other one Posted September 8, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 596 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,098 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,834 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted September 8, 2016 what the article does leave out is that they can refuse to give anyone they choose not to have any internet activity at all by refusing you the dns name.... without that your internet access won't happen. Don't turn in all your guns....... no internet access... just one possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted September 8, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,710 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,524 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Online Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted September 8, 2016 29 minutes ago, other one said: what the article does leave out is that they can refuse to give anyone they choose not to have any internet activity at all by refusing you the dns name.... without that your internet access won't happen. Don't turn in all your guns....... no internet access... just one possibility. I don't see that anywhere, its just a crazy theory. All the agency does know-and all it will do when opened up worldwide-is define what is, and what is not a DNS server. They do not and cannot, control the content of the content of the pages-thats not even their job. This is just a case of fear mongering, people taking a little bit of fact and mixing it with misinformation and counting on people not being knowledgeable enough about the subject to be able to tell the difference. Like I was telling another chatter, the end user, such as you and me, will never even notice the difference. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted September 8, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 596 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,098 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,834 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted September 8, 2016 Just now, The_Patriot2016 said: I don't see that anywhere, its just a crazy theory. All the agency does know-and all it will do when opened up worldwide-is define what is, and what is not a DNS server. They do not and cannot, control the content of the content of the pages-thats not even their job. This is just a case of fear mongering, people taking a little bit of fact and mixing it with misinformation and counting on people not being knowledgeable enough about the subject to be able to tell the difference. you can have only one existing URL or the whole system does not work...... they make that possible by allowing that particular one..... My personal site is http://sam.evans.org. If they did not ok me to have that, and allow it into the dns servers, I could not have the site...... if they didn't want me even on the internet at all they could tell AT&T not to give me access and cause them any number of problems if they did. They could give them a ultimatum to either drop all gun owners or they would not allow them the block basic URL access..... and if the system didn't go along the whole system would die. I have shut down entire wide area networks by being given the wrong URL for our print servers when setting them up.... it's not uncommon for them to switch their core router address with our server address and when that happens the entire system crashes. It got so bad that I would either demand being given the addresses on paper or call me on my cell phone where I could record the conversation. if two remote addresses are the same, weird things can happen depending on the type of routers they use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted September 8, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,710 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,524 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Online Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted September 8, 2016 Yes they have the capability, but they won't-their only job is to define what is and what is not a proper URL. The examples you listed are of improper URLs and that can still happen the agency has no care for the content of the website, just whether the URL is legit or not. Follow the standards, and you won't have any issues. They likely don't even have the time to censor content, which is likely one of the reasons they are doing this, its getting to big for one country to handle. Internet censorship while I'm sure is coming won't be from this agency. If anything, the people who actually want to censor the internet will quietly put it in place while people chase false flags such as this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmuffet Posted September 8, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 34 Topic Count: 1,991 Topics Per Day: 0.48 Content Count: 48,689 Content Per Day: 11.81 Reputation: 30,343 Days Won: 226 Joined: 01/11/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted September 8, 2016 Time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted September 8, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 596 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,098 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,834 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted September 8, 2016 6 hours ago, The_Patriot2016 said: Yes they have the capability, but they won't-their only job is to define what is and what is not a proper URL. The examples you listed are of improper URLs and that can still happen the agency has no care for the content of the website, just whether the URL is legit or not. Follow the standards, and you won't have any issues. They likely don't even have the time to censor content, which is likely one of the reasons they are doing this, its getting to big for one country to handle. Internet censorship while I'm sure is coming won't be from this agency. If anything, the people who actually want to censor the internet will quietly put it in place while people chase false flags such as this. But they would be able to not give you a Url, and if the UN gets its hands on this they will use it as a weapon to force their ways.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted September 9, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,710 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,524 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Online Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted September 9, 2016 1 hour ago, other one said: But they would be able to not give you a Url, and if the UN gets its hands on this they will use it as a weapon to force their ways.... sure they "can" but goes back to, little to no reason. its an administrative agency, that is it. In fact, it is something that has needed to go worldwide for some time-you have already mentioned how difficult it is to get different web pages to talk to each other. And what are they going to control? "give up your guns or no internet?" please. not gonna happen, even Obamas not dumb enough to cave in to that demand....and the US could just go back to making their own domains again, and voila, that problems solved. Theres no real control there. Could they deny URLs to faith based web sites? sure, but why, whats the point? 95% of the webs already filth, so why would an agency like this care? And if it gets to the point where faith based web sites are censored-they wont need to deny anything. The government(s) at be, will be the ones deciding what gets put up, and what doesnt, regardless of what this agency does. The government may tell them to deny URLs of faith based web sites sure, but it will be the governments decision-not theirs, and by the time we get to that point, it wont much matter anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RustyAngeL Posted September 11, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 23 Topic Count: 155 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 7,464 Content Per Day: 1.02 Reputation: 8,810 Days Won: 57 Joined: 03/30/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/12/1952 Share Posted September 11, 2016 On 9/8/2016 at 4:38 PM, missmuffet said: Time will tell. Right. Until then I refuse to live in fear and worry about what might or might not happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmuffet Posted September 11, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 34 Topic Count: 1,991 Topics Per Day: 0.48 Content Count: 48,689 Content Per Day: 11.81 Reputation: 30,343 Days Won: 226 Joined: 01/11/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted September 11, 2016 22 minutes ago, RustyAngeL said: Right. Until I refuse to live in fear and worry about what might happen. Satan wants us to live in fear and worry. God does not. He is in control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted September 16, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 596 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,098 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,834 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted September 16, 2016 1 hour ago, Davida said: My general thought is we are Christians , Does the Lord Jesus say the immediate future going to be bright?--nope. Is it going to get worse and worse--yup. Should we trust the judgment and agenda of Obama and his Administration that made the Iran Nuclear Deal? -- nope. The U.N. will probably end up in control of the internet and the UN is horribly corrupted and a central power that is a precursor of what is to come under the Anti-Christ. the new age people who are in control of the UN will not hide the fact that they are setting up the UN for the Antichrist..... that is if you get inside thier circles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts