This Call May Be Monitored ...

Gordon Burditt wrote:
>
> >What it boils down to, if you are not involved in terrorist acts or crime,
> >you have nothing to hide and nothing to worry about.
>
> The only people who have "nothing to hide" are either extremely
> poor or dead. No, actually, even these people can be victims of
> identity theft. The living need to avoid being harvested for organ
> transplants.
>
> <snip>

If you're living in the US, you pulled this last line out of your ass.

As someone who works in the field, I know.

Notan

---

› See More: This Call May Be Monitored ...

>> >What it boils down to, if you are not involved in terrorist acts or crime,
>> >you have nothing to hide and nothing to worry about.
>>
>> The only people who have "nothing to hide" are either extremely
>> poor or dead. No, actually, even these people can be victims of
>> identity theft. The living need to avoid being harvested for organ
>> transplants.
>>
>> <snip>
>
>If you're living in the US, you pulled this last line out of your ass.
>
>As someone who works in the field, I know.

You work in the BLACK-MARKET human organ trade? And admit it? in
public?

No, I wasn't talking about honest mistakes being made about whether
you are still alive and taking organs too soon.

I suppose it is more likely in the US that someone would want you
for food than for organ transplants. Jeffery Dahmer (not sure about
*****ing), for instance. Plenty of sickos out there.

And just because I'm in the US now, doesn't mean I will be in 24
hours. Never can tell when GWB will grab me by mistake and send
me off to some other country to be tortured, thinking I'm a terrorist.

Gordon L. Burditt

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:09:47 -0500, Stephen K. Gielda
<[email protected]> wrote:


>> > Keep in mind that if you have 250 million Americans making phone calls,
>> > you would need another 250 million people to listen in on all those calls!
>> > So I should think that there would be a limit to how many calls they could
>> > listen in on.
>> >
>> >
>> This is SO simple and NOT a big deal by any means!
>> By having a blanket order like this they will no longer need a court order
>> or warrant to listen in on the "bad guys".....
>> What it boils down to, if you are not involved in terrorist acts or crime,
>> you have nothing to hide and nothing to worry about.

>If the government has nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear
>from proper judicial oversight.

LOL
Right on!

Geo

Gordon Burditt wrote:
>
> >> >What it boils down to, if you are not involved in terrorist acts or crime,
> >> >you have nothing to hide and nothing to worry about.
> >>
> >> The only people who have "nothing to hide" are either extremely
> >> poor or dead. No, actually, even these people can be victims of
> >> identity theft. The living need to avoid being harvested for organ
> >> transplants.
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >
> >If you're living in the US, you pulled this last line out of your ass.
> >
> >As someone who works in the field, I know.
>
> You work in the BLACK-MARKET human organ trade? And admit it? in
> public?
>
> No, I wasn't talking about honest mistakes being made about whether
> you are still alive and taking organs too soon.
>
> I suppose it is more likely in the US that someone would want you
> for food than for organ transplants. Jeffery Dahmer (not sure about
> *****ing), for instance. Plenty of sickos out there.
>
> <snip>

I don't have a clue what you're talking about and, apparently,
neither do you.

Goodnight, Gordon.

Notan

"GEO" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:09:47 -0500, Stephen K. Gielda
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>> > Keep in mind that if you have 250 million Americans making phone
>>> > calls,
>>> > you would need another 250 million people to listen in on all those
>>> > calls!
>>> > So I should think that there would be a limit to how many calls they
>>> > could
>>> > listen in on.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> This is SO simple and NOT a big deal by any means!
>>> By having a blanket order like this they will no longer need a court
>>> order
>>> or warrant to listen in on the "bad guys".....
>>> What it boils down to, if you are not involved in terrorist acts or
>>> crime,
>>> you have nothing to hide and nothing to worry about.
>
>>If the government has nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear
>>from proper judicial oversight.

unfortunately, the courts are in on it. they have overstepped their bounds
and
have begun to make laws, which is constitutionally the provision of the
congress.

one of the founding fathers indicated that we'd be in deep doodoo if the
courts
ever overstepped their bounds like that. maybe i can find the quote.

This posting i s being monitored!



