Thankfully the very existence of a blacklist (or even of general practice of people checking housing court lists) would be enough to claim special damages for even having to go to housing court.
Huh? I really have no idea what you are talking about here. I think you misunderstand. You come to me and want to rent one of my apartments, I look to see if you have ever been in housing court. If you have, no apartment for you.
Why don't you read the very last part of the paragraph you quoted.
The rules prohibit homeowner associations. landlords, state and local governments, or any third parties from placing restrictions that impair a customer antenna user's ability to install, maintain, or use such constomer antennas transmitting and/or receiving commercial non-broadcast communcations signals when the antenna is located "on property within the exclusive use or control" of the user where the user has direct or indirect ownership or leasehold in the property except under certain exceptions for safety or historical presevation
I do appreciate you finding this information, as I really don't have the time to research this myself at the moment. I can tell you that dormatories are not going to satisfy the criteria set forth in this rule, although from what else I have read it doesn't seem clear if these are truly dormatories or university owned apartments. I would bet it doesn't matter.
With students, I am sure that would be easy to argue.
Did you mean to say, "landlords (like the university) routinely illegally restrict all kinds of behavior"? You may be able to bully your tenants (if they actually exist and all this isn't just juvenile internet bravado) into compliance, but that doesn't make you right.
My right as a landlord to restrict smoking or the possession of firearms is firmly upheld, even in this extremely liberal city in which I unfortunately own property.
I am also curious, are you referring to me specifically? or do you honestly believe restricting behavior of tenants is in and of itself, illegal?
I was referring to contractual restrictions that are not explicitly prohibited by existing legislation. Also notice in the law you just mentioned, the reasonableness factor. We are talking about a lease restricting a right a person can otherwise enjoy (like owning a firearm, or having an orgy)
Is it reasonable to allow one guest over for the night? What a year? or 10 years?
How about 50 guests over in a night?
I can tell you if you think that law gives you the right to throw a crazy party in your apartment, you will be sadly mistaken.
Can't wait till you get sent to court!
Oh, and lets not forget about the other possibilities here. Piss of your landlord and your lease won't get renewed. End up in housing court anywhere in the country and you will be blacklisted from renting an apartment forever.
As a landlord, I could care less if I end up in housing court. I will do anything thats necessary to get a problem tenant out, as I prefer long term tenants who pay their rent on time and give me as little trouble as possible. I also take great pleasure in the aforementioned blacklisting.
Unfortuantely, your assessment of immigrants is based mostly on hearsay and popular mythology.
The vast majority of immigrants are not successful, and a disproportionate number result to crime, end up on public assistance, in prison, or worse.
Look at the latimes today. It turns out that 50% of people in Los Angeles over 16 can't even read.
You can bet your life 99% of those people are immigrants.
You can also take a drive through many immigrant neighborhoods in our major cities. They are all slums, and not a single immigrant group today understands cleanliness and exhibit no pride in their new home. How much money does it take to sweep the sidewalk in front of your apartment?
You exhibit the naivity of a suburban raised white person, indoctrinated to believe your culture is depraved and inferior yet who is too afraid to actually live amongst the immigrants you love.
I unfortunately do live among them, and witness their uncivilized and barbaric ways on a daily basis, so spare me any response that suggests I am being anything less that completely honest.
Yes, I actually own property and I put all sorts of restrictions on my tenants that would piss a character like you off to no end.
There are many sorts of behaviour that landlords are expressly prohibited from restricting.
Fine, name one (that does not involve the FCC).
Landlords cannot prohibit satellite antenae less than one meter in diameter in any space under the sole control of the tenant.
Actually, the ruling was regarding fair use of balconies under the exclusive control of the tenant. And the ruling expressly prohibited unreasonable restrictions.
Unfortunately, you are ignorant of some legal terminology here. The term "exclusive jurisdiction" has a very precise meaning that is not applicable to private contracts. In this case, the paragraph you cite is intended to establish only the FCC has the right to make law regarding the use of RFI, as opposed to state governments or any other governmental body.
It is also amusing you so casually dismiss the firearm example. The bill of rights establishes your right to own a firearm, and landlords can and do force you to relinquish that right... yet some bullshit congressional act regarding radio frequencies doesn't carry the same weight?
It seems to me there are many legitimate reasons why a university would want to have this policy. If this ever goes to trial, THAT is going to be the point of contention.
