When I respond, or seek responses, I think of the Internet Republic and the people [[whump]] and the places who have made our water world Eden brave and free and fair. Permitted, required, and impossible. Stand alone or stand with, whose choice to what degree [[Thn/]] O[[thn/]]ne water world Eden under "We the people" – created by whom?

What’s your idea for LinkedIn?

( ) Colleague ( ) Classmate ( ) We’ve done business together ( ) Friend ( ) Other ( ) I don’t know Sarah

What’s your idea for LinkedIn?

A federal court order requiring message templates carry the above, or similar, disclaimers.
Likewise on recipients message templates which must be checked the first 20 times before messages can be opened.
xref: Facebook problems with abuse.

Therefore, when who offers to let you to sign in using Facebook, the court order should require the user can prohibit the demand for access to all friends, profile, and other information – and only voluntarily grant that [Whum um (air brake)]. Should those people now extorting that information [tnk/] for convince, be permitted [whum] to pay [WHMP RHm ] for it? Or is it an unalienable right? And does the Catholic Church have a position on it? And which justices would need to recuse themselves if so?
===========Null Hypothesis//

This is why it’s going [rhnrhrnrhnr] to be a $300,000 dollar consulting bill by the time the smoke clears; xref: The Egyptian Secretary of Tourism and the MBIK {xref: Moby Dick} consulting offered to business world wide on polite ways to orchestrate social networks; xref: qibla and prayer line logic (s)…

Filed under: felony crime, first amendment rights, linkedin, mail service, paypal, Uncategorized, whum