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:07:57 -0700, Notan <[email protected]> wrote:

>Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>
>> >What it boils down to, if you are not involved in terrorist acts or crime,
>> >you have nothing to hide and nothing to worry about.
>>
>> The only people who have "nothing to hide" are either extremely
>> poor or dead. No, actually, even these people can be victims of
>> identity theft. The living need to avoid being harvested for organ
>> transplants.
>>
>> <snip>
>
>If you're living in the US, you pulled this last line out of your ass.
>
>As someone who works in the field, I know.
>
>Notan

You a farm worker?

Bob Ward wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:07:57 -0700, Notan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Gordon Burditt wrote:
> >>
> >> >What it boils down to, if you are not involved in terrorist acts or crime,
> >> >you have nothing to hide and nothing to worry about.
> >>
> >> The only people who have "nothing to hide" are either extremely
> >> poor or dead. No, actually, even these people can be victims of
> >> identity theft. The living need to avoid being harvested for organ
> >> transplants.
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >
> >If you're living in the US, you pulled this last line out of your ass.
> >
> >As someone who works in the field, I know.
> >
> >Notan
>
> You a farm worker?

Something like that! <g>

Notan

In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
>
> >> >What it boils down to, if you are not involved in terrorist acts or crime,
> >> >you have nothing to hide and nothing to worry about.
> >>
> >> The only people who have "nothing to hide" are either extremely
> >> poor or dead. No, actually, even these people can be victims of
> >> identity theft. The living need to avoid being harvested for organ
> >> transplants.
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >
> >If you're living in the US, you pulled this last line out of your ass.
> >
> >As someone who works in the field, I know.
>
> You work in the BLACK-MARKET human organ trade? And admit it? in
> public?
>
> No, I wasn't talking about honest mistakes being made about whether
> you are still alive and taking organs too soon.
>
> I suppose it is more likely in the US that someone would want you
> for food than for organ transplants. Jeffery Dahmer (not sure about
> *****ing), for instance. Plenty of sickos out there.

As "Someone who works in the trade" *I* can tell you that the market for "Long Pig" is indeed growing.

> And just because I'm in the US now, doesn't mean I will be in 24
> hours. Never can tell when GWB will grab me by mistake and send
> me off to some other country to be tortured, thinking I'm a terrorist.

..or the weekend buffet.

"Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> asked:

>> If you are not a terrorist or a criminal, who cares?


Thrasher Remailer <[email protected]> replied:

> Because sooner or later the definition of terrorist or criminal
> will be expanded to include the perfectly legal function that I
> now fulfill.

What function is that, exactly? And what makes you so certain
that it will eventually be criminalized, much less included in
law enforcement's definition of terrorism?


> Things like this should be stopped if for no other reason than
> someday it'll be aimed at you.

They're comin ta gitcha! Booga booga booga!


> Enlightened self interest requires me to oppose something that
> will one day be used in an effor to kill me.

So how long have you been nursing this industrial-strength paranoia?



Geoff

--
"When addressing young mothers, for instance, even the most light-hearted
reference to sodomizing their newborn children will meet with the cold
silence usually associated with Soviet submariners." -- NatLamp

Geoff Miller wrote:

>> Because sooner or later the definition of terrorist or criminal will be
>> expanded to include the perfectly legal function that I now fulfill.
>
> What function is that, exactly?

How about we start with defending your family?

And if they somehow by the Grace of God manage to survive long enough in a
world where men who refuse to be rendered defenseless against no other
being than those who have come to inflict mayhem and death, well move on
to simply taking them on vacation without having their papers in order.

> And what makes you so certain that it
> will eventually be criminalized, much less included in law enforcement's
> definition of terrorism?

Oh, I dunno... maybe just a little niggle like the fact that it's already
happening? The fact that we're ALREADY living in a world where things that
were formerly rights and common sense practices make us criminals, all in
the name of "security"?

Which is almost sadly amusing when considered along side the fact that the
rights we've already lost, and the mentality it's already produced,
allowed a handful of fanatics to commandeer and successfully re-target a
couple 800,000lb guided missiles with nothing more than ****ing BOX
CUTTERS.

At this point I'd be inclined to welcome you to the stark reality of your
very existence, and the fact that ultimately its people like you who
willingly trade citizenship for membership in a fiefdom that are
responsible for things like 9/11, but I do realize that greeting would be
wasted on such an eager gelding.

Just go stare into your pretty box with magically swirling pictures and
strange voices some more, good subject.

You're getting veeeeerrrry sleeeeeeeepy...

