Global Hackathons Prepared To Carry Forward The Work Of Aaron Swartz
from the keep-it-up dept
One of the key points we've tried to raise over and over again in the wake of Aaron Swartz's death is that it's important for people to carry on his work. We've seen it in a few places already -- such as with academics freeing up their own work -- but there's much more to be done. That's why it's interesting to see plans around the globe for hackathons in Swartz's memory. Who knows what will come out of those hackathons, but seeing more people working on technical solutions for better sharing information and knowledge seems like it can only be a good thing.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: aaron swartz, hackathons
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
At least you're being partially honest about your true beliefs about hacking. Instead of complaining about how others aren't discussing the nuances of copying and copyright, why don't you instead discuss those nuances.
Do you believe there should be ANY copyright rights? If so, what rights should we have, and what should their scope be?
Let's actually discuss your beliefs about copyright directly and on the merits. Stop the high-level talk, and actually discuss the details for once.
I won't hold my breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you fucking serious? This whole site provides your answer.
Here ill help you a little:
https://www.techdirt.com/search-g.php?q=Search+Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny. In most stories, Mike injects his own opinion. I don't think I've ever seen your opinion - only pathetic attempts to rip apart everyone else's beliefs about copyright. What are your own beliefs other than a sycophantic adherence to whatever the RIAA says at the time?
The difference is, at least Mike tends to learn his opponents' actual stances. I don't think I've ever seen any AC question my copyright stance without outright lying about it, for example.
I'd search for examples, but unlike Mike you don't even have the gall to put a moniker with your posts so that you can account for it later. Whereas Mike has publicly posted things like this random example, which took me about 5 seconds to find with the same tools freely available to you: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100216/0234308176.shtml. I'm sure there's many more posts even if you have to put more than 2 seconds of thought into understanding them, on top of a great number where his opinions are clearly stated even if they're not the primary focus of the article.
Who's insincere, again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I, Mike Masnick, want our copyright law makers to use and study evidence of the impact of copyright law, before suggesting that it be expanded upon."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Helpful hints for those wanting to know when AJ is paying anonymously.
1. Look for attacks against Mike and his beliefs. Usually stated as "Mike never discusses his beliefs. Just attacks everyone else's." (Or something to that effect.)
2. Look for sarcastic use of the phrase "open and honest".
3. Look for use of the words (or variations thereof) "run away".
4. Keep an true out for loaded and definitive questions. Meaning keep an eye out for the use of the following phrase, "if blah blah blah then answer this one question". Followed by a question which is extremely loaded and is absolute in nature, meaning there is only a "yes" or "no" answer to it (as far as AJ is concerned). (Keep in mind it is a loaded question and if he specifically ask Mike to just answer this one question he (AJ) will be content, behave, ask nothing further, etc. (Also keep in mind that any response on Mike's part will lead to "okay, so answer this question..." Any non response will lead to further usage of "open and honest" and "run away", as well as additional ad homs and the derailing of any and all future threads for at least a week. As well as AJ switching to bat shit crazy mode for a few days.)
And that about covers it. There are additional things, but those are the highlights/main ones that can be used to identify AJ when he doesn't sign on in. Hope this is helpful to everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yet he's refusing to answer the question as to whether he thinks there should be any copyright. He's never answered that question. He won't be pinned down to any position so he can just shit all over everyone else's. It's so silly. He says he needs more data. Give me a break with the excuses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For some who hates Masnick so much, you sure are concerned about his beliefs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't obsess over it though. I don't cyber-stalk them day after day, demanding they answer loaded questions. Having dismissed everything they say as irrelevant, I distanced myself from hearing anymore about them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't obsess over it though. I don't cyber-stalk them day after day, demanding they answer loaded questions. Having dismissed everything they say as irrelevant, I distanced myself from hearing anymore about them.
