Pat, the Editor

For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:27:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 252

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Microsoft, AT&T in Internet Communications Pact (Lisa Minter)
    Yahoo Ditches Fees on US Web Auctions (Lisa Minter)
    Covad, Earthlink Trial Phone and Internet Service (Lisa Minter)
    Re: Wrong Time Shown in Vonage Caller ID (Robert Bonomi)
    Re: Wrong Time Shown in Vonage Caller ID (Tim@Backhome.org)
    Re: Wrong Time Shown in Vonage Caller ID (Henry Cabot Henhouse III
    Re: Why There Are Questions About GoDaddy  (Steven Lichter)
    Re: Can You Disable Text Messaging? (Joseph)
    Re: Known Spam Sites (John Smith)
    Re: Vonage Virtual Numbers (John R. Levine)
    Re: Porting an 800 Number (Justin Time)
    Re: From our Archives: History of Standard Oil and Bell (Nathan Strom)
    Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites (Scott Dorsey)
    Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites (Lisa Minter)
    Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites (John Smith)
    Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites (Robert Bonomi)
    Re: Sex.com Problems 

Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet.  All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote.  By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.

               ===========================

Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent.  Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.

We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime.   Geoffrey Welsh

               ===========================

See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Microsoft, AT&T in Internet Communications Pact
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 14:26:07 -0500


Software maker Microsoft Corp. on Monday said it signed an agreement
with telecommunications company AT&T Corp. to develop Internet-based
services to businesses.

Terms of the deal were not announced.

The companies said the alliance leverages the AT&T's global Internet
Protocol network, which can be accessed from 149 countries, and
Microsoft's "Connected Services Framework," a software system that
enables the rapid delivery of converged communications services across
multiple networks and devices.

Using Connected Services Framework, AT&T will be able to more easily
create and deploy network-based IP services and applications.

The two companies said they will develop communications services
during the next five years that will focus on messaging,
collaboration, media and business applications.

Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited.

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily.

------------------------------

From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Yahoo Ditches Fees on U.S. Web Auctions 
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 14:27:18 -0500


SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Internet media company Yahoo Inc. will quit
charging fees for auctions on its U.S. site in an effort to encourage
more people to sell their wares, the company said on Sunday.

Rob Solomon, general manager and vice president of Yahoo Shopping,
denied the move was a defensive response to top online auctioneer eBay
Inc.'s announcement on Wednesday it had agreed to buy shopping.com a
provider of online comparison shopping and consumer reviews, for $620
million.

"It's taken us six months for us to work on this. The timing of this
(and eBay's acquisition announcement) is purely coincidental," he
said.

Yahoo has no plans to end the fees it charges users on its other
auction sites, including the one for Japan, the company's top auction
site. The company also runs auction sites in Canada, Singapore, Taiwan
and Hong Kong.

Yahoo said it will generate revenue from its U.S. auctions by
continuing to have paid search listings by its Yahoo Search Marketing
division. Paid search ads are triggered by keywords related to their
product or brand.

Previously, Sunnyvale, California-based Yahoo has charged users of its
U.S.  auction site 5 cents to 75 cents to post an item, depending on
the starting price of the item.

If an item sells, the user then has had to pay a 2 percent final value
fee that can vary depending on the closing price of the item
sold. More expensive items carried additional fees that could total up
to 1.5 percent of the final price of the item in addition to the 2
percent fee.

Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited.

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily.

------------------------------

From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Covad, Earthlink Trial Phone and Internet Service
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 14:28:27 -0500


Covad Communications Group and Earthlink Inc. said on Monday they
would test a service offering telephone lines and high-speed Internet
access to residential customers, aimed at competing with dominant
phone and cable companies.

Earthlink, one of the larger U.S. Internet service providers, has seen
its base of dial-up subscribers steadily erode due to competition from
high-speed service. Earthlink's shares fell sharply last week after
SBC Communications Inc., said it would offer broadband Internet access
for $14.95 per month.

Covad and Earthlink said the trial would begin in October in Dallas,
San Francisco, Seattle and San Jose, California. Pricing was not
announced.

The service will use a technology known as a line-powered
system. Covad will lease the copper wires running between customers'
homes and the local telephone network, hooking those loops into
Covad's own network.

Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited.

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily.

------------------------------

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Wrong Time Shown in Vonage Caller ID
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:03:42 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.251.2@telecom-digest.org>, Chris Farrar
<cfarrar@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> I have a Vonage (Canada) VoIP number and I'm wondering if anyone else
> is experiencing this problem.

> I'm using an Aastra 392 (aka a Nortel Vista 392 screen phone) 2 line
> phone.  Line one is on Bell Canada in the 905-282-XXXX exchange.  Line
> 2 is Vonage Canada through the Linksys PSP2 adapter in the 416-628-XXXX
> exchange.

> The problem is that the phone with reset the display clock to conform
> with the last Caller ID information available.  Bell Canada is sending
> the correct time (Eastern Daylight Time) on inbound calls, but Vonage
> is sending Eastern Standard Time.  So whenever I receive a call on
> Vonage, my screen phone resets itself to EST, when we are currently in
> EDT, and the clock is then 1 hour slow until the next call comes in on
> Bell Canada to put it back into EDT.

> Theoretically this problem will disappear when we go back to EST in
> the fall, but is there a way to get Vonage to update their clock
> before then?

Have you considered *ASKING*VONAGE* ??

Or is that too simple and obvious an approach?  <grin>

As an extreme solution, you could put in an Asterisk PBX, and let it
'rw-write' the caller-id timestamp.

------------------------------

From: Tim@Backhome.org
Subject: Re: Wrong Time Shown in Vonage Caller ID
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 06:01:45 -0700
Organization: Cox Communications


Chris Farrar wrote:

> I have a Vonage (Canada) VoIP number and I'm wondering if anyone else
> is experiencing this problem.

> I'm using an Aastra 392 (aka a Nortel Vista 392 screen phone) 2 line
> phone.  Line one is on Bell Canada in the 905-282-XXXX exchange.  Line
> 2 is Vonage Canada through the Linksys PSP2 adapter in the 416-628-XXXX
> exchange.

> The problem is that the phone with reset the display clock to conform
> with the last Caller ID information available.  Bell Canada is sending
> the correct time (Eastern Daylight Time) on inbound calls, but Vonage
> is sending Eastern Standard Time.  So whenever I receive a call on
> Vonage, my screen phone resets itself to EST, when we are currently in
> EDT, and the clock is then 1 hour slow until the next call comes in on
> Bell Canada to put it back into EDT.

> Theoretically this problem will disappear when we go back to EST in
> the fall, but is there a way to get Vonage to update their clock
> before then?

> Chris

Vonage doesn't have that problem here in California and my primary
number is in DC.  Perhaps it has something to do with your phone?

------------------------------

From: Henry Cabot Henhouse III <sooper_chicken@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Wrong Time Shown in Vonage Caller ID
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 21:48:46 -0700


I have a 323 number with Vonage and my outbound caller ID shows as
something completely different when calling an 800 number.

Maybe they're growing so fast they don't have the time to make it all work 
right.

Chris Farrar <cfarrar@sympatico.ca> wrote in message 
news:telecom24.251.2@telecom-digest.org:

> I have a Vonage (Canada) VoIP number and I'm wondering if anyone else
> is experiencing this problem.

> I'm using an Aastra 392 (aka a Nortel Vista 392 screen phone) 2 line
> phone.  Line one is on Bell Canada in the 905-282-XXXX exchange.  Line
> 2 is Vonage Canada through the Linksys PSP2 adapter in the 416-628-XXXX
> exchange.

> The problem is that the phone with reset the display clock to conform
> with the last Caller ID information available.  Bell Canada is sending
> the correct time (Eastern Daylight Time) on inbound calls, but Vonage
> is sending Eastern Standard Time.  So whenever I receive a call on
> Vonage, my screen phone resets itself to EST, when we are currently in
> EDT, and the clock is then 1 hour slow until the next call comes in on
> Bell Canada to put it back into EDT.

> Theoretically this problem will disappear when we go back to EST in
> the fall, but is there a way to get Vonage to update their clock
> before then?