More than anything, that's the concept that is being missed in this this discussion.
No matter who your landlord is, the law gives you certain rights in an apartment. You have the right to install a satellite dish, and the FCC will heavily fine anyone who tries to stop you, even if your lease specifically forbids it.
You only have the right of which you speak if your apartment has a balcony, and the ruling states the landlord may not UNREASONABLY restrict your right to put in a dish WHEN THERE IS A BALCONY.
If you live in a high rise apartment building, it is probably almost impossible to put in a dish. If you live in a building with lots of units (25 per floor, 80 floors) there isn't enough room on the roof for all those dishes.
given the ruling allows landlords to REASONABLY restrict the use of antennas, I am 100% an FCC judge would find the university policy completely reasonable.
Did you notice one particular part of that ruling? Tenants can install dishes on their balcony.
I hate to tell you this, but a huge portion of apartments do not have balconies.
Their ruling was based on reasonableness given the circumstances of some apartments with balconies. It is not a de facto right in every dwelling in the country.
There is not a single FCC administrative judge that would consider the university's rule to be "unreasonable".
Don't you think, since reasonableness is a major rule here, the FCC would apply this same logic to a bunch of idiot college kids looking for a fight?
Ok, lets say you are renting an apartment on the 70th floor of a high rise apartment building. Do you really think that FCC rule applies? What if you live in a building with 500+ units in that 70 story high rise? Do you really think there is room on the roof for 500+ dishes? or ham radio antennas?
The FCC has not been at all as clear as you claim, and feasibility plays an important role in determining if such a right applies.
Further, universities are always exempt from these kinds of regulations. Dorms are not apartments, and college students are not considered tenants. The rules you are discussing would not apply for this reason alone.
I am afraid to inform you that your level of understanding of contracts and law is abysmal. Yes, thats right, you don't know jack shit about what you believe you do.
Have you ever even rented an apartment?
landlords (like the university) routinely restrict all kinds of legal behavior.
I have seen leases that prohibit the possession of a firearm or prohibit smoking.
There is absolutely no way any court in the country would find anything wrong with this regulation. If the tenant doesn't like it, they can simply find someplace else to live. its that simple.
All I am saying is the democrats had a prime opportunity to take the moral high ground and pick someone above reproach (like Howard Dean for instance).
Instead, they chose a typical, lying politician and now we have the very real possibility of an endless worldwide war against fantastic enemies.
Please provide a link for Kerry's hypothetical plan for correctly handling the invasion of Iraq.
I have read much of his criticism, and the evidence of which you speak, but I have yet to find any detailed alternative plan from the Democrat Party or their current presidential candidate. Further, as a military strategy is always subject to unknown factors, "evidence" that a particular strategy is flawed has to be overwhelming or very general (ie sending in troops with bolt action rifles is a flawed tactic).
I personally believe there was absolutely no justification for the invasion of Iraq. Further, I find Kerry's inability to take a stand against the war in its entirety, and not simply on its execution, to be the primary reason why he will lose this election.
Oh, that and his military record in Vietnam which proves him to be the morally bankrupt person he is.
Sorry, the Democrats had their chance to choose a path and a candidate that would certainly be Bush. Instead, they chose Kerry.
So you're saying that those who believe in Christianity (or perhaps Judaism, Muslim faith, Buddhism, etc.?) should be told to "get with the program" and have their freedom of religion stripped from them?
While Gatto doesn't get into religious discussion per se, his criticism of religion is distinctly like that of Nietzsche in many instances. Its been about two years since I have read this book, so I don't have it handy at the moment, but his primary criticism of the new state religion we call "education" was that it was, at its heart, a slave morality just as Nietzsche famously condemned Christianity.
To varying degrees, Nietzsche was also saying the same thing about all the religions you mention.
What Nietzsche and Gatto both have argued is that any moral system which defines one ideal always exists as a tool of enslavement. Whether it is one Jesus Christ or the happy and content student who spends all his time performing ridiculous mental and physical exercises, the end result is the same.
Or should the state declare the official religion as atheism? "You must believe that there is no higher power, and that you are worthless and have no purpose other than a product of the Universe's machinations."
Value is created by human imagination and hard work. The Christian concept of innate value is just as dangerous as the Educational concept of complete compliance. A person is not valuable simply because they exist, nor does following orders mean you are a good person.
