Reson for Denial - internet stupidity
Feb 19th 2003, 9:30 pm
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Reson for Denial - internet stupidity
Original poster here and I'll add the following information for the internet
guru's and browser impaired :-) Ask yourself the following questions:
1- When you go to the online status page why does your browser say that 'you
are entering a secure site'? or did you check the box (long ago) that says
"don't ask again"? You missed that simple front door message.
2- The on-page disclaimer as you enter your numbers says this is YOUR
information? Go read it again. You are agreeing to the rules when you use
the site. Your ISP has an agreement with you that you will obey the rules.
That's the law you are breaking. Go read your own ISP rules.
3- The third world doesn't seem to be able to get into the site because of
missing 128 bit DES encryption, remember when you downloaded your browser
update you were asked to verify you were in the US? I have contacted
several 3rd world locations and they verify, "I can't get in."
4- Why would my IT person in NC (1000+ computers running on SSA.gov i.e. the
EW protocols out of Baltimore, MA.) confirm the presence of security?
Attorneys are protected under the attorney client agreement allowing the
attorney to act on the client's behalf. They have it in writing.
Just because you were not asked to type in a password, you in fact DID type
in a password. Your number... when you disabled #1 above, you allowed your
computer to automatically send your ID.
Those of you who doubt this should consult your own IT person not your
favorite guru or next door neighbor.
I am suggesting that INS is indeed concerned about security. And notice the
general tone of the original post was one of questioning the practice, and I
question posting to this site that we should all run out and start fishing.
To me Ron's post is most reasonable. Why are we hassling the INS?
I don't believe I'm nearly as paranoid as suggested, when armed with the
facts.
guru's and browser impaired :-) Ask yourself the following questions:
1- When you go to the online status page why does your browser say that 'you
are entering a secure site'? or did you check the box (long ago) that says
"don't ask again"? You missed that simple front door message.
2- The on-page disclaimer as you enter your numbers says this is YOUR
information? Go read it again. You are agreeing to the rules when you use
the site. Your ISP has an agreement with you that you will obey the rules.
That's the law you are breaking. Go read your own ISP rules.
3- The third world doesn't seem to be able to get into the site because of
missing 128 bit DES encryption, remember when you downloaded your browser
update you were asked to verify you were in the US? I have contacted
several 3rd world locations and they verify, "I can't get in."
4- Why would my IT person in NC (1000+ computers running on SSA.gov i.e. the
EW protocols out of Baltimore, MA.) confirm the presence of security?
Attorneys are protected under the attorney client agreement allowing the
attorney to act on the client's behalf. They have it in writing.
Just because you were not asked to type in a password, you in fact DID type
in a password. Your number... when you disabled #1 above, you allowed your
computer to automatically send your ID.
Those of you who doubt this should consult your own IT person not your
favorite guru or next door neighbor.
I am suggesting that INS is indeed concerned about security. And notice the
general tone of the original post was one of questioning the practice, and I
question posting to this site that we should all run out and start fishing.
To me Ron's post is most reasonable. Why are we hassling the INS?
I don't believe I'm nearly as paranoid as suggested, when armed with the
facts.
Feb 19th 2003, 9:38 pm
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Reson for Denial - internet stupidity
On 19/2/03 5:30 PM, in article
[email protected], "David Brown"
wrote:
> Original poster here and I'll add the following information for the internet
> guru's and browser impaired :-) Ask yourself the following questions:
> 1- When you go to the online status page why does your browser say that 'you
> are entering a secure site'? or did you check the box (long ago) that says
> "don't ask again"? You missed that simple front door message.
Secure only means others cannot (theoretically) see the information - not
secure as in a secure bank vault or Secret Service security (there are
degrees of "security" you know?)
> 2- The on-page disclaimer as you enter your numbers says this is YOUR
> information? Go read it again. You are agreeing to the rules when you use
> the site. Your ISP has an agreement with you that you will obey the rules.
> That's the law you are breaking. Go read your own ISP rules.
That's not a law, laws are made by Gov'ts not ISPs, that's ignorant to say.
And certainly nobody gets incarcerated solely for violating an ISPs rules,
again ignorance.
