[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 12, 7:05*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 12 Mai, 03:41, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On May 11, 9:27*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 11 Mai, 21:50, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 11, 8:34*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 11 Mai, 19:22, Jenn wrote:
It's largely a local situation. *These bogus CDs, DVDs, etc. are sold
all over L.A. from the back of vans and pickups, swap meets, and
sometimes even in local stores.
any way, I'm glad to see you move over to
the republican side, that property rights matter!!!!

It's called "intellectual rights", which is why it's an issue for the
Dems to handle. ;-)

One type of property right.
Anyway, its good to see you want to protect the
'intellectual' rights of rap music.

So we should ban "Catcher in the Rye"? Or where do you draw the line?-

Ban?
Did I make another typo?

I saw sarcasm about protecting rap music. I sarcastically responded.
I'm just wondering where we draw the line if we choose not to protect
it.

In direct answer to your question, yes, rap music should have the same
protections as any other music.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On May 12, 9:56*am, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On May 11, 4:15*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On May 10, 10:32*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On May 10, 9:00*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article

m,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 10 Mai, 22:21, Jenn
wrote:
In article

ps.c
om,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On 10 Mai, 21:24, Jenn
wrote:
I support this move:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...09-piracy-now-
publ
ic-n
uisa
...
in-los-angeles-county.html

bum link

can you 'tiny it please?

cutting, pasting and editing didn't work either.

http://tiny.cc/7xCtr

Looks like the entertainment industry wormed their way
into the local pols pockets. This didn't happen in Boise.

It should happen everywhere.

*You want more homeless children because of
one stupid parent?

If you are the landlord and the one stupid parent doesn't pay the
rent,
do you put them out?

*I work with them if they have kids.

How would you suggest that the govt "work with" these thieves?

Lol, wow, you're panties are in such a wad over this you'll
imply almost anything.

What am I implying?

That I said the gov't should "work with" a thief.
All I said is they shouldn't be resorting to property confiscation
if the property is home to innocent people.

I implied nothing; I simply asked a question. You would work with
people who didn't pay their rent if they have kids. Would you work with
those who are thieves of media if they have kids? If so, how?

[yellowmattercustard]

"George M. Middius" wrote
*when pigs fly*

Next time you feel compelled to make a pointless reply, I suggest you save
some keystrokes and just say "Duh!"

Not pointless, George. There was a reason I used the asterisks. The initial
post was supporting your pov. I knew you were being a smartass.

Tell me. Why do you guys ride each other so much on a daily basis?

In ten years (or so) of peeking in and out, I haven't seen much difference.
In fact, it may now be worse than ever.

Thanks!