Thieving Republicans Spanked in Colorado

[George M. Middius]

The Colorado Supreme Court brought down the hammer on the sleazy
Republicans, who had tried to steal elections for the next ten years
by illegally redrawing electoral districts.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/01/redistricting.laws.ap/index.html

Sometimes justice is served.

[Sandman]

Now if there were only a decent court in Texas to slap Tom DeLay and his
sleazy band of repuke thugs.

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> The Colorado Supreme Court brought down the hammer on the sleazy
> Republicans, who had tried to steal elections for the next ten years
> by illegally redrawing electoral districts.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/01/redistricting.laws.ap/index.html
>
> Sometimes justice is served.
>
>
>

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Sandman" > wrote:

> Now if there were only a decent court in Texas to slap Tom DeLay and his
> sleazy band of repuke thugs.

Arrgh! Top-posting!

> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > The Colorado Supreme Court brought down the hammer on the sleazy
> > Republicans, who had tried to steal elections for the next ten years
> > by illegally redrawing electoral districts.
> >
> > http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/01/redistricting.laws.ap/index.html
> >
> > Sometimes justice is served.

I wouldn't mind a repeat in Texas. Austin was a single district. Now
it's to be divided among three.

Stephen

[pyjamarama]

George M. Middius > wrote in message >...
> The Colorado Supreme Court brought down the hammer on the sleazy
> Republicans, who had tried to steal elections for the next ten years
> by illegally redrawing electoral districts.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/01/redistricting.laws.ap/index.html
>
> Sometimes justice is served.

Must suck when your side's completely out of power, eh Georgetta?

Get used to it -- the left is now officially unelectable.

See ya in 2008.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> The Colorado Supreme Court brought down the hammer on the sleazy
> Republicans, who had tried to steal elections for the next ten years
> by illegally redrawing electoral districts.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/01/redistricting.laws.ap/index.html
>
> Sometimes justice is served.
>
>
Sure jsut at the California recall.

Nobody said Republicans can't be just as ****ty as the Democrats.

[Phil]

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
> Now if there were only a decent court in Texas to slap Tom DeLay and his
> sleazy band of repuke thugs.
>
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > The Colorado Supreme Court brought down the hammer on the sleazy
> > Republicans, who had tried to steal elections for the next ten years
> > by illegally redrawing electoral districts.
> >
> > http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/01/redistricting.laws.ap/index.html
> >
> > Sometimes justice is served.
> >
> >
> >
>

Well, let's see what actually happen here. As we all know every ten years
the electoral districts are re-drawn to reflect the results of the census.
The general assembly in Colorado was to do this. Unfortunately, the assembly
had a slight Republican majority which meant the Republicans would
controlled the re-districting. The Democrats didn't like that, at all. So
what did they do? They force it to the courts. The court, happily, was
populated with Democratic appointees. Thus, the re-districting was done by
the court to the advantage of the Democrats even though they did not have a
majority in the assembly, rather undemocratic wouldn't you say.
After the mid-term election the Republicans had a large majority in the
assembly, thus they hope they could have the re-districting be done by the
people the constitution requires to do the re-districting.
But the court was still controlled by the Democrats so they ruled that the
court could make this decision.
The re-districting is suppose to be done by the reprehensive of the people,
the assembly, not by an appointed dictator. Perhaps, you have the wrong
thieves and perhaps it was not a spanking of the Republicans but a spanking
of Democracy and its fair practice.

Phil

[George M. Middius]

Phil lied:

> Well, let's see what actually happen here. As we all know every ten years
> the electoral districts are re-drawn to reflect the results of the census.
> The general assembly in Colorado was to do this. Unfortunately, the assembly
> had a slight Republican majority which meant the Republicans would
> controlled the re-districting. The Democrats didn't like that, at all. So
> what did they do? They force it to the courts.

Lost your ability to read? Or has your reactionary political fervor
taken the place of what meager ability you ever had to think
straight?

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> Phil lied:
>
>> Well, let's see what actually happen here. As we all know every ten
>> years the electoral districts are re-drawn to reflect the results of
>> the census. The general assembly in Colorado was to do this.
>> Unfortunately, the assembly had a slight Republican majority which
>> meant the Republicans would controlled the re-districting. The
>> Democrats didn't like that, at all. So what did they do? They force
>> it to the courts.
>
> Lost your ability to read? Or has your reactionary political fervor
> taken the place of what meager ability you ever had to think
> straight?