> 3- The third world doesn't seem to be able to get into the site because of
> missing 128 bit DES encryption, remember when you downloaded your browser
> update you were asked to verify you were in the US? I have contacted
> several 3rd world locations and they verify, "I can't get in."
How is that remotely relevant?
> 4- Why would my IT person in NC (1000+ computers running on SSA.gov i.e. the
> EW protocols out of Baltimore, MA.) confirm the presence of security?
Sorry, I forgot he/she was the oracle of knowledge of all things sacred.
> Attorneys are protected under the attorney client agreement allowing the
> attorney to act on the client's behalf. They have it in writing.
That is not the attorney client agreement, that is the law of agency (stop
talking about things you do not know).
> Just because you were not asked to type in a password, you in fact DID type
> in a password. Your number... when you disabled #1 above, you allowed your
> computer to automatically send your ID.
You can go through proxies (e.g., anonymizer) to "hide" your identity.
> Those of you who doubt this should consult your own IT person not your
> favorite guru or next door neighbor.
Nobody is as inflamed about this as you, people have real things to worry
about instead of paranoid delusions.
> I am suggesting that INS is indeed concerned about security. And notice the
> general tone of the original post was one of questioning the practice, and I
> question posting to this site that we should all run out and start fishing.
Good, you've made your point, some will agree some will disagree, move
along, get over it.
> To me Ron's post is most reasonable. Why are we hassling the INS?
Nobody is hassling the INS (although you are pretty annoying yourself).
> I don't believe I'm nearly as paranoid as suggested, when armed with the
> facts.
Skewed, uninformed facts to fit your point of view. Stop being a wanker, go
complain to the FBI that people are "hacking" into the INS web site, see how
they brush you off.
[email protected], "David Brown"
wrote:
> Original poster here and I'll add the following information for the internet
> guru's and browser impaired :-) Ask yourself the following questions:
> 1- When you go to the online status page why does your browser say that 'you
> are entering a secure site'? or did you check the box (long ago) that says
> "don't ask again"? You missed that simple front door message.
Secure only means others cannot (theoretically) see the information - not
secure as in a secure bank vault or Secret Service security (there are
degrees of "security" you know?)
> 2- The on-page disclaimer as you enter your numbers says this is YOUR
> information? Go read it again. You are agreeing to the rules when you use
> the site. Your ISP has an agreement with you that you will obey the rules.
> That's the law you are breaking. Go read your own ISP rules.
That's not a law, laws are made by Gov'ts not ISPs, that's ignorant to say.
And certainly nobody gets incarcerated solely for violating an ISPs rules,
again ignorance.
> 3- The third world doesn't seem to be able to get into the site because of
> missing 128 bit DES encryption, remember when you downloaded your browser
> update you were asked to verify you were in the US? I have contacted
> several 3rd world locations and they verify, "I can't get in."
How is that remotely relevant?
> 4- Why would my IT person in NC (1000+ computers running on SSA.gov i.e. the
> EW protocols out of Baltimore, MA.) confirm the presence of security?
Sorry, I forgot he/she was the oracle of knowledge of all things sacred.
> Attorneys are protected under the attorney client agreement allowing the
> attorney to act on the client's behalf. They have it in writing.
That is not the attorney client agreement, that is the law of agency (stop
talking about things you do not know).
> Just because you were not asked to type in a password, you in fact DID type
> in a password. Your number... when you disabled #1 above, you allowed your
> computer to automatically send your ID.
You can go through proxies (e.g., anonymizer) to "hide" your identity.
> Those of you who doubt this should consult your own IT person not your
> favorite guru or next door neighbor.
Nobody is as inflamed about this as you, people have real things to worry
about instead of paranoid delusions.
> I am suggesting that INS is indeed concerned about security. And notice the
> general tone of the original post was one of questioning the practice, and I
> question posting to this site that we should all run out and start fishing.
Good, you've made your point, some will agree some will disagree, move
along, get over it.
> To me Ron's post is most reasonable. Why are we hassling the INS?
Nobody is hassling the INS (although you are pretty annoying yourself).
> I don't believe I'm nearly as paranoid as suggested, when armed with the
> facts.
Skewed, uninformed facts to fit your point of view. Stop being a wanker, go
complain to the FBI that people are "hacking" into the INS web site, see how
they brush you off.
