El grupo al cual envías entradas es un grupo Usenet. Si envías mensajes a este grupo, cualquier usuario de Internet podrá ver tu dirección de correo electrónico
> In article <H5SdnaIvrZoxonPXnZ2dnUVZ_qmdn...@supernews.com>, > Stephen Satchell <use...@satchell.net> wrote:
> >I don't know how the case law affects those who are not in the employ of > >the corporation. Volunteers would not be employees.
> A person is always responsible for that person's own actions.
> A volunteer who directs others on behalf of a corporation (presumably > non-profit) is in a weird situation. I have no idea what the legal > standing is.
> Seth
Seth:
You are very much heading in the right direction here. English Common Law, the basis for the legal systems in Britain, Canada, and the US makes it very clear that, as you said, "A person is always responsible for that person's own actions." That's the legal point where the Spamhaus US volunteers will find their demise. The idea that they would get away with their actions because they were not known at the time of lawsuit, or that they hid behind a foreign corporate veil, will not stand in the US Federal Courts. Once the Decision Amount is announced in the 360 v Spamhaus case, you'll begin to see how this is going to play out.
Below is a website that can give you the bones of the legal argument that will ensue. It is very clear and concise. As it says:
"Alter ego is a theory used to penetrate the protection provided by a corporation to its shareholders. An attorney will claim that the corporation is the alter ego of its shareholders. Obviously, this claim is typically made when there are only a few shareholders, to wit, most small businesses. If the court agrees, the corporate protection is set aside and each shareholder becomes jointly liable for all the debts of the business. Obviously, this represents a disaster for most small businesses.
In general, courts apply a two-part test when alter ego is alleged. The court will set aside the corporate shield against personal liability if it finds first that there is a unity of interest between the corporation and the shareholders, then the degree of injustice if the corporate protection remains in place and, finally, the fraudulent intent of the shareholders."
E360 need only claim that Spamhaus is simply the alterrgo of the "volunteers," especially the US volunteers. At this point each of the identified US volunteers would be required to get their own separate legal representation.
How will the identities of the US volunteers be gained? Easy. Once the Decision Amount is announced a Demand for Payment will be made to the Spamhaus corporate structure - and as we all know that Demand will not be met. Then it begins - for e360 will simply make a new Demand for "Collection Discovery." First on the list will be a Demand for names, dates, IP addresses....
An, if Linford takes too long I imagine e360 will simply grab Susan, and sit her down in a Conference Room in front of a video camera.
It is all very simple - and should begin very soon.
In article <7159fcec-e3aa-45be-add3-9ec91d28c...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
charlesgriffman <charlesgriff...@gmail.com> wrote: > An, if Linford takes too long I imagine e360 will simply grab Susan, > and sit her down in a Conference Room in front of a video camera.
> It is all very simple - and should begin very soon.
Really? When exactly?
What's wrong Timmy? Perhaps your deposition was not the enjoyable experience you were boasting about?:
"I had to take breaks so I wouldn't openly laugh out loud. The "quackbusters, " who had provided most of the information for the deposition were so eager to damage me, they had portrayed me as a crazed ex-Navy Seal, with machine guns, living in the woods sharpening my Ka-Bar knife collection in preparation for killing my next few hundred victims. "
In article <7159fcec-e3aa-45be-add3-9ec91d28c...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
charlesgriffman <charlesgriff...@gmail.com> wrote: >Below is a website that can give you the bones of the legal argument >that will ensue. It is very clear and concise. >As it says:
>"Alter ego is a theory used to penetrate the protection provided by a >corporation to its shareholders.
So are you trying to claim that there are US persons who are shareholders of Spamhaus? Too bad that wasn't brought out in court, because it's too late now to introduce new evidence in the case.
>E360 need only claim that Spamhaus is simply the alterrgo of the >"volunteers," especially the US volunteers.
You missed the point that they aren't shareholders. E360 can claim anything, but without evidence its claim will be ignored. And the judge told them they can't introduce any more evidence.
> At this point each of the identified US volunteers
Of which there are none.
