Hillary and Rickie scammed by Oldest Net Hoax going.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

Both Oppose E-Mail Tax Bill (Good, Because It Doesn't Exist)

There is no pending legislation that would levy a tax on e-mail messages. But neither New York Senate candidate seemed aware of that in their debate. The bill has become a sort of urban myth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/09/technology/09SPAM.html

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), October 09, 2000

Answers

Hillary said, "I never heard of any such bill." Rickie was the only one who said he wouldn't vote for it.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 09, 2000.

...And, FWIW, here's the link straight to the horse's whatever. (Remember what Douglas Adams said: Don't Panic.)

E-mail Rumor Completely Untrue

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), October 09, 2000.


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.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