message> >news:vnr4jrr8cigqa6@corp.supernews.com...> >>> >> >> >> > Then why do you keep trying to divert this to discussion abouttrespass> >if> >> > trespass has nothing to do with the DNC list?> >>> >> It was an a-n-a-l-o-g-y. How else do your want me to say it? I cankeep> >> someone from entering my property regardless of the reasons. Itmightbe> >> because of what they want to say, but that doesn't give them 1stamendment> >> protection to enter my property. Same with calling my phone. It's*my*> >> phone and it doesn't matter what they want to say. I can't keepthemfrom> >> saying it, but I can keep them from using my phone to say it. IOW,in> >both> >> cases, free speech isn't the basis for the offense.> >> >Yes, and do you know how to follow an analogy? If so, you wouldrealizehow> >faulty your analogy is. But when someone follows your analogy usingtheDNC> >example and points out to you that if trespass laws were designed thesame> >way as the DNC list, then people from charities would be allowed totrespass> >because the DNC list gives those trespassers special privileges, yousimply> >change from it being an analogy to saying nobody can trespass. Whichiswhy> >your analogy is useless.>> No, his analogy is fine. It's the telemarketslime *law* that'suseless,> because it forces private citizens attempting to quietly enjoy thesanctity> of their own homes the same restrictions placed upon proprietors ofpublic> accomodations.No, the DNCL rule is trying to do exactly the opposite. No, it says I have to allow charities, politicians, etc. -- basically *everyone* other than for-profit outfits -- to use my property.No, that's what the judge said

Sheesh.

The law says what the judge says it says.

"Crosscut" <yes@its.me.yup> wrote in message
news:nvjtnv0bd4i0t32qgp8lnrv0rcd9sjbesa@4ax.com... On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 06:42:42 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net>
wrote:"Crosscut" <yes@its.me.yup> wrote in messagenews:6fbsnvscdmko8gmegsuakgc4opuh0b75ib@4ax .com... On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:48:27 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net>wrote: > >"Crosscut" <yes@its.me.yup> wrote in message >news:i8rrnvgqncig4i05c77dbbikaqfd3q6jte@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:22:35 -0400, "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> >wrote: >> >> >"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message >> >news:vnr4jrr8cigqa6@corp.supernews.com... >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Then why do you keep trying to divert this to discussion about >trespass >> >if >> >> > trespass has nothing to do with the DNC list? >> >> >> >> It was an a-n-a-l-o-g-y. How else do your want me to say it? I
can >keep >> >> someone from entering my property regardless of the reasons. Itmight >be >> >> because of what they want to say, but that doesn't give them 1st >amendment >> >> protection to enter my property. Same with calling my phone.
It's >*my* >> >> phone and it doesn't matter what they want to say. I can't keepthem >from >> >> saying it, but I can keep them from using my phone to say it.
IOW,in >> >both >> >> cases, free speech isn't the basis for the offense. >> > >> >Yes, and do you know how to follow an analogy? If so, you wouldrealize >how >> >faulty your analogy is. But when someone follows your analogy usingthe >DNC >> >example and points out to you that if trespass laws were designed
the >same >> >way as the DNC list, then people from charities would be allowed to >trespass >> >because the DNC list gives those trespassers special privileges,
you >simply >> >change from it being an analogy to saying nobody can trespass.
Whichis >why >> >your analogy is useless. >> >> No, his analogy is fine. It's the telemarketslime *law* that'suseless, >> because it forces private citizens attempting to quietly enjoy the >sanctity >> of their own homes the same restrictions placed upon proprietors ofpublic >> accomodations. > >No, the DNCL rule is trying to do exactly the opposite. No, it says I have to allow charities, politicians, etc. -- basically *everyone* other than for-profit outfits -- to use my property.No, that's what the judge said Sheesh. The law says what the judge says it says.

OK bonehead, but you seem to have a real problem differentiating what the
law was intended to say vs. how a judge eventually interpreted it. You also
can't seem to grasp the fact that the FTC is gonna appeal, therefore, there
is still room to debate and argue what the law really says. Finally, it's
gone way over your head as to what modifications in the wording of the law
might make it pass muster.

