🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: misc.consumers
Article #8586

Re: Should this man have been convicted?

#8586
From: Dissident
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 04:26
44 lines
3344 bytes
Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> In article <kik44v8oikf2fpbac71d6tln8c9pk98cud@4ax.com>,
>  Spam Me Not <NoSp@m.us> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Kevin you ignorant slut.
>>
>>Being the law is not enough reason. Get your head out of your ass and
>>smell the reality.
>>
>>other stupid laws still on the books:
>>Women may not drive in a house coat. 
>>You are not permitted to wear cowboy boots unless you already own at
>>least two cows. 
>>Women may not wear high heels while in the city limits. 
>>You are forbidden to spit on the ground within 5 feet of another
>>person. 
>>It is illegal to curse on a mini-golf course. 
>>
>>more: http://www.stupidlaws.com/
> 
> 
> No doubt the five or six examples on that web site have been collected 
> from only the finest, most reliable anonymous internet sources.  Of 
> course there's no need to document what the codes and jurisdictions are 
> for those laws.

Actually, some of the California ones I specifically recognize
from newspaper coverage when they were passed.  Chico and
Palo Alto both are nuclear-free zones.  It is illegal to
possess, manufacture or *detonate* a nuclear device within
city limits.  Violating this law results in a $500 fine and
a misdemeanor conviction.  I can't say I'm familiar with
the Chico area, but I can guarantee that detonating a
nuclear weapon within the Palo Alto city limits will at one
blow remove all parts of the legal infrastructure involved
in punishing said offense. <g>

And, as of 1998 there was still a state law here making it
a misdemeanor punishable by a $100 fine to refuse to join
a sheriff's posse when so ordered.  Think I'll saddle up
ol' Bessie now and ride off into the sunset.

-B
Technical Details
Message-ID: <3E41E401.1030201@7600.net>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn13feed!wn12feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!sccrnsc04.POSTED!not-for-mail
References: <3E4046EB.8C37D94B@nospam.com> <mcmurtri-B499E4.23531304022003@typhoon.sonic.net> <kik44v8oikf2fpbac71d6tln8c9pk98cud@4ax.com> <mcmurtri-5B7DD6.19244205022003@typhoon.sonic.net>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 106ed4,b930db7c113fc78e
X-Google-Attributes: gid106ed4,public
X-Google-Thread: 107518,b930db7c113fc78e
X-Google-Attributes: gid107518,public
X-Google-Thread: f4552,b930db7c113fc78e
X-Google-Attributes: gidf4552,public
X-Google-Thread: f4d80,b930db7c113fc78e
X-Google-Attributes: gidf4d80,public
X-Google-Thread: 10fa57,b930db7c113fc78e
X-Google-Attributes: gid10fa57,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-05 20:26:41 PST
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn13feed!wn12feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!sccrnsc04.POSTED!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <3E41E401.1030201@7600.net>
From: Dissident <qqqq@7600.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,alt.law-enforcement,sci.med.pharmacy,ca.general,ok.general
Subject: Re: Should this man have been convicted?
References: <3E4046EB.8C37D94B@nospam.com> <mcmurtri-B499E4.23531304022003@typhoon.sonic.net> <kik44v8oikf2fpbac71d6tln8c9pk98cud@4ax.com> <mcmurtri-5B7DD6.19244205022003@typhoon.sonic.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 45
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.234.118.36
X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com
X-Trace: sccrnsc04 1044505600 12.234.118.36 (Thu, 06 Feb 2003 04:26:40 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 04:26:40 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 04:26:40 GMT