Qworst DSL - Liars!

[Eric]

sorry, i wasn't yelling--i know i'm not supposed to do all-caps.  i was just
emphasizing.  e-mail is tough becuase there is no way to convey the
inflection of one's voice.  inflection of voice carries meaning.  e-mail
loses that. sorry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: plug-discuss-admin@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> [mailto:plug-discuss-admin@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us]On Behalf Of
> Technomage
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 8:09 PM
> To: plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> Subject: Re: Qworst DSL - Liars!
>
>
> you don't have to yell.
>
> Eric wrote:
> >
> > "Communications law,"  huh?  you must be joking.  This is a matter of
> > criminal law.  Communications lawyers, if there is such a thing, would
> > specialize in the regualtion of the airwaves--i.e., FCC stuff.
> "comuniations law" covers a lot more ground than that dealing
> specifically with the FCC. The telco system is governed my it
> as well as all "wireless" systems.
>
> >
> > Look, everyone agrees it is not a violation of ARIZONA law to tape a
> > conversation with only ONE person's consent.  The issue here is
> MONTANA law,
> > and ITS requirements.  The only issue here is how to get around the MT
> > requirement that ALL parties to a conversation consent.
> Several suggestions
> > have been made.
> only if the call is assumed to have originated in MT. otherwise, the
> state
> of origin has precidence.
>
> >
> > Here is the statute for MT.  Read it for yourselves, and tell
> us all what is
> > legal.  The only answer is to tell the person straight up that you are
> > taping it.  You can't be coy.  The point of the statute is to have ALL
> > parties understand they are being taped; not to have them guess
> or infer.
> >
> > Notice that 48-8-219 (c)i does not give an exception for any
> thing suggested
> > today; no defense depends on who called whom, and no defense depends on
> > whether one person is out of state.
> then it is in contention. at this point, federal law takes over, period.
>
> <SNIP>
> > AND HERE IS 69-6-104
> >
> > 69-6-104 Search Term End . Control of telephone communications
> to and from a
> > person holding hostages -- nonliability of telephone company officials
> >
> <SNIP>
> I am not sure how this would apply under "ordinary course of business".
>
> Technomage Hawke
>
> --
> I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
> numbered!
> My life is my own - No. 6
> ________________________________________________
> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail
> doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
>
> PLUG-discuss mailing list  -  PLUG-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>