NationStates Jolt Archive

I tried this out. I usually record most conversations. I played out a conversation I had with a girl's friend. I liked the girl but my attraction was toned when she said she liked sleeping around. But I never told her that. I was always "I am much happier now that you are around."
But when I played it backwards today, I got this: "She's a mexican whore. She's a slut."
Thing is I never told her or anyone that. Just two weeks ago, I saw her, after not seeing her for about a month, and she insisted that I called her a "mexican whore and a slut".
This is weird.
I didn't even know I was said that.
Anyone else try this?

Edit: Forget to put in this link: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2003/06/10.html

*sigh*
I give up, you really are just a troll.
*walks away*

Woah. Wait, back up a second...

You talked to a GIRL? :D

Well done boy! Drinks all around!

It's not that hard unless they are very very very attractive.
Though I don't talk to her anymore. Treachorus slut she is.

It's not that hard unless they are very very very attractive.
Though I don't talk to her anymore. Treachorus slut she is.
REALLY?

*crosses arms*

Tell me about it. Those girls are something, huh?


And talk about those sluts! I hate the lot of them. Though I have about a gig of sluts stored on my computer. Sweet irony.

REALLY?

*crosses arms*

Tell me about it. Those girls are something, huh?
Well, I didn't even want her to know I was thinking that. Cause I didn't want it to "offend" her.
Supposedly she moved to Tucson. So I stopped going there. Cause I didn't think I would see her again. Though I saw over this last weekend. Needless to say, we didn't talk or acknowledge each. Just stared. I pretended to be preoccuppied. But when she wasn't looking I watched out of curiosity as she was leaving. I know she saw me. That was when I feigned preoccupation and (what do you call it) self absorption by looking the other way and sticking my nose in the air.

Well, I didn't even want her to know I was thinking that. Cause I didn't want it to "offend" her.
Supposedly she moved to Tucson. So I stopped going there. Cause I didn't think I would see her again. Though I saw over this last weekend. Needless to say, we didn't talk or acknowledge each. Just stared. I pretended to be preoccuppied. But when she wasn't looking I watched out of curiosity as she was leaving. I know she saw me. That was when I feigned preoccupation and (what do you call it) self absorption by looking the other way and sticking my nose in the air.
Okay I can't emphasize because I've never had a girl downright hate the living guts of mine and apparently wish that I would burn in hell. That's assuming she hates the living guts of yours and wishes you would burn in hell.

Mods: No, it's not flamebait. Jesus, be reasonable!

REALLY?

*crosses arms*

Tell me about it. Those girls are something, huh?


And talk about those sluts! I hate the lot of them. Though I have about a gig of sluts stored on my computer. Sweet irony.

And you're what? Fourteen? Lol.

And you're what? Fourteen? Lol.
15 in about 9 days. :D

I demand cash.

I tried this out. I usually record most conversations. I played out a conversation I had with a girl's friend. I liked the girl but my attraction was toned when she said she liked sleeping around. But I never told her that. I was always "I am much happier now that you are around."
But when I played it backwards today, I got this: "She's a mexican whore. She's a slut."
Thing is I never told her or anyone that. Just two weeks ago, I saw her, after not seeing her for about a month, and she insisted that I called her a "mexican whore and a slut".
This is weird.
I didn't even know I was said that.
Anyone else try this?

Edit: Forget to put in this link: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2003/06/10.html

Now you know the power of mass media!!! :gundge:

15 in about 9 days. :D

I demand cash.

*blank face*

Cash? What cash

*whistles and walks away*

I'll try to remember, though I'm very very bad at dates.

Are you asking us if it's weird that you record your conversations, or that you then took those conversations and played them backwards?

It's not that hard unless they are very very very attractive.
Though I don't talk to her anymore. Treachorus slut she is.Funny, I can talk very well to even attractive girls. And that's even before my first drink. ;)

It's funny, I'm completely introverted, yet do very well on the social scene. It's probably due to my charm, natural ease in such situations, good looks, sharp sense of humor, and of course, extreme modesty, too. ;)

Okay I can't emphasize because I've never had a girl downright hate the living guts of mine and apparently wish that I would burn in hell. That's assuming she hates the living guts of yours and wishes you would burn in hell.

Mods: No, it's not flamebait. Jesus, be reasonable!
She doesn't hate me. If she did, she would not talk to me or acknowledge me. Especially since she seemed to be really hurt by the idea I would say that about her. If she hated me, why would such a thing make her feel sad?
I had to apologize for something I didn't say cause she was on the verge of crying. And that made me feel uncomfortable.
Actually anytime someone looks like they are going to cry makes me very uncomfortable. Empathy is the world's worst curse.

15 in about 9 days. :D

I demand cash.Counterfeit or fake?

:rolleyes:

I'm turning 4 in three weeks! I want gold bullion for my birthday! :p

Okay I can't emphasize because I've never had a girl downright hate the living guts of mine and apparently wish that I would burn in hell. That's assuming she hates the living guts of yours and wishes you would burn in hell.

Mods: No, it's not flamebait. Jesus, be reasonable!
Flamebait? Why would it be?

Funny, I can talk very well to even attractive girls. And that's even before my first drink. ;)

It's funny, I'm completely introverted, yet do very well on the social scene. It's probably due to my charm, natural ease in such situations, good looks, sharp sense of humor, and of course, extreme modesty, too. ;)
I transitioned from intro to intra during 9th grade this last school year.

Girls are REALLY easy to make them laugh. And guys understand and join in on your random joking around.

I just turned intra. Eh. And now it's so easy to talk to girls.