>How will the identities of the US volunteers be gained? Easy. Once >the Decision Amount is announced a Demand for Payment will be made to >the Spamhaus corporate structure - and as we all know that Demand will >not be met. Then it begins - for e360 will simply make a new Demand >for "Collection Discovery."
And that demand will equally be not met.
> First on the list will be a Demand for >names, dates, IP addresses....
And that demand will be equally not met.
>An, if Linford takes too long I imagine e360 will simply grab Susan,
In article <3e4128f2-da02-4d22-83b6-69647ba05...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
TOASTEDspam.com <goo...@toastedspam.com> wrote: >On Nov 4, 1:36 am, Angel <angel+n...@spamcop.net> wrote: >> On 2009-11-03, grendal <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Ah, >> > Ok, so does that mean Chicken Bolen should be required to take the >> > TOEFL test? >> > I did get it right, its TOEFL? :-)
>> I was more thinking of the Turing test myself... :-)
>You do recall that the Turing test tests the software, not the person, >right?
The point is, the Turing test tests whatever is at the other end of a connection. It is unknown whether it's a person or software, that's the point of the test.
> That being said, it's difficult to imagine a piece of software >capable of as much consistent irrationality as TimmyChuck displays in >every single post.
I've seen some autobots that could come close, if primed with enough of ChickenBolen's screeds.
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 05:30:00 +0000 (UTC), se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote: >I've seen some autobots that could come close, if primed with enough >of ChickenBolen's screeds.
Now, Seth, it's nearly Christmas so let's buy ChickenBolen a nice gift this year - I think a book would be perfect.
On Nov 5, 6:58 pm, "Susan" <shik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 05:30:00 +0000 (UTC), se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote: > >I've seen some autobots that could come close, if primed with enough > >of ChickenBolen's screeds.
> Now, Seth, it's nearly Christmas so let's buy ChickenBolen a nice gift > this year - I think a book would be perfect.
You're assuming that Timmy can read. Or rather comprehend what he reads and not regurgitate incoherent babble.
<im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Now, Seth, it's nearly Christmas so let's buy ChickenBolen a nice gift >> this year - I think a book would be perfect.
>You're assuming that Timmy can read. Or rather comprehend what he >reads and not regurgitate incoherent babble.
Reminds me of the Boney M hit,, On the Rivers of Babble On.
TOASTEDspam.com <goo...@toastedspam.com> wrote: >On Nov 4, 1:36 am, Angel <angel+n...@spamcop.net> wrote: >> On 2009-11-03, grendal <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Ah, >> > Ok, so does that mean Chicken Bolen should be required to take the >> > TOEFL test? >> > I did get it right, its TOEFL? :-)
>> I was more thinking of the Turing test myself... :-)
>You do recall that the Turing test tests the software, not the person, >right? That being said, it's difficult to imagine a piece of software >capable of as much consistent irrationality as TimmyChuck displays in >every single post.
Did you ever encounter Kenneth Colby's "Parry" program?
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:56:01 -0600, Robert Bonomi <bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote in <xOOdnaD1HN4sKWjXnZ2dnUVZ_gedn...@posted.nuvoxcommunications>:
> Did you ever encounter Kenneth Colby's "Parry" program? > *GRIN*
And all this time, I thought Kibo was a real person!
-- Ivan Reid, School of Engineering & Design, _____________ CMS Collaboration, Brunel University. Ivan.Reid@[brunel.ac.uk|cern.ch] Room 40-1-B12, CERN KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".
On Nov 7, 3:47 pm, "BEI Design" <beides...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Robert Bonomi wrote: > > Did you ever encounter Kenneth Colby's "Parry" program?
> > *GRIN*
> Wonder what would result in a three-way conversation between > Parry, Eliza and TimmyChuck?
> Ouch, my head just exploded.
Actually i just attempted an "Eliza" type program with TimmyChuck's accumulated postings as the response corpus. The result was ... disappointing. There's not enough variation in his writings to make anything interesting. It basically gives the same responses over and over and over.
I'll give it a little artificial variability and post the link when it's ready.
-- I sense a disturbance in the farce. TOASTEDspam.com
TOASTEDspam.com wrote: > On Nov 7, 3:47 pm, "BEI Design" <beides...@comcast.net> wrote: >> Robert Bonomi wrote: >>> Did you ever encounter Kenneth Colby's "Parry" program? >>> *GRIN* >> Wonder what would result in a three-way conversation between >> Parry, Eliza and TimmyChuck?
>> Ouch, my head just exploded.
> Actually i just attempted an "Eliza" type program with TimmyChuck's > accumulated postings as the response corpus. The result was ... > disappointing. There's not enough variation in his writings to make > anything interesting. It basically gives the same responses over and > over and over.
If it's "just repeating" the same shit about 90+% of the time, it's probably about right.
> I'll give it a little artificial variability and post the link when > it's ready.
Just what the world needs ... an improved TimmayChuck ;} (I *want* it!)
> TOASTEDspam.com wrote: > > On Nov 7, 3:47 pm, "BEI Design" <beides...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Robert Bonomi wrote: > >>> Did you ever encounter Kenneth Colby's "Parry" program? > >>> *GRIN* > >> Wonder what would result in a three-way conversation between > >> Parry, Eliza and TimmyChuck?
> >> Ouch, my head just exploded.
> > Actually i just attempted an "Eliza" type program with TimmyChuck's > > accumulated postings as the response corpus. The result was ... > > disappointing. There's not enough variation in his writings to make > > anything interesting. It basically gives the same responses over and > > over and over.
> If it's "just repeating" the same shit about 90+% of the time, it's > probably about right.
> > I'll give it a little artificial variability and post the link when > > it's ready.
> Just what the world needs ... an improved TimmayChuck ;} > (I *want* it!)
Eh, good enough for now, which isn't saying much. I may try a few more improvements later.
>On Nov 7, 3:47 pm, "BEI Design" <beides...@comcast.net> wrote: >> Robert Bonomi wrote: >> > Did you ever encounter Kenneth Colby's "Parry" program?
>> > *GRIN*
>> Wonder what would result in a three-way conversation between >> Parry, Eliza and TimmyChuck?
>> Ouch, my head just exploded.
>Actually i just attempted an "Eliza" type program with TimmyChuck's >accumulated postings as the response corpus. The result was ... >disappointing. There's not enough variation in his writings to make >anything interesting. It basically gives the same responses over and >over and over.
>I'll give it a little artificial variability and post the link when >it's ready.
It sounds to me like you accurately recreated the experience of conversing with Timmy, I'm not sure what the problem is...
TOASTEDspam.com <goo...@toastedspam.com> wrote: >On Nov 7, 3:47 pm, "BEI Design" <beides...@comcast.net> wrote: >> Robert Bonomi wrote: >> > Did you ever encounter Kenneth Colby's "Parry" program?
>> > *GRIN*
>> Wonder what would result in a three-way conversation between >> Parry, Eliza and TimmyChuck?
>> Ouch, my head just exploded.
>Actually i just attempted an "Eliza" type program with TimmyChuck's >accumulated postings as the response corpus. The result was ... >disappointing. There's not enough variation in his writings to make >anything interesting. It basically gives the same responses over and >over and over.
> In article <7159fcec-e3aa-45be-add3-9ec91d28c...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> charlesgriffman <charlesgriff...@gmail.com> wrote: > >Below is a website that can give you the bones of the legal argument > >that will ensue. It is very clear and concise. > >As it says:
> >"Alter ego is a theory used to penetrate the protection provided by a > >corporation to its shareholders.
> So are you trying to claim that there are US persons who are > shareholders of Spamhaus? Too bad that wasn't brought out in court, > because it's too late now to introduce new evidence in the case.
> >E360 need only claim that Spamhaus is simply the alterrgo of the > >"volunteers," especially the US volunteers.
> You missed the point that they aren't shareholders. E360 can claim > anything, but without evidence its claim will be ignored. And the > judge told them they can't introduce any more evidence.
> > At this point each of the identified US volunteers
> Of which there are none.
> >How will the identities of the US volunteers be gained? Easy. Once > >the Decision Amount is announced a Demand for Payment will be made to > >the Spamhaus corporate structure - and as we all know that Demand will > >not be met. Then it begins - for e360 will simply make a new Demand > >for "Collection Discovery."
> And that demand will equally be not met.
> > First on the list will be a Demand for > >names, dates, IP addresses....
> And that demand will be equally not met.
> >An, if Linford takes too long I imagine e360 will simply grab Susan,
> And go to prison for kidnapping.
> Seth
Seth:
Once again you are ALMOST there...
When you said "So are you trying to claim that there are US persons who are shareholders of Spamhaus?" That's not MY claim. That is Spamhaus's claim. They were the ones who provided the clear and concise legal description of the makeup of their organization when they said, on their website for all to read "Spamhaus is made up of volunteers from all over the world."
When you say "Then it begins - for e360 will simply make a new Demand for "Collection Discovery." "And that demand will equally be not met. " "First on the list will be a Demand for names, dates, IP addresses.... " "And that demand will be equally not met."
What you are describing here, above, is a process known as "Contempt of Court." Frankly, I think e360 would RELISH that action as they could then ask the Judge to issue Arrest Warrants.
And about Susan - when you say "And go to prison for kidnapping" you indicate that you do not understand the process that would unfold. If, after the Formal Demand for Payment is made, Linford runs, and I think we all suspect that that is exactly what he'll do, e360 will simply petition the Court for "collection discovery." One of the first things they'd ask for is the right to depose the US volunteers they already are aware of. Susan would be a good first choice, for it would be a safe bet that she'd cave in, after finding out from the attorneys what will occur of she refuses to give up ALL information they want. Why is that? Because when a US Federal Judge tells you to do something you have only two real choices: (1) do it quickly, or (2) do it even quicker.
We need to keep in mind, also, that if Linford runs, or fails to follow, quickly, the Orders of the Federal Judge in the case, Jenner & Block will, without doubt, petition the Court to remove themselves as Defendant's counsel instantly. That means that, for all practical purposes, the US volunteers will be at the mercy of e360's legal assault squad - unless they, each, go out and quickly hire their own legal counsel...
TOASTEDspam.com wrote: > (PV) wrote: >> "TOASTEDspam.com" writes: >>> Eh, good enough for now, which isn't saying much. I may try a few >>> more improvements later.
>> Snort. Is it random or based on what you type? * > It attempts to find phrases semi-related to what you've typed, then > chooses randomly from the best matches. Sometimes it just has to punt.
That rumble you hear is Alan Turing doing summersaults in his grave.
> TOASTEDspam.com wrote: > > (PV) wrote: > >> "TOASTEDspam.com" writes: > >>> Eh, good enough for now, which isn't saying much. I may try a few > >>> more improvements later.
> >> Snort. Is it random or based on what you type? * > > It attempts to find phrases semi-related to what you've typed, then > > chooses randomly from the best matches. Sometimes it just has to punt.
> That rumble you hear is Alan Turing doing summersaults in his grave.
> -- > rbg
Surely you're not suggesting that TimmyChuck would fool anyone into thinking he was more human than a computer program??!!?!
Well, it is true that my program doesn't even attempt to understand the questions, much less form a reasoned response to them. It merely looks for "hot button" keywords and then parrots something repetitive and nonsensical based on those keywords. Remember, it's goal is to emulate ChuckyTim, and in this respect it does that quite well!
-- I sense a disturbance in the farce. TOASTEDspam.com
charlesgriffman <charlesgriff...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 4, 9:27 pm, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote: >> In article <7159fcec-e3aa-45be-add3-9ec91d28c...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> charlesgriffman <charlesgriff...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >Below is a website that can give you the bones of the legal argument >> >that will ensue. It is very clear and concise. >> >As it says:
>> >"Alter ego is a theory used to penetrate the protection provided by a >> >corporation to its shareholders.
>> So are you trying to claim that there are US persons who are >> shareholders of Spamhaus? Too bad that wasn't brought out in court, >> because it's too late now to introduce new evidence in the case.
>> >E360 need only claim that Spamhaus is simply the alterrgo of the >> >"volunteers," especially the US volunteers.
>> You missed the point that they aren't shareholders. E360 can claim >> anything, but without evidence its claim will be ignored. And the >> judge told them they can't introduce any more evidence.
>> > At this point each of the identified US volunteers
>> Of which there are none.
>> >How will the identities of the US volunteers be gained? Easy. Once >> >the Decision Amount is announced a Demand for Payment will be made to >> >the Spamhaus corporate structure - and as we all know that Demand will >> >not be met. Then it begins - for e360 will simply make a new Demand >> >for "Collection Discovery."
>> And that demand will equally be not met.
>> > First on the list will be a Demand for >> >names, dates, IP addresses....
>> And that demand will be equally not met.
>> >An, if Linford takes too long I imagine e360 will simply grab Susan,
>> And go to prison for kidnapping.
>> Seth
>Seth:
>Once again you are ALMOST there...
>When you said "So are you trying to claim that there are US persons >who are shareholders of Spamhaus?" That's not MY claim. That is >Spamhaus's claim. They were the ones who provided the clear and >concise legal description of the makeup of their organization when >they said, on their website for all to read "Spamhaus is made up of >volunteers from all over the world."
Well, apparently e360 -- and the Synergy law firm -- were too stupid to know _that_. They sued "THE SPAMHAUS PROJECT, a company limited by guarantee and organized under the laws of England. aka the SPAMHAUS PROJECT, LTD."
And, unfortunately for them, the entity that _they_ named in the suit is the *ONLY* entity that they can collect from, under United States Law. Now, if they want to try it in the U.K. jurisdiction, results might be different. <VBG>
TOASTEDspam.com wrote: > On Nov 9, 1:39 pm, "Rev. Beergoggles" <post.repl...@address.invalid> > wrote: >> TOASTEDspam.com wrote: >>> (PV) wrote: >>>> "TOASTEDspam.com" writes: >>>>> Eh, good enough for now, which isn't saying much. I may try a few >>>>> more improvements later.
>>>> Snort. Is it random or based on what you type? * >>> It attempts to find phrases semi-related to what you've typed, then >>> chooses randomly from the best matches. Sometimes it just has to >>> punt.
>> That rumble you hear is Alan Turing doing summersaults in his grave.
>> -- >> rbg
> Surely you're not suggesting that TimmyChuck would fool anyone into > thinking he was more human than a computer program??!!?!
No, it's mearly the attempt to emulate chickenbolen via an AI.
> Well, it is true that my program doesn't even attempt to understand > the questions, much less form a reasoned response to them. It merely > looks for "hot button" keywords and then parrots something repetitive > and nonsensical based on those keywords. Remember, it's goal is to > emulate ChuckyTim, and in this respect it does that quite well!
TOASTEDspam.com wrote: > On Nov 9, 1:39 pm, "Rev. Beergoggles" <post.repl...@address.invalid> > wrote: >> TOASTEDspam.com wrote: >>> (PV) wrote: >>>> "TOASTEDspam.com" writes: >>>>> Eh, good enough for now, which isn't saying much. I may try a few >>>>> more improvements later.
>>>> Snort. Is it random or based on what you type? * >>> It attempts to find phrases semi-related to what you've typed, then >>> chooses randomly from the best matches. Sometimes it just has to >>> punt.
>> That rumble you hear is Alan Turing doing summersaults in his grave.
>> -- >> rbg
> Surely you're not suggesting that TimmyChuck would fool anyone into > thinking he was more human than a computer program??!!?!
No, it's mearly the attempt to emulate chickenbolen via an AI.
> Well, it is true that my program doesn't even attempt to understand > the questions, much less form a reasoned response to them. It merely > looks for "hot button" keywords and then parrots something repetitive > and nonsensical based on those keywords. Remember, it's goal is to > emulate ChuckyTim, and in this respect it does that quite well!
|
