posted 10-23-2001 09:42 AM            

If we let this opportunity slip by we may not get another that is ready made. My suggestion is for all of us to go to our files, pick good solid information, such as Airforce 2025, and sent it to ALL of the news stations. With enough of us sending in facts, photos, research papers, links, etc., maybe SOMEONE trying to build a reputation or jump on the bandwagon, will carry our information to the public better that we can.
This is what we have been waiting for, a chance to inform the sheeple and have them listen!! The public is now aware of anthrax and smallpox being delivered via spray, and are afraid and concerned.

This is a golden opportunity for us to send a small ripple across the human pond, and with a little luck it may turn into a tidal wave of concern and outrage from the public.

Any information sent needs to be good, solid research with facts to back it up, and it needs to be done now.
Strike while the iron is hot…PLEASE, lets all do our part. I for one have been waiting two years for this, a chance to enlighten and inform the masses, how about you??

Also, today congress is voting on the Internet tax, the moratorium ran out on Sunday last.

posted 10-23-2001 11:31 AM            

No.

No Internet Tax being contemplated in any congressional bill.

None.

Nada.

Squat.

Zip.

If, by "The Internet Tax" you mean S1504, I suggest you at least look at the bill to see what it's about. It will extend a moratorium {Section 1101(a) of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 nt.)} to ensure that a tax is not imposed.

If, by "The Internet Tax", you mean that "Congress will soon be voting on whether or not your phone company will be allowed to charge you long-distance rates for accessing the Internet", you are incorrect. Neither the FCC nor Congress is considering -- much less voting on -- legislation that would impose (or allow phone companies to impose) per-minute access fees on Internet users. Recent decisions by the FCC in this area have dealt only with the issue of how phone companies reimburse each other for handling calls placed to Internet service providers, not with the prospect of allowing phone companies to charge their customers long-distance rates for Internet use.

If, by "The Internet Tax", you mean that "Congress is going to impose a 5¢ surcharge on every piece of e-mail sent", you are incorrect. Congress has never contemplated such a move -- it is a hoax. The whole thing is bunk. There is no Congressman named Tony Schnell; no Bill 602P (Congressional bill designations begin with either H.R. or S., depending upon whether they're House or Senate bills); no law firm of Berger, Stepp and Gorman; no such address as 216 Concorde Street in Vienna, Virginia; and no editorial in The Washingtonian. This hoax actually began with a Canadian version that was later Americanized.

Again, you might want to look up snopes.com. They have a listing of all the hoaxes that are running around. [n]The newspapers, of course, employ reporters whose job it is to check things out.[/b] Snopes is one of the first places they will go. Then, if they're still interested, they will actually call their congress-critters' liaison offices or will use the Thomas database to find out that there is no legislation like that.

Now David, work with me on this one. In your same message you said:

"Any information sent needs to be good, solid research with facts to back it up, and it needs to be done now."

When you send out messages like the "Congressional Internet tax" one, a researcher will immediately know that you are quoting something out of context (and I'm not saying that you're doing it on purpose). But what does that tell the media about your "good, solid research with facts to back it up"?

"I for one have been waiting two years for this, a chance to enlighten and inform the masses...."

Again, if your data on the Internet Tax thing is either bogus or incomplete, the masses will not be "enlightened" or "informed", because you will have lost your credibility.

Now you know I'm a skeptic about chemtrails, but I think people should have all the facts. Whether or not Chemtrails really exist, people should have the opportunity to get real data. But with stuff like this, you are shooting yourself in the foot, because you will have already convinced the major media that (on another item) you're pushing a hoax.

Is this the impression you want to give these people?

Regards,

posted 10-23-2001 08:28 PM            

On Sunday, October 21, 2001, a moratorium which prohibits government from taxing the Internet will expire. Originally imposed in 1998, reports the Associated Press, the moratorium "prohibits taxes on Internet access and bans any tax that singles out the Internet." If the moratorium expires, the barn door to Internet taxation will be thrown WIDE open to politicians who see a honey-pot of new tax revenue they just won’t be able to resist dipping their paws into.

"Internet taxes are simply a way for incompetent governors to swell their budgets with the hard-earned dollars of taxpayers outside of their districts," says Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. "The practice is tantamount to taxation without representation, is unconstitutional, and is a fraud widely recognized by Americans all across the country."

On Tuesday, the Republican-controlled House passed H.R. 1552, an extension of the ban for an additional two years, and sent the bill over to the Senate. On Thursday, the Democrat-controlled Senate refused to pass the extension before adjourning for the weekend.

That means the moratorium will indeed expire on Sunday. "Starting Monday, there’s an opportunity for considerable mischief," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

Indeed there is. Especially under the current economic conditions, with governments at all levels scrambling to find new money to fund new programs rather than set spending priorities and cut wasteful spending. But that’s an argument for another day.

The Senate is scheduled to reconvene on Tuesday, October 23, 2001 to wrap up lingering business before adjourning for the year. If the Senate fails to reconsider its position, you’re going to see the biggest camel’s tax-nose under you’re e-tent since Al Gore invented the Internet.

There’s no time to waste. Please contact your two U.S. senators IMMEDIATELY by signing the petition below urging them to vote in favor of S. 777 to "permanently extend the moratorium enacted by the Internet Tax Freedom Act." Then get everyone on your e-mail list to do the same.

Final Note: Many of you will recall an e-mail that has been circulating for a long time falsely claiming that Congress was prepared to pass bill 602(P) to impose taxes on the Internet. It was a hoax (congressional bills aren’t even numbered that way). But it fooled a LOT of people.

This one, folks, is NOT a hoax. It's a real threat.

But don’t take my word for it. Go to the official congressional web site at http://thomas.loc.gov and look up S. 777 for yourself. Then come right back here and immediately fire off this petition to your senators. There’s no time to lose.

e-Sincerely yours,

XXXXXXXXXXXXX
*************************
Duncan---
And you believe that if they do not vote to extend, no tax will come? Right.
Do you further believe that this is a hoax?? That there is no s 777? Is this what you are implying.
Are you also telling me that the moratorium on this did not run out on the 21st day of Oct. 2001? OK

As far as the chemtrail information goes, I would expect nothing less of you than to try to dissuade (sp) people from sending information to the media.
You are right duncan they, chemtrails, do not exist and the feds would never engage in covert testing on the people of the United States. The folks in San Francisco did not get tested on the 60's and none died. And the news media has not been reporting this at the local level. And the gov did not just admit to doing the testing, using ships off shore to spray a fog like substance. You are right of course Duncan, I lied about the whole thing.

posted 10-23-2001 08:35 PM            

quote:

---

Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act (Introduced in the Senate)

S 777 IS

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 777
To permanently extend the moratorium enacted by the Internet Tax Freedom Act, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 25, 2001
Mr. ALLEN (for himself and Mr. BURNS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

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

A BILL
To permanently extend the moratorium enacted by the Internet Tax Freedom Act, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act'.

SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF INTERNET TAX FREEDOM ACT MORATORIUM.

(a) PERMANENT EXTENSION; INTERNET ACCESS TAXES- Section 1101 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) is amended--

(1) by striking `taxes during the period beginning on October 1, 1998, and ending 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act--' and inserting `taxes after September 30, 1998:';

(2) by striking paragraph (1) of subsection (a) and inserting the following:

`(1) Taxes on Internet access.',

(3) by striking `multiple' in paragraph (2) of subsection (a) and inserting `Multiple';

(4) by striking subsection (d); and

(5) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections (d) and (e), respectively.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 1104(10) of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) is amended by striking `unless' and all that follows through `1998'.

---

posted 10-23-2001 11:31 PM            

Monday, October 22, 2001
Breaking News Sections

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ar...DT0059.DTL

(10-22) 08:12 PDT (AP) --

Several medical experts have since claimed that an untold number of people may have gotten sick as a result of the germ tests. These researchers say even benign agents can mutate into unpredictable pathogens once exposed to the elements.

"The possibility cannot be ruled out that peculiarities in wind conditions or ventilation systems in buildings might concentrate organisms, exposing people to high doses of bacteria," testified Stephen Weitzman of the State University of New York, in the 1977 Senate hearings.

For its part, the Army justified its experiments by noting concerns during World War II that United States cities might come under biological attack. To prepare a response, the Army said, it had to test microbes on populated areas to learn how bacteria disperse.

"Release in and near cities, in real-world circumstances, were considered essential to the program, because the effect of a built-up area on a biological agent cloud was unknown," Edward A. Miller, the Army's secretary for research and development at the time, told the subcommittee.

But in at least one case -- the bacterial fogging of San Francisco -- the research may have gone awry. Between Sept. 20 and Sept. 27 of 1950, a Navy mine-laying vessel cruised the San Francisco coast, spraying an aerosol cocktail of Serratia and Bacillus microbes -- all believed to be safe -- over the famously foggy city from giant hoses on deck, according to declassified Army reports. According to lawyers who have reviewed the reports, researchers added fluorescent particles of zinc-cadmium-sulfide to better measure the impact. Based on results from monitoring equipment at 43 locations around the city, the Army determined that San Francisco had received enough of a dose for nearly all of the city's 800,000 residents to inhale at least 5,000 of the particles.

Two weeks after the spraying, on Oct. 11, 1950, Mr. Nevin checked in to the Stanford Hospital in San Francisco with fever and other symptoms. Ten other men and women checked in to the same hospital -- which has since been relocated to Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif. -- with similar complaints. Doctors noticed that all 11 had the same malady: a pneumonia caused by exposure to bacteria believed to be Serratia marcescens. Mr. Nevin died three weeks later. The others recovered. Doctors were so surprised by the outbreak that they reported it in a medical journal, oblivious at the time to the secret germ test.

After the Army disclosed the tests nearly three decades later, Mr. Nevin's surviving family members filed suit against the federal government, alleging negligence. "My grandfather wouldn't have died except for that, and it left my grandmother to go broke trying to pay his medical bills," says Mr. Nevin's grandson, Edward J. Nevin III, a San Francisco attorney who filed the case in United States District Court here.