Meh. I'm pointing out that he's too cowardly to actually be pinned down on his position on copyright. He's made thousands of posts ripping everyone else's beliefs, but he won't answer even the most basic question about his own beliefs. These are not the actions of a person interested in actually working through the issues and reaching a solution. These are the actions of a person who hates the world and everything in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As per usual, this is untrue. As others have pointed out, I've got tons of posts on the site where I'm happy to state my position on copyright and it's as follows:
I think that the current system is broken and does not promote the progress, as it should do. I think that I don't know what the *proper* solution is, and I don't think anyone does, because we simply don't have enough data or experience to know. We know what doesn't work, but we don't know what might work better. That's why I've always encouraged more exploration and the ability to experiment.
This will upset you, of course, because it's not a hard and fast position of "copyright must be x."
These are not the actions of a person interested in actually working through the issues and reaching a solution.
I'd argue my position is much more those of someone interested in working through the issues and reaching a solution, because unlike some people, I have an open mind to new data and seeing what other solutions might be better. I am not wedded to any particular solution.
But none of that says I can't say what doesn't work.
Now that I've answered this question for at least the 100th time, will you drop it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's very vague and high-level. Do you believe that the current copyright system should be abolished in toto? Do you think there should be any copyright rights? If yes, what should those rights cover?
I'd argue my position is much more those of someone interested in working through the issues and reaching a solution, because unlike some people, I have an open mind to new data and seeing what other solutions might be better. I am not wedded to any particular solution.
I'm open too. But you still haven't answered the question. Do you think authors should be granted any of the rights delineated in Section 106, e.g., reproduction, adaptation, distribution, etc. Do you think there should be any copyright rights at all? Please, no high-level talk about "working through the issues." Should an author be granted exclusive rights in their writings? Yes or no.
Now that I've answered this question for at least the 100th time, will you drop it?
If you actually answer the question, I'd gladly drop it. But I'm not aware of you ever actually answering the question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is why talking to you is a pointless excursion. I made it clear that I think we need to study different things to find out what makes sense, and your response is "yes, but what about this specific thing, does it make sense?"
I'm open too. But you still haven't answered the question. Do you think authors should be granted any of the rights delineated in Section 106, e.g., reproduction, adaptation, distribution, etc. Do you think there should be any copyright rights at all? Please, no high-level talk about "working through the issues." Should an author be granted exclusive rights in their writings? Yes or no.
How difficult is it for you to read what I actually wrote? I said, quite explicitly, that I believe that these things should be tested, but that I do not know what is right. And you just keep asking me what is right. Incredible.
Once again, I am reminded of the valuable lesson that engaging with you is stupid, because all you do is argue in logical fallacies.
I'm out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You've been analyzing copyright for 15 years, right? So saying we need to "study different things" doesn't really answer anything. In your opinion, should authors be granted any exclusive rights to their writings? Yes or no. It's a simple question. Please don't run off.
How difficult is it for you to read what I actually wrote? I said, quite explicitly, that I believe that these things should be tested, but that I do not know what is right. And you just keep asking me what is right. Incredible.
And you've been looking at things for years and years. Just answer the question. Should authors have any copyright rights? We've had copyright for 220 years. How could you possibly not have enough data to give an answer?
Once again, I am reminded of the valuable lesson that engaging with you is stupid, because all you do is argue in logical fallacies.
I'm out.
You're just running away again, proving me right. You refuse to actually take a position. You don't have to give me all the details about the scope. Just answer the basic question as to whether authors should be granted any exclusive rights whatsoever to their writings. Yes or no? It's a simple question. It's OK to give an answer, Mike. There is no wrong answer other than to not actually answer the question, which is what you're doing. Seriously, for once in your life actually take a position on this. Please! I honestly want your honest answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...Actually come to think of it, it probably does matter. Can't be a shill otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And your position is to take the opposite position because you don't like his beliefs?
Okay, tell ya what. I'm pretty sure Masnick believes in breathing. But I don't think he's ever elaborated on that.
