Joker in Houston wants to get serious.

Why didn't you put this in the Houston sandbox?

I'm getting massage ads in Facebook Marketplace now. Seems like Zuck doesn't want to stop "Russian collusion." Originally Posted by gnadfly

Use two different browsers or don't use Google and Facebook while opening porn (or anything else you don't want them to track AND CONNECT to a real world identity). Or shut down and clean your browser history before using Facebook. Facebook and Google are tracking everyone's every move. If you looked at something on Amazon or at Lowes, etc., Facebook will soon show you an add for something similar.

Facebook and Google are tracking everyone's every move. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Biohazard me Ranky!

Oh, and I didn't start this in this forum. First I started a thread in Houston Co-Ed. Then another, but the same thread, in the Legal forum. A moderator or administrator must have moved it here.

I didn't even know it was moved. I didn't ask for it to be moved. I guess since I did not have a legal QUESTION it was deemed unworthy for that forum. I hope to add to the thread as the case develops and I think of questions. So far I have not thought of any more.

This was an old move to this forum. I think it's better for the legal forum if you actually want lawyers to weigh in.

It's not Facebook or Google I'm worried about.


Strange bedfellows, huh?

Biohazard me Ranky! Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

But then you're a special kind of stupid, aren't you, icky used? Because no other platform can so readily out your nefarious pursuits as "shared interests" to your friends and relatives as Facebook, icky used.

If you looked at something on Amazon or at Lowes, etc., Facebook will soon show you an add for something similar. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So if the Russians want to find out how the 2016 Presidential race is doing and they seek information from the DNC then the Russians end up with "pecker tracks" connected to the DNC website.

Then the Russians check to see how the RNC is doing and more "pecker tracks" get connections, then ....

.... "cross-contamination" through a Russian server.

"Got it!"

The "DNA" of the actual source is a challenge to identify.

Sounds like some "pinging" is appropriate to follow the trail.

So if the Russians want to find out how the 2016 Presidential race is doing and they seek information from the DNC then the Russians end up with "pecker tracks" connected to the DNC website.

Then the Russians check to see how the RNC is doing and more "pecker tracks" get connections, then ....

.... "cross-contamination" through a Russian server.

"Got it!"

The "DNA" of the actual source is a challenge to identify.

Sounds like some "pinging" is appropriate to follow the trail. Originally Posted by LexusLover

No. Actually all the Russians needed to do was contact Debbie Wasserman Schultz's Pakistani IT specialists for any info they may have needed.

Actually all the Russians needed to do was contact Debbie Wasserman Schultz's Pakistani IT specialists for any info they may have needed. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Russians didn't need to.

Only had to respond to "Debbie Wasserman Schultz's Pakistani IT specialists'" inquiry.

That was the "ping"!

Just another example here of spoiled rich brats, who were sent to law scholl by mommy and daddy, and living off trust funds. They are bored and have nothing better to do than dream up this kind of bottom dwelling BS to profit off human trafficking themselves!! All the while claiming to be holier than thow and pointing fingers, so smug in their riotousness. BOTTOM DWELLERS!!!

Shared interest?

Does facebook have more information on the citizenry than the "gub'ment", you dumb hick?
Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

The fact remains, that the gub'ment is much less likely to expose your prurient research to your family and friends in a crawler displaying topics you "like", icky used, than a bunch of 20 something eggheads with the social skills of a thirteen year olds.

Just another example here of spoiled rich brats, who were sent to law scholl by mommy and daddy, and living off trust funds. They are bored and have nothing better to do than dream up this kind of bottom dwelling BS to profit off human trafficking themselves!! All the while claiming to be holier than thow and pointing fingers, so smug in their riotousness. BOTTOM DWELLERS!!! Originally Posted by DocHolyday

The legislature "dreamed" this one up, and I suspect the legislative history doesn't disclose an intent for the statute to be used in the manner seemingly presented by the current lawsuit.

I'll "report" back on what I discover.

The legislature "dreamed" this one up, ......

I'll "report" back on what I discover. Originally Posted by LexusLover

If the elements and activities are based on Texas Penal Code cases for an analysis, then the civil litigants have a steep hill to climb with damages limited by the 2009 act. I found no civil case appellate opinions on the civil action. This cited lawsuit may end up being a "test case" if any commercial outfit has the "balls"!

. . . I suspect the legislative history doesn't disclose an intent for the statute to be used in the manner seemingly presented . . . Originally Posted by LexusLover

If the Congress didn't reveal this intent, meaning the one in which the current case presents, what WAS the expressed reason for passing the law? Just off the top of my head I am thinking labor. "Sex WORKERS".



This is somewhat over my head, but I definitely appreciate the input. Especially the research Lex. I have to break out my "Legal Dictionary" (Google) to put it in my terms.

I have to read and reread back and forth to put it together. Honestly I did not think this would go that far.

If the Congress didn't reveal this intent, meaning the one in which the current case presents, what WAS the expressed reason for passing the law? Just off the top of my head I am thinking labor. "Sex WORKERS".



This is somewhat over my head, ...... Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

With all due respect .... that's no shit!

... for starters .... "Congress didn't" pass the statute upon which the lawsuit is based ....

... and I don't think your "dictionary" will bail you out!