Remember, whenever possible, your first conversation with a girl should make them laugh.

Flamebait? Why would it be?
Maybe it's just me, but Fris is pretty damn strict about everything. He pops up out of nowhere and taps me with his magic mod wand and tasers me...virtually.

I usually record most conversations
I have no idea since I don't know you, but please tell me that you request permission from those recorded before you even touch the li'l machine.

If not, it sounds like you're having a Big Brother jerkfest and should get prosecuted for invading someone's privacy.

Of course, everyone who knows you probably knows they'll be recorded, but for those who don't, I really hope they find out before you get Orwell on them dude.

REALLY?

*crosses arms*

Tell me about it. Those girls are something, huh?


And talk about those sluts! I hate the lot of them. Though I have about a gig of sluts stored on my computer. Sweet irony.Colodia...? ^_^

*looks over Colodia's shoulder*

I transitioned from intro to intra during 9th grade this last school year.

Girls are REALLY easy to make them laugh. And guys understand and join in on your random joking around.

I just turned intra. Eh. And now it's so easy to talk to girls.

Remember, whenever possible, your first conversation with a girl should make them laugh.Yeah, I seem to make people laugh.

But in other moods I make them cry...I'm maybe not as successful at that kind of thing.

And for some reason, despite my amazingly perfect qualities, I don't have a girl friend yet. Strange, isn't it? ;)

Funny, I can talk very well to even attractive girls. And that's even before my first drink. ;)

It's funny, I'm completely introverted, yet do very well on the social scene. It's probably due to my charm, natural ease in such situations, good looks, sharp sense of humor, and of course, extreme modesty, too. ;)
Come to think of it, ever since I saw her July 4, I've been talking to other girls, even attractive ones. Just to try and get her out of my mind. If I can hook with a different girl, I will be free of her.
I told one girl "I'm much better now that I've met you." Course she was attractive and I never said anything like that to an attractive girl before. I had just met her too. She doesn't drink or smoke. Her parents were alcoholics. Like mine were.
I wish I could meet her again. I never seen a beautiful girl before that I had something in common with.

I transitioned from intro to intra during 9th grade this last school year.

Girls are REALLY easy to make them laugh. And guys understand and join in on your random joking around.

I just turned intra. Eh. And now it's so easy to talk to girls.

Remember, whenever possible, your first conversation with a girl should make them laugh.
I try to make people I like (or have the potential to like), as friends (or more), laugh in any conversation I have with them, regardless of any thoughts I may or may not have concerning the possibility of some sort of real relationship developing.
Why? Because if they're having even the slightest bad day, but don't want to talk to me about it (maybe because they don't feel comfortable discussing it with me, or maybe because it's not that important), then I take them away from that even for the very shortest amount of time.

I actually make it a point to make people laugh when having a serious conversation as well, but only a quick laugh, and one that won't distract too much from the gravity of the situation, because it helps people from building up situations to be too tense, or more than what they are.

And I'm glad to say that I have more girl friends than guy friends.

I transitioned from intro to intra during 9th grade this last school year.

Girls are REALLY easy to make them laugh. And guys understand and join in on your random joking around.

I just turned intra. Eh. And now it's so easy to talk to girls.

Remember, whenever possible, your first conversation with a girl should make them laugh.
I've never had a problem with that actually. For some reason, when I'm around I seem to be the first person they want to talk to. Though, I feel I am being watched. But sometimes I don't care if I am.

Uhm...

How old is everyone here?

--
Did you see that I sent you a tele?

I have no idea since I don't know you, but please tell me that you request permission from those recorded before you even touch the li'l machine.

If not, it sounds like you're having a Big Brother jerkfest and should get prosecuted for invading someone's privacy.

Of course, everyone who knows you probably knows they'll be recorded, but for those who don't, I really hope they find out before you get Orwell on them dude.
Actually I do it since I don't trust them. They might try to claim I said something I didn't say. So if I record it, and they say I said something I didn't, I got proof.
People used to do that a lot.

Uhm...

How old is everyone here?
Turning 15 on the 17th. ;)

Yeah I know what your thinking.

Yeah, I seem to make people laugh.

But in other moods I make them cry...I'm maybe not as successful at that kind of thing.

And for some reason, despite my amazingly perfect qualities, I don't have a girl friend yet. Strange, isn't it? ;)
Eh. I've never made a girl cry. Is that a requirement? Is that what I am missing?

Turning 15 on the 17th. ;)

Yeah I know what your thinking.
I was pretty sure I knew your age. Quite some time ago, I was here as a different nation and remembered you.


As far as making girls cry, yes, I've done it, and for multiple reasons..

Whittier, unless you're a politician, don't apologise for what you didn't do. You can be sorry that her feelings are hurt, but be sorry for hurting her feelings. Girls are not automatically entitled to apologies from guys. I hate it when some females cry for equal rights at the workplace and society, but still believe that guys should grovel at their feet.

Counterfeit or fake?
Or Johnny?

wait, you guys are all 15 year olds?

wait, you guys are all 15 year olds?
No. Colodia is almost 15. How old are you?

I tried this out. I usually record most conversations. I played out a conversation I had with a girl's friend. I liked the girl but my attraction was toned when she said she liked sleeping around. But I never told her that. I was always "I am much happier now that you are around."
But when I played it backwards today, I got this: "She's a mexican whore. She's a slut."
Thing is I never told her or anyone that. Just two weeks ago, I saw her, after not seeing her for about a month, and she insisted that I called her a "mexican whore and a slut".
This is weird.
I didn't even know I was said that.
Anyone else try this?