> Chris

------------------------------

From: Steven Lichter <shlichter@diespammers.com>
Reply-To: Die@spammers.com
Organization: I Kill Spammers, Inc.  (c) 2005 A Rot in Hell Co.
Subject: Re: Why There Are Questions About GoDaddy 
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 03:33:18 GMT


Steve Sobol wrote:

> Chris Farrar wrote:

>>> Godaddy is a reputable registrar.  I have three domains registered
>>> with them.  The don't sell spam address lists or function as a
>>> spamhaus.

>>> What led you to jump to this particular conclusion?

>> Over the last several days Spamcop has blocked a considerable number
>> of emails to me, which all generated reports to Godaddy as the site
>> orginating them.

> Well, there are two issues with GoDaddy. First, they register a ton of
> domains, some of which are registered by/for spammers.

> Second, they do offer mailing list services. I can resell those
> services as a WildWestDomains/GoDaddy reseller, but I refuse (I only
> do TrafficBlazer, domains and SSL certificates). In fact, when I have
> time over the next couple weeks, I'm going to email GD president Bob
> Parsons requesting that he drop the email service. It's just way too
> easy to abuse.

> But the question is ... are you seeing emails coming from GoDaddy
> customers using their mailing list product? Or are you just seeing
> lots of spam from GoDaddy-registered domains? Both are bad. I'd argue
> that the former is a lot worse.

> JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

> "The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
>      --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"

I have seen both, more from the mailing though.


The only good spammer is a dead one!!  Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2005  I Kill Spammers, Inc.  A Rot in Hell Co.

------------------------------

From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Can You Disable Text Messaging?
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 05:51:05 -0700
Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com


On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 14:19:24 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:

> Joseph wrote:

>> messaging to your phone.  They cannot and will not remove phone to
>> phone text messaging from your account.

> That's interesting. Both Verizon and Sprint have disabled SMS
> completely when I requested it. Why can't T-Mobile?

Maybe it has to do with the way GSM works.  You didn't mention AT&T
Wireless or Cingular.  SMS is part of the GSM spec.  I don't know if
that's the case with CDMA.  The question of disabling SMS (text
messaging) has come up before in other T-Mobile related forums and the
answer has always been no on phone originated SMS but is available to
turn off email SMS. 

------------------------------

From: John Smith <user@example.net>
Subject: Re: Known Spam Sites
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 04:29:05 GMT


Steven Lichter wrote:

> What led me to that was 40 uce's that I got over a 3 day period all
> came from sites that listed Godaddy.  Plus most of the web sits that
> were linked from these spams were also theirs.  They're maybe
> reputable, but they are not policing the Use Policy.

Well, just because they registered the domain doesn't give them any
obligation to monitor how it's used, nor could they even if they
wanted to. Their only obligation is to point the domain name to a
domain name server.

Unless the sites were being HOSTED by GoDaddy, what do you expect them
to do? It's the hosting company on whose servers the spammers are
operating that has the power to stop them.

------------------------------

From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: Vonage Virtual Numbers
Date: 6 Jun 2005 01:20:08 -0400
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA


> reference as to local calling area.  Does anyone know wheich of the
> following communities that Vonage has numbers available in that are a
> local call to Hilton Head Island, SC (area code 843, exchange 842)?

None of them, I would say.  The informative local calling guide at
http://members.dandy.net/~czg says that the normal Hilton Head local
calling area is just Hilton Head.  Hargray Tel's web site at
http://web.hargray.com/tel_localplus.html says that for $10/mo you can
get local service plus which lets you call Bluffton, Sun City,
Daufuskie and Hardeeville.  (Or for $25/mo you get unlimited nation
wide LD.)

If you want a Hilton Head VoIP number, I notes that Hargray themselves
offer VoIP service, presumably with their own local numbers.  Maybe
they'd sell it to you.

R's,

John

------------------------------

From: Justin Time <a_user2000@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Porting an 800 Number
Date: 6 Jun 2005 08:21:18 -0700


But VoIP carriers aren't phone companies so they don't have to point
or port anything they don't want to.  You can't take the fact they
refuse to point an existing number to your PUC because they are an
unregulated "information service" and not a phone company.