So Middius you really are so stupid that you think that Sanders is giving us
an accurate objective report? I guess that means you agree with him that
Nixon made his trip to China about 4 months before the Watergate break-in as
part of his master scheme to cover-up the Watergate break in.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:02:50 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

>> Phil lied:
>>
>>> Well, let's see what actually happen here. As we all know every ten
>>> years the electoral districts are re-drawn to reflect the results of
>>> the census. The general assembly in Colorado was to do this.
>>> Unfortunately, the assembly had a slight Republican majority which
>>> meant the Republicans would controlled the re-districting. The
>>> Democrats didn't like that, at all. So what did they do? They force
>>> it to the courts.
>>
>> Lost your ability to read? Or has your reactionary political fervor
>> taken the place of what meager ability you ever had to think
>> straight?
>
>So Middius you really are so stupid that you think that Sanders is giving us
>an accurate objective report? I guess that means you agree with him that
>Nixon made his trip to China about 4 months before the Watergate break-in as
>part of his master scheme to cover-up the Watergate break in.

Yeah, about as much as I believe that people who use your web site are
protected by anonynimity.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:02:50 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Phil lied:
>>>
>>>> Well, let's see what actually happen here. As we all know every ten
>>>> years the electoral districts are re-drawn to reflect the results
>>>> of the census. The general assembly in Colorado was to do this.
>>>> Unfortunately, the assembly had a slight Republican majority which
>>>> meant the Republicans would controlled the re-districting. The
>>>> Democrats didn't like that, at all. So what did they do? They force
>>>> it to the courts.

>>> Lost your ability to read? Or has your reactionary political fervor
>>> taken the place of what meager ability you ever had to think
>>> straight?

>> So Middius you really are so stupid that you think that Sanders is
>> giving us an accurate objective report? I guess that means you agree
>> with him that Nixon made his trip to China about 4 months before the
>> Watergate break-in as part of his master scheme to cover-up the
>> Watergate break in.

> Yeah, about as much as I believe that people who use your web site are
> protected by anonynimity.

Weil, this sentence shows how little you know about how web sites work, not
to mention being perfectly horrible English. They're not protected by
anonymity, their anonymity is protected by the simplistic, HTML-only
implementation of the web site.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 07:31:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>> Yeah, about as much as I believe that people who use your web site are
>> protected by anonynimity.
>
>Weil, this sentence shows how little you know about how web sites work, not
>to mention being perfectly horrible English. They're not protected by
>anonymity, their anonymity is protected by the simplistic, HTML-only
>implementation of the web site.

Untrue.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 07:31:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Yeah, about as much as I believe that people who use your web site
>>> are protected by anonynimity.
>>
>> Weil, this sentence shows how little you know about how web sites
>> work, not to mention being perfectly horrible English. They're not
>> protected by anonymity, their anonymity is protected by the
>> simplistic, HTML-only implementation of the web site.
>
> Untrue.

In another post today Weil you claimed that I didn't address this post, but
obviously I did, about 4 hours before you made your claim. So are you being
stupid, lying or what?

In any case Weil you're being vague, and I presume that's because you know
so little about how web sites work. Who is putting you up to this weirdness,
anyway?

Weil, why don't you expose your ignorance further by trying to describe the
means by which one of my web sites obtains personal information about people
who browse it or download files from it.

Let's start with the basics - the standard monitor records from just about
any web server contain the IP address of users whose usage is actually
logged by the web server. This is generally just a subset of total usage.

In addition, these IP addresses typically lead to a bank of
dynamically-assigned IP addresses that on a good day can be pinned down to a
city, and that's about that. In the case of AOL and several other large ISPs
they are global to the entire ISP.

AFAIK, it's hard for a web site owner to learn much else about the web
site's users within the context of a pure-HTML web site.

So what's the purported scheme that I've supposedly got going here?

[dave weil]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:59:04 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 07:31:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Yeah, about as much as I believe that people who use your web site
>>>> are protected by anonynimity.
>>>
>>> Weil, this sentence shows how little you know about how web sites
>>> work, not to mention being perfectly horrible English. They're not
>>> protected by anonymity, their anonymity is protected by the
>>> simplistic, HTML-only implementation of the web site.
>>
>> Untrue.
>
>In another post today Weil you claimed that I didn't address this post, but
>obviously I did, about 4 hours before you made your claim. So are you being
>stupid, lying or what?

Actually, you didn't directly address my point. You simply tried to
obsfucate.