Further, there should be different ideals of morality and existence. The artist shouldn't live by the same morality as the warrior or the politician or the farmer. This is why polytheism is so much better than monotheism.
What we need is an educational religion which accepts the many different paths of human existence, and prepares each person for their respective life. The one size fits all approach found in monotheistic religions and our current educational system has been a failure.
2. I submit that if you think religion is dying (especially Christianity), you aren't paying enough attention. Many of those around you are quite possibly of a faith, but choose to keep it to themselves instead of beating it over your head in an inappropriate forum.
It really doesn't matter what people believe in their heads. We are assessing our civilization by their deeds. By any measure, the west has become so thoroughly decadent it is almost comical the vast majority of people belong to an established religion. Religion is dying because it offers nothing of value to people living in our current world. It is a religion that provided a sense of purpose to the masses of slaves and allowed them to feel powerful (since they were BETTER than their masters, due to their suffering in life and inferior status "the meek shall inherit the earth").
Doesnt that mean that the pills which are said to include glucosamine in fact contain something else? You can't have an allergic reaction to an amino acid, only to proteins (or organisms which are composed of protein).
This is the reason free-form amino acids are on the market. Amino acids derived from other proteins are never 100% pure and should be avoided as their sources can be quite unusual.
But, uh, human life is rather common and cheap these days. The world's population is exploding and that means that there's a lot of surplus people around. So perhaps it's best just to execute the serial killers rather than spend too much time trying to understand why they do what they do.
You have correctly identified the large surplus population in the world, but you fail to understand how nature usually deals with this problem.
People fight to survive. We have been doing this for ages. Warfare, in its organized form, directly came about due to competition over scarce (for ancient technology) farmland. There would be no phalanx formation, or body armor, without surplus population.
The best way to deal with surplus population in our age of nuclear weapons is to institutionalize combat. There should be judiciary, only referees. All disputes should be settled in the combat arena, and the judge determines if the fight was fair.
This would get rid of a huge number of inferior people, such as the obese and physically defective.
There are a million ways we can incorporate combat into our civilization again before we become wholly inhuman pussies who can barely walk let alone fight.
We must raise our children to crave the taste of blood, and strive for physical AND intellectual perfect.
The warrior culture must return, less we all are destroyed.
How do you propose to determine the technical skills of a potential employee?
If a college degree doesn't matter, or a technical certification, then what? Do you plan to do week long interviews with every potential employee? Should everyone temp in the sink or swim world you envison?
Criticize the current system if you must, but providing no alternative is the sign of immaturity. So you want to fight. Big fucking deal. What are you fighting for?
its simply not right to write off nuclear accidents as being miniscule compared to damage caused by fossil fuels.
I don't know anything about your statistics, but I will accept them for the purposes of this argument. Even if 30,000 died, that number is wholly insignificant in comparison the environmental damage caused by burning fossil fuels. Millions of cases of cancer the world over can be attributed in some way to the pollution caused by these power plants. The enivironmental damage is also very difficult to quantify, but there are many who believe global warming caused by fossil fuels reduces arable land, which results in more frequent famines.
No matter how you look at it, the immediate cessation of using fossil fuels and the largscale adoption of nuclear power is the simplest ethical choice one can make. Millions of lives will be saved, and we will take an important step in avoiding serious ecological damage in the future.
Is that due to distance, or the inferior quality of roads in the north?
A quick look at my handy Microsoft Map Point says the entire costline of Norway is ~1500 miles, and the distance from Oslo to anywhere in Finnmark is about 750 miles on a direct route.
The distance from New York to San Francisco is 2500 miles.
Anyway, good luck getting back Edvard Munch's painting.
I always thought it was the server side contact list. That is one thing that always annoyed the shit out of me with ICQ. I had different contact lists on sooo many machines it was crazy.
Slashdot Mirror
Thankfully the very existence of a blacklist (or even of general practice of people checking housing court lists) would be enough to claim special damages for even having to go to housing court.
Huh? I really have no idea what you are talking about here. I think you misunderstand. You come to me and want to rent one of my apartments, I look to see if you have ever been in housing court. If you have, no apartment for you.
How are you going to sue me for that?
As I suspected, the FCC begs to differ.
Why don't you read the very last part of the paragraph you quoted.
