THE SOURCE FOR THE HILLARY/ RICKIE STORY JUST FOR DEMOCRAT LOVER
ANITA:
********
See other reports. Note the moderator mentioned "602P" in the
question:
http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=00/10/08/1824259&mode=nested
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/hoax001008.html
********
>Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 11:59:11 -0700
>To: declan@well.com
>From: "A.Lizard"
>Subject: Re: FC: Lazio and Clinton fall for hoax email tax during
> Senate debate
>
>At 13:46 2000-10-08 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>>very long time. Unfortunately, it appears that the questions at
the debate
>>>(which was telecast live at least nationally by CNN and locally in
NY by
>>>other outlets) were not properly vetted.
>
>Alas for missed opportunities. Those candidates could have gotten
some
>truly amazing questions which would have revealed both as dangerous
idiots
>to even the average NY resident. Or at least provided some harmless
>entertainment.
>
>A.Lizard
********
>Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 12:00:27 -0700
>To: declan@well.com, politech@politechbot.com
>From: Bill Stewart
>Subject: Re: FC: Lazio and Clinton fall for hoax email tax during
> Senate debate
>Cc: lauren@pfir.org, neumann@pfir.org
>
>At least they knee-jerk opposed it instead of knee-jerk supporting
it.
>Besides, while we know there's no such bill, because the hoax has
>been around for a long time, that doesn't mean some random
>Congresscritter wouldn't have introduced something like that,
>and there are a lot of state legislatures out there trying to
>tax internet transactions.
>
>The original bill certainly wasn't the US Senate,
>but may have been some random state or provincial senate.
********
>To: Bill Stewart
>cc: declan@well.com, politech@politechbot.com, lauren@pfir.org,
> neumann@pfir.org
>Subject: Re: FC: Lazio and Clinton fall for hoax email tax during
Senate
>debate
>Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 12:24:09 -0700
>From: Lauren Weinstein
>
> > At least they knee-jerk opposed it instead of knee-jerk
supporting it.
> > Besides, while we know there's no such bill, because the hoax has
> > been around for a long time, that doesn't mean some random
> > Congresscritter wouldn't have introduced something like that,
> > and there are a lot of state legislatures out there trying to
> > tax internet transactions.
> > The original bill certainly wasn't the US Senate,
> > but may have been some random state or provincial senate.
>
>There are a whole slew of variations on this hoax floating around,
varying
>in details, but all following the same basic storyline -- a per e-
mail
>message tax to be used by the USPS. Only the federal government
could
>impose a tax that would be used by the USPS, and that's what this
hoax has
>always been talking about. I can't see the value in speculating
about what
>someone *might* do or *could* have done. The point is that the
legislation
>described does not exist, has never existed, and that even a cursory
>examination of the issue would reveal the story to be bogus.
>
>The key to a successful hoax is to come up with a concept that
>seems somehow "plausible" (though false) then to get people
>to pass it around as truth. The result of such misinformation
>campaigns is confusion that can only damage society and upset
individuals,
>which of course is often the goal of the hoaxer.
>
>--Lauren--
>Lauren Weinstein
>lauren@pfir.org or lauren@vortex.com or lauren@privacyforum.org
>Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility -
http://www.pfir.org
>Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
>Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
********
>From: vicric@panix.com
>Subject: Re: FC: Lazio and Clinton fall for hoax email tax during
Senate
>debate
>To: declan@well.com
>Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 09:15:57 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
>
>Declan McCullagh has written:
>
> > >Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 09:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
> > >From: Lauren Weinstein
> > >To: farber@cis.upenn.edu
> > >Subject: Hoax E-Mail Tax Bill Question at U.S. Senate (NY) Debate
> > >Cc: lauren@pfir.org, neumann@pfir.org
> > >
> > >Dave,
> > >
> > >Greetings. I thought a heads-up on this might be in order.
This
> morning at
> > >the Clinton/Lazio debate to fill the U.S. Senate seat from the
state
> of New
> > >York, the candidates were asked about a pending Senate Bill to
impose an
> > >E-Mail Tax (usually designated Bill 602P). Both candidates
denounced it.
>
>Actually, only Lazio denounced it.
>
>Clinton first said she had never heard of such a thing. Then
>Hillary expressed her general principle against taxing the
>Internet, qualifying her opposition with the phrase "based
>on your description." She never presumed such a bill
>existed.
>
>Rick, however, described the "bill" as another example of
>"greedy government." He clearly accepted the bill's
>existence as a matter of fact.
>
>Furthermore, as a member of Congress, Lazio should have
>heard of the hoax, and should have recognized a phony index
>number.
>
>Solidarity,
>Vicki
********
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---
POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact.
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---
-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), October 11, 2000.
You're citing a MAIL LIST as a source?!?!
But no matter, you've actually (and no doubt, inadvertently) helped
to back up what Anita said anyway (did you actually read this?):
"...Actually, only Lazio denounced it. >>Clinton first said she
had never heard of such a thing. Then >Hillary expressed her general
principle against taxing the >Internet, qualifying her opposition with
the phrase "based >on your description." She never presumed such a
bill >existed...."
Your citing then goes on to state that as a member of Congress,
Lazio should have been aware of any such bill's existence.
Apparently, he wasn't. How comforting.
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), October 11, 2000.