Rodgers Platt

------------------------------

From: nstrom@ananzi.co.za (Nathan Strom)
Subject: Re: From our Archives: History of Standard Oil and Bell System
Date: 6 Jun 2005 08:49:10 -0700


TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net>:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In much of the midwest area now, Amoco 
> does business as 'The Standard Oil Division of Amoco Oil Company'.  PAT]

All the Amoco stations near me in CT have re-branded in the past couple years to BP.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I try not to think much about Chicago
in recent years, but I think my brother told me that Amoco stations 
around Chicago are no longer 'Standard Oil Division of Amoco' but now
are a sort of green color with the BP signs on them. I really do not 
know for sure.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites
Date: 6 Jun 2005 09:34:28 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)


Fred Atkinson  <fatkinson@mishmash.com> wrote:

> Sadly, they do these things without looking at how it adversely
> affects faculty and staff and what it may deprive the kids of.  On the
> latter, ham radio is a very educational hobby and they shouldn't be
> denying the kids access to information about it.

Yes, I think that restricting web access at school and some workplaces
is probably a very good thing.  What is bad is that it is usually done
by people who don't know very much about the web or about the blocking
technology, and it is often done by management folks who refuse to
take responsibility for their own actions.

There are other work environments where blocking any traffic is a very
bad thing.  I work at a government facility where pornographic sites
are blocked.  To my mind, it would be much more effective just to fire
people who spend their workday looking at porn on the internet; in
this case network blocking results in employees being retained who
would be better off gone.  --scott


"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

------------------------------

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites
Date: 6 Jun 2005 06:58:28 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com


Fred Atkinson wrote:

> I ask you what is the difference between reading about it on the
> Internet and reading about it in a library?  Would you advocate
> removing books like that from the library simply because *you* think
> that they don't 'need' to read them?  And it's a damned sight better
> thing for a kid to be doing with his or her time than getting involved
> with the wrong crowd or worse.

You must remember that the contents of libraries have always been
"censored", though perhaps the better word is "selected".

For younger readers, books are selected appropriate to their reading
skill as well as their age.  Most 12 year olds would not know what to
do with ancient literature written in the original Greek or Latin, and
such books would be inappropriate for them.

A second consideration is book quality.  There are lots and lots of
books out there on any given subject, including "vanity" books
published by the authors themselves.  Quality varies dramatically.
Libraries attempt (not always successfully) to use generally respected
and quality works.

Lastly, some common sense is applied.  Should a children's or school
library really contain books on bomb-making or other extremely intense
subjects?

As to the Internet: There is a great deal of mis-information out
there, some of it even dangerous.  Anybody can set up a site and put
anything they want on it; that by no means makes it authoritative or
appropriate.  Even legitimate organizations screw up on their Internet
sites by failing to keep the information timely and accurate.

> Sorry to come down on you this hard, but limiting student access to
> information simply because we think they don't 'need' access to it
> is a pretty short sighted opinion for an educator to take.

As mentioned, student "access" is already quite limited in many ways.

------------------------------

From: John Smith <user@example.net>
Subject: Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 03:47:27 GMT


Anony Mouse wrote:

> My father went down to the school and told the principal and the vice
> principals that he'd swear out a warrant for the arrest of those
> students if they laid another hand on me.  All they did was warn the
> students that my father would have them arrested if they touched me
> again.  They told both of us that they wouldn't take any action
> against those boys because they were afraid of the Civil Liberties
> Union (they actually told us that the ACLU would intervene if they
> even took those boys off the bus route).

Well, that's rubbish of course, and it's reprehensible that school
officials would try to blame their own nonfeasance on the ACLU.  Or
did the principle think that there is a "right to beat people up" in
the Bill of Rights?

If that happened today, the parent would sue not only the boys, but
the school system itself, for having such bone-headed administrators.
And win.  And even with the strong tenure laws in my state, those
idiots would be out looking for work.

------------------------------

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 10:46:21 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.250.7@telecom-digest.org>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> Robert Bonomi wrote:

>> Yuppers.  First Amendment means that, as a government agency, you
>> cannot monitor/filter/block/etc what students _say_ in outgoing
>> email. (It's even a seriously sticky situation in government agencies
>> with their employees.)

> Sorry, but I know too many government agencies that have strict rules
> on what their employees may say using any government equipment, and
> AFAIK these rules are perfectly legal and upheld. 

Generally, true, *today*.  There is a _long_ history of attempts at
such rules that have been held partially or wholly void, necessitating
re-writes.