<click>

Fritz Wuehler <[email protected]>
writes:

>>> Because sooner or later the definition of terrorist or criminal will be
>>> expanded to include the perfectly legal function that I now fulfill.

: What function is that, exactly?

> How about we start with defending your family?

You defend your family, present tense, only in the abstract sense
most of the time. Anyone trying to arrest you for an abstraction
would have a pretty long row to hoe, it seems to me.

If you killed someone in the course of defending your family, that
would be homicide which, if charges were pressed, might get you
charged with murder or manslaughter. The killing of one human
being by another in the context of familial defense isn't ter-
rorism, and any DA who tried to twist the concept of terrorism
to imply otherwise would probably be laughed out of the courtroom.

If all killing were defined as terrorism, you see, then the word
and the concept would become meaningless. Much like "racism" and
"sexism" and "homophobia" have become meaningless through careless
usage, in fact.


> Oh, I dunno... maybe just a little niggle like the fact that
> it's already happening? The fact that we're ALREADY living in
> a world where things that were formerly rights and common sense
> practices make us criminals, all in the name of "security"?

Like what, for instance?


> Which is almost sadly amusing when considered along side the fact
> that the rights we've already lost, and the mentality it's already
> produced, allowed a handful of fanatics to commandeer and succes-
> sfully re-target a couple 800,000lb guided missiles with nothing
> more than ****ing BOX CUTTERS.

Interesting. Most of the complaining I've heard about rights, in
the context of airport security, has concerned a perceived erosion
of rights *after* the 9/11 attacks, not before they occurred.

So how exactly do you figure lost rights entered into the ability
of Atta & Co. to hijack those two planes? Are you alluding to the
fact that the other passengers weren't allowed to bring potential
weapons on board with which they could've fought back? The passen-
gers on that United 757 that crashed in the Pennsylvania field were
under the same restrictions, and it did't seem to have stopped *them*
from fighting back.


> At this point I'd be inclined to welcome you to the stark reality
> of your very existence, and the fact that ultimately its people
> like you who willingly trade citizenship for membership in a
> fiefdom that are responsible for things like 9/11, but I do
> realize that greeting would be wasted on such an eager gelding.

"People like me?" Er, all you know about me, at this point, is
that I asked you for clarification of your views. How exactly
do you get from there to this allegation that I'm an "eager
gelding?" Reflexive hostility only makes you look like a loon.


> Just go stare into your pretty box with magically swirling
> pictures and strange voices some more, good subject.

Be sure to wear your tinfoil beanie shiny-side out. That'll
prevent the evil Marshmallow People from the planet Zznagoroth
from beaming their mind-control rays int your head.

Oh, and watch out for those black helicopters, of course. That
almost goes without saying.



Geoff

--
"A foolish consistency is the knob-gobblin' of small minds."

Geoff Miller wrote:

>>>> Because sooner or later the definition of terrorist or criminal will
>>>> be expanded to include the perfectly legal function that I now
>>>> fulfill.
>
> : What function is that, exactly?
>
>> How about we start with defending your family?
>
> You defend your family, present tense, only in the abstract sense most of

What a metric buttload o'bullocks. There's nothing "abstract" about it,
loyal subject. Someone attacks yours, you either defend them or they're
victims. It really is simple as that. Your little "abstract" weasel
dance won't put breath back in their bodies, or wash the ****stains off
their ripped panties.

Brutal crude, but equally true. Welcome to reality.

> the time. Anyone trying to arrest you for an abstraction would have a
> pretty long row to hoe, it seems to me.
>
> If you killed someone in the course of defending your family, that would
> be homicide which, if charges were pressed, might get you charged with

My my... what a well heeled lapdog you are. So far gone you care more
about police state dogma than you do your own family. Don't risk running
afoul of the law to preserve lives you claim to love or anything. Perish
the though.

<sigh>

Your handlers a very proud of you this day Geoff. There will be an extra
biscuit in your bowl at feeding time.

> murder or manslaughter. The killing of one human being by another in the
> context of familial defense isn't ter- rorism, and any DA who tried to
> twist the concept of terrorism to imply otherwise would probably be
> laughed out of the courtroom.

Terrorism is just the soup de'jour my comprehension challenged obedient
puppy. Before that it was "crime", or "drugs", or "accidents". Or whatever
buzzword your handlers figured you might be fooled into gobbling down like
you believed it was manna from the Gods.