The rules prohibit homeowner associations. landlords, state and local governments, or any third parties from placing restrictions that impair a customer antenna user's ability to install, maintain, or use such constomer antennas transmitting and/or receiving commercial non-broadcast communcations signals when the antenna is located "on property within the exclusive use or control" of the user where the user has direct or indirect ownership or leasehold in the property except under certain exceptions for safety or historical presevation
I do appreciate you finding this information, as I really don't have the time to research this myself at the moment. I can tell you that dormatories are not going to satisfy the criteria set forth in this rule, although from what else I have read it doesn't seem clear if these are truly dormatories or university owned apartments. I would bet it doesn't matter.
With students, I am sure that would be easy to argue.
Did you mean to say, "landlords (like the university) routinely illegally restrict all kinds of behavior"? You may be able to bully your tenants (if they actually exist and all this isn't just juvenile internet bravado) into compliance, but that doesn't make you right.
My right as a landlord to restrict smoking or the possession of firearms is firmly upheld, even in this extremely liberal city in which I unfortunately own property.
I am also curious, are you referring to me specifically? or do you honestly believe restricting behavior of tenants is in and of itself, illegal?
I guess I should rephrase that.
I was referring to contractual restrictions that are not explicitly prohibited by existing legislation. Also notice in the law you just mentioned, the reasonableness factor. We are talking about a lease restricting a right a person can otherwise enjoy (like owning a firearm, or having an orgy)
Is it reasonable to allow one guest over for the night? What a year? or 10 years?
How about 50 guests over in a night?
I can tell you if you think that law gives you the right to throw a crazy party in your apartment, you will be sadly mistaken.
Can't wait till you get sent to court!
Oh, and lets not forget about the other possibilities here. Piss of your landlord and your lease won't get renewed. End up in housing court anywhere in the country and you will be blacklisted from renting an apartment forever.
As a landlord, I could care less if I end up in housing court. I will do anything thats necessary to get a problem tenant out, as I prefer long term tenants who pay their rent on time and give me as little trouble as possible. I also take great pleasure in the aforementioned blacklisting.
Thats why everyone wants to come over here to go to Harvard or Yale or MIT or Oxford or Stanford or even our high schools.
Please tell me you know Oxford is not in the US.
Unfortuantely, your assessment of immigrants is based mostly on hearsay and popular mythology.
The vast majority of immigrants are not successful, and a disproportionate number result to crime, end up on public assistance, in prison, or worse.
Look at the latimes today. It turns out that 50% of people in Los Angeles over 16 can't even read.
You can bet your life 99% of those people are immigrants.
You can also take a drive through many immigrant neighborhoods in our major cities. They are all slums, and not a single immigrant group today understands cleanliness and exhibit no pride in their new home. How much money does it take to sweep the sidewalk in front of your apartment?
You exhibit the naivity of a suburban raised white person, indoctrinated to believe your culture is depraved and inferior yet who is too afraid to actually live amongst the immigrants you love.
I unfortunately do live among them, and witness their uncivilized and barbaric ways on a daily basis, so spare me any response that suggests I am being anything less that completely honest.
Have you ever written a lease agreement?
Yes, I actually own property and I put all sorts of restrictions on my tenants that would piss a character like you off to no end.
There are many sorts of behaviour that landlords are expressly prohibited from restricting.
Fine, name one (that does not involve the FCC).
Landlords cannot prohibit satellite antenae less than one meter in diameter in any space under the sole control of the tenant.
Actually, the ruling was regarding fair use of balconies under the exclusive control of the tenant. And the ruling expressly prohibited unreasonable restrictions.
Unfortunately, you are ignorant of some legal terminology here. The term "exclusive jurisdiction" has a very precise meaning that is not applicable to private contracts. In this case, the paragraph you cite is intended to establish only the FCC has the right to make law regarding the use of RFI, as opposed to state governments or any other governmental body.
Why don't you read the definition on FindLaw
It is also amusing you so casually dismiss the firearm example. The bill of rights establishes your right to own a firearm, and landlords can and do force you to relinquish that right... yet some bullshit congressional act regarding radio frequencies doesn't carry the same weight?
Try and think logically here, at the very least.
You are right, but this should be the debate.
It seems to me there are many legitimate reasons why a university would want to have this policy. If this ever goes to trial, THAT is going to be the point of contention.
