nanog mailing list archives
Re: Re Parler
From: John Sage <jsage () finchhaven com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 16:27:43 -0800
On 1/14/21 4:09 PM, Mike Bolitho wrote:
And now, with prejudice, I'm requesting that this thread get moderated, beforeanyone *else* volunteers to jump off a bridge.List admins, for real. This has run its course just like I said it would several days ago. It is 100% speculative, has nothing to do with network operations, and requires actual lawyers with access to the case information and witnesses to figure out what's going on. And as Jay said, it's getting stupid.
I second the motion.I've been following this issue very closely since the start on what might be called Legal Twitter (actual attorneys practicing actual law at the Federal level in civil, criminal, appellate, constitutional and intellectual property cases) and it's become painfully clear that 98% of the people replying to this topic here have
1) no idea what they're talking about, and2) a more- and more-obvious political/philosophical agenda of one stripe or another
I've been wholesale deleting for days now. Put a stake in 'er, Jim, she's dead. - John --
Current thread:
- Re: Re Parler, (continued)
- Re: Re Parler Rod Beck (Jan 14)
- Re: Re Parler Ge DUPIN (Jan 14)
- Re: Re Parler Rich Kulawiec (Jan 14)
- Re: Re Parler and its very underprepared attorney Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. (Jan 14)
- RE: Re Parler adamv0025 (Jan 14)
- Re: Re Parler William Herrin (Jan 14)
- Re: Re Parler John Levine (Jan 14)
- Re: Re Parler Mel Beckman (Jan 14)
- Re: Re Parler Jay R. Ashworth (Jan 14)
- Re: Re Parler Mike Bolitho (Jan 14)
- Re: Re Parler John Sage (Jan 14)
- Re: Re Parler Masataka Ohta (Jan 14)
