Denise, here's your warning...

[htismaqe]

We have a longstanding policy here that if you're not contributing to the football board at all, you're not a productive member.

I just ran a cross-section of your posts, and you've talked less football in the last few months than ClearVision.

You yourself said you're just not passionate about football anymore. A quick glance at your posts suggest that if you're that narrowly focused on human interest stories and politics, there's better bulletin boards for you to frequent.

And before anyone comes running in screaming about how unfair this is, it's happened before. We've banned multiple people under this very same premise.

[chagrin]

Originally Posted by memyselfI

Unlike you, he's done nothing to be sued over. The sexual harrassing words you have typed would be illegal in most situations off the board.

1) So what? We aren't OFF THE BOARD you freak.
2) if we were OFF the board, 50% of the stuff you post isn't debating and would be considered offensive, and would more than likely get your ass kicked OFF the board.

So leave the OFF the board stuff OFF the board.

[banyon]

Originally Posted by crazycoffey

Please the court, your honor, is there a football related post anywhere in our future?



If I walked up to you and said I wanted to have sex with you, first off, you'd accept (I've seen your picture). Second off, if you went to a cop and asked to have me arrested for sexual harrassment, he/she would laugh at you. You could go to court you try to sue me, but I could make a lawsuit for any number of reasons too, anyone can.

I wonder how it is an "illegal" activity on or off this board. A company policy, maybe.

Ironically, she can thank George W Bush for being able to make that threat.

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."

It's illegal to annoy
A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."

That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?

There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.

A law meant to annoy?
FAQ: The new 'annoy' law explained
A practical guide to the new federal law that aims to outlaw certain types of annoying Web sites and e-mail.Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.

In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)

Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.

"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"

Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.

"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."

He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.

It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets...


http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...3-6022491.html

A truly shortsighted law.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Also just to be fair Jaz should participate more in the Lounge as well

Since you don't seem to be very knowledgeable about this stuff, maybe you should refrain from passing judgement.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by memyselfI

But with that LONG list of 100+ people NOT responding to me any longer then I should be starving very soon. I'm looking forward to a more harmonious and civil board. Kumbaya

Honestly, I think that if the people who provide you with what you need ceased doing so (stopped conversing with you or about you), the pleasure you derive from this place would cease and you would leave.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by memyselfI

Unlike you, he's done nothing to be sued over. The sexual harrassing words you have typed would be illegal in most situations off the board. As for Iowa Bob, being the single most vulgar and vile person on my non-ignore list isn't illegal. Lucky for him though, you have come along and give him some stiff competition in the face of his new non-existance in my life.

We'll see how far you choose to go and how far you are allowed to.

Sounds like a threat to me.

[Demonpenz]

this was embarrassing.

[crazycoffey]

Originally Posted by memyselfI

Unlike you, he's done nothing to be sued over.

I take this as a threat, that you think I have done something to be sued over, please appologize or I will be forced to donkey punch you when we consummate our relationship.

[Lzen]

Originally Posted by NewChief

She's said repeatedly that she isn't under such a delusion.

Those of you who waste your time and effort going back and forth with her are the delusional ones. I have never, ever, ever, ever seen someone get a satisfactory "victory" over her. They may soundly trounce her in logic, prove her wrong, reveal her to be a liar, unmask her mean spiritedness, and have clear evidence of all, but they'll still find no satisfaction. She'll just twist and divert the argument to other grounds. Trust me, you're fighting a wasteful, losing battle.

You are a wise man.

[htismaqe]

For the record, any PM, email, post, or other communication that even HINTS of legal action is taken VERY seriously and always has been.

Those of you who were around during the early days know exactly what I'm talking about.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Donger

I love the thread that someone started (Iowanian?) that was a Football 101.

That's precisely what I miss about this place. The good old days of talking about the different between a NT and a 3T in a 2-gap defense.

[memyselfI]

Originally Posted by banyon

Ironically, she can thank George W Bush for being able to make that threat.



A truly shortsighted law.

Agreed it's short sighted. You learn something new everyday. I guess I should start posting my anti-DUHbya rants under my real name.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

That's precisely what I miss about this place. The good old days of talking about the different between a NT and a 3T in a 2-gap defense.

Errr, what?

[memyselfI]

Originally Posted by crazycoffey

I take this as a threat, that you think I have done something to be sued over, please appologize or I will be forced to donkey punch you when we consummate our relationship.

I take it you can't read.

I said OFF THE BOARD.

[Demonpenz]

One of the reasons we don't talk football is because we have all seen a million games. Most people here are so schooled in football there is not much to talk about. Yeah westley blew the over the top help, the DE needs to have contain, scanlon should play QB. In 20 years in the game it is pretty evident what works and what doesn't work.

[rad]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

That's precisely what I miss about this place. The good old days of talking about the different between a NT and a 3T in a 2-gap defense.

YES!! Let's talk about that- er, rather, YOU talk about it 'cause I have no idea.