Re: legality of wiretapping: a "key" distinction

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>]

On Sat, 5 Oct 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

> 
> [wiretapping involves total secrecy vs. warrants]
> >This is hardly news.  An old and inconsequential distinction
> >unfortunately.
> 
> please elaborate.

Do your own homework or pay me.

[...]

> >Do not make the mistake of thinking there is no case law on wiretap simply
> >because you have not/are too lazy to go to the library and look it up.
> 
> I said, "at least it is rarely quoted here", lawyer-boy.

Look at your quote again.  You indicated there was no case law, or that it
never appeared here.  I suppose this is where someone with a real job is
supposed to take hours out of his or her time to type up a 10 page summary
of why you are a complete fool.  Sorry, I'm not biting.

> >You propose to refight a case soundly resolved ages ago and you propose to
> >get the rest of the list to do your homework for you.
> 
> nevertheless, you might not come off as so utterly condescending
> and self-pretentious if you gave even the slightest smidgeon
> of a reference yourself, instead of preferring to insult a poster.

I am insulting a lazy poster.  Do your own work for a change.  You
deserved every bit of condescending and (self) pretentious ire I had to
spill.

> >I propose you go to the library and do your own work for a change.
> 
> I propose you try to show some civility in cyberspace for a change.

This from you?  Please.

> >I wonder what caused you to think this was some kind of novel revelation.
> 
> I wonder why you always revert to sarcasm instead of making
> constructive points.

Reason seems to have long since ceased to be useful in your case, "Vlad."

> >I know you think you're being very clever and original, as if somehow you
> >aquired the skills of a noted constitutional scholar whilest no one was
> >looking. I also know that you have not bothered to research your own
> >claims.
> 
> there are no claims, merely ideas as usual. I am not posting to 
> show off my pretentious laywer skills. the cpunks have you for that.

I accept that honor with pride.  As for claims or ideas, I stand
corrected.  I now believe you present neither.

> >I can't decide, however, if this is cleverness on your part in
> >trying to get someone else to do all your work for you, in which case it's
> >not working on me, or simple laziness, in which case it's apparent and
> >unsurprising.
> 
> "your work"? apparently it is "my work" to research case law involving
> wiretapping now? hmmmmm, my job description must've changed again
> while I wasn't looking. @#$%%^&* don't you hate it when that happens!!

It is generally the expectation that he who is presenting a supposed new
and novel idea support it him or herself.  You have failed to do so mostly
because you are content to rely on everyone else to flush out your
"arguments" for you.  I'm sorry if you feel supporting your own claims or
justifing the intellectual expenditures others might make in pursuing an
idea you present is a new facet of your "job description."  The fact is
that your ideas would have never escaped your fingertips if you had spent
a mere ten or twenty minutes bothering to get some background on the
amazingly useless idea you proposed.  That's insulting to everyone here.

> Unicorn, instead of posting something that is so utterly devoid of
> any informational value, and merely tries to invent new and clever
> ways of tangentially, scurrilously insulting someone without directly
> addressing a single actual point
> involved.

How my refusal to spend an hour or more typing in the text of the 30
opinions it would take to finally get you to shut up (probably because
some new lunacy attracted your attention instead) is anything but
reasonable given the total lack of effort on your part to even have a
clue about the topic on which you propose to lead, is beyond me.  In case
you missed it the first time, my post is utterly devoid of informational
value by design.

> why don't you do the obvious and use the
> post as a leaping off point to show off your own mastery of the
> arcania and minutia of our legal system, such as it was intended?

Because given the topic you have brought up, my using your idea as a
"leaping off point" to demonstrate any legal knowledge would be akin to
factoring the number 6 to demonstrate my mastery of math.

> do you really think you are getting reputation brownie points or
> something by doing this? hee, hee.

No, I think I am destroying your reputation brownie points (if any
existed) as well as those attached to this idiotic thread.

Another poster discussed (quite well) the legal reasons your ideas were
moronic.  I think perhaps he had more time on his hands.

--
I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
unicorn@schloss.li