🚀 go-pugleaf

<email_me@mts.net> wrote in message 
news:pcf533lroeirkqoonqgrljrl90ujnhgmd5@4ax.com...
> x-no-archive: yes   On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:59:39 -0500, "Peter D"
> <please@.sk> wrote:
>><email_me@mts.net> wrote in message
>>news:d67533tesiqrsu704pfsrdc18kdr6ucub8@4ax.com...
>>> x-no-archive: yes   On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:07:54 -0500, "Peter D"
>>> <please@.sk> wrote:
>>>
>>>><email_me@mts.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:kp5433dbij13t7e77sies9hhi98j57gmfi@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> With comments like "there's nothing wrong with his company identifying
>>>>> alleged file swappers when ordered to do so" , the opperative word is
>>>>> alleged. This ISP deseves to have their users leave them enmass, what
>>>>> ever happened to innocent till proven guilty?
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2005/04/21/swap050421.html
>>>>>
>>>>> A lawyer for ISP Videotron says there's nothing wrong with his company
>>>>> identifying alleged file swappers when ordered to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> "We do it on a regular basis [when issued a court order]. It's not
>>>>> very complicated," Serge Sasseville said in an interview with the
>>>>> Canadian Press.
>>>>
>>>>You imply that it's some sort of arbitrary and capricious act on their
>>>>part,
>>>>or that other ISPs would not act this way in the same set of
>>>>circumstances.
>>>>They would if they're smart.
>>>>
>>>>The significant part of the quote is "when issued a court order". The 
>>>>ISP
>>>>is
>>>>*required by law* to comply. There is not 'right' being infringed by 
>>>>their
>>>>compliance. It's a matter of obeying the law.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's not an illegal act in Canada, so what Canadian court would
>>> capriciously issue it?
>>
>>Noe. Courts aren't "capricious".
>>
>>> It would have to be an American court order which holds no weight in
>>> Canada.
>>
>>Or a US Court Order served on a US company with access and mirror
>>images/copies of the servers of its Canadian subsidaries. Or a US Court
>>request to a Canadian Court to serve same. Or the result of a request that 
>>a
>>Canadian Court deemed sufficent to warrant an Order.
>>
>
>
> God your stupid dolman, it's not illegal to download in Canada, how
> more simply do I need to put it so you'll eventually understand.

No, you're stupid because you think that saying, "it's not illegal in 
Canada" is sufficent to prevent a Court from issuing a Order. You know jack 
shit about Court Orders, applying for them, or acting on them. It's my 
personal opinion that the results of such an Order wouldn't result in a 
charge being laid, but that doesn't stop an Order form being server -- and 
once served, it doens't matter whehter the ISp agrees with it or not. FWIW, 
it doesn't matter what you agree with or not, O CLueless Wonder. Now stfu 
and go ask mommy to tuck you in!