"Hello, I'm John Howard, I've taken the unusual step of contactingyou..."

[Rod Speed]

"EnjoyDialup" <EnjoyDialup@HyperOz.com> wrote in message
news:3aele8F6curi5U1@individual.net...
> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3aef9hF69lmo0U1@individual.net...
>>
>> "EnjoyDialup" <EnjoyDialup@HyperOz.com> wrote in message
>> news:3aea4jF6ahsduU1@individual.net...
>>>
>>>
>>> "Peter" <spamfromnewsgroups@chatomatic.net> wrote in message
>>> news:240320050712198410%spamfromnewsgroups@chatoma tic.net...
>>>> In article <424160bc$0$5593$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, B J Foster
>>>> <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Whilst the inquiry might have cleared the Liberal Party of breaching the
>>>>> Telecommunications Act, there remains the question of the various
>>>>> Privacy Acts, the Copyright Act and anti-spamming laws.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe it was, certainly not against the Spam Act. The gov was
>>>> smart to only make it an offense for commercial messages, not
>>>> political.
>>
>>> This does not explain how they got hold of private phone numbers. Their
>>> explanation is a lie, so they must have used federal databases.
>>
>> Or maybe they never did get hold of any silent line numbers at all.
>>
>> Bet that was just another labor lie.

> They would have access to them via telstra,

You dont know that.

> but not via DTMS which they claimed to have gotten it from.

Or some stupid journo completely mangled the story and they did
in fact use the DTMS and didnt call any silent lines except those
that had been made silent AFTER they had been in the DTMS.

[Rod Speed]

EnjoyDialup <EnjoyDialup@HyperOz.com> wrote in
message news:3ag5ceF6a6mqdU3@individual.net...
> Peter <spamfromnewsgroups@chatomatic.net> wrote
>> EnjoyDialup <EnjoyDialup@HyperOz.com> wrote

>>> This does not explain how they got hold of private phone numbers. Their
>>> explanation is a lie, so they must have used federal databases.

>> Or the auto-dialer just used random numbers... you know 8374-4321 8374-4322
>> etc etc

> This would be a very bad idea because it would hit business many times in a
> row if they have a rotary group. It would piss people off. It would also
> waste a lot of calls to fax machines. I believe doing such a thing is also
> in breach of the telecommunications act. ie. one of Austell rules.

You're wrong on that last, and Austel is long gone as well.

[B J Foster]

Rod Speed wrote:
> "EnjoyDialup" <EnjoyDialup@HyperOz.com> wrote in message
> news:3aele8F6curi5U1@individual.net...
>
....
>
>>but not via DTMS which they claimed to have gotten it from.
>
>
> Or some stupid journo completely mangled the story and they did
> in fact use the DTMS and didnt call any silent lines except those
> that had been made silent AFTER they had been in the DTMS.
>
>

Or some stupid newsgroup automaton completely mangled its logic and
failed to interpret typical public servant-speak

[B J Foster]

Rod Speed wrote:

> EnjoyDialup <EnjoyDialup@HyperOz.com> wrote in
> message news:3ag5ceF6a6mqdU3@individual.net...
>
>>Peter <spamfromnewsgroups@chatomatic.net> wrote
>>
>>>EnjoyDialup <EnjoyDialup@HyperOz.com> wrote
>
>
>>>>This does not explain how they got hold of private phone numbers. Their
>>>>explanation is a lie, so they must have used federal databases.
>
>
>>>Or the auto-dialer just used random numbers... you know 8374-4321 8374-4322
>>>etc etc
>
>
>>This would be a very bad idea because it would hit business many times in a
>>row if they have a rotary group. It would piss people off. It would also
>>waste a lot of calls to fax machines. I believe doing such a thing is also
>>in breach of the telecommunications act. ie. one of Austell rules.
>
>
> You're wrong on that last, and Austel is long gone as well.
>
>

All hypothetical and irrelevant because the ACA confirmed that DTMS had
been used. Oops, they didn't realise that DTMS data was copyright Telstra.

[Rod Speed]

B J Foster <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:424338a4$0$22221$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> Rod Speed wrote
>> EnjoyDialup <EnjoyDialup@HyperOz.com> wrote

>>> but not via DTMS which they claimed to have gotten it from.

>> Or some stupid journo completely mangled the story and they did
>> in fact use the DTMS and didnt call any silent lines except those
>> that had been made silent AFTER they had been in the DTMS.

> Or some stupid newsgroup automaton completely mangled its logic and failed to
> interpret typical public servant-speak

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of your predicament
better than that pathetic effort, desperately wanking child.

[Rod Speed]

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42433929$0$22221$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> EnjoyDialup <EnjoyDialup@HyperOz.com> wrote in
>> message news:3ag5ceF6a6mqdU3@individual.net...
>>
>>>Peter <spamfromnewsgroups@chatomatic.net> wrote
>>>
>>>>EnjoyDialup <EnjoyDialup@HyperOz.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>>>>This does not explain how they got hold of private phone numbers. Their
>>>>>explanation is a lie, so they must have used federal databases.
>>
>>
>>>>Or the auto-dialer just used random numbers... you know 8374-4321 8374-4322
>>>>etc etc
>>
>>
>>>This would be a very bad idea because it would hit business many times in a
>>>row if they have a rotary group. It would piss people off. It would also
>>>waste a lot of calls to fax machines. I believe doing such a thing is also
>>>in breach of the telecommunications act. ie. one of Austell rules.
>>
>>
>> You're wrong on that last, and Austel is long gone as well.

> All hypothetical and irrelevant because the ACA confirmed that DTMS had been
> used.

Not hypothetical or irrelevant to point out that he is just plain
wrong on what he claimed is illegal under the telecoms act.

> Oops, they didn't realise that DTMS data was copyright Telstra.

Completely irrelevant to USING it to make phone calls, fuckwit.

[B J Foster]

Rod Speed wrote:

> "B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:42433929$0$22221$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>
>>>EnjoyDialup <EnjoyDialup@HyperOz.com> wrote in
>>>message news:3ag5ceF6a6mqdU3@individual.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Peter <spamfromnewsgroups@chatomatic.net> wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>EnjoyDialup <EnjoyDialup@HyperOz.com> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>This does not explain how they got hold of private phone numbers. Their
>>>>>>explanation is a lie, so they must have used federal databases.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Or the auto-dialer just used random numbers... you know 8374-4321 8374-4322
>>>>>etc etc
>>>
>>>
>>>>This would be a very bad idea because it would hit business many times in a
>>>>row if they have a rotary group. It would piss people off. It would also
>>>>waste a lot of calls to fax machines. I believe doing such a thing is also
>>>>in breach of the telecommunications act. ie. one of Austell rules.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're wrong on that last, and Austel is long gone as well.
>
>
>>All hypothetical and irrelevant because the ACA confirmed that DTMS had been
>>used.
>
>
> Not hypothetical or irrelevant to point out that he is just plain
> wrong on what he claimed is illegal under the telecoms act.

Whether or not rotary dialing is a breach of the telecommunications act
is irrelevant since the ACA has stated that DTMS data was used.

Secondly, the phone spam was *targeted* (correlated with other database
to improve targeting) and that is completely inconsistent with mindless
rotary dialling.

>
>
>>Oops, they didn't realise that DTMS data was copyright Telstra.
>
>
> Completely irrelevant to USING it to make phone calls, fuckwit.
>
>

The high court established that the data was owned by Telstra.
The ACA found that the data was not obtained from Telstra.

It follows that the data must have been stolen - this would be a breach
of the Crimes Act.