Government-as-employer is a _very_ complex legal situation. There is a
difficult balancing act between exercise of 'rights' _as_employer_ and
infringing on the 'civil rights' of the employee.

There are very few 'employer rights' that a governmental entity cannot
exercise, *BUT*, in many cases, they must be _very_careful_ in regard
to how they go about exercising those rights, and what advance
notifications are given.

What you 'know' simply establishes that a path through the swamp has
been successfully charted.  The swamp is still there.

> Employees have been terminated over violations and their unions were
> unable to do anything.  Shop stewards have been fired and union
> activists convicted of trespassing for exceeding the boundaries of
> these rules.

Says a lot about the intelligence/wisdom (or lack thereof) of shop
stewards and union activists, doesn't it?  <wry grin>

> A government agency may secretly monitor employees' phone calls and
> computer use without any warning or notice.

> I assure you the unions would've fought this stuff if they could've.

> Further, agencies have rules regarding public statements, such as that
> external questions have to be forwarded to the designated public
> affairs officer.

> Just because something is publicly funded does not change every rule
> or policy.

> I think what you folks are confusing is the right of students and
> goverment employees to freely speak outside of school or work.  That
> is protected speech.  But inside the building, especially on
> government owned facilities -- computers, phones, bulletin boards*,
> etc., you do not have that protection.

The bodies of law regarding what is allowable 'in school', and 'at
work' are _significantly_ different.

The body of law regarding what is allowable/acceptable in a government
work-place is significantly different that what is allowable/
acceptable in a private employer's workplace.

>> On the other hand, you _can_ ban individuals from using the equipment
>> _at_all_, if you have a rational reason for doing so.

> Equipment may be assigned or not assigned to individuals as the
> administration sees fit in school or in industry.

>> Silly as it seems on the face of it, restricting them from 'saying
>> anything' it not the First Amendment problem that restricting them
>> from 'saying *specific* things' is.

> Sorry, but rules do exist prohibiting "specific things" in government
> and in schools.

> My local library requires a signature observing their rules on using
> their public computers.

Would you care to itemize the 'saying specific things' forbidden by
those rules?

> Just because someone is publicly funded does not mean the individual
> using it has unlimited rights over it.  When you drive a car on a
> public road or visit a public park you must obey the law on usage.

Apparently, you missed -- or didn't think it significant -- the word
"saying" in the phrase 'saying *specific* things'.  Use of public
roads, or public parks, has *nothing* to do with 1st Amend rights.

That aside, Because something _is_ publicly funded, and made available
to the public, 'at large', *does* mean that there are restrictions and
limitations that the government can exercise over what 'the public'
can do on/with that 'something'.

> There is no such thing as unlimited free speech.  Try screaming a
> tirade at your neighbor and you'll get a summons for disorderly
> conduct.  There are many examples.

Which has nothing to do with 'free speech', in point of fact.  The
summons is for _how_ you did things, not _what_ you said.

Regulating/restricting the _content_ of speech has very high barriers
to overcome.

Regulating/restricting the _form_ of speech faces far, _far_ lower
barriers.

> Indeed, lately many people have objected toward the expression of
> religion in public schools and some courts have upheld restrictions on
> that. For example, a school choir was forbidden by the courts to sing
> black spiritual gospel songs even as an all-volunteer after school
> activity.

> As Pat said, administrative convenience is important or schools and
> government would grind to a halt mired in bureaucracy.  Yes, different
> states and municipalities do vary, but this is the way it is.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is also important to remember the
> difference between someone who is _governed by the government_ versus
> someone who is _employed by the government_ (except as the government
> employee happens to coincidentally also be a citizen).  Things like
> the First Amendment theoretically serve as protection for those who
> are being governed. While it is grossly inconvenient for most of us
> to choose some other governor, on the other hand we have no automatic
> right to _employment_ by the government. Because of the inconvenience
> or impossibility for us to change governors, we therefore get the
> protection of things like the Bill of Right, which do not have to be
> given to a 'mere' employee, of the government or otherwise. And
> administrative convenience is given much weight in the courts. The
> goverment says 'it is more convenient for us to have person X do our
> speaking for us, and for persons Y and Z to keep quiet.' And the
> courts have occassionally ruled that this is _not_ a violation of 
> persons Y and Z 'free speech rights'. Certainly any person being
> governed can speak _about_ the government, but they cannot speak _for_
> the government nor mislead any reasonable person to think that is 
> what they are doing. PAT] 

