Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking

Jer <gdunn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:1392k4mg1j9k018@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 


> 
> 
> I presume it has something to do with visitors who don't want to be 
> disturbed.  Some people don't allow photos, some don't allow tobacco, 
> some don't allow alcohol, some don't allow personal fragrances, some 
> don't allow cell phones.  All seem reasonable to me.  


As they do to me, as long as appropriate legal protocol is followed.  A 
blood alcohol test would not be an option to those wi****ng to ban alcohol 
on theor property.  Putting up an illegal jammer would fall into that 
category as well.

> What part of 
> "private property" is so difficult to understand?  The front half or
> the back half?
> 
> Look, I'm not going to engage in any debate here about what activities
> should or shouldn't be allowed when visiting someone's private
> property. 

Which is the response I would expect from you- your already do***ented 
opinion of lawful living is duly noted.  I will concede that you obviously

are so much better at determining the right thing to do in any given 
situation.  Wait- no I don't.  Your ego and inability to live by 
predetermined rules of society makes you the last person to go to for 
advice.


>   Everybody has rules and visitors are expected to abide them.  When 
> they don't, they can expect to be treated with prejudice.  

Or backwoods stupidity. 

> Simple, 
> straight forward, easy to understand by consenting adults.  I handle 
> that just fine, but that's just me.
>