>In any case Weil you're being vague, and I presume that's because you know
>so little about how web sites work. Who is putting you up to this weirdness,
>anyway?
>
>Weil, why don't you expose your ignorance further by trying to describe the
>means by which one of my web sites obtains personal information about people
>who browse it or download files from it.

When you tell an open forum that someone from Sony Corporation has
apparently downloaded material from your site, you acknowledge that
you have obtained personal information about people who browse it or
download files from it.

>Let's start with the basics - the standard monitor records from just about
>any web server contain the IP address of users whose usage is actually
>logged by the web server. This is generally just a subset of total usage.
>
>In addition, these IP addresses typically lead to a bank of
>dynamically-assigned IP addresses that on a good day can be pinned down to a
>city, and that's about that.

So, you were lying about Sony then?

>In the case of AOL and several other large ISPs
>they are global to the entire ISP.
>
>AFAIK, it's hard for a web site owner to learn much else about the web
>site's users within the context of a pure-HTML web site.
>
>So what's the purported scheme that I've supposedly got going here?

Shall I say the magic word again?

Sony.

Here are the facts.

Your web site has no privacy policy.

Therefore, you are free to use the information gleaned from the server
logs however you wish.

You used this information to "unmask" publically one of the users of
your site.

Therefore, you cannot claim that people have anonymity because you
have already breached that so-called anonymity.

And since you are willing to do this, who knows *what* you're
privately using this information for? You might be selling it to
finance your operations, for all we know.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said to ****-for-Brains:

> Shall I say the magic word again?
>
> Sony.
>
> Here are the facts.
>
> Your web site has no privacy policy.
>
> Therefore, you are free to use the information gleaned from the server
> logs however you wish.
>
> You used this information to "unmask" publically one of the users of
> your site.
>
> Therefore, you cannot claim that people have anonymity because you
> have already breached that so-called anonymity.
>
> And since you are willing to do this, who knows *what* you're
> privately using this information for? You might be selling it to
> finance your operations, for all we know.

As you've shown again, Krooger is a lying sack of ****. That's well
known. However, this thread is about politics, so take your
humiliations of Krooger to an audio thread, please.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:49:26 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>dave weil said to ****-for-Brains:
>
>> Shall I say the magic word again?
>>
>> Sony.
>>
>> Here are the facts.
>>
>> Your web site has no privacy policy.
>>
>> Therefore, you are free to use the information gleaned from the server
>> logs however you wish.
>>
>> You used this information to "unmask" publically one of the users of
>> your site.
>>
>> Therefore, you cannot claim that people have anonymity because you
>> have already breached that so-called anonymity.
>>
>> And since you are willing to do this, who knows *what* you're
>> privately using this information for? You might be selling it to
>> finance your operations, for all we know.
>
>As you've shown again, Krooger is a lying sack of ****. That's well
>known. However, this thread is about politics, so take your
>humiliations of Krooger to an audio thread, please.

My bad.

I guess that I thought that this thread was pretty inconsequential
since Democrats have been gerrymandering here in Tennessee for years.
In fact, they've made it an art form. The last one that they did
looked like a dragon.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:59:04 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 07:31:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:

>>>>> Yeah, about as much as I believe that people who use your web site
>>>>> are protected by anonynimity.

>>>> Weil, this sentence shows how little you know about how web sites
>>>> work, not to mention being perfectly horrible English. They're not
>>>> protected by anonymity, their anonymity is protected by the
>>>> simplistic, HTML-only implementation of the web site.

>>> Untrue.

True. AFAIK, it's not possible to gather personal information with a
HTML-only web site. At most, I might be able to figure out that *someone*
accessed my site from a certain university or a corporation's computer
system. I can generally figure out that so many people accessed my site from
a particular country, or perhaps from a particular city. I still don't know
their identity. I just know that *someone* *someplace* did something that is
perfectly legal and innocent. Big deal.

>> In another post today Weil you claimed that I didn't address this
>> post, but obviously I did, about 4 hours before you made your claim.
>> So are you being stupid, lying or what?
>
> Actually, you didn't directly address my point. You simply tried to
> obfuscate.

What point might that be? That you're saying essentially nothing again, and
again?

>> In any case Weil you're being vague, and I presume that's because
>> you know so little about how web sites work. Who is putting you up
>> to this weirdness, anyway?
>>
>> Weil, why don't you expose your ignorance further by trying to
>> describe the means by which one of my web sites obtains personal
>> information about people who browse it or download files from it.