Try to keep up Speedy boy

[Michael]

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42433dd7$0$5597$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
> > "B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:42433929$0$22221$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> >
> >>Rod Speed wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>EnjoyDialup <EnjoyDialup@HyperOz.com> wrote in
> >>>message news:3ag5ceF6a6mqdU3@individual.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Peter <spamfromnewsgroups@chatomatic.net> wrote
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>EnjoyDialup <EnjoyDialup@HyperOz.com> wrote
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>This does not explain how they got hold of private phone numbers.
Their
> >>>>>>explanation is a lie, so they must have used federal databases.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>Or the auto-dialer just used random numbers... you know 8374-4321
8374-4322
> >>>>>etc etc
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>This would be a very bad idea because it would hit business many times
in a
> >>>>row if they have a rotary group. It would piss people off. It would
also
> >>>>waste a lot of calls to fax machines. I believe doing such a thing
is also
> >>>>in breach of the telecommunications act. ie. one of Austell rules.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You're wrong on that last, and Austel is long gone as well.
> >
> >
> >>All hypothetical and irrelevant because the ACA confirmed that DTMS had
been
> >>used.
> >
> >
> > Not hypothetical or irrelevant to point out that he is just plain
> > wrong on what he claimed is illegal under the telecoms act.
>
> Whether or not rotary dialing is a breach of the telecommunications act
> is irrelevant since the ACA has stated that DTMS data was used.
>
> Secondly, the phone spam was *targeted* (correlated with other database
> to improve targeting) and that is completely inconsistent with mindless
> rotary dialling.
>
> >
> >
> >>Oops, they didn't realise that DTMS data was copyright Telstra.
> >
> >
> > Completely irrelevant to USING it to make phone calls, fuckwit.
> >
> >
>
> The high court established that the data was owned by Telstra.
> The ACA found that the data was not obtained from Telstra.
>
> It follows that the data must have been stolen - this would be a breach
> of the Crimes Act.

Nope.
I have a copy of an old DTMS.
I can use it as much as I like, its not a crime.

The breach of copyright issue is b/w DTMS and Telstra, there are no issues
with the end-user who bought the DTMS software before it stopped being made

[Rod Speed]

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42433dd7$0$5597$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> "B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:42433929$0$22221$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>
>>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>EnjoyDialup <EnjoyDialup@HyperOz.com> wrote in
>>>>message news:3ag5ceF6a6mqdU3@individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Peter <spamfromnewsgroups@chatomatic.net> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>EnjoyDialup <EnjoyDialup@HyperOz.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>This does not explain how they got hold of private phone numbers. Their
>>>>>>>explanation is a lie, so they must have used federal databases.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Or the auto-dialer just used random numbers... you know 8374-4321
>>>>>>8374-4322 etc etc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>This would be a very bad idea because it would hit business many times in a
>>>>>row if they have a rotary group. It would piss people off. It would also
>>>>>waste a lot of calls to fax machines. I believe doing such a thing is
>>>>>also in breach of the telecommunications act. ie. one of Austell rules.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You're wrong on that last, and Austel is long gone as well.
>>
>>
>>>All hypothetical and irrelevant because the ACA confirmed that DTMS had been
>>>used.
>>
>>
>> Not hypothetical or irrelevant to point out that he is just plain
>> wrong on what he claimed is illegal under the telecoms act.

> Whether or not rotary dialing

It aint rotary dialing.

> is a breach of the telecommunications act is irrelevant since the ACA has
> stated that DTMS data was used.

Not irrelevant to point out that he is just plain wrong
on what he claimed is illegal under the telecoms act.

> Secondly, the phone spam was *targeted* (correlated with other database to
> improve targeting) and that is completely inconsistent with mindless rotary
> dialling.

Irrelevant to point out that he is just plain wrong on
what he claimed is illegal under the telecoms act.

>>> Oops, they didn't realise that DTMS data was copyright Telstra.

>> Completely irrelevant to USING it to make phone calls, fuckwit.

> The high court established that the data was owned by Telstra.

Completely irrelevant to USING it to make phone calls, fuckwit.

> The ACA found that the data was not obtained from Telstra.

Completely irrelevant to USING it to make phone calls, fuckwit.

> It follows that the data must have been stolen

Wrong again. Breach of copyright aint theft.

> - this would be a breach of the Crimes Act.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
that you have never ever had a fucking clue.

How odd that no one ever got charged with theft, fuckwit.

[B J Foster]

Rod Speed wrote:
> "B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:42433dd7$0$5597$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>
....
>
>>It follows that the data must have been stolen
>
>
> Wrong again. Breach of copyright aint theft.
>
>
>>- this would be a breach of the Crimes Act.
>
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
> that you have never ever had a fucking clue.
>
> How odd that no one ever got charged with theft, fuckwit.
>
>

Yes, indeed.

The (Liberal) government circumscribed the investigation around whether
or not the IPND had been used, knowing full well that it had not.

[B J Foster]

Michael wrote:

> "B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:42433dd7$0$5597$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>
>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:42433929$0$22221$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>EnjoyDialup <EnjoyDialup@HyperOz.com> wrote in
>>>>>message news:3ag5ceF6a6mqdU3@individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Peter <spamfromnewsgroups@chatomatic.net> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>EnjoyDialup <EnjoyDialup@HyperOz.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This does not explain how they got hold of private phone numbers.
>
> Their
>
>>>>>>>>explanation is a lie, so they must have used federal databases.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Or the auto-dialer just used random numbers... you know 8374-4321
>
> 8374-4322
>
>>>>>>>etc etc
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>This would be a very bad idea because it would hit business many times
>
> in a
>
>>>>>>row if they have a rotary group. It would piss people off. It would
>
> also
>
>>>>>>waste a lot of calls to fax machines. I believe doing such a thing
>
> is also
>
>>>>>>in breach of the telecommunications act. ie. one of Austell rules.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You're wrong on that last, and Austel is long gone as well.
>>>
>>>
>>>>All hypothetical and irrelevant because the ACA confirmed that DTMS had
>
> been
>
>>>>used.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not hypothetical or irrelevant to point out that he is just plain
>>>wrong on what he claimed is illegal under the telecoms act.
>>
>>Whether or not rotary dialing is a breach of the telecommunications act
>>is irrelevant since the ACA has stated that DTMS data was used.
>>
>>Secondly, the phone spam was *targeted* (correlated with other database
>>to improve targeting) and that is completely inconsistent with mindless
>>rotary dialling.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>Oops, they didn't realise that DTMS data was copyright Telstra.
>>>
>>>
>>>Completely irrelevant to USING it to make phone calls, fuckwit.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The high court established that the data was owned by Telstra.
>>The ACA found that the data was not obtained from Telstra.
>>
>>It follows that the data must have been stolen - this would be a breach
>>of the Crimes Act.
>
>
> Nope.
> I have a copy of an old DTMS.
> I can use it as much as I like, its not a crime.
>
> The breach of copyright issue is b/w DTMS and Telstra, there are no issues
> with the end-user who bought the DTMS software before it stopped being made
>
>

Oh I see - so what is the point of the ruling that Telstra owns the IP?
Please explain where 'use' begins and end

[EnjoyDialup]

MACRO!!! He sent a macro. than means he lost!

--
EnjoyDialup - You know you want to...
mail=valid required when replying
http://www.EnjoyDialup.info

* Owner of Curt'C's arse *








"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3agrv2F6afghaU1@individual.net...
>
> B J Foster <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:424338a4$0$22221$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> EnjoyDialup <EnjoyDialup@HyperOz.com> wrote
>
>>>> but not via DTMS which they claimed to have gotten it from.
>
>>> Or some stupid journo completely mangled the story and they did
>>> in fact use the DTMS and didnt call any silent lines except those
>>> that had been made silent AFTER they had been in the DTMS.
>
>> Or some stupid newsgroup automaton completely mangled its logic and
>> failed to interpret typical public servant-speak
>
> Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of your predicament
> better than that pathetic effort, desperately wanking child.
>