Feb 19th 2003, 9:44 pm
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Reson for Denial - internet stupidity
You underestimate the stupidity and the paranoia of the INS and DHS.
"Chinga La Migra" wrote in message
news:BA797219.2649%[email protected]...
> On 19/2/03 5:30 PM, in article
> [email protected], "David Brown"
> wrote:
> > Original poster here and I'll add the following information for the
internet
> > guru's and browser impaired :-) Ask yourself the following questions:
> > 1- When you go to the online status page why does your browser say that
'you
> > are entering a secure site'? or did you check the box (long ago) that
says
> > "don't ask again"? You missed that simple front door message.
> Secure only means others cannot (theoretically) see the information - not
> secure as in a secure bank vault or Secret Service security (there are
> degrees of "security" you know?)
> > 2- The on-page disclaimer as you enter your numbers says this is YOUR
> > information? Go read it again. You are agreeing to the rules when you
use
> > the site. Your ISP has an agreement with you that you will obey the
rules.
> > That's the law you are breaking. Go read your own ISP rules.
> That's not a law, laws are made by Gov'ts not ISPs, that's ignorant to
say.
> And certainly nobody gets incarcerated solely for violating an ISPs rules,
> again ignorance.
> > 3- The third world doesn't seem to be able to get into the site because
of
> > missing 128 bit DES encryption, remember when you downloaded your
browser
> > update you were asked to verify you were in the US? I have contacted
> > several 3rd world locations and they verify, "I can't get in."
> How is that remotely relevant?
> > 4- Why would my IT person in NC (1000+ computers running on SSA.gov i.e.
the
> > EW protocols out of Baltimore, MA.) confirm the presence of security?
> Sorry, I forgot he/she was the oracle of knowledge of all things sacred.
> > Attorneys are protected under the attorney client agreement allowing the
> > attorney to act on the client's behalf. They have it in writing.
> That is not the attorney client agreement, that is the law of agency (stop
> talking about things you do not know).
> > Just because you were not asked to type in a password, you in fact DID
type
> > in a password. Your number... when you disabled #1 above, you allowed
your
> > computer to automatically send your ID.
> You can go through proxies (e.g., anonymizer) to "hide" your identity.
> > Those of you who doubt this should consult your own IT person not your
> > favorite guru or next door neighbor.
> Nobody is as inflamed about this as you, people have real things to worry
> about instead of paranoid delusions.
> > I am suggesting that INS is indeed concerned about security. And notice
the
> > general tone of the original post was one of questioning the practice,
and I
> > question posting to this site that we should all run out and start
fishing.
> Good, you've made your point, some will agree some will disagree, move
> along, get over it.
> > To me Ron's post is most reasonable. Why are we hassling the INS?
> Nobody is hassling the INS (although you are pretty annoying yourself).
> > I don't believe I'm nearly as paranoid as suggested, when armed with the
> > facts.
> Skewed, uninformed facts to fit your point of view. Stop being a wanker,
go
> complain to the FBI that people are "hacking" into the INS web site, see
how
> they brush you off.
"Chinga La Migra" wrote in message
news:BA797219.2649%[email protected]...
> On 19/2/03 5:30 PM, in article
> [email protected], "David Brown"
> wrote:
> > Original poster here and I'll add the following information for the
internet
> > guru's and browser impaired :-) Ask yourself the following questions:
> > 1- When you go to the online status page why does your browser say that
'you
> > are entering a secure site'? or did you check the box (long ago) that
says
> > "don't ask again"? You missed that simple front door message.
> Secure only means others cannot (theoretically) see the information - not
> secure as in a secure bank vault or Secret Service security (there are
> degrees of "security" you know?)
> > 2- The on-page disclaimer as you enter your numbers says this is YOUR
> > information? Go read it again. You are agreeing to the rules when you
use
> > the site. Your ISP has an agreement with you that you will obey the
rules.
> > That's the law you are breaking. Go read your own ISP rules.
> That's not a law, laws are made by Gov'ts not ISPs, that's ignorant to
say.
> And certainly nobody gets incarcerated solely for violating an ISPs rules,
> again ignorance.
