"Pennsylvania is back in play in the courts" Hahahahahahahaha ha ah ha. The "appeal" which isn't even an appeal, is a total joke. It is more of a plea, with no grounds in law, to let them go back to the beginning and try again. It will be summarily dismissed and the SC will not take it up.
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 12:07 PM Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: > This shit is neverending entertainment. They put the crazy lady up as the > lead, then shitcanned her, but she didnt stop and theres no infighting. > Pennsylvania is back in play in the courts. Media runs with some judge > dismissing something like it's relevant, theyve bending it for 4 years, > that's just a step in the process to get things to the supreme court. > Either way I see armed conflict prior to inauguration. One side wants to > bury everything and one side wants sunlight on everything, then if it > doesnt bear fruit they want it dissected and sunlight on its guts. > > They're gonna fuck around and get biden disqualified after it's to late > and then the bigot harris will be in play. We dont want that > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 11:29 AM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> https://www.bridgemi.com/guest-commentary/first-person-gop-challengers-we-faced-open-intimidation-detroit >> >> >> https://www.bridgemi.com/guest-commentary/first-person-i-was-detroit-poll-challenger-gop-came-make-havoc >> >> Two poll challengers in Detroit with different perspectives about what >> they saw at the exact same polling place. >> >> I do see general agreement on the events though. A volunteer busybody >> follows people around and questions everything they do. They get annoyed >> and say, "buzz off, talk to my supervisor". The Democratic challenger >> says, "the GOP poll challenger was being douchey and asking accusatory >> questions. Also racism." >> >> The Republican challenger says "All I did was ask questions and they got >> all douchey about it. Also I was intimidated/oppressed." >> >> >> On 11/23/2020 11:33 AM, Bill Prince wrote: >> >> That's the sort of thing you'd expect from Huffpost or TheOnion. >> >> Kind of apropos though. >> >> >> bp >> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >> >> On 11/23/2020 7:50 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >> >> Back to the press conference, either Fox News has totally turned against >> DJT, or someone paired the wrong headline and photo. >> >> >> >> *From:* AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On >> Behalf Of *Steve Jones >> *Sent:* Monday, November 23, 2020 9:06 AM >> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> >> <af@af.afmug.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: this press conference >> >> >> >> The intent was that an isp couldn't throttle competitor traffic in >> preference of their own, but in true bureaucratic fashion they purposefully >> left it vague so it could be reinterpreted at whim. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 7:55 AM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The 2015 Open Internet Order didn't do even 1/10th of the things >> attributed to it. It had nothing to do with congestion, censorship, >> freedom, service pricing, etc. >> >> >> >> The rules were no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. >> All three rules had the exception for "reasonable network management". >> Reasonable management was not specifically defined, but in discussion it >> was said to be driven by a technical need rather than a business one. So >> the blocking and throttling we all do to make traffic flow properly was ok >> and nobody was ever going to pay any of us for prioritization. I've never >> been convinced that the rule was necessary. It seemed like a rule saying >> ISP's can't build moon rockets....like ok I'll stop my Apollo project >> immediately. >> >> >> >> The actual rules were trivial to obey and I'd bet almost nobody here was >> ever breaking them My only concern was Title II status could open the door >> on additional rules that might be more onerous later. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 11/23/2020 8:40 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: >> >> The original Net Neutrality had nothing to do with congested upstream or >> peering ports. >> >> >> >> >> >> Why force your competition to be less bad? >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> >> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> >> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> >> >> >> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From: *"Darin Steffl" <darin.ste...@mnwifi.com> >> <darin.ste...@mnwifi.com> >> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <af@af.afmug.com> >> <af@af.afmug.com> >> *Sent: *Saturday, November 21, 2020 9:48:05 PM >> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] OT: this press conference >> >> If net neutrality comes back, there will likely be similar exemptions for >> ISP's less than 100k subscribers or whatever the number was before. >> >> >> >> It shouldn't affect us in any real way. It will force the big ISP's to be >> good (better?) guys and not let peering cross connects fill up and become >> congested for example. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 21, 2020, 9:45 PM Seth Mattinen <se...@rollernet.us> wrote: >> >> On 11/21/20 7:36 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >> > But as amusing as this may be, it might be time to start looking at how >> > the next administration could affect WISPs. Like a 3-2 Dem FCC and a >> > new Chairman (woman?). Will Net Neutrality and Title II return? Does >> > it matter? >> > >> >> >> Net neutrality seems likely to make a comeback. Would it change anything >> I do? No, but it might add annoying paperwork. Worst case someone thinks >> I'm doing something and files a formal complaint, which would waste time >> having to answer it. >> >> -- >> 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
