Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking

Scott wrote:
> 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.
>>
> 

I can see some still don't understand the rights of private property 
owner****p.  I'll admit I don't always agree with them either, but I do 
respect them.

<sigh>


-- 
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'