> When you tell an open forum that someone from Sony Corporation has
> apparently downloaded material from your site, you acknowledge that
> you have obtained personal information about people who browse it or
> download files from it.

Wrong, that's corporate information. Thanks Weil for showing that you can't
tell the difference between individuals and corporations.

>> Let's start with the basics - the standard monitor records from just
>> about any web server contain the IP address of users whose usage is
>> actually logged by the web server. This is generally just a subset
>> of total usage.

>> In addition, these IP addresses typically lead to a bank of
>> dynamically-assigned IP addresses that on a good day can be pinned
>> down to a city, and that's about that.

> So, you were lying about Sony then?

Sony happens to act as their own ISP.

>> In the case of AOL and several other large ISPs
>> they are global to the entire ISP.

Sony happens to act as their own ISP.

>> AFAIK, it's hard for a web site owner to learn much else about the
>> web site's users within the context of a pure-HTML web site.
>>
>> So what's the purported scheme that I've supposedly got going here?
>
> Shall I say the magic word again?

> Sony.

Sony happens to act as their own ISP in a sense that lets me know that
sometimes people access my web site from there. I don't know who these
people are, or even if they are Sony employees. If I knew they were a Sony
employee, that would cut things down from a few billion people to a few
100,000 people. Big deal.

> Here are the facts.

> Your web site has no privacy policy.

False claim:

http://www.pcavtech.com/privacy.htm

It's a web site of mine and it's long had a privacy policy.

Since you seem to want to make a big issue of this, I just added this:

http://www.pcabx.com/privacy.htm There's a link to it on the home page.

That covers both of my web sites. IOW for you Weil, that covers all of the
web sites that I personally control.

> Therefore, you are free to use the information gleaned from the server
> logs however you wish.

Like I said, that information isn't personal.

> You used this information to "unmask" publicly one of the users of
> your site.

Not really. I found out about a corporate use of my site.

> Therefore, you cannot claim that people have anonymity because you
> have already breached that so-called anonymity.

I have not unmasked any individuals nor have I released personal
information about them. I don't have personal information that I can
reasonably attribute to a particular individual. I do know that someone from
Sony, which has something like 100,000 or more employees accessed my web
site once upon a time. But, I don't know that the person was even a Sony
employee.

> And since you are willing to do this, who knows *what* you're
> privately using this information for? You might be selling it to
> finance your operations, for all we know.

For all you know I might still be doing so, even though I've promised not
to. However Weil, what this comment really shows is how ignorant you are
about the practical commercial value of such information. There ain't any.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:49:26 -0500, George M. Middius
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> dave weil said to ****-for-Brains:
>>
>>> Shall I say the magic word again?
>>>
>>> Sony.
>>>
>>> Here are the facts.
>>>
>>> Your web site has no privacy policy.
>>>
>>> Therefore, you are free to use the information gleaned from the
>>> server logs however you wish.
>>>
>>> You used this information to "unmask" publically one of the users of
>>> your site.
>>>
>>> Therefore, you cannot claim that people have anonymity because you
>>> have already breached that so-called anonymity.
>>>
>>> And since you are willing to do this, who knows *what* you're
>>> privately using this information for? You might be selling it to
>>> finance your operations, for all we know.
>>
>> As you've shown again, Krooger is a lying sack of ****. That's well
>> known. However, this thread is about politics, so take your
>> humiliations of Krooger to an audio thread, please.
>
> My bad.
>
> I guess that I thought that this thread was pretty inconsequential
> since Democrats have been gerrymandering here in Tennessee for years.
> In fact, they've made it an art form. The last one that they did
> looked like a dragon.

Can't get even the most basic things straight, eh Weil? It looked like a
salamander, and was created by a guy named Gerry. Hence, "Gerrymander".

[dave weil]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:23:57 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> Here are the facts.
>
>> Your web site has no privacy policy.
>
>False claim:

It was *not* a false claim about "your web site", which referred to
the web site that we were discussing, i.e. the pcabx website.

>http://www.pcavtech.com/privacy.htm
>
>It's a web site of mine and it's long had a privacy policy.
>
>Since you seem to want to make a big issue of this, I just added this:
>
>http://www.pcabx.com/privacy.htm There's a link to it on the home page.
>
>That covers both of my web sites. IOW for you Weil, that covers all of the
>web sites that I personally control.

I'm glad that you have corrected your oversight. I'm glad to have been
of help.