More than anything, that's the concept that is being missed in this this discussion.
Are we talking about airports?
I don't see how that ruling applies, and a partial sentence excerpt hardly qualifies as the final authority on the matter.
A business has a reasonable expectation they can utilize public frequencies.
We aren't talking about that, we are talking about a university regulating how its students behave on their property.
No matter who your landlord is, the law gives you certain rights in an apartment. You have the right to install a satellite dish, and the FCC will heavily fine anyone who tries to stop you, even if your lease specifically forbids it.
You only have the right of which you speak if your apartment has a balcony, and the ruling states the landlord may not UNREASONABLY restrict your right to put in a dish WHEN THERE IS A BALCONY.
If you live in a high rise apartment building, it is probably almost impossible to put in a dish. If you live in a building with lots of units (25 per floor, 80 floors) there isn't enough room on the roof for all those dishes.
given the ruling allows landlords to REASONABLY restrict the use of antennas, I am 100% an FCC judge would find the university policy completely reasonable.
Did you notice one particular part of that ruling? Tenants can install dishes on their balcony.
I hate to tell you this, but a huge portion of apartments do not have balconies.
Their ruling was based on reasonableness given the circumstances of some apartments with balconies. It is not a de facto right in every dwelling in the country.
There is not a single FCC administrative judge that would consider the university's rule to be "unreasonable".
Don't you think, since reasonableness is a major rule here, the FCC would apply this same logic to a bunch of idiot college kids looking for a fight?
Ok, lets say you are renting an apartment on the 70th floor of a high rise apartment building. Do you really think that FCC rule applies? What if you live in a building with 500+ units in that 70 story high rise? Do you really think there is room on the roof for 500+ dishes? or ham radio antennas?
The FCC has not been at all as clear as you claim, and feasibility plays an important role in determining if such a right applies.
Further, universities are always exempt from these kinds of regulations. Dorms are not apartments, and college students are not considered tenants. The rules you are discussing would not apply for this reason alone.
I am afraid to inform you that your level of understanding of contracts and law is abysmal. Yes, thats right, you don't know jack shit about what you believe you do.
Have you ever even rented an apartment?
landlords (like the university) routinely restrict all kinds of legal behavior.
I have seen leases that prohibit the possession of a firearm or prohibit smoking.
There is absolutely no way any court in the country would find anything wrong with this regulation. If the tenant doesn't like it, they can simply find someplace else to live. its that simple.
Did I say Bush was a better man? No.
All I am saying is the democrats had a prime opportunity to take the moral high ground and pick someone above reproach (like Howard Dean for instance).
Instead, they chose a typical, lying politician and now we have the very real possibility of an endless worldwide war against fantastic enemies.
Please provide a link for Kerry's hypothetical plan for correctly handling the invasion of Iraq.
I have read much of his criticism, and the evidence of which you speak, but I have yet to find any detailed alternative plan from the Democrat Party or their current presidential candidate. Further, as a military strategy is always subject to unknown factors, "evidence" that a particular strategy is flawed has to be overwhelming or very general (ie sending in troops with bolt action rifles is a flawed tactic).
I personally believe there was absolutely no justification for the invasion of Iraq. Further, I find Kerry's inability to take a stand against the war in its entirety, and not simply on its execution, to be the primary reason why he will lose this election.
Oh, that and his military record in Vietnam which proves him to be the morally bankrupt person he is.
Sorry, the Democrats had their chance to choose a path and a candidate that would certainly be Bush. Instead, they chose Kerry.
So you're saying that those who believe in Christianity (or perhaps Judaism, Muslim faith, Buddhism, etc.?) should be told to "get with the program" and have their freedom of religion stripped from them?
While Gatto doesn't get into religious discussion per se, his criticism of religion is distinctly like that of Nietzsche in many instances. Its been about two years since I have read this book, so I don't have it handy at the moment, but his primary criticism of the new state religion we call "education" was that it was, at its heart, a slave morality just as Nietzsche famously condemned Christianity.
To varying degrees, Nietzsche was also saying the same thing about all the religions you mention.
What Nietzsche and Gatto both have argued is that any moral system which defines one ideal always exists as a tool of enslavement. Whether it is one Jesus Christ or the happy and content student who spends all his time performing ridiculous mental and physical exercises, the end result is the same.