Pat, you may want to re-think your position.  I'm in _complete_ agreement
with your comments.   :)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is to Lisa Hancock regards the
school choir denied the right to sing their songs even as an after
school volunteer activity. The same thing happened several years ago
in Chicago, compliments of the boneheads at the ACLU. So the kids at
the school got even, with help from their choirmaster and the parents.
Their after school activity withdrew _any and all_ affiliation with
the public schools. They made it plain in their concert programs that
they were _NOT_ affiliated in any way with the Chicago Public Schools.
They further noted in their concert programs that their choirmaster
and musicians were employed _by the choir_, and not by the Chicago
Public Schools. "Although most members of our choir are in fact
students in the Chicago Public Schools, and occassionally it is
convenient for the choir to rent an auditorium facility from the
Chicago Public Schools to give performances, we have absolutely no
connection with the Chicago Public Schools." They gave programs of
choral music by Bach, Handel and Mozart. _Tough stuff_ and always
excellently done. Of course, much of it made reference to God or
(in the case of some of Handel's oratorios), passages of scripture.
Stuff that almost caused me to faint, it was that well done. And
when asked why they were not affiliated with one of the schools, the
choirmaster would always say afterward, _now_ do you see why we have
no affiliation with the Chicago Public Schools? We would not be 
allowed to do what we want to do. We do not sing and play for the
lowest common denominator, which is what would be expected of us,
and all we would be allowed. A couple of the school system's
principals, who were still a bit sensitive to when the choir and
their choirmaster had 'pulled out of school' responded by saying,
"Well, you don't have to be so snotty about it!" ... but the
choirmaster's response was that just because the schools would only
allow very bland and generic 'jingle bells' songs at Christmas did
not mean _they_ had to, or intended to settle for that.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: T. Sean Weintz <strap@hanh-ct.org>
Subject: Re: SEX.COM Owner Arrested for Child Molestation; Heroin
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:40:59 -0400


nancyhoward2@gmail.com wrote:

> Dr. Adrian Copeland, a psychiatrist who works with sexual offenders
> at the Peters Institute in Philadelphia, said that, from his
> experience, pedophiles tend to be homosexual

Really? On what planet is that? I just plain find that hard to
believe.  Does not jibe with what I have seen at all. In fact every
molestor I have had the misfortune to meet seemed to prefer women
(that is if they had to have an adult as a partner)

> and "40% to 45%" of child molesters have had "significant
> homosexual experiences."

LOL. I'd bet non-molester stats for males are quite similar. It's just
easier to get men to admit to it when you are a police officer
interrogating them.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Look Sean, I've already written off
Nancy Howard as a troublemaker; let's just forget about her.   PAT]

------------------------------


TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and
other forums.  It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the
moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.

Contact information:    Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
                        Post Office Box 50
                        Independence, KS 67301
                        Phone: 620-402-0134
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 530-309-7234
                        Fax 3: 208-692-5145         
                        Email: editor@telecom-digest.org

Subscribe:  telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org
Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org

This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then.  Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!

URL information:        http://telecom-digest.org

Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/
  (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)

RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html
  For syndication examples see http://www.feedroll.com/syndicate.php?id=308
    and also http://feeds.feedburner.com/telecom

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from                  *
*   Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate  *
*   800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting.         *
*   http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com                    *
*   Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing      *
*   views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc.                             *
*************************************************************************

ICB Toll Free News.  Contact information is not sold, rented or leased.

One click a day feeds a person a meal.  Go to http://www.thehungersite.com

Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

              ************************

DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO
YOUR CREDIT CARD!  REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST
AND EASY411.COM   SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest !

              ************************

Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your
career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management
(MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35
credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the
skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including
data, video, and voice networks.

The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College
of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has
state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus
offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum.  Classes
are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning.

Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at
405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at
http://www.mstm.okstate.edu

              ************************

   ---------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list. 

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.

End of TELECOM Digest V24 #252
******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues