Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:39:55 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Great, now I'll be wondering all day about what in the Constitution could have
triggered a nudity alert. Maybe some connotation to "search and seizure" of
which I am unaware?
Wayne
Joseph Rosenblatt <[log in to unmask]> on 07/11/2000 02:16:01 PM
Please respond to Joseph Rosenblatt <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
cc: (bcc: Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec)
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] *way* OT: Constitutional Rights
Your firewall is mistaken about the nudity. Bummer! It's probably right
about militant content.
-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Metzger, Phil (COMPRINT S)
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 2:28 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] *way* OT: Constitutional Rights
Our firewall blocks that for 3 counts of full nudity and 12 counts of
militant content.
Phil Metzger
Wetmore Fulfillment
PH: 713-856-4491
FX: 713-466-7970
PG: 281-268-6139
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Brandt [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 1:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: *way* OT: Constitutional Rights
At 12:42 PM 07/11/00, Wayne Brown wrote:
>If you're referring to the portion of the Second Amendment
I quoted, I don't
>believe it was taken out of context. The reason I didn't
quote the whole
>thing
>is because I'm not certain of the exact wording,
The Constitution + amendments + amendments never ratified
may be viewed at
http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst.html
Tom Brandt
Northtech Systems, Inc.
http://www.northtech.com
|
|
|