gatt wrote:
> Spread Eagle® wrote:
>
>>> What's important in this matter is the ones that were supposedly
>>> "private" that really should have been Public.
>>>
>>> That's a no-no!
>>
>> Nah. She had a yahoo account to share pics with family and friends,
>> decidedly NOT public business.
>
> If she was using it for public business, that's clearly a problem. Yahoo
> accounts are startlingly easy to hack.
If she travels a lot it was a necessary evil.
> Nevertheless, the -data- from the sites that is appearing around the
> internet is not credible.
>
> By the way, if I was the McCain/Palin campaign I'd get some lawyers to
> start working on the possibility of major litigation against the
> websites that display the material because it's stolen intellectual
> property.
One problem, it's SCOTUS defensible IF it's 3rd party transmitted and
used for a major news story, sad but true.
> They wouldn't dare post screenshots of, say, stolen Microsoft
> sourcecode, even though it exists. MS would annihilate those companies.
>
> -c
True.
But that would be a copyright infringement action.
--
not too random uselessnet weirdness:
Bill Shatzer wrote:
"And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,"
Baxter blurts out a plaintive call for Viagra:
"At my age, I don't need balls. I'm done with the procreation stuff."
