1996-05-15 - Re: Fingerprinting annoyance

Header Data

From: “Paul S. Penrod” <furballs@netcom.com>
To: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Message Hash: f5a33ee16fdee36c2c5bd5fc808ffac144f17a920fa60a8f6997c5399a40aac4
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9605141227.A21339-0100000@netcom15>
Reply To: <Pine.GUL.3.93.960513234411.19375E-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
UTC Datetime: 1996-05-15 06:51:12 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 14:51:12 +0800

Raw message

From: "Paul S. Penrod" <furballs@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 14:51:12 +0800
To: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Fingerprinting annoyance
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GUL.3.93.960513234411.19375E-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9605141227.A21339-0100000@netcom15>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Mon, 13 May 1996, Rich Graves wrote:

> On Tue, 14 May 1996, Allen Ethridge wrote:
> 
> > I can't speak to the honorable senator Exon's situation, but my brother
> > is being required to provide his fingerprints to prove that he is fit to
> > be the legal guardian of his wife's daughter.  And it isn't his wife,
> > currently the sole legal guardian, who is questioning his fitness or
> > demanding his fingerprints.
> 
> It's times like those that Jim Bell makes some sense. SOME.
> 
> -rich
> 

DON'T encourage him... :-)

...Paul





Thread