Get a grip.

On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 16:21:51 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote:
"Crosscut" <yes@its.me.yup> wrote in messagenews:nvjtnv0bd4i0t32qgp8lnrv0rcd9sjbesa@4ax .com... On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 06:42:42 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net>wrote:"Crosscut" <yes@its.me.yup> wrote in messagenews:6fbsnvscdmko8gmegsuakgc4opuh0b75ib@4ax .com...> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:48:27 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net>wrote:>> >> >"Crosscut" <yes@its.me.yup> wrote in message> >news:i8rrnvgqncig4i05c77dbbikaqfd3q6jte@4ax.com...> >> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:22:35 -0400, "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com>> >wrote:> >>> >> >"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message> >> >news:vnr4jrr8cigqa6@corp.supernews.com...> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > Then why do you keep trying to divert this to discussion about> >trespass> >> >if> >> >> > trespass has nothing to do with the DNC list?> >> >>> >> >> It was an a-n-a-l-o-g-y. How else do your want me to say it? Ican> >keep> >> >> someone from entering my property regardless of the reasons. Itmight> >be> >> >> because of what they want to say, but that doesn't give them 1st> >amendment> >> >> protection to enter my property. Same with calling my phone.It's> >*my*> >> >> phone and it doesn't matter what they want to say. I can't keepthem> >from> >> >> saying it, but I can keep them from using my phone to say it.IOW,in> >> >both> >> >> cases, free speech isn't the basis for the offense.> >> >> >> >Yes, and do you know how to follow an analogy? If so, you wouldrealize> >how> >> >faulty your analogy is. But when someone follows your analogy usingthe> >DNC> >> >example and points out to you that if trespass laws were designedthe> >same> >> >way as the DNC list, then people from charities would be allowed to> >trespass> >> >because the DNC list gives those trespassers special privileges,you> >simply> >> >change from it being an analogy to saying nobody can trespass.Whichis> >why> >> >your analogy is useless.> >>> >> No, his analogy is fine. It's the telemarketslime *law* that'suseless,> >> because it forces private citizens attempting to quietly enjoy the> >sanctity> >> of their own homes the same restrictions placed upon proprietors ofpublic> >> accomodations.> >> >No, the DNCL rule is trying to do exactly the opposite.>> No, it says I have to allow charities, politicians, etc. -- basically> *everyone* other than for-profit outfits -- to use my property.No, that's what the judge said Sheesh. The law says what the judge says it says.OK bonehead, but you seem to have a real problem differentiating what thelaw was intended to say vs. how a judge eventually interpreted it. You alsocan't seem to grasp the fact that the FTC is gonna appeal, therefore, thereis still room to debate and argue what the law really says. Finally, it'sgone way over your head as to what modifications in the wording of the lawmight make it pass muster.

We're discussing the here and now. Unless something changes, the here and
now is what we're stuck with. Will it change? Maybe maybe, maybe mayby not,
maybe probably. I don't know, you don't know, no one knows.
Get a grip.

And to think this all started when I *defended* what you said...

