and I'm sure this would have been done if it were possible... Can't his ip be banned from MBWorld?
HELP MY BI-XENONS HEADLIGHTS TURN SIGNALS ARE NOT WORKING BULBS IN FELL in HOUSING
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
05 C230
HELP MY BI-XENONS HEADLIGHTS TURN SIGNALS ARE NOT WORKING BULBS IN FELL in HOUSING
I just recently bought me a C230 with lighting package and I noticed that my turn signals on my headlights are not lighting up. What I discovered is that the bulbs fell into the housing. I tried gettin them out, but the hole is so small. Will the dealer cover this under warranty ? My computer screen also says my lights on the mirrors are not working either. Please help me.
Administrator
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 15,769
Likes: 37
From: www.Traben-Trarbach.de
MPG+ ROLFCOPTER
"c230_617...
I'm sure you've noticed that staff has methods to identify and ban your many aliases. Continued efforts are futile. And while staff is more than willing to continue tracking you down as needed, something else has changed...
At first, it was you versus the staff at MBWorld. However, you should now be aware that the membership is actively engaged in helping us. Dozens of members identify your posts to us and DEMAND you be banned whereever found. You have thoroughly worn out your invitation to this site with the other members. So, it's now you versus the membership at MBWorld, in addition to the staff here.
I'm not sure what satisfaction you get out of trolling a site where you are so clearly unwelcomed and universally disliked by the membership. Perhaps you like volunteering for abuse? It's pointless, really, and I personally feel sorry for you that you don't seem to realize you're the laughing stock of MBWorld.
Your time is wasted at MBWorld. You've guaranteed that. Only question remaining is whether you are smart enough to realize it, and move on to other obsessions, which clearly don't include MBWorld?"
And while you are at it read this as well.
To all forum members:
-------
It's illegal to annoy
A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.
"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
See full article here. Text Below:
By Declan McCullagh
<!-- January 9, 2006, 4:00 AM PT
-->
Published: January 9, 2006, 4:00 AM PST - News.com
Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime. It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.
<!-- Search Engine Component -->In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.
This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.
"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."
Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."
To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.
The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.
There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."
That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?
There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.
Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.
In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)
Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.
"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"
Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.
"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."
He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.
It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.
If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he'd realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.
And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.
Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans' personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the president rises to the occasion.
-------
THIS WILL BE ENFORCED ON THIS FORUM!
__________________
Brad Otoupalik
evosport
I'm sure you've noticed that staff has methods to identify and ban your many aliases. Continued efforts are futile. And while staff is more than willing to continue tracking you down as needed, something else has changed...
At first, it was you versus the staff at MBWorld. However, you should now be aware that the membership is actively engaged in helping us. Dozens of members identify your posts to us and DEMAND you be banned whereever found. You have thoroughly worn out your invitation to this site with the other members. So, it's now you versus the membership at MBWorld, in addition to the staff here.
I'm not sure what satisfaction you get out of trolling a site where you are so clearly unwelcomed and universally disliked by the membership. Perhaps you like volunteering for abuse? It's pointless, really, and I personally feel sorry for you that you don't seem to realize you're the laughing stock of MBWorld.
Your time is wasted at MBWorld. You've guaranteed that. Only question remaining is whether you are smart enough to realize it, and move on to other obsessions, which clearly don't include MBWorld?"
And while you are at it read this as well.
To all forum members:
-------
It's illegal to annoy
A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.
"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
See full article here. Text Below:
By Declan McCullagh
<!-- January 9, 2006, 4:00 AM PT
-->
Published: January 9, 2006, 4:00 AM PST - News.com
Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime. It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.
<!-- Search Engine Component -->In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.
This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.
"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."
Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."
To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.
The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.
There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."
That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?
There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.
Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.
In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)
Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.
"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"
Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.
"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."
He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.
It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.
If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he'd realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.
And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.
Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans' personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the president rises to the occasion.
-------
THIS WILL BE ENFORCED ON THIS FORUM!
__________________
Brad Otoupalik
evosport
Super Moderator Alumni
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 8,692
Likes: 58
From: So Cal.
