Re: 9.9/10 vulnerability revealed: it's the printers!

Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:

Le 28-09-2024, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> a écrit :

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:

>
Why did you take a screenshot of 3 lines of text in a terminal?

>
If you really see what I did as overeager, I would question how
objective that is.

>
Everyone told you the same thing. You should question your objectivity
instead.

If everyone did something wrong, would I copy them?

Retrofitting Usenet with graphical features

>
That's not what you did.

Sure it is, you do have a browser, right?

seems reasonable to this extent.

>
It's not, the arguments have been given. You refuse them. But they are
valid nonetheless.

My arguments "have been given", too.  Deal with it.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.