"Crosscut" <yes@its.me.yup> wrote in message
news:isqunvcp35k2mtg28m40p32s6ljhmljeoq@4ax.com... On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 16:21:51 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net>
wrote:"Crosscut" <yes@its.me.yup> wrote in messagenews:nvjtnv0bd4i0t32qgp8lnrv0rcd9sjbesa@4ax .com... On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 06:42:42 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net>wrote: > >"Crosscut" <yes@its.me.yup> wrote in message >news:6fbsnvscdmko8gmegsuakgc4opuh0b75ib@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 17:48:27 -0400, "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> >wrote: >> >> > >> >"Crosscut" <yes@its.me.yup> wrote in message >> >news:i8rrnvgqncig4i05c77dbbikaqfd3q6jte@4ax.com... >> >> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:22:35 -0400, "McWebber"
<mcwebber@my-deja.com> >> >wrote: >> >> >> >> >"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message >> >> >news:vnr4jrr8cigqa6@corp.supernews.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Then why do you keep trying to divert this to discussion
about >> >trespass >> >> >if >> >> >> > trespass has nothing to do with the DNC list? >> >> >> >> >> >> It was an a-n-a-l-o-g-y. How else do your want me to say it?
Ican >> >keep >> >> >> someone from entering my property regardless of the reasons.
It >might >> >be >> >> >> because of what they want to say, but that doesn't give them
1st >> >amendment >> >> >> protection to enter my property. Same with calling my phone.It's >> >*my* >> >> >> phone and it doesn't matter what they want to say. I can't
keep >them >> >from >> >> >> saying it, but I can keep them from using my phone to say it.IOW, >in >> >> >both >> >> >> cases, free speech isn't the basis for the offense. >> >> > >> >> >Yes, and do you know how to follow an analogy? If so, you would >realize >> >how >> >> >faulty your analogy is. But when someone follows your analogy
using >the >> >DNC >> >> >example and points out to you that if trespass laws were
designedthe >> >same >> >> >way as the DNC list, then people from charities would be allowed
to >> >trespass >> >> >because the DNC list gives those trespassers special privileges,you >> >simply >> >> >change from it being an analogy to saying nobody can trespass.Which >is >> >why >> >> >your analogy is useless. >> >> >> >> No, his analogy is fine. It's the telemarketslime *law* that's >useless, >> >> because it forces private citizens attempting to quietly enjoy
the >> >sanctity >> >> of their own homes the same restrictions placed upon proprietors
of >public >> >> accomodations. >> > >> >No, the DNCL rule is trying to do exactly the opposite. >> >> No, it says I have to allow charities, politicians, etc. --
basically >> *everyone* other than for-profit outfits -- to use my property. > >No, that's what the judge said Sheesh. The law says what the judge says it says.OK bonehead, but you seem to have a real problem differentiating what thelaw was intended to say vs. how a judge eventually interpreted it. You
alsocan't seem to grasp the fact that the FTC is gonna appeal, therefore,
thereis still room to debate and argue what the law really says. Finally,
it'sgone way over your head as to what modifications in the wording of the
lawmight make it pass muster. We're discussing the here and now. Unless something changes, the here and now is what we're stuck with. Will it change? Maybe maybe, maybe mayby
not, maybe probably. I don't know, you don't know, no one knows.

Right. But any discussion of the *here and now* worth having includes the
possibilities of what could be. Besides, The *here and now* is that the
decision is under appeal and therefore imminently subject to change. The
*here and now* also includes the predisposition of Congress to fix the law
and make it workable. The *here and now* is also the view of whether or not
any judicial decision was rightly made in order to affect public opinion and
therefore the course of this society.

If facts are facts and the only thing you can do is ***** about the ones you
don't like, have a ball. But if you want to discuss whether or not facts
can be changed, and if so how so, then join the club.

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 20:47:35 -0400, "Jay Stuler" <no@no.thanks> wrote:
"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in messagenews:MPG.19e12bd6119c445898b481@news.odysse y.net... In article <izGdb.162333$3o3.11659659@bgtnsc05- news.ops.worldnet.att.net> in misc.consumers, DGDevin <dgdevin@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote:Because it gets in the news and makes a point that needs to be made. Theonly reason the NDNCL has made it this far is because the politicians hadtheir noses rubbed in the fact that people *hate* telemarketing, now it'stime for the another branch of government, the judicial, to get the samemessage. You betray a sad misunderstanding of the whole foundation of American government, the rule of law. The whole idea is that judges are supposed to decide according to the law, not their personal feelings. What you are doing is not physically violent, but is in _exactly_ the same spirit as burning crosses on a judge's lawn.Only if the judge said it was perfectly legal to burn crosses on people'slawns.This judge says it is legal for people to call unsolicited. So what's theproblem?
No he didn't. He said it is against free speech rights to ban certain
kind of calls.

He's leaving it open to ban ALL calls -- that would apparently be an
"equal" kind of treatment.


