Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Some would think that was a wee-bit too cocky.
Very true -- but I think young Matthew does not yet have a grip on this subject. He apparently needs some help in handling it.
It could be both or it could be neither. I really do not know -- thankfully. Ask Susie, she'll know the proper answer.
Do you know how I could attach signature with an iMac?
Paper, a pen, and some tape out to just about do it. As simple as it gets.
If I send a picture of me with my Ihub shirt on....
I'd bet that Matt would give you whatever you wanted if you send a pic with your shirt off.
Although, based on what I have read so far, I cannot tell if he just used to be HUGE or is now HUGE. Seems like he has confused some.
It sure does seem like the only time my wags win is when I pick a number and leave town. Now if it would just work that way in the real world..... I could place my bets and travel the world in advance of the winnings. If only it were so easy.
Yep - and even remembered most of it afterwards.
It is an IHub shirt. Matt cropped out the great view of the green monster in the background.
IHub got all kinds of free advertising -- especially in the free open bar we went to afterwards.
It might break some monitors, but (as edited, touched up, airbrushed, etc.) it is okay to include.
I just cleaned out over 20 "returned" or "blocked" emails indicating that I had sent an attachment with the WORM_SOBIG.F virus as an attachment. My virus software is up to date and I do not have the virus. This spoofing stuff is a real pian in the arse.
One of the advantages of AOL is that its address books do not get attacked by these kinds of viruses.
~~~~~COMPX 8/20/2003~~~~~
Prior Close - 1,761.11 +21.62
1769 WTMHouston
I am going to be out of town the rest of the week, so I'll just stick with 1769 for the rest of the week.
close but no cigar though, and still
Wag it right and close is good enough.
Let's be precise here....it closed at 1761.11, which makes 1769 off by ate, er eight.
FINALLY I found something you said that is correct.
Sigh....It is really hard not to reply to some of your posts in a way that is not solely sarcastic and mean. It sometimes seems like you intentionally play the fool just to piss people off.
Suffice it to say that you are so far off base that it is not even worth responding to the substance of what you thought you may have said. I probably should have known better in the first place.
Have a great day.
Try this for a nonsensical twist in the law. The legal age for consensual sex in Texas is 17. Thus, anyone can have sex, legally, with a 17 year old male or female. However, it is illegal (under state and federal law) to make or possess pictures or electronic images of anyone under 18 if the content is sexual and it is with the intent to arouse or gratify a sexual desire.
Thus, 17 year olds can legally do the dirty to their hearts (or other organs) content, but if they photograph or record it, they will have committed a felony for which they will be registered sex offenders for the rest of their life.
I am too tired to editorialize on this....but, to try and make it somewhat on topic....they should aways be careful where, how, and what they wag and should always do so with care and caution.
I do remember a science show on T.V. back in the 1940s
I had always thought (although I do not know why) that television was not around until the early 1950s. A little looking just now revealed that it had its origin in 1927.
Now that I have learned something new today, I can go home.
With respect to the main subject, if a content provider such as IHub had liability for failing to report some allegedly threatened crime, which I seriously doubt, the liability would come from that inaction and not from the content that was posted. They have no liability for the posting of the content by the poster.
That said, it might be a good idea for sites like IHub to make sure that any target of alleged threats is aware of the threats: that is, when they are deleted from public view to make sure that they are transmitted to the person to whom they were directed or to whom they concerned. It is likely, however, that any duty to make such a transmittal would only arise as a result of the contractual relationship between the site and the target. If the duty had its origin in a contract, it could also likely be abrogated by the contract -- i.e., by the terms of use. If I were asked, I would suggest that any site get its own legal opinion about such a duty and its potential exposure -- as well as possible legal ways (such as in the terms of use) to abrogate such a duty.
It is, in my personal view, the duty of the target and not IHub to report the threat to law enforcement. Except in the rarest of circumstances, there is no realistic or reliable way for sites like IHub, SI, or RB to evaluate the seriousness of an alleged threat. They are not and ought not be in the business of evaluating the veracity of posts -- threatening or otherwise.
~~~~~COMPX 8/19/2003~~~~~
Prior Close - 1,739.49 +37.48
1769 WTMHouston
Here is to hoping for a winning legal wag.
I believe that Matt's answer is correct. While I do not recall the precise citation to the law, as I recall, sometime around 1998-1999, Congress expressly exempted ISP and content providers from any civil liability for content of third parties. I looked closely at it once upon a time and it seemed very broad and inclusive. I have not looked at it in years.
As for deletion of the messages, I also think anyone would be hard pressed to make a claim for damages against the provider of posting services. First, on most services, and Bob or Matt can correct me if this is wrong, deletions simply remove the posts from public view rather than truly deleting them. Thus, they remain available if they are needed in the future for litigation of any kind. Second, death threats (even veiled ones) will almost certainly violate all sites Terms of Use and thus the service is within its contractual rights in deleting them -- regardless of whether it is requested by anyone.
