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 Hear that
#1 - You claimed spam.
Now you claim other.

I claim shenanigans.

It's a very simple switch, and it is obviously (to all) that you realized you were full of shit, and then decided to delve back in to the article.

So now that you've admitted you were wrong there, ok I'll answer this too.

The ISP created a spam blast mechanism that they allow some people to use, and not others. There are LOTS of FED vs LOCAL laws, they conflict, and the f'ing ISP is not the expert on them. They are creating an opaque mechanism to slow down and hassle those they don't like.

If they have the right to control, then they have the responsibility. Is this an accepted legal issue, or do I need to explain it to you? Safe harbor means that they aren't allowed to filter on content (except for spam, which you've already shown you know this is not), no safe harbor means they HAVE to filter and can be sued for pretty much anything they carry.

Are you telling me that they will be legally responsible for every message that gets through, as well? Meaning suable for fraudulent content.
Collapse Edited by crazy Sept. 29, 2010, 06:12:01 PM EDT
Hear that
#1 - You claimed spam.
Now you claim other.

I claim shenanigans.

It's a very simple switch, and it is obviously (to all) that you realized you were full of shit, and then decided to delve back in to the article.

So now that you've admitted you were wrong there, ok I'll answer this too.

The ISP created a spam blast mechanism that they allow some people to use, and not others. There are LOTS of FED vs LOCAL laws, they conflict, and the f'ing ISP is not the expert on them. They are creating an opaque mechanism to slow down and hassle those they don't like.

If they have the right to control, then they have the responsibility. Is this an accepted legal issue, or do I need to explain it to you? Safe harbor means that they aren't allowed to filter on content (except for spam, which you've already shown you know this is not), no safe harbor means they HAVE to filter and can be sued for pretty much anything they carry.

Are you telling me that they will be leagally resposible for every message that gets through, as well? Meaning suable for fraudulent content.
     so people should be allowed to spam sms - (boxley) - (62)
         Where do you see spam? - (scoenye) - (57)
             not the point - (boxley) - (56)
                 But this case has nothing to do with spam - (scoenye) - (55)
                     He does - (crazy) - (54)
                         sort of - (boxley) - (53)
                             Please - (crazy) - (52)
                                 is the judges ruling narrow or broad? - (boxley) - (3)
                                     Poor dodge - (crazy) - (2)
                                         nope, wrong question - (boxley) - (1)
                                             Huh? - (crazy)
                                 It is asked for - (scoenye)
                                 Yeah, as a person in a similar line of work - (jake123) - (46)
                                     You know what it comes down to? - (static)
                                     That is what we currently have - (scoenye) - (44)
                                         Dude, I don't think you realise - (jake123) - (43)
                                             Give them a whitelist - (crazy) - (32)
                                                 can we give the users your phone number for support? - (boxley) - (1)
                                                     Free? No - (crazy)
                                                 They have whitelists - (jake123) - (29)
                                                     See above - (crazy) - (28)
                                                         Re: See above - (boxley) - (27)
                                                             Which is it? - (drook) - (26)
                                                                 Mass, one or more automated messages - (boxley) - (22)
                                                                     So... me sending... - (folkert) - (21)
                                                                         just because the carrier allows you to abuse their TOS - (boxley) - (8)
                                                                             If he pays for the service - (beepster) - (2)
                                                                                 And I do pay for unlimited. -NT - (folkert)
                                                                                 Re: If he pays for the service - (boxley)
                                                                             Selective enforcement... - (folkert) - (4)
                                                                                 Technical solution that proves this is bogus - (drook) - (3)
                                                                                     I don't have a problem with... - (folkert) - (2)
                                                                                         whats this free shyte? - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                             Ok jackass... - (folkert)
                                                                         Speaking of Nagios - (jake123) - (11)
                                                                             Preventing use of the service by others is covered in ToS - (drook) - (3)
                                                                                 We are not using the ... - (folkert) - (2)
                                                                                     Yes, that is the part of the infrastructure that I run - (jake123) - (1)
                                                                                         I'm sorry... I should have said... - (folkert)
                                                                             We only send to those that are supposed to... - (folkert) - (6)
                                                                                 Possible SES? - (drook) - (2)
                                                                                     headcount doesnt approach zero -NT - (boxley)
                                                                                     Actually, prioritizing automated messages last - (jake123)
                                                                                 Heh - (jake123) - (2)
                                                                                     Look at the post where I explained... - (folkert) - (1)
                                                                                         Just did read that - (jake123)
                                                                 You've missed the other key point - (jake123) - (2)
                                                                     freetards is the problem -NT - (boxley)
                                                                     The problem is box miscategorised it - (crazy)
                                             To put this wreck back on the rails... - (scoenye) - (9)
                                                 try reading the link - (boxley) - (8)
                                                     Someone aleady quoted that - (drook) - (7)
                                                         one more time, if the ruling goes against - (boxley) - (6)
                                                             A pleading doesn't determine the ruling. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                                 if the ruling states they MUST deliver it does exactly that -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                     And if wishes were horses ... We'll see. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                             Please answer these two simple questions - (drook) - (2)
                                                                 Re: Please answer these two simple questions - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                     Hear that - (crazy)
         Settled out of court. - (folkert) - (1)
             good, having that albatross going the wrong way would be bad - (boxley)
         So should T-Mobile go to jail for bank robbery now? - (crazy) - (1)
             Freakin' awesome! - (folkert)

Damn thing ate it's way out of the box it was in and lived in my closet for a month.
76 ms