Page 1 of 2
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:21 am
by Blue Blur
Yes, <a href='
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyan ... &subj=news' target='_blank'>this</a> is real. No, I don't have a comment...
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:38 am
by Softpaw
Yeah, I saw that on <a href='
http://www.dslreports.com' target='_blank'>DSL Reports</a> today, pretty pathetic.
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:45 am
by Holyman83
lol, and how do they plan to enforce it?
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:48 am
by Blue Blur
They can't. It's that stupid.
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:55 am
by CoreyFox
*sigh* I'm done for. I have a disability, so i often say stuff i might regret later.
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:03 am
by Miles E Traysandor
Fake Proaganda. If there is such a law, show me physical proof. Until then, I won't trust in some unrelaible source about a law that would require an act of God to enforce. 'Nuff said.
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:15 am
by Dr. Doog
wtf haha and yet old women on eBay that are the equivalent of a troll to people like my mom selling dolls on eBay are home free.
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:18 am
by Blue Blur
What? I'm sorry, but I just did not understand what you said.
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:34 am
by likeafox
I'm reporting you all to the president for annoying me.
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:37 am
by Richard K Niner
<a href='
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c ... IWu:e91030:' target='_blank'>The relevant section</a>, and <a href='
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html ... -000-.html' target='_blank'>the law that is amended</a><br><br>Personally, I think this is more of an over-reaction than anything else. The excerpt in the article is clearly modified to omit any reference to "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent". Frankly, I don't see any major problem with it. You still have to cross the line to be penailzed.
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:37 am
by Bocaj Claw
Oh for the love of all things that can be used as an expletive!<br><br>The US doesn't own the Internet! Doesn't this violate free speech in some way?<br><br>Wonder how this fits in with the bill:<br><br>"You're presenting an opinion that differs from mine. You are annoying me. I demand your full name, address, and list of all previous criminal convictions."<br><br>Edit: Oops. Sim post.
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:12 am
by Steve the Pocket
Welp, I guess <a href='
http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/annoying/' target='_blank'>the guys at Weebls-Stuff are screwed then</a>.
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:11 pm
by DesertFoxCat
Other than stating my dislike for the USA's insane protection of the freedom of speech, all I can say is <!--emo&:huh:--><img src='
http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... ns/huh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='huh.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:19 pm
by Joe3210
Does this mean that we can turn Redie(can't spell) in for being a long winded pest?
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:26 pm
by Tom Flapwell
<!--QuoteBegin-Blue Blur+Jan 10 2006, 02:18 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Blue Blur @ Jan 10 2006, 02:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> What? I'm sorry, but I just did not understand what you said. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> I believe DooG was saying that his mom gets annoyed by old women who sell dolls on eBay (not sure what makes them troll-like), but in spite of her annoyance, the law would not prosecute them.