You and your ilk have been force conditioned into thinking you're too weak
and stupid to act responsibly on your own, by way of decades of false
rhetoric and empty promises that without deviation have produced the polar
opposite of their warranty. It's precisely that brainwashing that leads to
your downfall, and each downfall in turn to more rhetoric.

>> Oh, I dunno... maybe just a little niggle like the fact that it's
>> already happening? The fact that we're ALREADY living in a world where
>> things that were formerly rights and common sense practices make us
>> criminals, all in the name of "security"?
>
> Like what, for instance?

See above. I refuse to waste my time with your circular arguing.

>> Which is almost sadly amusing when considered along side the fact that
>> the rights we've already lost, and the mentality it's already produced,
>> allowed a handful of fanatics to commandeer and succes- sfully re-target
>> a couple 800,000lb guided missiles with nothing more than ****ing BOX
>> CUTTERS.
>
> Interesting. Most of the complaining I've heard about rights, in the
> context of airport security, has concerned a perceived erosion of rights
> *after* the 9/11 attacks, not before they occurred.
>
> So how exactly do you figure lost rights entered into the ability of Atta
> & Co. to hijack those two planes? Are you alluding to the fact that the
> other passengers weren't allowed to bring potential weapons on board with

Partly. But the real insidiousness of this horrendous example is manifest
in the fact that the poor farm animals who allowed those miscreants to
serve Allah did so ONLY as a result of their conditioned fear of minor
lacerations and false belief that somehow, some way, their Nanny State
would step in and save the day.

Oooops.

> which they could've fought back? The passen- gers on that United 757
> that crashed in the Pennsylvania field were under the same restrictions,
> and it did't seem to have stopped *them* from fighting back.

33% success rate SUCKS DICK. Two thirds of the finite set of people who
could have changed the outcome of that day by showing their mettle failed
miserably. The math says the systematic neutering of a population, enabled
by your ridiculously myopic vision of a Utopian society, left 66% of a
supposed "free" people so flaccid and impotent they sat by and let
themselves and their countrymen be slaughtered in wholesale fashion.

Ironically enough, it's the same destiny your own family apparently faces
if by some chance one of those like minded miscreants' paths crosses
theirs. And all because you're too busy believing you're a "free thinker"
to see just how much of the capacity for free thought you've piddled away.

>> At this point I'd be inclined to welcome you to the stark reality of
>> your very existence, and the fact that ultimately its people like you
>> who willingly trade citizenship for membership in a fiefdom that are
>> responsible for things like 9/11, but I do realize that greeting would
>> be wasted on such an eager gelding.
>
> "People like me?" Er, all you know about me, at this point, is that I

You thoroughly described and defined yourself when you made an inane
attempt to gloss over your responsibilities to your loved ones as an
"abstract" concept. Not that you didn't come off as a eunuch before that
mind you, it just thoroughly crystallized the picture.

> asked you for clarification of your views. How exactly do you get from
> there to this allegation that I'm an "eager gelding?" Reflexive
> hostility only makes you look like a loon.

Hostility? <laugh>

By all means shovel more proof of your unwitting hypocrisy into the fray
by diving head long into a muckhole of self pity. Which handler will you
beg for salvation from this horrific assault, lap dog?

>> Just go stare into your pretty box with magically swirling pictures and
>> strange voices some more, good subject.
>
> Be sure to wear your tinfoil beanie shiny-side out. That'll prevent the
> evil Marshmallow People from the planet Zznagoroth from beaming their
> mind-control rays int your head.

My head is clear as a crisp day, son. I'm not the one hobbled by vaporous
dreams of my mommy's skirt being an ever present refuge under which to
hide from the bad people. I'm not the one suffering delusions of lost
rights and freedoms being some panacea for evil deeds. That, my confused
little pup, would be you and every dog that barks on command like you.

Fritz Wuehler wrote:

> Your handlers a very proud of you this day Geoff. There will be an extra
> biscuit in your bowl at feeding time.

No there won't be. Geoff has given up his right to defend his food bowl,
a bigger dog already has his eye on Geoff's biscuit, and Geoff's handlers
really don't give a rat's ass WHO ends up with the biscuit as long as
they can get all the other doggies to behave by telling them how wonderful
they are for handing out any biscuits at all.

:-(