Edit: Forget to put in this link: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2003/06/10.html

You recorded your conversations with a girl? :eek:

Ick.

That is not cool. That is weird. In many states, that is criminal.

Maybe it's just me, but Fris is pretty damn strict about everything. He pops up out of nowhere and taps me with his magic mod wand and tasers me...virtually.Well you are an uber-spammer, Frisbee's favorite target. He usually takes the spammers and flamers, while Cog seems to go after trolls, and Kat is left with the ones the other two missed. ;) Cog's also still a forum mod at heart, b/c whenever someone makes a complaint about game modding, he's never the one who handled their case.

The rest of the mods are practically never seen and therefore, nonexistent. Despite initial appearances, Frisbeeteria, Katganistan, and Cogitation are not the whole moderating team. (If they were we'd get away with a whole lot more, lol.)

Did you see that I sent you a tele?
I really never check them, so thanks for reminding me. I'm there now bro.

wait, you guys are all 15 year olds?

I'm going to be 18 in less than a month.

*dances all around the thread*

Good. I thought this thread had only attracted 15 year olds. Your closer to my age. 31.
I think you can understand that some things are different at this age than they are at 15.

I really never check them, so thanks for reminding me. I'm there now bro.
Heh...I mentioned sending you a tele in the other thread too...but apparantly that one is dead now.

So in case you're wondering, that tele is concerning the google thread.

Are you asking us if it's weird that you record your conversations, or that you then took those conversations and played them backwards?

:D

True 'dat.

Good. I thought this thread had only attracted 15 year olds. Your closer to my age. 31.
I think you can understand that some things are different at this age than they are at 15.
31? And recording conversations..

Hm.

19.

Turning 15 on the 17th. ;)

Yeah I know what your thinking.Wait...you started when you were 13???

As for me, I'll never reveal my age. Be content in knowing that it's between 13 and 21. More clues can be gathered from my other posts. ;)

(I'll make you do some work, lol!)

Well you are an uber-spammer, Frisbee's favorite target. He usually takes the spammers and flamers, while Cog seems to go after trolls, and Kat is left with the ones the other two missed. ;) Cog's also still a forum mod at heart, b/c whenever someone makes a complaint about game modding, he's never the one who handled their case.

The rest of the mods are practically never seen and therefore, nonexistent. Despite initial appearances, Frisbeeteria, Katganistan, and Cogitation are not the whole moderating team. (If they were we'd get away with a whole lot more, lol.)
Let's see, he's caught me for trolling (he didn't understand the humour in the thread), indirectly talking about torrents, flamebaiting, and of course, spam.

And my sig. Twice. He's the first mod to enforce the "rule"
And then my location. It was a mini-essay. :D

Am I missing anything?

Wait...you started when you were 13???

As for me, I'll never reveal my age. Be content in knowing that it's between 13 and 21. More clues can be gathered from my other posts. ;)

(I'll make you do some work, lol!)
It's 13. :D

I went straight to replying. Didn't do a bit of research. I'm almost positive your between 13-15.

I think you actually mentioned it before to me. ;)

Good. I thought this thread had only attracted 15 year olds. Your closer to my age. 31.
I think you can understand that some things are different at this age than they are at 15.

But I think like a 5. lol.

News in 'girl world' travels faster than wild fire on the prairies. Don't take it too seriously. I tried, and I got screwed. Lol.

You recorded your conversations with a girl? :eek:

Ick.

That is not cool. That is weird. In many states, that is criminal.
I don't trust people. If they see the recorder and they talk to me, they are de facto consenting.

now i feel as if i'm being watched... plenty of phone conversations i wouldn't want to have recorded... 19 myself, almost 20 not that that matter ... only when i'm about to hit 21 will almost matter again... but the whole recording thing... kinda creepy

Good. I thought this thread had only attracted 15 year olds. Your closer to my age. 31.
I think you can understand that some things are different at this age than they are at 15.Yeah. Well at my age everything is easy. Except schoolwork. And staying off NS for more than 24 hours. :)

Don't take it too seriously. I tried, and I got screwed.
That doesn't sound so bad...

You are 31?

Wow.

Well, fwiw, I'm 36.
fwiw?

Yeah. Well at my age everything is easy. Except schoolwork. And staying off NS for more than 24 hours. :)
If you think school work is tough, I hope you're at least 18 and in college. Which would make you the same age as me, or older if you've had more than 1 year of college.

I don't trust people. If they see the recorder and they talk to me, they are de facto consenting.

Wouldn't you be wasting an enormous number of tapes? :eek:

Do you copy your online conversations and threads too? I demand to know whether I'm being recorded!!!!!! :gundge:

:p

But I think like a 5. lol.

News in 'girl world' travels faster than wild fire on the prairies. Don't take it too seriously. I tried, and I got screwed. Lol.
Too true. You'd think non-preppy girls wouldn't have that kind of ability.

Jesus, EVERY DAMN CLASS some friend of hers was watching me.

That doesn't sound so bad...

I've put it behind me. Graduated from high school and I'm going to hide all that junk away. I will move to London a new man!

"MAN"! PHEW! WHAT A WORD!

It's 13. :D

I went straight to replying. Didn't do a bit of research. I'm almost positive your between 13-15.

I think you actually mentioned it before to me. ;)See, you did some research! That counts! ;)

All I'll say is that 13-15 is a pretty good estimate. Not good enough, but pretty good.

I'll also give you a hint *fingers upper lip*... -- take a look in my siggy.

