🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <bl22hs$d4f$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>, Edward M. Kennedy wrote:
> 
><pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com> wrote in message
> news:git8nv0jbpdpe6rqhkddosubguh23vnj91@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:17:54 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
>> <NoSpam@Ham.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com> wrote in message
>> >news:02n8nv806147saaks9rvdjqsmbbrg067p8@4ax.com...
>> >> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:17:43 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
>> >> <NoSpam@Ham.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"Susan Hogarth" <sjh@tribeagles.org> wrote
>> >> >
>> >> >> You've put your finger on the problem. Why should the taxpayers pay
> for
>> >> >*your*
>> >> >> no trespassing sign? That's between you and the phone company you do
>> >> >business
>> >> >> with.
>> >>
>> >> No, it's not.  No more than the no trepassing sign in my yard,
>> >> which carries weight and effect only because it's backed up by
>> >> criminal penalties enforced by the government.
>> >
>> >That's an irrelevant bonus of a legal system.  Your unlisted phone
>> >number contract would also be enforcable by the government.
>>
>> Not under any existing law.
> 
> Have you even *heard* of  Common Law and/or have any
> clue that  torts and contracts are still covered by it in the
> absence of legislation?
> 

Now Ted don't get your shorts in a wad.  You are trying to teach a pig
to sing (teach paulie anything).  It only wastes your time and irritates
paulie.

Chuckle.  I got a real laugh when he called you a liberal.  I just
firgured out he puts that label on anyone who taxes his braincells and
makes him think (or try to think).  Sigh.

>> Which is why we need a new law.
>> One that does not deprive me of the right to have a listed phone
> 
> You have a right to not be called at home by people you
> don't know???  You are arguing you are entitled to something,
> which is the perverse leftist sense of right.  I'm using the old
> sense of the word, the right to act (which includes the right to own).
> 
>> number, just as the law that enforces the No Trespassing sign does not
>> deprive me of the right to have an address.
> 
> The trespassing sign costs money.  So does an unlisted number
> and other services.  Plus you keep confusing ownership of
> property with subscribing to SOMEONE ELSE'S SERVICE.
> 
> If you want the rough equivalent of a no tresspassing sign for
> your phone, that's your problem, not mine.  One way to do
> this is to convince phone comapanies that all contracts should
> have no telemarketing clause, under penalty of  X.  Then the
> phone company could make money suing telemarketers.
> 
>> You are saying that all I have to do to get rid of salesmen
>> knocking on the door is not have an address, or a driveway.  That's
>> incredibly stupid.
> 
> Which is why I didn't say it.
> 
> --Ted
> 
> 


-- 
Wes Dukes (wdukes.pobox@com)  Swap the . and the @ to email me please.

spam@www.spam.com  is a garbage address.