> > 3- The third world doesn't seem to be able to get into the site because
of
> > missing 128 bit DES encryption, remember when you downloaded your
browser
> > update you were asked to verify you were in the US? I have contacted
> > several 3rd world locations and they verify, "I can't get in."
> How is that remotely relevant?
> > 4- Why would my IT person in NC (1000+ computers running on SSA.gov i.e.
the
> > EW protocols out of Baltimore, MA.) confirm the presence of security?
> Sorry, I forgot he/she was the oracle of knowledge of all things sacred.
> > Attorneys are protected under the attorney client agreement allowing the
> > attorney to act on the client's behalf. They have it in writing.
> That is not the attorney client agreement, that is the law of agency (stop
> talking about things you do not know).
> > Just because you were not asked to type in a password, you in fact DID
type
> > in a password. Your number... when you disabled #1 above, you allowed
your
> > computer to automatically send your ID.
> You can go through proxies (e.g., anonymizer) to "hide" your identity.
> > Those of you who doubt this should consult your own IT person not your
> > favorite guru or next door neighbor.
> Nobody is as inflamed about this as you, people have real things to worry
> about instead of paranoid delusions.
> > I am suggesting that INS is indeed concerned about security. And notice
the
> > general tone of the original post was one of questioning the practice,
and I
> > question posting to this site that we should all run out and start
fishing.
> Good, you've made your point, some will agree some will disagree, move
> along, get over it.
> > To me Ron's post is most reasonable. Why are we hassling the INS?
> Nobody is hassling the INS (although you are pretty annoying yourself).
> > I don't believe I'm nearly as paranoid as suggested, when armed with the
> > facts.
> Skewed, uninformed facts to fit your point of view. Stop being a wanker,
go
> complain to the FBI that people are "hacking" into the INS web site, see
how
> they brush you off.
Feb 19th 2003, 9:44 pm
#19
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 443
Re: Reson for Denial - internet stupidity
my husbands in pakistan
he checks it everyday
isnt that third world?
he checks it everyday
isnt that third world?
Feb 19th 2003, 9:54 pm
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Reson for Denial - internet stupidity
On 19/2/03 5:44 PM, in article [email protected],
"salooni110" wrote:
>
> my husbands in pakistan
> he checks it everyday
> isnt that third world?
>
The guy's an idiot, just trying to rile people up (as if Microsoft makes
their browser's security functions according to 1st v. 3rd world, a pretty
subjective determination).
Dave, I ask, if I buy a laptop in America and use it in the slums of the
Sudan will I be able to check the INS online status? Idiot!
"salooni110" wrote:
>
> my husbands in pakistan
> he checks it everyday
> isnt that third world?
>
The guy's an idiot, just trying to rile people up (as if Microsoft makes
their browser's security functions according to 1st v. 3rd world, a pretty
subjective determination).
Dave, I ask, if I buy a laptop in America and use it in the slums of the
Sudan will I be able to check the INS online status? Idiot!
Feb 19th 2003, 9:58 pm
#21
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: ...
Posts: 605
David david david...
1) The information posted on the INS website is protected by the Freedom of Information Act
2) There is no personal info displayed. The viewer would have to be a mindreader to know whose petition belongs to whom so I don't see your point regarding privacy.
3) Introducing these numbers in the website was the only way to prove these people were lying through their teeth. You are a perfect example of how and why this government agency keeps screwing its citizens and we continue to live in fear of them and their repercussions.
I have already lived so long without my fiance that I now realize why I'm going through this. I need to enable change. I need to be part of the solution, and stop being part of the problem. You are being part of the problem just by writing that comment - and as Troy said, I wonder if people think before they write. Do you realize what it took for those few people to protest outside TSC alone in the rain? Do you realize the time and effort it took that guy to enter those numbers day after day to prove our case? What the hell did you do? Did you find anything out to get the truth?
So what if a few of us have to answer uncomfortable questions. In the long run, a few of us (and I am willing to be part of the few) will pay the price so the ones behind us don't. But tomorrow, if one of my daughters falls in love with a foreigner and has to petition through this godforsaken anti-service center I'll bet with the right evidence in our hands we can guarantee a few years from now that they will process her petition a hell of a lot faster than mine.