If you think school work is tough, I hope you're at least 18 and in college. Which would make you the same age as me, or older if you've had more than 1 year of college.

nothing is difficult until college, then the world attacks... vicious... i'm still shaking ... but i can't wait to go back next month... sorry off topic .. but oh well

now i feel as if i'm being watched... plenty of phone conversations i wouldn't want to have recorded... 19 myself, almost 20 not that that matter ... only when i'm about to hit 21 will almost matter again... but the whole recording thing... kinda creepy
has any one ever tried to stab you in the back by claiming you said something you didn't? And no one believed you because you didn't have a recording on hand of the actual conversation. I've been burned by that repeatedly. So the recording is simply self protection. Though I have to admit I'm actually too lazy to record every single one. Let alone any of my phone conversation which would be difficult since I only use a cell phone.

Wouldn't you be wasting an enormous number of tapes? :eek:

Do you copy your online conversations and threads too? I demand to know whether I'm being recorded!!!!!! :gundge:

:pI don't use tapes. I just record over previous convesations.

If you think school work is tough, I hope you're at least 18 and in college. Which would make you the same age as me, or older if you've had more than 1 year of college.I finish high school next year (yay!) and then I'll be in college. And I know college is hard btw...I take college classes during the school year.

has any one ever tried to stab you in the back by claiming you said something you didn't? And no one believed you because you didn't have a recording on hand of the actual conversation. I've been burned by that repeatedly. So the recording is simply self protection. Though I have to admit I'm actually too lazy to record every single one. Let alone any of my phone conversation which would be difficult since I only use a cell phone.

actually, yes. but unfortunately i was stabbed in the back with a internet conversation. that i kind of had but didn't. complicated story, but now that i think about it, not so creepy

See, you did some research! That counts! ;)

All I'll say is that 13-15 is a pretty good estimate. Not good enough, but pretty good.

I'll also give you a hint *fingers upper lip*... -- take a look in my siggy.
13.

I didn't look in the sig. :)

I've put it behind me. Graduated from high school and I'm going to hide all that junk away. I will move to London a new man!

"MAN"! PHEW! WHAT A WORD!I wouldn't mind moving to London. I of course can't do it for some time now. :(

actually, yes. but unfortunately i was stabbed in the back with a internet conversation. that i kind of had but didn't. complicated story, but now that i think about it, not so creepy
maybe you should record them.

Oh nm. Your ISP likely already is.

13.

I didn't look in the sig. :)You didn't need to. The clue was in the post. Man you are slow... :rolleyes: And just look up a little to where I said

I finish high school next year (yay!) and then I'll be in college. And I know college is hard btw...I take college classes during the school year.

You do the math.

maybe you should record them.

Oh nm. Your ISP likely already is.

yeah, but at least now i'm smart enough to be a lot more watchful over the words that come out of my ... fingers? anyway, i lived through it, shunned though i was

nothing is difficult until college, then the world attacks... vicious... i'm still shaking ... but i can't wait to go back next month... sorry off topic .. but oh well
Yea, I can't wait to go back either, especially considering I've changed majors...

has any one ever tried to stab you in the back by claiming you said something you didn't? And no one believed you because you didn't have a recording on hand of the actual conversation. I've been burned by that repeatedly. So the recording is simply self protection. Though I have to admit I'm actually too lazy to record every single one. Let alone any of my phone conversation which would be difficult since I only use a cell phone.
Has it ever occurred to you that recording yourself only proves what you DID say, and does not prove that you didn't say something?

I wouldn't mind moving to London. I of course can't do it for some time now. :(

How old are you?
I won't give up until I know.

**tosses tinfoil hats and runs away from thread**

:p ;) :D

You didn't need to. The clue was in the post. Man you are slow... :rolleyes: And just look up a little to where I said



You do the math.
18

Yea, I can't wait to go back either, especially considering I've changed majors...

I'm double majoring but I've changed my second major once... I'm just excited to get out of this house and way from my parents and super conservative town. Looking forward to my return to freedom. ... Bad major previously?

Yea, I can't wait to go back either, especially considering I've changed majors...


Has it ever occurred to you that recording yourself only proves what you DID say, and does not prove that you didn't say something?
Actually no. If she says for example, that I said "So and So is a cheap slut." And I did not say that. And I have a recording to prove I did not say that but that "So and so is really nice and attractive." It not only proves what I did say but it proves I did not say what she falsely claimed I said.

**tosses tinfoil hats and runs away from thread**

:p ;) :D
What's with the tinfoil hats? People been posting those a lot lately.

Actually no. If she says for example, that I said "So and So is a cheap slut." And I did not say that. And I have a recording to prove I did not say that but that "So and so is really nice and attractive." It not only proves what I did say but it proves I did not say what she falsely claimed I said.

Okay...and so why do you have this problem now? Just show her the recordings and let her listen to them.

... Bad major previously?
Not that it was a bad major. Just not for me. I'm majoring in Journalism now...I was doing Electrical Engineering...

18Once again, wrong. (Although I wish I was, lol.)

I will not be going into college when I'm 18.

Not that it was a bad major. Just not for me. I'm majoring in Journalism now...I was doing Electrical Engineering...

Journalism definently sounds better. I'm an English and History major so I side with Journalism.

Actually no. If she says for example, that I said "So and So is a cheap slut." And I did not say that. And I have a recording to prove I did not say that but that "So and so is really nice and attractive." It not only proves what I did say but it proves I did not say what she falsely claimed I said.
While she doesn't have proof that you said what she claims you said, it is impossible to prove that someone didn't say something. You can only record the things you did say, and since you're the one in charge of the recording, there is no guarantee that you're recording everything that you are saying...and there is also no guarantee that you're not specifically speaking of certain individuals in a certain way simply because YOU KNOW you're being recorded.

Okay...and so why do you have this problem now? Just show her the recordings and let her listen to them.
I did. She wasn't there so I left it for her. Cuase the next morning was her last day. And I was working so I wasn't going to be able to see her. So I left it for her. Actually I need to get a new recorder cause I pretty much gave her mine. I didn't go back for it she probably kept it.

I don't trust people. If they see the recorder and they talk to me, they are de facto consenting.
Jesus... I don't judge anyone's personal life here save KKK membership or similar unignorable brainfarts, but you're in your thirties, and you do this????

:confused:

No, wait:

:p :p :p :p :p !

While she doesn't have proof that you said what she claims you said, it is impossible to prove that someone didn't say something. You can only record the things you did say, and since you're the one in charge of the recording, there is no guarantee that you're recording everything that you are saying...and there is also no guarantee that you're not specifically speaking of certain individuals in a certain way simply because YOU KNOW you're being recorded.
You would be able to tell if the recorder was being turned off and on from the quality of the recording. You would hear the clicks.

Jesus... I don't judge anyone's personal life here save KKK membership or similar unignorable brainfarts, but you're in your thirties, and you do this????

:confused:

No, wait:

:p :p :p :p :p !
?

You would be able to tell if the recorder was being turned off and on from the quality of the recording. You would hear the clicks.
Who is to say you didn't say it in a different conversation?

Besides, anyone with the slightest knowledge of scientific method knows you can prove that one thing happened all you want but that does not inherently mean the contrary did not happen.

Who is to say you didn't say it in a different conversation?

Besides, anyone with the slightest knowledge of scientific method knows you can prove that one thing happened all you want but that does not inherently mean the contrary did not happen.
you can't apply the scientific method to a personal conversation.

I did. She wasn't there so I left it for her. Cuase the next morning was her last day. And I was working so I wasn't going to be able to see her. So I left it for her. Actually I need to get a new recorder cause I pretty much gave her mine. I didn't go back for it she probably kept it.
So you'll never see her again?? SO WHO CARES! One less vote won't make you any less of "God's gift to South Arizona women"!

you can't apply the scientific method to a personal conversation.
No, but you can apply it to determining guilt or innocence. It's done in America every day.

Basically, if this were in court, I don't think your recorded conversations that don't record you saying what the other person claims would have no more sway over a jury than a credible witness claiming that you did say something.

I usually record most conversations.

You realize that recording somebody without consent is illegal in many places in the US?

You realize that recording somebody without consent is illegal in many places in the US?
What about laws regarding security cameras in stores and such?

What about laws regarding security cameras in stores and such?
those must be illegal too. Since recording someone's actions and recording their words in a public place is the same thing.
Right to privacy applies only two places: the bedroom and the bathroom stall.

And actually when you consider it, the constitution really does not say you have right to privacy.

Although, I will note that in places like Wal Mart, they do have signs making it clear that you are being recorded (and if you continue to shop there anywhere, then you consent).

Although, I will note that in places like Wal Mart, they do have signs making it clear that you are being recorded (and if you continue to shop there anywhere, then you consent).
Same with if they see the voicerecorder and its obvious you are using it.
the courts have long recognized that little thing they call defacto consent.
In fact, every time you call customer service for something, your phone call is being recorded.

Same with if they see the voicerecorder and its obvious you are using it.
the courts have long recognized that little thing they call defacto consent.
In fact, every time you call customer service for something, your phone call is being recorded.
1. The fact that you're "obviously" using the recorder could be questionable.

2. You still haven't responded to the other point I was making just a second ago.

Although, I will note that in places like Wal Mart, they do have signs making it clear that you are being recorded (and if you continue to shop there anywhere, then you consent).
come to think of it, not places put up signs like that. It is taken for granted that you know that if enter a store you are being recorded on cam. And if you are on a public street, anyone could be watching and recording.
The "right" to privacy is not something that is broad and unalienable. It has even more restrictions than the right to free speech.
Some drug dealers and murderers for example will try to block the use of evidence gathered during questioning or through searches of their cars or homes by claiming their privacy rights were violated. Courts have judiciously stated that in such cases the right to privacy is null and void.

come to think of it, not places put up signs like that. It is taken for granted that you know that if enter a store you are being recorded on cam. And if you are on a public street, anyone could be watching and recording.
The "right" to privacy is not something that is broad and unalienable. It has even more restrictions than the right to free speech.
Some drug dealers and murderers for example will try to block the use of evidence gathered during questioning or through searches of their cars or homes by claiming their privacy rights were violated. Courts have judiciously stated that in such cases the right to privacy is null and void.
1. Wal Mart does put up signs.

2. See #2 from previous post.

No, but you can apply it to determining guilt or innocence. It's done in America every day.

Basically, if this were in court, I don't think your recorded conversations that don't record you saying what the other person claims would have no more sway over a jury than a credible witness claiming that you did say something.
You must mean this point. The fact is that most typical jurors don't know the legal process of what is or what is not admissable. And that is why we have judges to tell jurors what they can take into account and what they can't.

What you are arguing is the schroedinger cat scenario. "It's there but at the same time its not there". You can't apply quantum physics to a conversation. QP does not really follow a set law where as most conversations do. A conversation either is or it isn't. It can't be both.
Unlike the Shroedingers cat which can be in two states at the same time.

come to think of it, not places put up signs like that. It is taken for granted that you know that if enter a store you are being recorded on cam. And if you are on a public street, anyone could be watching and recording.
The "right" to privacy is not something that is broad and unalienable. It has even more restrictions than the right to free speech.
Some drug dealers and murderers for example will try to block the use of evidence gathered during questioning or through searches of their cars or homes by claiming their privacy rights were violated. Courts have judiciously stated that in such cases the right to privacy is null and void.

**puts on hat to blend in**

1. You are completely off-base in your understanding of the caselaw. I'm not even going to try to unravel it.

2. The bar against recordings without two-party consent is statutory. It is a crime in many states.

**runs away again**

1. Wal Mart does put up signs.

2. See #2 from previous post.
1. I never said wal mart didn't put up signs. everyone knows they do. I said some places don't. It's just taken for granted. When you enter a bank, you know there are cameras but many banks don't have signs posted that there are cameras watching you.
The local grocery store also, has hidden cameras but they don't post signs. This is because a business has the right to use cameras as a security measure to catch shoplifters or report suspicious persons.
Heck, even most McDonald's use cameras. Though, I bet you didn't know that.

You must mean this point. The fact is that most typical jurors don't know the legal process of what is or what is not admissable. And that is why we have judges to tell jurors what they can take into account and what they can't.

What you are arguing is the schroedinger cat scenario. "It's there but at the same time its not there". You can't apply quantum physics to a conversation. QP does not really follow a set law where as most conversations do. A conversation either is or it isn't. It can't be both.
Unlike the Shroedingers cat which can be in two states at the same time.
Holy shit, are you really trying to (grasp) use quantum physics in your argument here? :p

Christ, whatta d**cheb*g! I'm hearing "I'll be Big Brother cuz I couldn't catch it the first time, and then bloviate by using pseudointellectual metaphors 'cuz it makes me look smart."

You're a riot. Please go on...

**puts on hat to blend in**

1. You are completely off-base in your understanding of the caselaw. I'm not even going to try to unravel it.

2. The bar against recordings without two-party consent is statutory. It is a crime in many states.

**runs away again**
1. I don't know the specific case law. I speak generally. You of course, would be more knowledgeable of the exact case law than I would.

1. I never said wal mart didn't put up signs. everyone knows they do. I said some places don't. It's just taken for granted. When you enter a bank, you know there are cameras but many banks don't have signs posted that there are cameras watching you.
The local grocery store also, has hidden cameras but they don't post signs. This is because a business has the right to use cameras as a security measure to catch shoplifters or report suspicious persons.
Heck, even most McDonald's use cameras. Though, I bet you didn't know that.
And you equate your lame personal recordings with consentual business-as-usual? Who the fuck would steal from you?

McDonald's and Wal-Mart aren't jacking off to the security cameras bro.

Don't compare.

Despite being a journalism major...I do know some about quantam physics...and you're analogy is completely off-base.

I'm talking about basic scientific method...

Holy shit, are you really trying to (grasp) use quantum physics in your argument here? :p

Christ, whatta d**cheb*g! I'm hearing "I'll be Big Brother cuz I couldn't catch it the first time, and then bloviate by using pseudointellectual metaphors 'cuz it makes me look smart."

You're a riot. Please go on...
you did not make sense. I was saying he was trying to use quantum physics to prove I said something that I didn't.
All I said was I either said or I didn't. It can't be both.

you did not make sense. I was saying he was trying to use quantum physics to prove I said something that I didn't.

:p :p :p :p !

(@, not with)

You're easier to start than a fire.

Whittier what the hells wrong with you!

Despite being a journalism major...I do know some about quantam physics...and you're analogy is completely off-base.

I'm talking about basic scientific method...
Well, you seem to be saying that I can both say something and not say it.

In the case in question in this thread for example. We are talking about one conversation. The person said I said something in that conversation that I did not say. Though I have to confess I never said it in other conversations either.
Now if they said "I liked that person." Or some such, then I that I can't deny cause I said that to a lot of people. And it is true. Why would I deny it if indeed, I did say that.
THough I am good at politicking and political double speak, I don't use it in personal conversations and I take people literally at their word.
Someone could be joking and I would take it literally.

What about laws regarding security cameras in stores and such?

I don't know. All I know is that in some states it is illegal to record someone without consent.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=39759

And you equate your lame personal recordings with consentual business-as-usual? Who the fuck would steal from you?

McDonald's and Wal-Mart aren't jacking off to the security cameras bro.

Don't compare.
Ok. Step away from beer cooler. I think you've had a bit much to drink.

I don't know. All I know is that in some states it is illegal to record someone without consent.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=39759
Who gives a shit about the law? It's fucking wrong to record someone without their permission!

Quick road to douchebaggery, if ever there were a well-tread path.
I suspect this guy masturbates to the Patriot Act instead of Penthouse.

I don't know. All I know is that in some states it is illegal to record someone without consent.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=39759
They seem to be talking about entrapment and recording in secret, without the other person knowing. In both cases then the recordings would be illegal.

Again defacto consent. If some guy you are talking to pulls out a recorder and presses the button, and you say nothing until afterward, you are defacto consenting.

Well, you seem to be saying that I can both say something and not say it.

In the case in question in this thread for example. We are talking about one conversation. The person said I said something in that conversation that I did not say. Though I have to confess I never said it in other conversations either.
Now if they said "I liked that person." Or some such, then I that I can't deny cause I said that to a lot of people. And it is true. Why would I deny it if indeed, I did say that.
THough I am good at politicking and political double speak, I don't use it in personal conversations and I take people literally at their word.
Someone could be joking and I would take it literally.
No...why don't you slow down and read what I'm saying?


