On 28-Aug-2005, "T Moore" < click.an.email.ico@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> B "that web service providers cannot generally scrutinize the
> >> contents of material sent to or hosted by them." [para 17]
> >
> > This is true. Unless there is a warrant,
> > they maintain users' privacy rights.
>
> Yahoo do not seem to agree with you, and they operate the service.
>
> Please see http://www.sarahbranson.com/rj050227/stmt01.htm#para52
>
> >> Do you think a qualified legal professional could make three
> >> convenient mistakes in a row?
> >>
> >> Do you think blocking my access to services is okay?
>
> Is there a problem with answering those questions?
>
Hey........you posted the stuff. Bear in mind there is a mountain of data
out there, and it's hard for an outsider like me to figure out what the
hell
was going down there.
> > What's this about..........
> >
> > "As I recall.
>
> Telling lies, I should think. Her records showed my first contact with
> Geraint Davies MP was about solicitors disregarding my instructions.
> Hence, "as I recall," rather than, "the Respondent first wrote to Mr
> Davies about . . .." Known as selective use of memory, I believe.
>
See.....I'm not familiar with UK terminology, so I get sort of confused
when reading it. Sorry.
> > and this.............
> >
> > "I was informed by Mr Davies
>
> I've no idea what Mr Davies tells his staff, have I?
So basically, you are saying that they are playing games with you.
That all the stuff "they" are saying about you is untrue. That you
didn't harass other tenants, etc.
Why would this woman think there is some kind of danger here?
I don't get it. If you are disabled as bad as you claim, how in the
hell could you be a threat to her? It makes no sense.
|
