If your considering copy and pasting your latest drive by spam here because you cant find any other place.
DONT!
Oprano has a ZERO tolerance policy for spam. Yours WILL be deleted. If you are looking for more exposure for your product please contact advertising@oprano.com for more information.
Legacy Archived Main BoardBusiness chat and general industry chat. All participation is welcome. Dont post your fucking spam here.
Originally posted by vdc-Loki@Jun 24 2005, 12:40 AM The list goes on and on, but I called this 28 days ago but no one seemed to want to listen, but now a damn good portion of people see the truth
Im with ya there, ive been saying since the FSC first started telling people they need to signup to be 'protected' that something was amiss.
Its only now people are starting to realize the consequences of the FSCs actions, along with what i have been saying made sense all along.
Originally posted by Lee@Jun 24 2005, 12:42 AM 99% of the time, if a crime has been commited by someone on a 'sealed' document, it gets 'unsealed' and entered in to public record at least thats what one of our attorneys are telling us
Well, I guess we get to see, if this will happen - no way all persons/companies on the FSC list have their things in order ;-)
But bottomline is that the FSC are now the industry best bet to get anything changed regarding 2257... I will not speculate, if they have a good case or not - but it will clearly benefit all if the FSC succeeds. So why not support them? (you can probably just wire them money without being a member ;-))
__________________ "Chaos is the law of nature, order is the dream of man."
~Henry B. Adams (Historian) 1838-1918
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jun 24 2005, 01:57 AM There is a lot about this whole thing that puzzles me. I'm confused by the number of people that contend there was no way to obtain a "blanket" TRO enjoining the DOJ from enforcement efforts of any kind against any entity; that only named plaintiffs could have been covered by a TRO resulting from today's hearing doesn't seem quite right to me.
They could have gone for the blanket TRO, that is what was requested. The agreement was made to forego the hearing on the TRO.
My point was that the TRO was not a sure thing, that would have depended on the judge's mood.
The agreement was a sure thing, and covers only the plaintiffs.
OK, here's my perspective. My house is clean, authorities can feel free to inspect my records. No cost involved to me, they come, ask to see records, I show them, they're going to say OK.
I belong to the FSC, not as some protective measure, but because I believe in what they do. This just turns out to be an added unexpected benefit to me as a paying member.
Let's just say that the "discovery" theory is true. "One bad apple" won't ruin me, because I'm compliant. The only people it'll "ruin" are the ones who AREN'T compliant, and my perspective is fuck 'em, they should've been compliant.
Why anyone would be concerned about anybody knowing they're a Free Speech Coalition member in the first place is totally beyond me. I really don't care who knows I'm a member, from the DOJ down to that red-haired kid down the block. Matters not to me.
Originally posted by Trev@Jun 24 2005, 04:11 PM One of the people in this thread that have claimed that they comply and did before these regs came out, I truly believe! As he’s from the UK and has had to cover his ass with factor 2000 sunscreen from the start!
So you don't believe ME, eh, Trev. <_< Just for that...
06-24-2005
Linear Mode