What the recorded conversation does prove: Things that were most definitely without a doubt said.

What the recorded conversation can not prove: Things that you claim that you have not said.

For instance, just because in every submitted recorded conversation you do not say what you claim that you have not said does not mean that there were other conversations that you either a) recorded but did not submit, or b) did not record. This would be very difficult for you to prove I imagine, and it would be necessary to prove this in order to prove that you did not say the words in question to the person who claims that you said it.
Additionally, you would have to prove that every recorded conversation is the conversation in its entirity. From before the first word was exchanged between the two individuals until after the last word was exchanged, and also, that the conversation was not edited, by not only means of on and off switching (which you've already explained), but also by means of digital editing...which again, may be difficult to prove.

I don't know. All I know is that in some states it is illegal to record someone without consent.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=39759

From your link:

On the "Consent and its Limits" page, "Can We Tape?" goes on to say:
"It is always legal to tape or film a face-to-face interview when your
recorder or camera is in plain view. The consent of all parties is
presumed in these instances."

"While it is illegal for third parties to record conversations they
cannot easily overhear, federal law and statutes in about 40 states,
including New York, permit secret recording with the consent of at
least one participant in the conversation."

(If I am the one recording, then obviously at least one party has consented)

"While secret recording for criminal or tortious purposes is illegal,
a secret recording is not punishable simply because it might embarrass
a participant in the conversation."

Its illegal only if its for an illegal purpose.

Hmm, if I were trying to argue that if it was 100% definite that the court had a recording of everything you had ever said, that it was still possible for you to have said that, despite it not being on the recordings, then we'd be a little closer to QP.

Who gives a shit about the law? It's fucking wrong to record someone without their permission!

Quick road to douchebaggery, if ever there were a well-tread path.
I suspect this guy masturbates to the Patriot Act instead of Penthouse.
Put down the beer. I find it very disturbing that you seem obssessed with jerking off to the patriot act.

No...why don't you slow down and read what I'm saying?


What the recorded conversation does prove: Things that were most definitely without a doubt said.

What the recorded conversation can not prove: Things that you claim that you have not said.

For instance, just because in every submitted recorded conversation you do not say what you claim that you have not said does not mean that there were other conversations that you either a) recorded but did not submit, or b) did not record. This would be very difficult for you to prove I imagine, and it would be necessary to prove this in order to prove that you did not say the words in question to the person who claims that you said it.
Additionally, you would have to prove that every recorded conversation is the conversation in its entirity. From before the first word was exchanged between the two individuals until after the last word was exchanged, and also, that the conversation was not edited, by not only means of on and off switching (which you've already explained), but also by means of digital editing...which again, may be difficult to prove.

That's assuming one knows how to do digital editing. Which of course, I don't. Unfortunately.

Hmm, if I were trying to argue that if it was 100% definite that the court had a recording of everything you had ever said, that it was still possible for you to have said that, despite it not being on the recordings, then we'd be a little closer to QP.
I thought that was what you were arguing. But now you seem to be saying "not in this conversation but in another."

Ah, but she was talking about one particular conversation and one particular person.

Put down the beer. I find it very disturbing that you seem obssessed with jerking off to the patriot act.
Is that really the best you can do??? Considering all of the material I've given you to work with?

This is like playing full-contact football with kids from the Special Olympics.

You're violating other people's civil liberties when you record them without their RECORDED permission! If you don't understand why you're ignorant, or just plain sneaky, you've got bigger problems than being a freak who carries around a recording device with him everywhere.

I usually record most conversations.
Get laid. Get a life.

And kids, please note:

Carrying around recording devices with you wherever you go, taping everyone isn't strange at all...

Drinking beer on a Friday night most certainly is.

Hope this helps you achieve a healthy maturation. :p

In california:

Conversations occurring at any public gathering that one should expect to be overheard, including any legislative, judicial or executive proceeding open to the public, are not covered by the law.

An appellate court has ruled that using a hidden video camera violates the statute. California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (1989). However, a television network that used a hidden camera to videotape a conversation that took place at a business lunch meeting on a crowded outdoor patio of a public restaurant that did not include "secret" information did not violate the Penal Code's prohibition against eavesdropping because it was not a "confidential communication." Wilkins v. NBC, Inc., 71 Cal. App. 4th 1066 (1999). (allows it in public places)

Arizona: Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of "oral communication," Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3001. (allows in public places)

Idaho: (allows it if one party consents) Idaho Code § 18-6702: Although legislation criminalizes the interception and disclosure of wire or oral communications, it specifically allows interception when one of the parties has given prior consent. Punishment for the felony of an illegal interception or disclosure can include up to five years in prison and as much as $5,000 in fines. Anyone whose communications are unlawfully intercepted can sue for recovery of actual damages, $100 a day per day of violation or $1,000 — whichever is more. Punitive damages, litigation costs and attorney fees also can be recovered. Idaho Code § 18-6709.

Kansas (allowed if one party consents or if in a public place) Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4001: Unlawful eavesdropping consists of secretly listening to, recording, or amplifying private conversations or using any device to intercept a telephone or wire communication "without the consent of the person in possession or control of the facilities for such wire communication." Violations are misdemeanors. A criminal breach of privacy, punishable as a misdemeanor as well, occurs when any means of private communication is intercepted without the consent of the sender or receiver. Divulging the existence or contents of any type of private communication, whether carried out by telephone or even letter, is also a misdemeanor if the person knows the message was intercepted illegally. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4002. The state's highest court has interpreted the eavesdropping and privacy statutes to sanction one-party consent for taping of conversations and in interpreting both statutes stated: "In other words, any party to a private conversation may waive the right to privacy and the non-consenting party has no Fourth Amendment or statutory right to challenge the waiver." Kansas v. Roudybush, 686 P.2d 100 (Kan. 1984).