[Rod Speed]

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42436832$0$29447$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> Michael wrote:
>
>> "B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:42433dd7$0$5597$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>>
>>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:42433929$0$22221$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>EnjoyDialup <EnjoyDialup@HyperOz.com> wrote in
>>>>>>message news:3ag5ceF6a6mqdU3@individual.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Peter <spamfromnewsgroups@chatomatic.net> wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>EnjoyDialup <EnjoyDialup@HyperOz.com> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>This does not explain how they got hold of private phone numbers.
>>
>> Their
>>
>>>>>>>>>explanation is a lie, so they must have used federal databases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Or the auto-dialer just used random numbers... you know 8374-4321
>>
>> 8374-4322
>>
>>>>>>>>etc etc
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This would be a very bad idea because it would hit business many times
>>
>> in a
>>
>>>>>>>row if they have a rotary group. It would piss people off. It would
>>
>> also
>>
>>>>>>>waste a lot of calls to fax machines. I believe doing such a thing
>>
>> is also
>>
>>>>>>>in breach of the telecommunications act. ie. one of Austell rules.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're wrong on that last, and Austel is long gone as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>All hypothetical and irrelevant because the ACA confirmed that DTMS had
>>
>> been
>>
>>>>>used.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not hypothetical or irrelevant to point out that he is just plain
>>>>wrong on what he claimed is illegal under the telecoms act.
>>>
>>>Whether or not rotary dialing is a breach of the telecommunications act
>>>is irrelevant since the ACA has stated that DTMS data was used.
>>>
>>>Secondly, the phone spam was *targeted* (correlated with other database
>>>to improve targeting) and that is completely inconsistent with mindless
>>>rotary dialling.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Oops, they didn't realise that DTMS data was copyright Telstra.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Completely irrelevant to USING it to make phone calls, fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>The high court established that the data was owned by Telstra.
>>>The ACA found that the data was not obtained from Telstra.
>>>
>>>It follows that the data must have been stolen - this would be a breach
>>>of the Crimes Act.
>>
>>
>> Nope.
>> I have a copy of an old DTMS.
>> I can use it as much as I like, its not a crime.
>>
>> The breach of copyright issue is b/w DTMS and Telstra, there are no issues
>> with the end-user who bought the DTMS software before it stopped being made

> Oh I see

Nope, you never do, you wanked yourself blind long ago.

> - so what is the point of the ruling that Telstra owns the IP?

To stop DTMS flogging their product, fuckwit.

> Please explain where 'use' begins and end

Read the copyright act.

[Rod Speed]

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42436603$0$5190$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> "B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:42433dd7$0$5597$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>>
> ...
>>
>>>It follows that the data must have been stolen
>>
>>
>> Wrong again. Breach of copyright aint theft.
>>
>>
>>>- this would be a breach of the Crimes Act.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
>> that you have never ever had a fucking clue.
>>
>> How odd that no one ever got charged with theft, fuckwit.
>
> Yes, indeed.
>
> The (Liberal) government circumscribed the investigation around whether or not
> the IPND had been used, knowing full well that it had not.

Just another pathetic little conspiracy theory, child.

[B J Foster]

Rod Speed wrote:

> "B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:42436603$0$5190$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>
....
>>>
>>>How odd that no one ever got charged with theft, fuckwit.
>>
>>Yes, indeed.
>>
>>The (Liberal) government circumscribed the investigation around whether or not
>>the IPND had been used, knowing full well that it had not.
>
>
> Just another pathetic little conspiracy theory, child.
>

Thanks for that, now we all feel a lot better that *you* have confidence
that the Liberals are upholding the constitution

[Rod Speed]

B J Foster <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4243a90b$0$967$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au. ..
> Rod Speed wrote
>> B J Foster <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote

>>>> How odd that no one ever got charged with theft, fuckwit.

