onlooker said...
misspw read the entire trial transcripts in one day? Maybe she was skimming it for proof of David's guilt? That would take a very short time as there is none.
September 13, 2010 8:47 PM
I think to be fair to her, we have to accept her total moronness, proved in the harshest conditions and competition between her and the other mad hatters, desperate, so desperate to get their hands on something, or to finally arrive somewhere to show they're not as stupid as they look, but in fact far stupidier.
I think Christine should be able to enjoy this highlight in her life, this recognition, and warm and fuzzy feeling in her regions, just this once, alone celebrating what might have been had she been truly recognised as Moronette of The Week when she was in prime, all those lonely years ago. It's kind of sweet.
"The real essence of the case is about
ReplyDeletehuman behaviour. It is a case about the law speaking in the light of changing
technologies."
COUNTERSPINNERS - TAKE NOTE !!
Perhaps today's Court decision in the case of the blogger Whaleoil is a timely reminder that the members of the Counterspin group need.
Ignoring the issue of name supression, Judge Harvey's comments regarding the internet should be noted by Kent Parker and his pack of supporters, like Christine Williams, who think they can post whatever they like on public message boards, and are somehow 'bullet proof'.
DECISION OF JUDGE DAVID J HARVEY
1] This case is about whether or not a person behaved in a manner that breached
the law and in doing so utilised some of the communications technologies associated
with the Internet. It is not a case about whether or not the law should allow nonpublication
orders. That debate must take place in another forum. This is not a case
about regulating the Internet. That is a vastly more complex subject that involves
considerations of Internet Governance, the nature of the technical infrastructure and
the manner in which the various organizations that administer that technical
infrastructure are amenable to domestic regulation.1 Furthermore there is asignificant difference between technical and infrastructural regulation on the one
hand and content regulation on the other. In some respects there are elements of
content regulation that lie within this case. The real essence of the case is about
human behaviour. It is a case about the law speaking in the light of changing
technologies.
Poor Christine.
ReplyDeleteShe really just doesn't 'get it' does she. This recent post by her really demonstrates her intellectual challenges.
Here she draws a comparision between a childhood false recovered memory, where she was a couple of years out, to memory recovered a few weeks after the violent and traumatic murders/suicide of an entire family.
Really Christine, you don't have to keep proving how ignorant you are - we've got it ok!
"I had a recovered memory once. My father and I were carting things out of the garage and into the yard. It was very vivid and very real. I remembered every detail, even the clothes I was wearing and I knew exactly how old I was. Five. Everything was fine until my parents pointed out that the garage wasn't built until I was seven.
I would even have sworn to it being the truth on the Bible.
I have never trusted recovered memories since then and fake ones even less."
Quote misspw (65 ) 3:44 pm, Sat 18 Sep #27433