OT pinching and re-using data of the net

Pete Fisher wrote

My objection is to spam of all sorts and of course the otherwise
unemployable cunts who tell me that their efforts to waste my time by
touting their tat are something worthwhile.

 

Glad we got that clear. A very broad definition of spam perhaps, but
"touting their tat" works for me.

Has your punctuation pedantry always been so extreme, or is it a result
of long term exposure to UKRM?

--

+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Moto Guzzi Mille GT/Squire RS3 Gilera Nordwest |
| Gilera GFR Moto Morini 2C/375 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+

 

Pete Fisher wrote

How else do you define it other than by using broad definition? Crime
is crime, lesbianism is lesbianism, both are as undesirable as spam.

Apparently it does.

My punctuation? NAHAY?

It may be but I prefer to think of the risk travelling in entirely the
opposite direction.

 

Relatively - obviously. Having said that I briefly subscribed (in the
pre-www days) to rec.moto before UKRM was thought of.

Well done that man. You must expect my occasional lapses.

I always used to admire how a manager or colleague who was losing an
argument over the technical content of a document could pull out the
punctuation card. Knew **** all about the subject, but were world
authorities on the use of the semicolon.
--

+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Moto Guzzi Mille GT/Squire RS3 Gilera Nordwest |
| Gilera GFR Moto Morini 2C/375 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+

 

This point requires a separate response IMHO.

You were stating (forgive me if I misunderstood) that *all* spam is, or
should be, illegal.

For spam be an offence under statute criminal law it would have to be
very clearly defined. The judiciary would then be in a position to
interpret the precise meaning of the parliamentary draftsmen's wording
of the legislation (as opposed to the intent). So for your wish to be
granted a broad definition is not going to be sufficient.


--

+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Moto Guzzi Mille GT/Squire RS3 Gilera Nordwest |
| Gilera GFR Moto Morini 2C/375 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+

 

Pete Fisher wrote

As I understand it then some spam is.

No big deal, that is exactly what laws are for, to define things.

Not necessarily opposed. Legislation as it exists in the uk recognises
the difference between unauthorised and intent in terms of computer
hacking, which is what spurred this thread in the first place and treats
folks differently according to which section they can least afford to
pay their way out of.

I am not your grandmother and I prefer my eggs sans packaging. The
definitions of what is and isn't spam and thus illegal are narrow enough
that I feel they could do with broadening a great deal. There is an
existing lack of sufficiency if there weren't I would have something not
to complain about.

 

You clearly know far more about this particular area of legislation than
I do. My comment was a general one about the role of the judiciary in
'interpreting' statutory instruments.

I would not argue with you. The definitions need to be broad*er*, or,
perhaps more correctly, more numerous so as to encompass spam in all its
diverse and novel forms. As ever, the law is having to play 'catch up'.
If it was drafted too generally, however, it could be in danger of being
so imprecise as to be unenforceable. The lawyers would then be the only
people to benefit (sorry - another egg sucking comment).

Bored now. Want to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a
pin?


--

+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Moto Guzzi Mille GT/Squire RS3 Gilera Nordwest |
| Gilera GFR Moto Morini 2C/375 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+

 

Shut up. You racist ozzy git.

 

Take a flying **** up a dead dog's arse, dogger boy. You can't stop me.

You racist ozzy git.

Stupid illiterate pommy coon, you can't spell for shit.

 

Yean but using this supposed insult makes you look like a prat

 

If someone posted his real mame and called him a paedophile, then that
would be breaking the law, but you can't libel a nick name unless he
had exclucive copyright on that name(anyone can come on here(or any
other newsgroup) and use the name "darsy").

If someone made that accusaion through a wireless router connection, if
will be very hard to prove that person posted that accusation in the
1st place, because anyone can get connected to you ISP without your
knowledge and post those accusations.

 

So have I

 

God, you are such an ignorant tosspot. Luckily.

Ali

 

Unless you can prove I actually typed those accusations and not by
someone who lives 3 doors away(who moght have hooked on my wireless
router(without my knowledge) on their portable computer), he have no
chance.

 

On 9 Jul 2006 14:50:46 -0700, "sir tony" <>
wrote:

snip>

He might have kick you in head as alternative then.

 

Go read your AUP, dick brain.

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
Alfa 116 Giulietta 3.0l (Really) Sprint 1.7 75 TS 156 TS S2
Triumph Speed Triple: Black with extra black bits
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk