If anyone is curious one of the places I am seeing this creep up:
Gilmore vs. Ashcroft
The requirement to produce identification is clearly articulated security policy and hardly a secret. Nor is it unconstitutional. If he doesn't want to produce ID, he has that right. . .but the airline is perfectly correct (and legal) not to sell him a ticket.
Hell you can't even drive without ID on your person, in the form of a driver's license.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Nobody really understood why Bloodsage wrote:
There are no secret laws.
What about copywritten laws, I.E. ones that I am told you have to pay for in order to see?
Side note, is it airline policy or Government Law for the production of ID? And do you have a link to where I can reference either?
quote:
Bloodrose Model 2000 was programmed to say:
What about copywritten laws, I.E. ones that I am told you have to pay for in order to see?Side note, is it airline policy or Government Law for the production of ID? And do you have a link to where I can reference either?
WTF are you talking about?
What are your sources--are they all as buffoonerous as the one you linked?
Can you produce a single example of a law that you have to "pay for in order to see"?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Keep in mind, I am not citing these as proof that laws exist or don't exist, nor am I trying to start an argument about this subject, they are just examples of what I am trying to find in general at this point in my research.
quote:
Bloodrose's account was hax0red to write:
Side Note:
Another link on the subject where I originally saw the issue Of the first link, and sorta started making the thought process run was found here:Keep in mind, I am not citing these as proof that laws exist or don't exist, nor am I trying to start an argument about this subject, they are just examples of what I am trying to find in general at this point in my research.
You do understand the difference between secret laws and secret evidence, don't you?
Nor was the ID policy secret: by the dude's own admission it was posted publically. What he's doing is questioning the basis for the policy, which touches on security issues the government doesn't want exposed, and has asked to present secret evidence to the judge. There's a whole legal procedure for doing such things, and there is a federal panel that oversees such cases.
I still don't know WTF you're talking about "copywritten laws."
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Meet John Gilmore. He's a 49 year-old philanthropist who lives in San Francisco, California.
I think that's where you can stop reading and start not believing in what he says.
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Bloodrose said this:
Side Note:
Another link on the subject where I originally saw the issue Of the first link, and sorta started making the thought process run was found here:Keep in mind, I am not citing these as proof that laws exist or don't exist, nor am I trying to start an argument about this subject, they are just examples of what I am trying to find in general at this point in my research.
This isn't really dealing with secret laws, more with the government not publishing the way it enforces ID checks within the confines of a law which itself is public. Afaik any law passed by congress in the US should be at the very least be obtainable through the National Archives and Records Administration.
quote:
Bloodsage impressed everyone with:
You do understand the difference between secret laws and secret evidence, don't you?Nor was the ID policy secret: by the dude's own admission it was posted publically. What he's doing is questioning the basis for the policy, which touches on security issues the government doesn't want exposed, and has asked to present secret evidence to the judge. There's a whole legal procedure for doing such things, and there is a federal panel that oversees such cases.
I still don't know WTF you're talking about "copywritten laws."
There was a story a while ago about some government documents not being released under FOIA requests due to them contatining material licensed to the government by thrid parties before the Freedom Of Information Act was passed whose copyrights would be potentially violated by releasing the material under FOIA terms, maybe he's referring to that?
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Mod said:
This isn't really dealing with secret laws, more with the government not publishing the way it enforces ID checks within the confines of a law which itself is public. Afaik any law passed by congress in the US should be at the very least be obtainable through the National Archives and Records Administration.
Thank you for the distinction, and please, pardon my confussion on any part of it, but do you know of any part of the Constitution or National or state law that ... whats the word I am looking for... guarantees that it is practiced so?
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Tron:
I still don't know WTF you're talking about "copywritten laws."
As I understand it... It's where someone has written part or a whole of a bill that got passed into law and previous to it being passed into law, had that portion in its form Copywritten, causing anyone who wished to get a copy of them to pay a nominal fee above any normal fee for doing so. Of course, I may very well be confused on this issue, as I have not seen concrete proof or examples of it, just sort of word of mouth kind of thing. The kind of thing you take with a gigantic grain of salt until you see proof or disproof.
There was a case recently, as Mod alluded, where a government training video was not released under FOIA because it contained copyrighted material.
You sound awfully confused on your topic of interest, Bloodrose. Have you talked to anyone other than activists and wackos to get material?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Duck Tales:
You sound awfully confused on your topic of interest, Bloodrose. Have you talked to anyone other than activists and wackos to get material?
Yes I am extremely confused on this topic, one of the biggest reasons I am looking for information, I hate watching conspiracy theories fly and having no basis one way or another around it.
Unfortunatly whenever I begin looking into topics of interest that concern:
Politics
Laws and Lawmaking
Religion
Civil Liberties
All I tend to find are either Zealot-like activists, Armchair activists, backyard philosophers, confused individuals like myself and as you eloquently put it... "wackos". The subjects rarely ever bring out true unbiased experts when I first start looking into things, so I tend to go down alot of wrong paths first before finding the few people that can help remove some confusion.
If I offend anyone with being confused or anything, I'm sorry, just trying to clear my own confusion on things.
You've mentioned several times that you're reserving judgment on these far-fetched stories until they can be proved or disproved. That's not logical. One doesn't believe something simply because it's been said, and leave it up to others to disprove. If your "sources" can't provide proof that there are secret laws being used for evil purposes, or that these strange "copywritten laws" exist, then you should scoff at them as they deserve.
That's half the problem with Internet rumors: too many people don't observe basic common sense logic and believe anything they see printed on the false assumption that there must be a grain of truth in it. Classic validation of Hitler's concept of the Big Lie.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Verily, Mod doth proclaim:
There was a story a while ago about some government documents not being released under FOIA requests due to them contatining material licensed to the government by thrid parties before the Freedom Of Information Act was passed whose copyrights would be potentially violated by releasing the material under FOIA terms, maybe he's referring to that?
Very close. The magic term you're looking for is "Proprietary Information". Some documents, in addition to being classified contain information directly relating to a process or product developed and owned by a private company or individual. Labelling the document "Proprietary" restricts access by people (ie, business competitors) who would otherwise be able to see it by virtue of possessing the appropriate security clearance.
See here for an example. Note the copyright notice at the bottom, and that reproduction without the express written consent of the copyright holder is forbidden. Drysart fucked around with this message on 11-06-2004 at 03:54 PM.
quote:
From the book of Drysart, chapter 3, verse 16:
When he talks about laws that are copyrighted, what I believe he's referring to is building codes in some localities. The building requirements in the code were copyrighted by the professionals that drafted them, and therefore the law can't be reproduced without paying royalties.See here for an example. Note the copyright notice at the bottom, and that reproduction without the express written consent of the copyright holder is forbidden.
Ah, but that doesn't mean one can't see them, as he initially stated.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage came out of the closet to say:
Ah, but that doesn't mean one can't see them, as he initially stated.
Well no. 
As far as I know, all laws are available to be read.
quote:
Drysart had this to say about the Spice Girls:
See here for an example. Note the copyright notice at the bottom, and that reproduction without the express written consent of the copyright holder is forbidden.
Mucho thank you for that example. I believe this is closer to what I was being told.
quote:
Bloodsage's account was hax0red to write:
You've mentioned several times that you're reserving judgment on these far-fetched stories until they can be proved or disproved. That's not logical. One doesn't believe something simply because it's been said, and leave it up to others to disprove.
Thats counter to alot of my core beliefs though. I don't believe an item or argument is true without proof of it being true, but I do believe that every item or argument, within a very fine line of reason, is worthy of some speculation or research until some proof is available either way.
Unfortunatly, due to the fact that I either know so little about a given subject or have been a bit nieve in my approach to things, I often find myself just absorbing what people say until I can later look into the item or argument myself, which leave me without the ability to scoff or scorn someone who brings up a silly statement.
quote:
So quoth Drysart:
Well no.As far as I know, all laws are available to be read.
As far as you know.
quote:
Bloodrose had this to say about Cuba:
Unfortunatly, due to the fact that I either know so little about a given subject or have been a bit nieve in my approach to things, I often find myself just absorbing what people say until I can later look into the item or argument myself, which leave me without the ability to scoff or scorn someone who brings up a silly statement.
You could've simply said "I'm just gullible".
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Bloodsage stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
WTF are you talking about?What are your sources--are they all as buffoonerous as the one you linked?
Can you produce a single example of a law that you have to "pay for in order to see"?
Sounds like prank info given to freshman law school students by their seniors.
quote:
Bloodrose had this to say about Knight Rider:
[QB]Thats counter to alot of my core beliefs though. I don't believe an item or argument is true without proof of it being true, but I do believe that every item or argument, within a very fine line of reason, is worthy of some speculation or research until some proof is available either way.[QB]
Illogic is your religion? Bloodsage fucked around with this message on 11-06-2004 at 04:48 PM.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Mr. Parcelan came out of the closet to say:
As far as you know.
Well therein lies the rub, no? 
quote:
Thats counter to alot of my core beliefs though. I don't believe an item or argument is true without proof of it being true, but I do believe that every item or argument, within a very fine line of reason, is worthy of some speculation or research until some proof is available either way.
quote:
How.... Bloodsage.... uughhhhhh:
Illogic is your religion?
How is it ... illogical to explore as many thoughts/arguments that you don't know about? Is it not true that to learn and grow ones realm of knowledge a path must be explored?
Read the section in Mein Kampf about the Big Lie, and you'll see what I mean in visceral terms, or just read a primer on logic to learn more. Being open-minded != giving credence to stupidity.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Bloodsage said:
You're falling into the fallacy that all opinions have equal weight, and that the simple act of asserting something gives it validity.
I am not saying that asserting something automatically makes it valid, more that I recognize something has been asserted, and if I wish to gain the knowledge(if none exists) I need to explore that path.
As stated in one of my previous posts I was trying to find out if there was any validity to the statements that had been asserted.
quote:
Vernaltemptress stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Bloodrose, it would help if you had read the article you posted...
I had read the article, but thank you for presuming to state the opposite. As I stated when I first created this post, I was hoping to find resources. What I didn't say was that I wanted varied resources, something I in my search as of yet, was limited in my results. I could have kept looking for a while longer and found some of what I wanted, but instead, having seen several people before me ask similar questions get decent responses, I decided to post on a whim.
Since I have posted those that have replied, with the exception of Mod, Mr. Parcelan and Drysart, have offered only extreme challenges to either how stupid the idea was or... I for looking into it or my illpreparedness for the topic. I am sorry if I don't know enough on the topic to phrase a question properly, or if I look into things that people find... well stupid.
As for following to the eff, In what I am looking for, the eff is still to close (being co-founded by Gilmore himself) to the resources I do have to provide me with what I am looking for, a wide spectrem view of the item I am researching.
If I am outside the rules or good decency in this post, I do apologize as I really was taken back a little by the response.