Meanwhile, I'm glad you feel comfortable waiting while you sit on your hands being spoonfed bu*&^t, but I am not. And like you, I will do whatever it takes to be with my fiance, but the operative word here is " do" . Tell us what you did to make a difference before you criticize others methods at getting at the truth. And keeping in mind that in this situation you are either part of the problem or part of the solution, make sure that before you post on this board you are aware that had it not been for some of us you wouldn't even know why you are waiting.
2) There is no personal info displayed. The viewer would have to be a mindreader to know whose petition belongs to whom so I don't see your point regarding privacy.
3) Introducing these numbers in the website was the only way to prove these people were lying through their teeth. You are a perfect example of how and why this government agency keeps screwing its citizens and we continue to live in fear of them and their repercussions.
I have already lived so long without my fiance that I now realize why I'm going through this. I need to enable change. I need to be part of the solution, and stop being part of the problem. You are being part of the problem just by writing that comment - and as Troy said, I wonder if people think before they write. Do you realize what it took for those few people to protest outside TSC alone in the rain? Do you realize the time and effort it took that guy to enter those numbers day after day to prove our case? What the hell did you do? Did you find anything out to get the truth?
So what if a few of us have to answer uncomfortable questions. In the long run, a few of us (and I am willing to be part of the few) will pay the price so the ones behind us don't. But tomorrow, if one of my daughters falls in love with a foreigner and has to petition through this godforsaken anti-service center I'll bet with the right evidence in our hands we can guarantee a few years from now that they will process her petition a hell of a lot faster than mine.
Meanwhile, I'm glad you feel comfortable waiting while you sit on your hands being spoonfed bu*&^t, but I am not. And like you, I will do whatever it takes to be with my fiance, but the operative word here is " do" . Tell us what you did to make a difference before you criticize others methods at getting at the truth. And keeping in mind that in this situation you are either part of the problem or part of the solution, make sure that before you post on this board you are aware that had it not been for some of us you wouldn't even know why you are waiting.
Feb 19th 2003, 10:24 pm
#22
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Wales, UK
Posts: 1,216
*clap*clap*clap* to Chinga and Angeles!
Cheers,
Leslie
LOL
Cheers,
Leslie
LOL
Feb 19th 2003, 10:26 pm
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Reson for Denial - internet stupidity
matter of fact you won't be able to check in from the "slums of Sudan." No
ISP.
You seem more annoyed than I with my more reasonable propositions and
tempered language.
ISP.
You seem more annoyed than I with my more reasonable propositions and
tempered language.
Feb 19th 2003, 10:31 pm
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Reson for Denial - internet stupidity
On 19/2/03 6:26 PM, in article
[email protected], "David Brown"
wrote:
> matter of fact you won't be able to check in from the "slums of Sudan." No
> ISP.
That's not necessarily true, you've never been to Khartoum have you? In
fact one could use a satellite connection anyway.
> You seem more annoyed than I with my more reasonable propositions and
> tempered language.
Yeah, I apologize for the language, it's just that you seemed to be
dictating rules for others to follow. Take it easy, I sincerely doubt that
your application can be put in jeopardy due to others checking the online
status page, otherwise 1 person constantly checking different numbers on
that page could cripple the whole immigration system - does that sound
"reasonable?" (and even if it were there is nothing you could do about it
anyway, so lighten up!).
[email protected], "David Brown"
wrote:
> matter of fact you won't be able to check in from the "slums of Sudan." No
> ISP.
That's not necessarily true, you've never been to Khartoum have you? In
fact one could use a satellite connection anyway.
> You seem more annoyed than I with my more reasonable propositions and
> tempered language.
Yeah, I apologize for the language, it's just that you seemed to be
dictating rules for others to follow. Take it easy, I sincerely doubt that
your application can be put in jeopardy due to others checking the online
status page, otherwise 1 person constantly checking different numbers on
that page could cripple the whole immigration system - does that sound
"reasonable?" (and even if it were there is nothing you could do about it
anyway, so lighten up!).
Feb 19th 2003, 10:33 pm
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Reson for Denial - internet stupidity
On 19/2/03 5:58 PM, in article [email protected],
"angeles73" wrote:
>
> 1) The information posted on the INS website is protected by the Freedom
> of Information Act
>
> 2) There is no personal info displayed. The viewer would have to be a
> mindreader to know whose petition belongs to whom so I don't see your
> point regarding privacy.
>
> 3) Introducing these numbers in the website was the only way to prove
> these people were lying through their teeth. You are a perfect
> example of how and why this government agency keeps screwing its
> citizens and we continue to live in fear of them and their
> repercussions.
>
> I have already lived so long without my fiance that I now realize why
> I'm going through this. I need to enable change. I need to be part of
> the solution, and stop being part of the problem. You are being part of
> the problem just by writing that comment - and as Troy said, I wonder if
> people think before they write. Do you realize what it took for those
> few people to protest outside TSC alone in the rain? Do you realize the
> time and effort it took that guy to enter those numbers day after day to
> prove our case? What the hell did you do? Did you find anything out to
> get the truth?
>
> So what if a few of us have to answer uncomfortable questions. In the
> long run, a few of us (and I am willing to be part of the few) will pay
> the price so the ones behind us don't. But tomorrow, if one of my
> daughters falls in love with a foreigner and has to petition through
> this godforsaken anti-service center I'll bet with the right evidence in
> our hands we can guarantee a few years from now that they will process
> her petition a hell of a lot faster than mine.
>
> Meanwhile, I'm glad you feel comfortable waiting while you sit on your
> hands being spoonfed bu*&^t, but I am not. And like you, I will do
> whatever it takes to be with my fiance, but the operative word here is "
> do" . Tell us what you did to make a difference before you criticize
> others methods at getting at the truth. And keeping in mind that in this
> situation you are either part of the problem or part of the solution,
> make sure that before you post on this board you are aware that had it
> not been for some of us you wouldn't even know why you are waiting.
>
> --
> ange
>
>
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
>
Goodonya, I agree, being a sheep that blindly listens to the Gov't is
commonplace in America today - glad there are rebels out there!
"angeles73" wrote:
>
> 1) The information posted on the INS website is protected by the Freedom
> of Information Act
>
> 2) There is no personal info displayed. The viewer would have to be a
> mindreader to know whose petition belongs to whom so I don't see your
> point regarding privacy.
>
> 3) Introducing these numbers in the website was the only way to prove
> these people were lying through their teeth. You are a perfect
> example of how and why this government agency keeps screwing its
> citizens and we continue to live in fear of them and their
> repercussions.
>
> I have already lived so long without my fiance that I now realize why
> I'm going through this. I need to enable change. I need to be part of
> the solution, and stop being part of the problem. You are being part of
> the problem just by writing that comment - and as Troy said, I wonder if
> people think before they write. Do you realize what it took for those
> few people to protest outside TSC alone in the rain? Do you realize the
> time and effort it took that guy to enter those numbers day after day to
> prove our case? What the hell did you do? Did you find anything out to
> get the truth?
>
> So what if a few of us have to answer uncomfortable questions. In the
> long run, a few of us (and I am willing to be part of the few) will pay
> the price so the ones behind us don't. But tomorrow, if one of my
> daughters falls in love with a foreigner and has to petition through
> this godforsaken anti-service center I'll bet with the right evidence in
> our hands we can guarantee a few years from now that they will process
> her petition a hell of a lot faster than mine.
>
> Meanwhile, I'm glad you feel comfortable waiting while you sit on your
> hands being spoonfed bu*&^t, but I am not. And like you, I will do
> whatever it takes to be with my fiance, but the operative word here is "
> do" . Tell us what you did to make a difference before you criticize
> others methods at getting at the truth. And keeping in mind that in this
> situation you are either part of the problem or part of the solution,
> make sure that before you post on this board you are aware that had it
> not been for some of us you wouldn't even know why you are waiting.
>
> --
> ange
>
>
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
>
Goodonya, I agree, being a sheep that blindly listens to the Gov't is
commonplace in America today - glad there are rebels out there!
Feb 19th 2003, 10:37 pm
#26
I'm back!
Joined: Jul 2002
Location: Richmond, VA, USA
Posts: 4,316
Originally posted by Scout
*clap*clap*clap* to Chinga and Angeles!
Cheers,
Leslie
LOL
*clap*clap*clap* to Chinga and Angeles!
