I always thought it was some 12 year old (16 now) shit poster that just
posted vagaries and adults wanted to believe they had a man on the inside.
I dont know when the weird shit started, I never followed it. This chick at
my house thou was weird, was glad when she left and that she didnt talk to
my kids
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020, 5:24 PM Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Q is the supposed "leader" of Qanon. Personally, I think there is probably
> more than one Q, and they may or may not coordinate their message(s). I
> think they could be more effective if they weren't so out and out bonkers.
> Eat babies? really?
>
>
> bp
> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>
> On 10/6/2020 10:58 AM, Steve Jones wrote:
>
> is that a real conspiracy?
>
> My wife had a friend over the other day, first time I ever met a real Q
> believer. weird shit. is Q not the same as Qanon? cause Qanon I always
> thought was just some guy that posted vague stuff and was supposedly in the
> administration. Q people think the rich eat babies and some lady who just
> had a miscarriage, cristy tegan or something, uses the code pizza, for
> little girls and always instagrams about pizza. weird shit
>
> I think HOAs operate on different rules, since its a "voluntary" entry
> into them. Ive never looked too deep into it cause id never be in one, id
> put an air hose up my back first. but the contracts must give up a great
> deal of private property rights including waiving otard stuff
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 9:23 AM Robert <i...@avantwireless.com> wrote:
>
>> Google uses low frequency brain stimulation.. Whenever you use their
>> browser and the volume isn't turned off.
>>
>> On 10/6/20 7:15 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>>
>> Messaging is king of all I suppose.
>>
>> If you were Google, people would believe that you magically give it away
>> for free. Since you're not Google they'll assume some kind of robbery or
>> graft. I don't know how Google pulls off that kind of public relations
>> coup.
>>
>>
>> On 10/6/2020 10:06 AM, Chuck McCown via AF wrote:
>>
>> But it is free! Comes with HOA dues. Such a deal.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Oct 6, 2020, at 7:58 AM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com>
>> <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> If I was in charge of laws, they wouldn't be so legalistic.
>>
>> You don't have exclusivity per se, but in de facto nobody will buy
>> anything else when they're already forced to pay you whether they like it
>> or not. They'd have to actively hate you before they'll even consider
>> something else. You'd have to steal their birthdays before they consider
>> another option, and you'd have to violate their daughters before they're
>> willing to pay what the installation of the other option will actually cost.
>>
>> .....that doesn't make it a bad deal for you, of course. Competitors
>> will cry foul because you can make money and they can't, but that doesn't
>> mean they wouldn't do the same thing if they could.
>>
>>
>> On 10/5/2020 8:05 PM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> We don’t have exclusivity, we just have a service included in HOA fees.
>> They can have any service provider they want.
>> But the service provider will have to do an overbuild into a saturated
>> area. I would bet they will not do it.
>>
>> *From:* Mark Radabaugh
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 5, 2020 5:52 PM
>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT Royalty deal
>>
>>
>> https://www.keglerbrown.com/publications/mdus-vs-the-fcc-exclusivity-service-agreements-with-cable-and-internet-providers/
>> https://www.nexttv.com/news/fcc-bans-exclusive-mdu-deals-296566
>> FCC Bans Exclusivity Contracts — HOA Law Blog — February
>> ...www.hoalawblog.com › fcc_bans_exclusivity_contracts
>> <https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjak-670p7sAhUVHM0KHcR5D74QFjACegQIBxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hoalawblog.com%2Ffcc_bans_exclusivity_contracts%2F&usg=AOvVaw1IWC6vbyFt33Un5wLgPWSa>
>>
>> Pay your money and take your chances
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Oct 5, 2020, at 4:52 PM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>>
>> Lots of companies doing these deals. MDU, subdivisions. What would be
>> illegal about it? The homeowners are free to go after any service they
>> want, but they are locked into my service. This has been litigated at the
>> CATV level years ago and was found legal.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 2:28 PM Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I think you are going to find that arrangement is highly illegal from an
>>> FCC standpoint. When the deal gets blown out by the next company that
>>> sues you and the HOA over it, is it going to be worth your time and
>>> investment?
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On Oct 5, 2020, at 4:20 PM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
>>>
>>> I am getting some traction with developers for my fiber. They want me
>>> to come in, they will put the subscription to my service as part of the HOA
>>> fees. They will not let others in the ditch. All for 10% of the gross.
>>> So I get 100% take rate. I am not unhappy with the deal. But I am
>>> wondering about agreeing to a perpetual royalty. Anyone else done one of
>>> these deals?
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
