[svlug] Call to Awareness.

James Sparenberg james at linuxrebel.org
Sun Apr 23 12:20:26 PDT 2006


On Sunday 23 April 2006 02:59, you wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 22:54:43 -0700, James Sparenberg 
<james at linuxrebel.org> wrote:
> 
> >All,
> >
> >  Though I realize political seems to not be the major thrust of 
many 
> >here there does come a time when it's something that has a very 
> >direct affect on each and every one of us.  This is in the form of 
> >House Bill called the COPE act which is aimed at removing network 
> >neutrality (meaning no favoritism or blocking of competitors.)  and 
> >moving toward a tiered Internet where only approved traffic 
> >(read "paid enough under the table traffic) can be accessed by you.  
> >Period.  
> >
> >  So far out of the two reps in CA 1 voted to maintain neutrality 
and 
> >the other sided with AT&T.  Check out 
http://www.savetheinternet.com/ 
> >make your own decision and take the actions you feel are correct.  
> >This can and does IMHO, directly affect most of our jobs.  Most of 
> >our families.  Read what Dr. Larry Lessig and others have to say.  
> >IANAL but they are.  
> >
> >Respectfully,
> >James Sparenberg
> 
> Did you know that the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary?

Perhaps you need a better dictionary. 
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=gullible

> 
> 
> First of all, try to get even the BASIC facts straight.
> 
> California has FIFTY-THREE Representatives, not two.

And of those 53,  2 have voted on it as the article states the bill is 
in committee.  On that committee there are 5 reps from the state of 
California and of those 5 2 sit on the subcommittee charged with 
bringing it to the house floor.  Please read the article, and do more 
than a cursory search.  I didn't feel it was necessary to explain the 
entire article to a group that is as intelligent as this one. (and 
believe me I do feel the group is very intelligent.)  Perhaps my 
wording was off in the statement of Representative numbers, I 
apologize.  However stop with the debator's tricks and move on to 
trying to read and understand all of the information presented.  

> 
> Secondly, a cursory check of the internet you claim to want to
> protect shows that Rep Barton has a grand total of 11 bills
> that he has sponsored which are currently alive, NONE of 
> which is AT ALL related to the claims on that web site.
> (Go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ , check Find Bills By Sponsor)
> 

That's the problem your check is cursory and only included bills on 
the floor of the House and not all bills 
http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2006/20060330a.asp if you 
would like. However if that doesn't work you might try this link 
http://tinyurl.com/w8tj 

> That "save the internet" site is oddly careful NOT to give any 
specific legislation
> links or bill numbers.  That should tip you off right there.

Because again it's in committee as stated.  The FSF is fighting a bill 
in the lobbyist stages.  Not a bill up for final vote.  If you wait 
until it's up for a final vote then it's often too late to be 
effective.  

> 
> If you are going to send SVLUG members on a wild political goose
> chase, at least make sure you've verified that at least one 
> such goose actually exists.  Start with a bill # and some pertinent
> quotes from the text of proposed law.

I'm not sending anyone chasing any gooses. This was in reference to 
what could be a very damaging course of action.  Perhaps you are too 
young to remember the AT&T stranglehold of the 60's and 70's   BTW 
call  Rep Anna G Eshoo (D district 14) and ask about it.  She voted 
against the bill in committee (which btw it looks as if it will get 
out of the subcommittee and move the the fool committee where it will 
then be given a house bill number you can't currently find with 
your "cursory" check.)  

James




More information about the svlug mailing list