Army officials noted the pneumonia outbreak in their 1977 Senate testimony but said any link to their experiments was totally coincidental. No other hospitals reported similar outbreaks, the Army pointed out, and all 11 victims had urinary-tract infections following medical procedures, suggesting that the source of their infections lay inside the hospital.

The Nevin family appealed the suit all the way to the United States Supreme Court, which declined to overturn lower court judgments upholding the government's immunity from lawsuits.

Today, the United States military is again patrolling San Francisco's coastline, guarding against someone who might try to copy the Army tests of half a century ago. Local officials say such an attack is unlikely, given the logistical problems of blasting the city without Navy ships.

Partly as a result of Mr. Nevin's death, says Lucien Canton, director of San Francisco's emergency services, "one thing we now know is that it takes an awful lot of stuff to produce casualties, especially in a place like San Francisco that always has a stiff breeze."
---------------------------------------------

posted 10-24-2001 03:49 AM            

I think you have misunderstood Duncan's response to your intitial post. You provided no information regarding your reference to an Internet Tax. When I first read the post, I responded the same way. Had you provided the House or Senate bill number I don't think Duncan would have thought you were speaking of the hoax e-mail.

Now, I don't know for sure exactly what Duncan is thinking, I'm not him. But I know what I thought and he just beat me to the response.

So, I see no point to keep jumping on his case about an assumption made based on your not providing complete information.

------------------
Just my $0.02.

posted 10-24-2001 04:41 AM            

Once you get my name right, since it's right there on the post, I'll be more then happy to address your accusations. . And I never claimed that my $0.02 is actually worth a darn thing. I've seen the state of our economy.

------------------
Just my $0.02.

posted 10-24-2001 11:05 AM            

"Also, today congress is voting on the Internet tax, the moratorium ran out on Sunday last. "
No.

No Internet Tax being contemplated in any congressional bill.

None.

Nada.

Squat.

Zip.
---------------------------------------------
xpig---- "So, I see no point to keep jumping on his case about an assumption made based on your not providing complete information.
---------------------------------------------

He,duncan, certainly has no problem jumping to conclusions on his part though does he now. Or jumping on my case. His first response is always to imply dishonesty on the part of person posting. "If I don't know about it, it cannot be right" kind of a mindset.
I find Duncan to be a person of inflated ego.
Intellignet but overbearing.

This is not the first time I have recieved a similar response from him, and not the first time he has implied dihonesty on my part. Instead of politely asking for addition information or a link, he immediatly jumps to the conclusion that the information is not worth the time to read, or that it is a lie. And I for one find that very annoying, condesending,and insulting.

I thought sending in information at this time would be a good thing and said so. That was the entire reason for my post on the subject. I was hoping to gain some support and maybe get a group effort going, each contributing something to the package. But was that the response it recieved, hell no. More interest is shown in slinging around insults and innuendos.

This is exactly the reason TPTB are winning. No cooperation amongst ourselves, no team effort. Each person doing it on their own will not gain a damn thing, it will take a large group effort. Think about it. 300+ million of us and a handful of "them" and they are winning. What does that tell you?

posted 10-25-2001 10:09 AM            

If you find that my responses are "condescending or insulting" merely because I take issue with some of your hypotheses or statements, that is your issue; I am certainly not going to instruct you on how to handle it.

You will notice I said that "No Internet Tax being contemplated in any congressional bill." That is true. The only bill before congress is the one to extend the moratorium, which -- to me, anyway -- sounds like congress is trying to keep a tax from being passed. When you talked in your post about "they're voting on the Internet tax" (your words), most people would get the impression that Congress is getting ready to pass a tax, and they aren't.

Now, David, this gets back to the whole perception thing. When you make statements that can be perceived as being bogus (even though you don't mean them to be) you lose credibility about everything. And if you really want to be an activist and not just treat this contrail thing as a hobby, I would think it's incumbent on you to convince people that count. You can't do that if you don't have any credibility, and you won't have any credibility if you make statements which can be perceived as bogus -- even if you don't mean them to.

And it probably doesn't help, either, to take constructive criticism as a personal attack.

Now, let's look at your "Bin Laden Dead?" post on another thread. Yes, I know it was interesting and a fun read, but just five minutes of checking out four or five sources -- which you probably already have bookmarked -- would've convinced you that the Chinese or Japanese were not carrying any such story, and there were no news flashes on the American news media, either. You were probably taken in by a hoaxer.

David, what would the average person think when he reads your posts? He's not going to think you're a liar, because you're not a liar. You know that, I know that, and most of the people here know that. But he's probably going to think that you post without thinking or following some of your sources through. He will see posts on this board about a death that didn't happen, martial law that didn't happen, laws that didn't happen -- and he's going to think that, since you don't have any credibility on some of those issues, you probably don't have any credibility on any other issues, either.

That's not a fair assumption on his part, David. I know that. But that's the way it is. Perceptions are everything when you have an agenda to push. If your agenda is important to you -- that is, if you really want to be a chemtrail activist rather than being a chemtrail hobbyist -- then you need to push your agenda. And you won't be able to push it if the people you want to convince perceive you as lacking credibility.

David, I'll ask you again: Is this the impression you want to give these people?

Regards,