IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Non-denial denials anyone?
All of these denials are very carefully worded. "contracts", "agreements", "hand over", "to NSA" etc. I'm surprised the lawyers took so long to find technically correct wording.
-----------------------------------------
Impeach Bush. Impeach Cheney. Do it now.
New Lawyers bill by the minute.... You expected a quick answer?
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. (Herm Albright)
New These lawyers are probably internal counsel or on retainer
Those that aren't govt. lawyers, that is. And they're not paid hourly either.



PS: Lawyers don't bill by the minute, they bill by the quarter-hour minimum. If you call your lawyer, he ansewrs the phone and says he doesn't have time to talk to you right now, he probably just billed you 15 minutes for the phone call.
===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
New Lawyers bill by the minute.... You expected a quick answer?
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. (Herm Albright)
     So USA Today is full of it, I guess? - (bepatient) - (30)
         Or 2 of 3 carriers are. -NT - (Silverlock)
         Definitely calls for an investigation - (Simon_Jester) - (22)
             its fear of lawsuits, their denials are very carefully - (boxley) - (21)
                 I did notice that.... ( && Nacchio) - (Simon_Jester) - (4)
                     Non-denial denials anyone? - (Silverlock) - (3)
                         Lawyers bill by the minute.... You expected a quick answer? -NT - (jbrabeck) - (1)
                             These lawyers are probably internal counsel or on retainer - (drewk)
                         Lawyers bill by the minute.... You expected a quick answer? -NT - (jbrabeck)
                 So you think there is a legal distinction - (bepatient) - (15)
                     Sure, leave it to the lawyers to have one. - (a6l6e6x) - (14)
                         you think they want to defend that - (bepatient) - (13)
                             I wouldn't either, but IANAL. - (a6l6e6x) - (2)
                                 s/and/in/ -NT - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                     Thanks! You are right. -NT - (a6l6e6x)
                             Well, those comments wouldn't go before a Jury, would they? - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
                                 The EFF v. AT&T case? That was filed on 1/31/2006. - (Another Scott)
                             They won't need to defend anything - (Silverlock) - (7)
                                 "If the president does it, it's not illegal" - (GBert) - (2)
                                     Nice segue to Tom Toles 5/18/2006 cartoon. 27 kB .img - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                         awesome, i hadn't seen that ! -NT - (GBert)
                                 permits no violations of securities law, does not - (boxley)
                                 Yeah, right. - (ben_tilly) - (2)
                                     the purpose of a presidential finding is to cover - (boxley)
                                     Your point is the most valid - (bepatient)
         One other possibility... - (jb4) - (3)
             Huh? I was under the impression, this IS "Carnivore". DYMV? -NT - (CRConrad) - (2)
                 Not supposed to be... - (jb4)
                 No, Carnivore is Dead... *BUT*... - (folkert)
         Now Wired is into the act.... - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
             CCCP redux. -NT - (mmoffitt)

Your Freak God[tm] is HERE!
141 ms