It is a misdemeanor to use a hidden camera to photograph a person who is nude or in a state of undress without the person's consent in a place where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4001(a)(4).

Texas: ( again consent by one party or in a public place) Texas Penal Code § 16.02: So long as a wire, oral or electronic communication — including the radio portion of any cordless telephone call — is not recorded for a criminal or tortious purpose, anyone who is a party to the communication, or who has the consent of a party, can lawfully record the communication and disclose its contents.

Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of "oral communication," Texas Code Crim. Pro. Art. 18.20.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans (5th Cir.) held in 2000 that a television station and reporter who had been given illegally obtained tapes of telephone conversations, but who had not participated in the illegal recording, could nonetheless be held civilly liable under the federal and Texas wiretapping statutes. Peavy v. WFAA-TV, Inc., 221 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2000). The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court along with two other cases raising similar issues. The Supreme Court refused to hear the Texas case but decided in one of the other cases, Bartnicki v. Vopper, that media defendants could not be held liable for publishing information of public concern that was obtained unlawfully by a source where the media were blameless in the illegal interception. Following the Bartnicki decision, the parties in the Peavy case settled out of court.

It is always legal to tape or film a face-to-face interview when your recorder or camera is in plain view. The consent of all parties is presumed in these instances.

Interesting:
Employees of a "psychic hotline" who were secretly recorded by an undercover reporter working for "Primetime Live" sued ABC for violation of the federal wiretapping statute, arguing that the taping was done for the illegal purposes of invading the employees privacy. The federal appellate court in Pasadena (9th Cir.) affirmed the dismissal of the employees claim in September 1999. According to the court, an otherwise legal taping that is done to achieve a "further impropriety, such as blackmail," becomes a violation of the law. But even if ABC s means of taping were illegal because the act violated the employees privacy, that does not make the taping illegal under the wiretap act, the court held. Because the employees "produced no probative evidence that ABC had an illegal or tortious purpose" when it made the tape, the reporter did not violate the federal statute. (Sussman v. American Broadcasting Co.)

In another case, an ophthalmologist who agreed to be interviewed for "Primetime Live" sued ABC under the federal wiretapping statute for videotaping consultations between the doctor and individuals posing as patients who were equipped with hidden cameras. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago (7th Cir.) rejected the doctor s wiretapping claim because the federal statute requires only one-party consent, and the undercover patients had consented to the taping. The court further held that the network did not send the testers to the doctor for the purpose of defaming the doctor, and that therefore ABC did not engage in the taping for a criminal or tortious purpose. (Desnick v. ABC)

In yet another case against ABC, a court ruled that police officers who were secretly videotaped while they were searching a car did not have a claim under New Jersey s wiretapping law. The officers had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation that occurred in a car on the shoulder of a busy highway, the New Jersey appeals court ruled. Moreover, police officers have a diminished expectation of privacy because they hold a position of trust. Thus, the taping, done for a show on racial profiling, was legal. (Hornberger v. ABC, Inc.)

A Las Vegas animal trainer was secretly videotaped while physically abusing orangutans backstage at a show. The footage was later broadcast on "Entertainment Tonight," and the trainer sued for defamation, invasion of privacy and intrusion. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed a $3.1 million judgment awarded by the state district court, in part because the trainer did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the curtained-off area next to the stage. Furthermore, the court held that even if the trainer did have such an expectation, the invasionof his privacy was not "highly offensive." (PETA v. Bobby Berosini, Ltd.)

Filming individuals in their home is always a more risky venture. In a Minnesota case, a veterinarian making a house call obtained permission to bring a student with him, but failed to inform the homeowners that the student was an employee of a television station. The student surreptitiously videotaped the doctor s treatment of the family cat in their home. The state Court of Appeals upheld the trespass claim because, unlike cases where the taping took place in an office, the family had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their home. (Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc.)

The validity of consent has also been upheld where the party was mistaken about the terms. In a California case, a woman sued CBS for trespass and intrusion when a camera crew accompanied a crisis intervention team into her home in response to a domestic violence call. The woman conceded that she had consented to the videotaping, but stated that she was led to believe that the camera crew was affiliated with the District Attorney s office. The court held that the state statutes governing trespass and intrusion did not require that the individual s consent be "knowing or meaningful," even if the consent was "fraudulently induced," and that the camera crew had acted within the scope of the woman s consent. (Baugh v. CBS)

Is that really the best you can do??? Considering all of the material I've given you to work with?

This is like playing full-contact football with kids from the Special Olympics.

You're violating other people's civil liberties when you record them without their RECORDED permission! If you don't understand why you're ignorant, or just plain sneaky, you've got bigger problems than being a freak who carries around a recording device with him everywhere.


Get laid. Get a life.You don't have to have their recorded consent. You need only the consent of one party. And if they are in a public place, it is likely you don't need their consent at all.
Nor can be considered a civil rights violation unless you are recording them in the changing room, bedroom, or bathroom.

Check out the laws I've copy pasted below. They are typical statutes in most states in America.


You don't have the right to privacy when you are in a restaurant, a club, or even on city street.

You didn't need to. The clue was in the post. Man you are slow... :rolleyes: And just look up a little to where I said



You do the math.
Now see, I saw that right after I posted my message. I tried to edit it, but then Jolt started bugging on me and I said "screw it"

Pretty much why I haven't replied in an hour and a half.