I'm all for that~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 17:26:23 GMT, "Dave C."
<spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
the number on superpages is his chambers number, not his home number. the Denver Post says that his staff disconnected the ringers and let the voice mailboxes fill up, in clear violation of the callers' first amendment right to be heard More BS. If there was a "right to be heard", then the telemarketers have it also.So you wholeheartedly agree with the judge's decision, then? The judgeinterpreted the First Amendment to mean that you MUST accept thetelemarketers' numerous phone calls and listen to their spiels. -Dave
No. He said we can't ban SOME calls and allow certain kinds of calls
-- it's the SOME vs. ALL that he says is unconstitutional.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:25:42 -0700, "Arthur L. Rubin"
<ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:
"Dave C." wrote: > the number on superpages is his chambers number, not his home number. > the Denver Post says that his staff disconnected the ringers and let > the voice mailboxes fill up, in clear violation of the callers' first > amendment right to be heard More BS. If there was a "right to be heard", then the telemarketers have it also. So you wholeheartedly agree with the judge's decision, then? The judge interpreted the First Amendment to mean that you MUST accept the telemarketers' numerous phone calls and listen to their spiels. -DaveNo -- you can send them directly to voicemail, just ashe did.
I'm not going to pay for any steenking voice mail because
telemarketers call my own, private, home phone.

Put them ALL out of business.

That would be fair!

McWebber wrote:
"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:vnr4sg5ngpug2b@corp.supernews.com... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:_sWdnfTNIOs-G-CiU-KYhA@comcast.com... "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:vnqojeiepr38ab@corp.supernews.com... > > "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message > news:ldmdnUd_YoRsi-CiU-KYiQ@comcast.com... > > "Gordon Burditt" <gordonb.nk5b7@sneaky.lerctr.org> wrote in message > > news:blim23$2f6@library1.airnews.net... > > > >Telephones don't need any electricity from your house. They work just > > fine > > > >in a blackout. > > > > > > That depends on your phone setup. My ISDN line *DOES* need power > > > to the terminal adapter, or it doesn't work (for voice OR data). > > > > > > Small office phone systems need local power to function, although > > > they may (a) have battery backup, and (b) have some kind of fallback > > > mode where the phones may function with only telco power. The one > > > I use at home has both. It still remains, though, that normally > > > if my phone rings it's MY electricity ringing it. > > > > > > > It's still to insignificant for the government to be concerned with and > > there is no law that addresses it. > > What's the significance of trespass? > Phone calls are not trespass. Think they are? Call the police when someone calls you. I've explained to you on numerous occasions that I'm not making the case that it is, but rather using it as an analogy. for you to constantly suggest that I have either means that you're stupid or that you're just playing games to mask a losing position. Take your choice. So now answer the question. You've tried to make the case that the government needs to have a significant interest in a situation in order to get involved. Well? What's the significant government interest if someone trespasses on my property? Why have you never answered that one? Because the answer is obvious if you look up trespass laws. There are laws against trespass. The government decided that a long time ago. But I still have no idea why you keep wanting to discuss trespass since it's irrelevant to the DNC list.

Actually, I disagree. There is no reason why calls made after
you've informed the company (not the telemarketer, the company
that they represent) that you don't want their calls could
NOT be declared trespass. Congress can define things any way
they want to. They didn't, but they COULD.

They (or the FCC, by regulation) could establish the Do-Not-Call
list as appropriate notice that you don't want the company to call you.

(Hint to all you Congresspersons out there.)

The only problem with that approach is that trespass is not
normally a Federal crime.

"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F82E470.413B9F33@sprintmail.com... McWebber wrote: Because the answer is obvious if you look up trespass laws. There are
laws against trespass. The government decided that a long time ago. But I
still have no idea why you keep wanting to discuss trespass since it's
irrelevant to the DNC list. Actually, I disagree. There is no reason why calls made after you've informed the company (not the telemarketer, the company that they represent) that you don't want their calls could NOT be declared trespass.

