FSC & 2257 in XBiz article, enlighten me please - GoFuckYourself.com

DamageX · 06-03-2005, 12:35 AM

Alright, enlighten me, please, 'cause I just don't fucking get it...

This is what XBiz say, in an article covering the overwhelming support the FSC has been getting in regards to their soon-to-be-filed suit:

Quote:

"The response has been overwhelming," Freridge said, referring to the hundreds of membership applications and donations that have been received since the new regulations were approved on May 23.

Only FSC members will enjoy the benefits if the lawsuit is successful in striking down aspects of 2257, which many fear could have a devastating effect on the industry if something isn't done to oppose it.

Not the bolded part in the quote, please help me understand this... If the lawsuit is successful, how will ONLY FSC members benefit from this? Suddenly the DOJ is gonna decide that the law is no longer applicable to them and throw everyone else in jail? I'd say this is a nice piece of false advertising, but please enlighten me if I happen to be wrong.

DamageX · 06-03-2005, 01:12 AM

Anyone?

Major (Tom) · 06-03-2005, 01:41 AM

from what i know only the people filing the injunction are covered in the injuction, i.e, the fsc & its members. Now this does not mean you are immune to the law, not in the least. You will still have to be 2257 compliant. it problally just means that the things in the law that are questionable you may have more protection from if you were inspected.

I could be wrong, I am not an attorney, so pls dont take what I say as gospel. Regardless, become a member.
Duke

2HousePlague · 06-03-2005, 01:45 AM

link -- ? --

j-

chemicaleyes · 06-03-2005, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2HousePlague

link -- ? --

j-

http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=8984

2HousePlague · 06-03-2005, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chemicaleyes

http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=8984

thanks -- it seems there is also this one from June 2nd:

http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=8987

j-

polish_aristocrat · 06-03-2005, 02:24 AM

enlighten us if you still grow TGP's

tradermcduck · 06-03-2005, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polish_aristocrat

enlighten us if you still grow TGP's

tell us some secrets

ffmihai · 06-03-2005, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tradermcduck

tell us some secrets

first, ive heard you are supposed to have a huge cock!

DWB · 06-03-2005, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DukeSkywalker

from what i know only the people filing the injunction are covered in the injuction, i.e, the fsc & its members. Now this does not mean you are immune to the law, not in the least. You will still have to be 2257 compliant.

That is exactly what it means.

If the new changes are totally struck down, then it goes away for everyone.

DamageX · 06-03-2005, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DukeSkywalker

from what i know only the people filing the injunction are covered in the injuction, i.e, the fsc & its members. Now this does not mean you are immune to the law, not in the least. You will still have to be 2257 compliant. it problally just means that the things in the law that are questionable you may have more protection from if you were inspected.

I could be wrong, I am not an attorney, so pls dont take what I say as gospel. Regardless, become a member.
Duke

Yes, I understood the fact that only FSC members will be covered in the injunction. However, the article says that "Only FSC members will enjoy the benefits if the lawsuit is successful in striking down aspects of 2257", which means they're not talking about the injunction. The injunction means they're simply not enforce that law upon FSC members while this thing is in court, whereas the lawsuit being "successful in striking down aspects of 2257" means the law is actually going to get altered after they win the lawsuit. Meaning, how the fuck can only FSC members enjoy benefits?

I'm no lawyer and English isn't my native language, but to me it sounds like either the one who wrote the article has done shit for research, or a cheap plug for scared fools to run and join the FSC, 'cause otherwise they'll be thrown in jail, should the FSC win.

xxxjay · 06-03-2005, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamageX

Yes, I understood the fact that only FSC members will be covered in the injunction. However, the article says that "Only FSC members will enjoy the benefits if the lawsuit is successful in striking down aspects of 2257", which means they're not talking about the injunction. The injunction means they're simply not enforce that law upon FSC members while this thing is in court, whereas the lawsuit being "successful in striking down aspects of 2257" means the law is actually going to get altered after they win the lawsuit. Meaning, how the fuck can only FSC members enjoy benefits?

I'm no lawyer and English isn't my native language, but to me it sounds like either the one who wrote the article has done shit for research, or a cheap plug for scared fools to run and join the FSC, 'cause otherwise they'll be thrown in jail, should the FSC win.

Read this:
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=474794

DamageX · 06-03-2005, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Read this:
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=474794

Although I'm normally not the lazy type, I'm not gonna waste my time on sifting through all that. The question I asked was rather did the XBiz article writer fuck up on the research or is the FSC pulling tricks to get us to chip in? 'Cause anything else, according to that article, is not the case.

xxxjay · 06-03-2005, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamageX

Although I'm normally not the lazy type, I'm not gonna waste my time on sifting through all that. The question I asked was rather did the XBiz article writer fuck up on the research or is the FSC pulling tricks to get us to chip in? 'Cause anything else, according to that article, is not the case.

Just read the first post.

DamageX · 06-03-2005, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Just read the first post.

I did and it doesn't answer my question. He spoke about the people covered by the injunction, the article mentioned that "Only FSC members will enjoy the benefits if the lawsuit is successful in striking down aspects of 2257". Call me crazy, but I have a feeling that between filing for an injunction and the lawsuit being successful there's a huge fucking difference.

421Fill · 06-03-2005, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamageX

English isn't my native language...

fuck, you speak better english than most US citizens... that is all... please resume the topic at hand.

DamageX · 06-03-2005, 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbo

fuck, you speak better english than most US citizens... that is all... please resume the topic at hand.

Thank you, that I am aware of. Just wish THEY were aware of that too.

FightThisPatent · 06-03-2005, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Read this:
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=474794

and read xxxjay's post #25 in this thread:
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...4&page=1&pp=50

not even an apology in small caps.

Fight the 180!

06-03-2005, 01:41 AM	#3
Major (Tom) Boomer Woffen Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Null Posts: 30,532	from what i know only the people filing the injunction are covered in the injuction, i.e, the fsc & its members. Now this does not mean you are immune to the law, not in the least. You will still have to be 2257 compliant. it problally just means that the things in the law that are questionable you may have more protection from if you were inspected. I could be wrong, I am not an attorney, so pls dont take what I say as gospel. Regardless, become a member. Duke __________________ My mother said, to get things done You'd better not mess with Major Tom

06-03-2005, 01:45 AM	#4
2HousePlague CURATOR Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: the attic Posts: 14,572	link -- ? -- j- __________________ tada!

06-03-2005, 02:24 AM	#7
polish_aristocrat Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 40,377	enlighten us if you still grow TGP's __________________ I don't use ICQ anymore.

06-03-2005, 01:12 AM	#2
DamageX Marketing & Strategy Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Former nomad Posts: 14,293	Anyone? __________________ Whitehat is for chumps If you don't do it, somebody else will - true story!