2019 GT3 RS, 2017 M3 30 Jahre
"c230_617...
I'm sure you've noticed that staff has methods to identify and ban your many aliases. Continued efforts are futile. And while staff is more than willing to continue tracking you down as needed, something else has changed...
At first, it was you versus the staff at MBWorld. However, you should now be aware that the membership is actively engaged in helping us. Dozens of members identify your posts to us and DEMAND you be banned whereever found. You have thoroughly worn out your invitation to this site with the other members. So, it's now you versus the membership at MBWorld, in addition to the staff here.
I'm not sure what satisfaction you get out of trolling a site where you are so clearly unwelcomed and universally disliked by the membership. Perhaps you like volunteering for abuse? It's pointless, really, and I personally feel sorry for you that you don't seem to realize you're the laughing stock of MBWorld.
Your time is wasted at MBWorld. You've guaranteed that. Only question remaining is whether you are smart enough to realize it, and move on to other obsessions, which clearly don't include MBWorld?"
And while you are at it read this as well.
To all forum members:
-------
It's illegal to annoy
A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.
"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
See full article here. Text Below:
By Declan McCullagh
<!-- January 9, 2006, 4:00 AM PT
-->
Published: January 9, 2006, 4:00 AM PST - News.com
Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime. It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.
<!-- Search Engine Component -->In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.
This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.
"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."
Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."
To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.
The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.
There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."
That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?
There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.
Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.
In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)
Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.
"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"
Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.
"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."
He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.
It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.
If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he'd realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.
And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.
Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans' personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the president rises to the occasion.
-------
THIS WILL BE ENFORCED ON THIS FORUM!
__________________
Brad Otoupalik
evosport
I'm sure you've noticed that staff has methods to identify and ban your many aliases. Continued efforts are futile. And while staff is more than willing to continue tracking you down as needed, something else has changed...
At first, it was you versus the staff at MBWorld. However, you should now be aware that the membership is actively engaged in helping us. Dozens of members identify your posts to us and DEMAND you be banned whereever found. You have thoroughly worn out your invitation to this site with the other members. So, it's now you versus the membership at MBWorld, in addition to the staff here.
I'm not sure what satisfaction you get out of trolling a site where you are so clearly unwelcomed and universally disliked by the membership. Perhaps you like volunteering for abuse? It's pointless, really, and I personally feel sorry for you that you don't seem to realize you're the laughing stock of MBWorld.
Your time is wasted at MBWorld. You've guaranteed that. Only question remaining is whether you are smart enough to realize it, and move on to other obsessions, which clearly don't include MBWorld?"
And while you are at it read this as well.
To all forum members:
-------
It's illegal to annoy
A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.
"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
See full article here. Text Below:
By Declan McCullagh
<!-- January 9, 2006, 4:00 AM PT
-->
Published: January 9, 2006, 4:00 AM PST - News.com
Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime. It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.
<!-- Search Engine Component -->In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.
This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.
"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."
Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."
To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.
The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.
There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."
That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?
There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.
Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.
In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)
Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.
"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"
Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.
"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."
He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.
It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.
If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he'd realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.
And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.
Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans' personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the president rises to the occasion.
-------
THIS WILL BE ENFORCED ON THIS FORUM!
__________________
Brad Otoupalik
evosport
very well said. too bad the bugger can't comprehend English and will be back pretty quickly...
Trending Topics
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,212
Likes: 8
From: Pasadena, CA
2002 C230K, 2013 BMW 328, 2015 BMW X5
Get a girlfriend, Get a life, Get a car, Get out of the way.
E
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
Super Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 655
Likes: 1
From: New Zealand
ML55 AMG
Excuse me, but you are mistaken. Can one of the moderators please confirm that I am NOT this C230_617. I do not want to be labeled as someone who wastes other peoples time.
Super Moderator Alumni
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 8,692
Likes: 58
From: So Cal.
2019 GT3 RS, 2017 M3 30 Jahre
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,665
Likes: 4
From: Boston
2004 C32 ///AMG