OK, tell you what. Call your local prosecutor and ask him. Let me know when
the laughter dies down.
Congress can define things any way they want to. They didn't, but they COULD.

They could decide that Monday will now be called Slunday. They COULD do a
lot of things.
They (or the FCC, by regulation) could establish the Do-Not-Call list as appropriate notice that you don't want the company to call you.

IIRC, that's what the DNC list is.
(Hint to all you Congresspersons out there.) The only problem with that approach is that trespass is not normally a Federal crime.

Nor is a phone call trespass.


--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 13:00:40 -0400, McWebber wrote:
The only problem with that approach is that trespass is not normally a Federal crime. Nor is a phone call trespass.

It could well be classed as harrassment.


--
There are 2 sorts of email opt-in lists:
1: Those which can demonstrate the provenance of every subscription request.
2: Fraud

"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F82E470.413B9F33@sprintmail.com... McWebber wrote: "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:vnr4sg5ngpug2b@corp.supernews.com... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:_sWdnfTNIOs-G-CiU-KYhA@comcast.com... > "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message > news:vnqojeiepr38ab@corp.supernews.com... > > > > "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message > > news:ldmdnUd_YoRsi-CiU-KYiQ@comcast.com... > > > "Gordon Burditt" <gordonb.nk5b7@sneaky.lerctr.org> wrote in
message > > > news:blim23$2f6@library1.airnews.net... > > > > >Telephones don't need any electricity from your house. They
work just > > > fine > > > > >in a blackout. > > > > > > > > That depends on your phone setup. My ISDN line *DOES* need
power > > > > to the terminal adapter, or it doesn't work (for voice OR
data). > > > > > > > > Small office phone systems need local power to function,
although > > > > they may (a) have battery backup, and (b) have some kind of fallback > > > > mode where the phones may function with only telco power. The
one > > > > I use at home has both. It still remains, though, that
normally > > > > if my phone rings it's MY electricity ringing it. > > > > > > > > > > It's still to insignificant for the government to be concerned
with and > > > there is no law that addresses it. > > > > What's the significance of trespass? > > > > Phone calls are not trespass. Think they are? Call the police when someone > calls you. I've explained to you on numerous occasions that I'm not making the
case that it is, but rather using it as an analogy. for you to constantly suggest that I have either means that you're stupid or that you're
just playing games to mask a losing position. Take your choice. So now answer the question. You've tried to make the case that the government needs to have a significant interest in a situation in
order to get involved. Well? What's the significant government interest if someone trespasses on my property? Why have you never answered that one? Because the answer is obvious if you look up trespass laws. There are
laws against trespass. The government decided that a long time ago. But I
still have no idea why you keep wanting to discuss trespass since it's
irrelevant to the DNC list. Actually, I disagree. There is no reason why calls made after you've informed the company (not the telemarketer, the company that they represent) that you don't want their calls could NOT be declared trespass. Congress can define things any way they want to. They didn't, but they COULD. They (or the FCC, by regulation) could establish the Do-Not-Call list as appropriate notice that you don't want the company to call you. (Hint to all you Congresspersons out there.) The only problem with that approach is that trespass is not normally a Federal crime.

I basically agree with everything you've said. Well done.

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:eYidnV5ZKJW8bB-iU-KYuA@comcast.com... "Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:3F82E470.413B9F33@sprintmail.com... McWebber wrote: Because the answer is obvious if you look up trespass laws. There are laws against trespass. The government decided that a long time ago. But I still have no idea why you keep wanting to discuss trespass since it's irrelevant to the DNC list. Actually, I disagree. There is no reason why calls made after you've informed the company (not the telemarketer, the company that they represent) that you don't want their calls could NOT be declared trespass. OK, tell you what. Call your local prosecutor and ask him. Let me know
when the laughter dies down.

Listen wise-***. First of all, you know damn well that I never called the
DNCL rule trespass. Secondly, neither did the person to whom you're
replying. Once again, you failed to read. What he/she said was *could* be
called trespass if Congress so declared.
Congress can define things any way they want to. They didn't, but they COULD. They could decide that Monday will now be called Slunday. They COULD do a lot of things.

Once again, you have to resort to being a wise guy. Tell me, if the current
rule were clarified to make it an offense for someone to access your phone
after they've been notified not to do so, would the DNCL rule pass muster
for you?
They (or the FCC, by regulation) could establish the Do-Not-Call list as appropriate notice that you don't want the company to call you. IIRC, that's what the DNC list is.

Over parsing on your part.
(Hint to all you Congresspersons out there.) The only problem with that approach is that trespass is not normally a Federal crime. Nor is a phone call trespass.

What a complete, argumentative moron.

"Uncle StoatWarbler" <alanb+google4@digistar.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.07.18.06.21.86250@digistar.com... On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 13:00:40 -0400, McWebber wrote: The only problem with that approach is that trespass is not normally a Federal crime. Nor is a phone call trespass. It could well be classed as harrassment.

It could also be classed as the unauthorized use of another's property and
made an offense. but don't expect McWebber to understand any of that.

In article <vo658gf51kk7f7@corp.supernews.com>, idaman@conversent.net
says... "Uncle StoatWarbler" <alanb+google4@digistar.com> wrote in message news:pan.2003.10.07.18.06.21.86250@digistar.com... On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 13:00:40 -0400, McWebber wrote:> The only problem with that approach is that trespass is not> normally a Federal crime. Nor is a phone call trespass. It could well be classed as harrassment. It could also be classed as the unauthorized use of another's property and made an offense. but don't expect McWebber to understand any of that.

It could also be classed as a Big Mac with fries. But without any
supporting proof we can't argue that the DNCL is in violation of any
trademarks.

/steve

PS: No, I don't expect you'll get this.
--
No one gives you more control of your e-mail than we do!
http://www.cotse.net/servicedetails.html
E-Mail, Anon Proxies, Remailers, Usenet, Web Hosting, More.
The Internet's Full Service Privacy Web site, Your Shield From The
Internet.

"Stephen K. Gielda" <steve@No-Spam-packetderm.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19ece8f33d9294f3989cea@news.supernews.com ... In article <vo658gf51kk7f7@corp.supernews.com>, idaman@conversent.net says... "Uncle StoatWarbler" <alanb+google4@digistar.com> wrote in message news:pan.2003.10.07.18.06.21.86250@digistar.com... On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 13:00:40 -0400, McWebber wrote: >> The only problem with that approach is that trespass is not >> normally a Federal crime. > > Nor is a phone call trespass. It could well be classed as harrassment. It could also be classed as the unauthorized use of another's property
and made an offense. but don't expect McWebber to understand any of that. It could also be classed as a Big Mac with fries. But without any supporting proof we can't argue that the DNCL is in violation of any trademarks.

True, but unless we understand, we'll never figure it out.

P.S., no, i don't think you've got it in you to get this one.

"We conclude there is a substantial likelihood that the FTC will be able to
show ... that the list directly advances the government's substantial
interest and is narrowly tailored," the judges said.