I hope you have also learned not to discuss information about either
people or corporations that might download material from your site,
nor to make false claims about anonymity. Obviously a corporation has
the right to anonymity, just as an individual does. The question that
you have to ask yourself (and I'm REALLY trying to be helpful here) is
"Would this corporate person be willing to download my material if he
or she knows beforehand that I will disclose his corporation in a
public forum?)

In case you think I'm being picky, I'm not. Privacy is an increasingly
important consideration in internet activities.

Also, you should correct the capitalization of the word "and" in the
following sentence:

"Except as provided for above, Any personal information..."

[dave weil]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:26:41 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:49:26 -0500, George M. Middius
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> dave weil said to ****-for-Brains:
>>>
>>>> Shall I say the magic word again?
>>>>
>>>> Sony.
>>>>
>>>> Here are the facts.
>>>>
>>>> Your web site has no privacy policy.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, you are free to use the information gleaned from the
>>>> server logs however you wish.
>>>>
>>>> You used this information to "unmask" publically one of the users of
>>>> your site.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, you cannot claim that people have anonymity because you
>>>> have already breached that so-called anonymity.
>>>>
>>>> And since you are willing to do this, who knows *what* you're
>>>> privately using this information for? You might be selling it to
>>>> finance your operations, for all we know.
>>>
>>> As you've shown again, Krooger is a lying sack of ****. That's well
>>> known. However, this thread is about politics, so take your
>>> humiliations of Krooger to an audio thread, please.
>>
>> My bad.
>>
>> I guess that I thought that this thread was pretty inconsequential
>> since Democrats have been gerrymandering here in Tennessee for years.
>> In fact, they've made it an art form. The last one that they did
>> looked like a dragon.
>
>Can't get even the most basic things straight, eh Weil? It looked like a
>salamander, and was created by a guy named Gerry. Hence, "Gerrymander".

What in the hell are you talking about? I wasn't talking about the
original attempt at redrawing districts back in the early 1800s. I was
talking about a very specific instance a couple of years ago here in
the Nashville area. It looked like a dragon.

In your attempt to attack me, please try to read more carefully,
because when you don't, it makes you look not only venal, but stupid
as well.

[Scott Gardner]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:26:41 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:49:26 -0500, George M. Middius
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> dave weil said to ****-for-Brains:
>>>
>>>> Shall I say the magic word again?
>>>>
>>>> Sony.
>>>>
>>>> Here are the facts.
>>>>
>>>> Your web site has no privacy policy.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, you are free to use the information gleaned from the
>>>> server logs however you wish.
>>>>
>>>> You used this information to "unmask" publically one of the users of
>>>> your site.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, you cannot claim that people have anonymity because you
>>>> have already breached that so-called anonymity.
>>>>
>>>> And since you are willing to do this, who knows *what* you're
>>>> privately using this information for? You might be selling it to
>>>> finance your operations, for all we know.
>>>
>>> As you've shown again, Krooger is a lying sack of ****. That's well
>>> known. However, this thread is about politics, so take your
>>> humiliations of Krooger to an audio thread, please.
>>
>> My bad.
>>
>> I guess that I thought that this thread was pretty inconsequential
>> since Democrats have been gerrymandering here in Tennessee for years.
>> In fact, they've made it an art form. The last one that they did
>> looked like a dragon.
>
>Can't get even the most basic things straight, eh Weil? It looked like a
>salamander, and was created by a guy named Gerry. Hence, "Gerrymander".
>
>
Actually, the redistricting that gave "Gerrymandering" its name
occured in Massachusetts in 1812, not Tennessee. Weil's talking about
a different redistricting.

Scott Gardner

[dave weil]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:43:41 GMT, (Scott Gardner)
wrote:

>>Can't get even the most basic things straight, eh Weil? It looked like a
>>salamander, and was created by a guy named Gerry. Hence, "Gerrymander".
>>
>>
>Actually, the redistricting that gave "Gerrymandering" its name
>occured in Massachusetts in 1812, not Tennessee. Weil's talking about
>a different redistricting.

Well, yes. It's pretty clear to anyone who has a passing acquaintance
with the English language.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message


> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:23:57 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:

>>> Here are the facts.

>>> Your web site has no privacy policy.

>> False claim:

> It was *not* a false claim about "your web site", which referred to
> the web site that we were discussing, i.e. the pcabx website.

>> http://www.pcavtech.com/privacy.htm

>> It's a web site of mine and it's long had a privacy policy.