>>> Yes, indeed.

>>> The (Liberal) government circumscribed the investigation around whether or
>>> not the IPND had been used, knowing full well that it had not.

>> Just another pathetic little conspiracy theory, child.

> Thanks for that, now we all feel a lot better that *you* have confidence that
> the Liberals are upholding the constitution

The voters clearly dont give a flying red fuck, child.

And there is NO constitutional issue with their telemarketing anyway, fuckwit.

[B J Foster]

Rod Speed wrote:

> B J Foster <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4243a90b$0$967$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au. ..
>
>>Rod Speed wrote
>>
>>>B J Foster <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>>>>>How odd that no one ever got charged with theft, fuckwit.
>
>
>>>>Yes, indeed.
>
>
>>>>The (Liberal) government circumscribed the investigation around whether or
>>>>not the IPND had been used, knowing full well that it had not.
>
>
>>>Just another pathetic little conspiracy theory, child.
>
>
>>Thanks for that, now we all feel a lot better that *you* have confidence that
>>the Liberals are upholding the constitution
>
>
> The voters clearly dont give a flying red fuck, child.
>
> And there is NO constitutional issue with their telemarketing anyway, fuckwit.
>
>

Correction: There is *officially* no constitutional issue, since the
question was excluded from the ToR

[Rod Speed]

"B J Foster" <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4243d301$0$29446$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> B J Foster <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:4243a90b$0$967$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au. ..
>>
>>>Rod Speed wrote
>>>
>>>>B J Foster <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>>>>>How odd that no one ever got charged with theft, fuckwit.
>>
>>
>>>>>Yes, indeed.
>>
>>
>>>>>The (Liberal) government circumscribed the investigation around whether or
>>>>>not the IPND had been used, knowing full well that it had not.
>>
>>
>>>>Just another pathetic little conspiracy theory, child.
>>
>>
>>>Thanks for that, now we all feel a lot better that *you* have confidence that
>>>the Liberals are upholding the constitution
>>
>>
>> The voters clearly dont give a flying red fuck, child.
>>
>> And there is NO constitutional issue with their telemarketing anyway,
>> fuckwit.

> Correction:

Nope.

> There is *officially* no constitutional issue, since the question was excluded
> from the ToR

There never ever was any 'constitutional issue', you silly little pig ignorant
wanker.

[B J Foster]

B J Foster wrote:

> Whilst the inquiry might have cleared the Liberal Party of breaching the
> Telecommunications Act, there remains the question of the various
> Privacy Acts, the Copyright Act and anti-spamming laws.
>
> Was the investigation too limited in its brief?
>
> Any opinions on this?
>

....

Thank you all, for the responses. It is clear that there are several
opportunities to pursue the Liberal Party for breaking the law.

In the case of anti-spam laws, it appears that the rules were followed
to the 'T', including the provision of "accurate sender information".

We are grateful to the legislators for inclusion of this requirement and
no doubt some people will not miss the option to contact John Howard
personally to request that he removes their names from the spam list.

[Rod Speed]

B J Foster <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42449a21$0$22220$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> B J Foster wrote

>> Whilst the inquiry might have cleared the Liberal Party of breaching the
>> Telecommunications Act, there remains the question of the various Privacy
>> Acts, the Copyright Act and anti-spamming laws.

>> Was the investigation too limited in its brief?

>> Any opinions on this?

> Thank you all, for the responses. It is clear that there are several
> opportunities to pursue the Liberal Party for breaking the law.

Just another of your pathetic little desperately wanking fantasys.

They broke no law at all, fool.

> In the case of anti-spam laws, it appears that the rules were followed to the
> 'T', including the provision of "accurate sender information".

> We are grateful to the legislators for inclusion of this requirement and no
> doubt some people will not miss the option to contact John Howard personally
> to request that he removes their names from the spam list.

Pathetic, really.