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:i96dnfYL-pNAiuCiU-KYiA@comcast.com... "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:vnpgkhsq058s50@corp.supernews.com... "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:1f6dnZM2qrctCuGiU-KYgw@comcast.com... "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message news:vnp3jsm61g4ubb@corp.supernews.com... > > "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message > news:YNOdnR93Q6GzHOGiU-KYuA@comcast.com... > > "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> wrote in message > > news:vnopjvi1usck6a@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > > > > Nope. The government is categorizing different types of callers based > > upon > > > the content of their speech. I'm accepting their methodology of > > > categorization and indicating that I don't want callers of a particular > > type > > > to use my phone, my electricity, and my phone service. > > > > You can accept it, but this judge feels the government doesn't
have the > > right to categorize basically identical forms of speech as good
and bad. > > And he's right. but the government isn't saying that one is good or bad. > They're leaving that to me. No, they're not since they won't block all sales calls. They're
telling you which you can block with the DNC. You don't have the choice. It's commercial or nothing, even though they admit they're both bad. They make no value judgement. They classify a caller based upon their intent. *I* decide that callers fitting that classification are "bad", not the government. Really? Suppose you classify charity callers as bad. What then? Also, I'm the one with the choice. I have a choice to ban callers fitting that classification or not. You can only ban the classification the government lets you. You don't
have any choice. > > The > > call selling you school band candy is allowed, but the call from Hershey > to > > sell you candy isn't allowed. > > By me, that's right. Fine, but by me it's not. Then don't sign up. No one required you to. Now you can get all the calls you want, and so can I. I don't want any telemarketing calls. No, they never gave you that choice. They made the choice for you and said here, take it or leave it. You begin by saying that they never gave me a choice, and then go on to describe the choice they gave me. I just said they don't give you a choice as to what kind of calls to ban. They gave me one more choice than I now have. If it's not good enough, I don't have to sign up. But before the DNCL, I truly had no choice. At least with the DNCL, I have one. Yeah, the choice Big Brother lets you make. Are you people or sheeple? > > Except this law, as much as you would like it to be, is not about anyone > > using your stuff. > > That's the whole point of the debate. It *is* about using my stuff. No, go read the law. It's the application of the law and how the new law fits to it that
we're debating. Do you understand this concept? I do, do you? You keep saying it's about people using your stuff. Please show me where that is covered in this law? -- McWebber No email replies read If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends please forget that I'm your friend.

"We conclude there is a substantial likelihood that the FTC will be able to
show ... that the list directly advances the government's substantial
interest and is narrowly tailored," the judges said.

"Paul Robinson" <postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote in message
news:3F7A6C1E.2E45C226@paul.washington.dc.us... "AllYou!" wrote: Beyond that, if the question is looked at on a first amendment basis,
the telemarketers are probably right. The government cannot silence people
from saying what they want as long as what they say is not wildly
unreasonable. However, the issue that the judge, and the FTC missed, is that there is
no constitutional freedom to use an appliance that belongs to someone else,
nor the services they pay for. If you take that argument it's easy enough to ban someone from using the
mails to send out advertising literature, since you pay for the mailbox your
mail comes through. IOW, no one has the constitutional right to make the bell on my phone
ring, nor to use the electricity I pay for to make it ring, nor use the
service I pay for to get through to me. The phone company pays for the electric current used to make the phone
ring. You may have one of those phones that is a portable or other type that
doesn't rely on current from the phone company to make it ring but the signal to
do so (and the electric current to make it happen) is sent by the telephone
company. Your phone line when on or off hook is, I believe, about 12 volts DC or
less. When it rings the current jumps to 48 volts DC. That you choose to use a
phone that requires additional electricity above and beyond what the phone
company provides is not relevant. The telemarketer can say whatever they want, but I have no obligation to furnish the means by which they get me to
listen. No, but should someone's ability to communicate to others be dependent
upon whether the content of the material is commercial in nature? If we go
that route we might argue that they can pass a law that allows people to
restrict certain types of callers based on the content of their message, so that
people calling about, say, supporting the death penalty can be prohibited from
calling people who signed up on the "oppose the death penalty register" and those
who don't want calls in favor of gun control can prevent anyone presenting a
message supporting a handgun ban by having a list for that purpose. Why is it that someone presenting a message to save the whales has a
greater protection for his speech than someone presenting a message to save at
First National Bank? That should have been the governments case. They should have stipulated
as to the free speech issue. If you stipulate that the restriction violates free speech you're
stipulating that the do-not-call list is unconstitutional. -- Paul Robinson "Above all else... We shall go on..." "...And continue!" "If the lessons of history teach us anything it is that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us."

In <3F7E2F5A.C8DFB42B@cox.net>, on 10/04/2003
at 02:24 AM, "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." <larrysheldon@cox.net>
said:
Like other things discussed here, sort of depends on whose pubes,doesn't it?

Didn't a recent SCOTUSA throw out such laws?

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT

Unsolicited bulk E-mail will be subject to legal action. I reserve
the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.

Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do
not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org