Cheers,
Leslie
LOL
However, I think the hostility and rudeness Chinga's directing towards the OP is unnecessary. While David's opinion may be of the minority, that is no reason to call him an "idiot" and a "wanker," among other things. (Of course, with a username like "Chinga la Migra," I'm not surprised...) Everyone else seems to be doing just fine getting their points across without hurling such insults.
~ Jenney
Feb 19th 2003, 10:39 pm
#27
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Bristol UK/MD USA
Posts: 477
Well said angeles73,
I'm sure there are worse things to worry about, rather than worry over who's checking what!!!!
Sal
I'm sure there are worse things to worry about, rather than worry over who's checking what!!!!
Sal
Feb 19th 2003, 10:47 pm
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Reson for Denial - internet stupidity
It is not I who needs to lighten up. My proposal was genuine. I would also
propose that your behavior could call ones attention to your own ISP rules
dictating acceptable behavior and terms of use. I would rather you not
harass me any further. Your terms of use agreement does in fact cite a
federal law.
propose that your behavior could call ones attention to your own ISP rules
dictating acceptable behavior and terms of use. I would rather you not
harass me any further. Your terms of use agreement does in fact cite a
federal law.
Feb 19th 2003, 10:51 pm
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Reson for Denial - internet stupidity
On 19/2/03 6:47 PM, in article
[email protected], "David Brown"
wrote:
> It is not I who needs to lighten up. My proposal was genuine. I would also
> propose that your behavior could call ones attention to your own ISP rules
> dictating acceptable behavior and terms of use. I would rather you not
> harass me any further. Your terms of use agreement does in fact cite a
> federal law.
>
>
Relax, you're in my killfile after this message (that means I will no longer
see any of your posts, not that I will kill you btw).
You are condescending in your "proposals" (what are you a Parliamentary
Commission that makes "proposals?") and feel free to file a complaint with
my ISP.
As to the citation of federal law...forget it, you are right everyone in
this newsgroup that ever checked the case status page with another's number
is a hardened criminal that deserves the death penalty (preferably through
stoning) and our ISP and their cited federal law will carry out our
sentence. Happy?
Cheers,
[email protected], "David Brown"
wrote:
> It is not I who needs to lighten up. My proposal was genuine. I would also
> propose that your behavior could call ones attention to your own ISP rules
> dictating acceptable behavior and terms of use. I would rather you not
> harass me any further. Your terms of use agreement does in fact cite a
> federal law.
>
>
Relax, you're in my killfile after this message (that means I will no longer
see any of your posts, not that I will kill you btw).
You are condescending in your "proposals" (what are you a Parliamentary
Commission that makes "proposals?") and feel free to file a complaint with
my ISP.
As to the citation of federal law...forget it, you are right everyone in
this newsgroup that ever checked the case status page with another's number
is a hardened criminal that deserves the death penalty (preferably through
stoning) and our ISP and their cited federal law will carry out our
sentence. Happy?
Cheers,
Feb 19th 2003, 11:35 pm
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Reson for Denial - internet stupidity
I am thrilled to see all this bravado!
As we made spectacles of ourselves here I received information from
someone else at SSA asking me if I remember when the SSA shut down their
online status program rather quickly after sufficient complaints and abuse.
I would prefer to see INS continue the on-line status and not have to worry
about it.
I sent money to the protestors.
I informed the group of the possibilities, I did not ridicule and
profane anyone else.
The government is US.
It's not as simple as cookies and freedom of information.
They have total control of that server and abuse may result in it's shutting
down. I see no problem with these observations.
Remember, the government has shut down servers before so I'll leave it to
your good conscience.
As we made spectacles of ourselves here I received information from
someone else at SSA asking me if I remember when the SSA shut down their
online status program rather quickly after sufficient complaints and abuse.
I would prefer to see INS continue the on-line status and not have to worry
about it.
I sent money to the protestors.
I informed the group of the possibilities, I did not ridicule and
profane anyone else.
The government is US.
It's not as simple as cookies and freedom of information.
They have total control of that server and abuse may result in it's shutting
down. I see no problem with these observations.
Remember, the government has shut down servers before so I'll leave it to
your good conscience.