5,580
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 165:
Line 165: − :I'm curiouse as to how you intend to deal with vandals from outside the united states? I mean, you could block them, but realy us federal law does not apply to any other country you bunch of stuck up neo-nazi morons, how do you intend to prevent it? + − More though, the us is not the greatest nation on earth, being rich and powerful doesn't mean your better, look at Bhutan (don't try and find it, you'll have problems on maps that only have US territory upon them), it measures how well it is doing by gross national happiness, by how well it cares for its environment, and all its people, not just those rich enough to 'deserve' it. − Brainwashing your children by homeschooling them incase they find out about terrible things like sex, oh no not how every human on earth came about, heaven forbid they learn to enjoy there sexuality, that would be awful, or even they turn out GAY 'dum dum dummm'. − Oh, then theres Iraq, you are there to help the Iraqis! You are!!! Come on, the huge amount of oil that sits under that sand had no affect on the decision to invade, the lives of millions of Iraqis are what you are concearned about.Of course. − Basically, anyone who seriously uses this site is a misinformed idiot, trained from birth by other misinformed idiots, and now turning to more of them for more wrong information. Try conidering that there is a world outside the usa, that there is a way of life beyond xenofobic idiocy, please, turn to the light, turn to being a light harted real person, not just a brainwashed drone. − −
Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 3 (view source)
Revision as of 21:44, December 17, 2007
, 21:44, December 17, 2007Undo revision 353753 by Special:Contributions/Motty (User talk:Motty) this is an archive, please do not post here
: Good luck trying that argument with a judge presented with clear vandalism. In ''Shurgard Storage Ctrs. v Safeguard Self Storage, Inc.'' (2000, WD Wash) 119 F Supp 2d 1121, for example, one side tried to argue that "fraud" meant something narrower than wrong of someone else in property rights by a scheme. Guess what? The court rejected the defense. No surprise there.
: Good luck trying that argument with a judge presented with clear vandalism. In ''Shurgard Storage Ctrs. v Safeguard Self Storage, Inc.'' (2000, WD Wash) 119 F Supp 2d 1121, for example, one side tried to argue that "fraud" meant something narrower than wrong of someone else in property rights by a scheme. Guess what? The court rejected the defense. No surprise there.
: I bet there will be some new prosecutions based on vandalism of this new technology of Wiki, and it's not going to be pretty. On this issue, Wikipedia and Conservapedia will stand side by side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
: I bet there will be some new prosecutions based on vandalism of this new technology of Wiki, and it's not going to be pretty.No ther wont, stop being stupid On this issue, Wikipedia and Conservapedia will stand side by side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Assuming that you reading of fraud is correct ("meant wronging of person in property rights by dishonest methods or schemes"), The sections that apply to defrauding are #4 and #6. #4 goes to state " knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization ... and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;" As the value of the vandalism is not conceivably more than $5,000 this fails. #6 is about trafficking in passwords "knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization". In most of the definitions the "without authorization" bit comes up - participation in the wiki is authorizing the person to make edits. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Assuming that you reading of fraud is correct ("meant wronging of person in property rights by dishonest methods or schemes"), The sections that apply to defrauding are #4 and #6. #4 goes to state " knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization ... and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;" As the value of the vandalism is not conceivably more than $5,000 this fails. #6 is about trafficking in passwords "knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization". In most of the definitions the "without authorization" bit comes up - participation in the wiki is authorizing the person to make edits. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)