Or should the state declare the official religion as atheism? "You must believe that there is no higher power, and that you are worthless and have no purpose other than a product of the Universe's machinations."
Value is created by human imagination and hard work. The Christian concept of innate value is just as dangerous as the Educational concept of complete compliance. A person is not valuable simply because they exist, nor does following orders mean you are a good person.
Further, there should be different ideals of morality and existence. The artist shouldn't live by the same morality as the warrior or the politician or the farmer. This is why polytheism is so much better than monotheism.
What we need is an educational religion which accepts the many different paths of human existence, and prepares each person for their respective life. The one size fits all approach found in monotheistic religions and our current educational system has been a failure.
2. I submit that if you think religion is dying (especially Christianity), you aren't paying enough attention. Many of those around you are quite possibly of a faith, but choose to keep it to themselves instead of beating it over your head in an inappropriate forum.
It really doesn't matter what people believe in their heads. We are assessing our civilization by their deeds. By any measure, the west has become so thoroughly decadent it is almost comical the vast majority of people belong to an established religion. Religion is dying because it offers nothing of value to people living in our current world. It is a religion that provided a sense of purpose to the masses of slaves and allowed them to feel powerful (since they were BETTER than their masters, due to their suffering in life and inferior status "the meek shall inherit the earth").
Well, why not include video inputs?
Also, TV tuners are dirt cheap. What's $20 on a machine like that?
Doesnt that mean that the pills which are said to include glucosamine in fact contain something else? You can't have an allergic reaction to an amino acid, only to proteins (or organisms which are composed of protein).
This is the reason free-form amino acids are on the market. Amino acids derived from other proteins are never 100% pure and should be avoided as their sources can be quite unusual.
Ahh yes, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr were klingon, right?
Combat was a legitimate means to dispute resolution even in the US until the 20th century.
But, uh, human life is rather common and cheap these days. The world's population is exploding and that means that there's a lot of surplus people around. So perhaps it's best just to execute the serial killers rather than spend too much time trying to understand why they do what they do.
You have correctly identified the large surplus population in the world, but you fail to understand how nature usually deals with this problem.
People fight to survive. We have been doing this for ages. Warfare, in its organized form, directly came about due to competition over scarce (for ancient technology) farmland. There would be no phalanx formation, or body armor, without surplus population.
The best way to deal with surplus population in our age of nuclear weapons is to institutionalize combat. There should be judiciary, only referees. All disputes should be settled in the combat arena, and the judge determines if the fight was fair.
This would get rid of a huge number of inferior people, such as the obese and physically defective.
There are a million ways we can incorporate combat into our civilization again before we become wholly inhuman pussies who can barely walk let alone fight.
We must raise our children to crave the taste of blood, and strive for physical AND intellectual perfect.
The warrior culture must return, less we all are destroyed.
that Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf is not on that list.
How do you propose to determine the technical skills of a potential employee?
If a college degree doesn't matter, or a technical certification, then what? Do you plan to do week long interviews with every potential employee? Should everyone temp in the sink or swim world you envison?
Criticize the current system if you must, but providing no alternative is the sign of immaturity. So you want to fight. Big fucking deal. What are you fighting for?
its simply not right to write off nuclear accidents as being miniscule compared to damage caused by fossil fuels.
I don't know anything about your statistics, but I will accept them for the purposes of this argument. Even if 30,000 died, that number is wholly insignificant in comparison the environmental damage caused by burning fossil fuels. Millions of cases of cancer the world over can be attributed in some way to the pollution caused by these power plants. The enivironmental damage is also very difficult to quantify, but there are many who believe global warming caused by fossil fuels reduces arable land, which results in more frequent famines.
No matter how you look at it, the immediate cessation of using fossil fuels and the largscale adoption of nuclear power is the simplest ethical choice one can make. Millions of lives will be saved, and we will take an important step in avoiding serious ecological damage in the future.
Is that due to distance, or the inferior quality of roads in the north?
A quick look at my handy Microsoft Map Point says the entire costline of Norway is ~1500 miles, and the distance from Oslo to anywhere in Finnmark is about 750 miles on a direct route.
The distance from New York to San Francisco is 2500 miles.
Anyway, good luck getting back Edvard Munch's painting.
I always thought it was the server side contact list. That is one thing that always annoyed the shit out of me with ICQ. I had different contact lists on sooo many machines it was crazy.