An argument could be made -- and I have no idea how legally successful it could be -- that once a provider has actual notice of conduct that is threatening or otherwise illegal, such as by deleting posts based on content, it may have some exposure by continuing to let the threatening or violating party post. I have not thought this through fully, but even if they had some kind of theoretical exposure, it would be difficult for the person threatened to prove damages caused by the provider. It would seem that the threatened party would be better off knowing about the threatener's intentions than being ignorant of them. At least in part, this potential exposure is why most providers will not delete posts based merely on someone's assertion that the content was untrue. Service providers are not in the business of regulating content, except when it violates their contractual terms of use.
One final comment: these are my personal (not professional) views and should not be taken as legal advice. No one should rely, act, or not act based on anything I have said. These views are worth exactly what has been paid for them. I have not viewed the specific example you asked about and would not offer anyone specific legal advice without doing some serious research -- for which I would require and expect to be paid.
~~~~~COMPX 8/18/2003~~~~~
Previous Close - 1,702.00 +1.66
1710 Susie924
1715 WTMHouston
Why would you want pictures of me out? In might be interesting, but out would definitely not be.
good night
I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head.
[i...]about a half hour after I posted that Churak pulled....
Some things are just too easy. He only wishes for half an hour.
I'll let it slide this time..
Careful now, that is what they want.
I have an alibi -- for a change.
Sure pick on Susie when she is sitting in the dark.
Some might say that just sitting would be a HUGE mistake.
isn't that "metaphores"??
In here, it is likely "met a ____ on all fours."
I'm gonna spank the both of you!
Looks like I missed the fun.
Looks like you have been here close to a month. If you don't get it by now, then I say, das boot to ya.
Point well taken. I had a couple of mosts, but not enough.
~~~~~COMPX 8/15/2003~~~~~
Previous Close: 1,700.31 +13.70
1666 GGraessle
1669 WTMHouston
1755 timhyma
You convinced me.
But if you keep a close eye on this tribe, you can't ignore its constantly surfacing, unsophisticated supposition that good governmental intentions necessarily translate into good social results.
one more well-meaning law on top of the thousands in existence will somehow be the one that does the trick.
#msg-1326059
The only difference between most liberals and conservatives and most Democrats and Republicans is what they want government to do for us and how they want government to interfere in our lives. Most in both camps want to use government to further their particular goals and agendas -- the only meaningful differences are how each views its and the other sides goals -- relative to each other.
Of course, and not surprisingly, both think their goals and agendas are worthy of government enforcement. As soon as folks link themselves with a label, I conclude immediately that they have an agenda.
"Conservatives" used to stand for less government. Now most just stand for their own brand of social engineering.
Independence has never meant more (and less) than it does now.
. But if you keep a close eye on this tribe, you can't ignore its constantly surfacing, unsophisticated supposition that good governmental intentions necessarily translate into good social results.
one more well-meaning law on top of the thousands in existence will somehow be the one that does the trick.
The only difference between most liberals and conservatives and most Democrats and Republicans is what they want government to do for us and how they want government to interfere in our lives. Most in both camps want to use government to further their particular goals and agendas -- the only meaningful differences are how each views its and the other sides goals -- relative to each other.
Of course, and not surprisingly, both think their goals and agendas are worthy of government enforcement. As soon as folks link themselves with a label, I conclude immediately that they have an agenda.
"Conservatives" used to stand for less government. Now most just stand for their own brand of social engineering.
Independence has never meant more (and less) than it does now.
~~~~~COMPX~~~~~~SWAG August, 2003 (Close 8-29-03)
July EOM Close: 1,735.02 +14.11
1669 WTMHouston
I am assuming that the deadline for this month is 8:00 a.m. tomorrow, 8-15, as it has been every month.
~~~~~COMPX 8/15/2003~~~~~
Previous Close: 1,700.31 +13.70
1712 WTMHouston
1755 timhyma
After waiting all day for you to come out on top, I would hope so.
What do you want to do? See historic sights or frolic in the sun? Do you want nice hotels or is just about anything with a deb and a shower good enough for the night? Do you want somewhere with night life or a quieter type trip?
What is a "misteriss"? Is it something in female form that causes misery?
Most of the time, it is simply mis-stress. Some go there to miss stress elsewhere. Some got there because they miss stress and want more of it. But, when you combine them, such as in the case that is the subject of this discussion, it becomes a totally different critter; a way to squirrel out of missing stress because it is anyone's guess, a true wag, why anyone would want any tail from that squirrel's beaver.
Guys have long had a six-pack and bag theory: a sort of relativity equation. In this case, that may need to be changed to be a six pack and gag theory Sometimes STFU, just does not cut it.
I originally typed that you should be "HUGELY" thankful, but then edited it out.
Now, as to whether it was a HUGE mistake, if he is on your back, then I hope not.
Actually, based on all of the hooters discussion, which I have abstained from, it seems likely that it is neither nasty nor perverted. But, I guess, as with most things, it is all a matter of perspective.
~~~~~COMPX 8/14/2003~~~~~
Prior Close: 1,686.59 -0.42
1669 WTMHouston
I am beginning to think that the market just does not like to have a good time.