|
In
the transactional world of certain people, I appointed
you, so you decide in my favor. I don’t think that
works with Supreme Court Justices. They may not be
everyone’s favorite judge, but they’re still a judge,
not a total buffoon like the “elite strike force”
“release the Kraken” lawyers. I would be surprised if
SCOTUS touched any of this. I have my doubts about
Kavanaugh’s love for beer, but otherwise, they are only
going to accept a modest level of crazytown.
I also believe that is 99.9% the case with election
judges, ballot counters, secretaries of state, etc.
Media and both parties would have you believe they will
act solely according to party affiliation. I think
mostly they just do their job, even if they wish the
outcome were different.
Much of what we see is projection. If that were me, I
would totally do these crooked things, so let’s assume
that’s what everyone would do. Nobody could possibly
just be doing a job the best they can, with no other
motives.
From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On
Behalf Of Steve Jones
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 12:27 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
<af@af.afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: this press conference
Unless there is a direct constitutional question, scotus
has no business being involved. The fact that scotus is
even in play is a direct consequense of the decades of
judicial politicking
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 12:14 PM Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com>
wrote:
|
The Supremes are going to
refuse to get involved; if they are asked, which
I'm on the fence about.
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 11/23/2020 10:06 AM,
Steve Jones 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> On
Behalf Of Steve
Jones
Sent:
Monday, November
23, 2020 9:06 AM
To:
AnimalFarm
Microwave Users
Group <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
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
From:
"Darin
Steffl" <darin.ste...@mnwifi.com>
To: "AnimalFarm
Microwave
Users Group" <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 |
|