>> Since you seem to want to make a big issue of this, I just added
>> this:

>> http://www.pcabx.com/privacy.htm There's a link to it on the home
>> page.

>> That covers both of my web sites. IOW for you Weil, that covers all
>> of the web sites that I personally control.

> I'm glad that you have corrected your oversight. I'm glad to have been
> of help.

Letsee, lying and deceiving as help. What a concept!

> I hope you have also learned not to discuss information about either
> people or corporations that might download material from your site,
> nor to make false claims about anonymity.

Letsee, more lying and deceiving as help. What a concept!

>Obviously a corporation has
> the right to anonymity, just as an individual does.

Nice of you to make up new global rules for the whole known universe as you
go along, Weil. Perhaps you've confused yourself with God?

LOL!

> The question that
> you have to ask yourself (and I'm REALLY trying to be helpful here) is
> "Would this corporate person be willing to download my material if he
> or she knows beforehand that I will disclose his corporation in a
> public forum?)

Why not? Most reasonable people (but obviously not yourself, Weil) would not
care one way or another. No corporate or academic user has ever complained
about this. No personal information was ever released.

> In case you think I'm being picky, I'm not. Privacy is an increasingly
> important consideration in internet activities.

Privacy is a myth, but a concept that deep would be over your head, Weil.

> Also, you should correct the capitalization of the word "and" in the
> following sentence:

> "Except as provided for above, Any personal information..."

Of course, this is a bogus statement since the word "and" does not appear
capitalized in that sentence.

Gosh Weil, can't you get anything right?

[dave weil]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:07:05 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>> "Except as provided for above, Any personal information..."
>
>Of course, this is a bogus statement since the word "and" does not appear
>capitalized in that sentence.
>
>Gosh Weil, can't you get anything right?

Excuse me, Arnold.

"any".

Hope this helps you figure out which word was incorrectly capitalized.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> >>Can't get even the most basic things straight, eh Weil? It looked like a
> >>salamander, and was created by a guy named Gerry. Hence, "Gerrymander".

> >Actually, the redistricting that gave "Gerrymandering" its name
> >occured in Massachusetts in 1812, not Tennessee. Weil's talking about
> >a different redistricting.

> Well, yes. It's pretty clear to anyone who has a passing acquaintance
> with the English language.

Good observation. It confirms what I've long suspected -- that Turdy
actually *thinks* in Krooglish.

[Phil]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Phil lied:
>
> > Well, let's see what actually happen here. As we all know every ten
years
> > the electoral districts are re-drawn to reflect the results of the
census.
> > The general assembly in Colorado was to do this. Unfortunately, the
assembly
> > had a slight Republican majority which meant the Republicans would
> > controlled the re-districting. The Democrats didn't like that, at all.
So
> > what did they do? They force it to the courts.
>
> Lost your ability to read? Or has your reactionary political fervor
> taken the place of what meager ability you ever had to think
> straight?
>

CNN only told you a part of the story, I told you the rest. You may not like
it but that's the truth, sorry but it is the truth.

Phil

[George M. Middius]

Phil said:

> > Lost your ability to read? Or has your reactionary political fervor
> > taken the place of what meager ability you ever had to think
> > straight?

> CNN only told you a part of the story, I told you the rest. You may not like
> it but that's the truth, sorry but it is the truth.

You have a history of distorting "facts" on this forum to suit your
agenda. In this case, you lied. The judge who made the decision said
unequivocally that the legislature was required by law to rezone
according to the Census, but after the statutory period had lapsed, they
were not permitted to do so under the law. And that is why the
redistricting was found to be illegal.

That is the truth. Sorry if you don't like it.

[Phil]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Phil said:
>
> > > Lost your ability to read? Or has your reactionary political fervor
> > > taken the place of what meager ability you ever had to think
> > > straight?
>
> > CNN only told you a part of the story, I told you the rest. You may not
like
> > it but that's the truth, sorry but it is the truth.
>
> You have a history of distorting "facts" on this forum to suit your
> agenda. In this case, you lied. The judge who made the decision said
> unequivocally that the legislature was required by law to rezone
> according to the Census, but after the statutory period had lapsed, they
> were not permitted to do so under the law. And that is why the
> redistricting was found to be illegal.
>
> That is the truth. Sorry if you don't like it.
>

The above is the courts opinion which has nothing to do with what I said.
What I said was about the context and reasoning of the assembly.
Actually the state constitution says that the re-districting can only be
done by the state assembly and sets no particular time limit. The time limit
was a creation of the court.

Phil