Are you going to stop breathing now? Please tell us you'll do just that. You wouldn't want to be inconsistent or hypocritical, would you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, but by never discussing his own beliefs about copyright it's easier for him to be hyper-critical of everyone else. The moment he admits that maybe there is something legitimate about copyright, he'll have to confront the truth that defining the rights and determining their scope is a difficult task given all the competing considerations. But by never discussing it and by never taking a position, he's able to just shit on everyone else's beliefs. Obviously Mike doesn't ever want to be pinned down on a position since that would mean actually confronting the issues and discussing a solution. He doesn't want to do that. He just wants to whine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have no intention of ever discussing, openly and frankly, your opinions - you just wish to derail any productive and necessary conversation by going "WHAAARGABL" all over your own faeces.
Come back when you've had the paradox crumple-zone removed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really, is typing shit on your wife's computer the only way you can get her to like you? Do you share notes with Charles Carreon on how to be a lawyer and husband?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, you're the epitome and embodiment of righteousness and debate alright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is to say, I think it would be fun to look through history and put together an example of what copyright law really should look like. Basically just consolidating all the ideas scattered across the site into one concise "Here it is"
Would be very interesting to see, something to dream about and push for. So nice goal to strive for and for those trolls it would be one of the most frightening posts they ever see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I like it ;)
Oh and for your education, and to annoy the trolls (and especially one just out of law school) this online book "Privilege and Property: Essays on the History of Copyright" might be interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The first rule of "Wiffle Bat Fight Club is to not talk about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hacking is not what the MSM or trolls like yourself think it is.. and I'm proud to say I have been hacking since the early 80's.
Oh and please hold your breath...please!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why, what's wrong with hacking?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic
Oh, sorry, your dumb ass isn't capable of understanding multiple definitions a word so you have to use the lazy tabloid writer's definition.
"Let's actually discuss your beliefs about copyright directly and on the merits."
In every post you've launched an idiotic personal attack, a distortion of the words presented or a selective reading of the article and its responses to avoid having a nuanced discussion, it's been right there. in black and white. but, you chose to ignore it in favour of more insults and lies.
You could go back and read the last decade's worth of text here to understand what you're asking for, but it's easier to pretend that what you deliberately ignored doesn't exist.
"I won't hold my breath."
I wish you would, or at least refrain from typing until you have something honest to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good grief, what did she do to you to annoy you that badly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This, folks, is what I'm talking about. Thanks for coming into this thread and proving my point, Mike. You are the ultimate fence sitter. All you want to do is shit on everyone else's beliefs, but you're too scared to ever tell us your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only point being proven here is your unwillingness to admit to the simple fact that I am the one being open, and you're not.
My beliefs are clear and clearly stated: I want to explore these things with data, which means *testing* different systems, which we have not yet been able to do. I can't answer if there should be copyright or not, because WE DON'T KNOW if no copyright system would be better than a minimal system. I do think -- and have clearly stated for years -- that a much more minimal system would be better than what we have now. It's possible that no copyright would work better, but no one has enough data to prove that yet.
I have made my position abundantly clear.
You: "Do you believe in God?"
Me: "I am agnostic, though I have trouble with your interpretation of God."
You: "YOU FENCE SITTER!! DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT BELIEVE IN GOD? IT IS A YES OR NO QUESTION!!"
It would do you well in life to realize that sometimes things are not easily answered in yes and no questions. It is quite reasonable for intelligent people to point out that *it depends* or to note that *there is not yet enough data to answer*.
Only complete zealots believe otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What hogwash. 220 years of copyright data in this country, and you claim to not have enough data. And now you're saying that we would have to have a no-copyright system before you could say. How convenient. That means you will never, ever say whether you think there should or shouldn't be any copyright. The man who has made it his life's work to shit on everyone else's view of copyright refuses to discuss his own views. Shocker.
And it's bullshit. Everyone is free to not use copyright if they don't want to, and lots of people chose not to. So you have people using it and people not using it. I won't bother to get into the details of what this supposed data you think you need exactly is because I know you'll just hem and haw and give more and more excuses. That's all you ever have. Excuses. You just throw out excuse after excuse, but you're too much of a coward to ever just have a *real* conversation on the merits. You run away and dodge talking directly EVERY SINGLE TIME.
You don't want to take a position on this like you won't take a position on dozens of other questions I could ask you about. You just want to sit on the fence and complain about everyone else. You're too scared and dishonest to actually tell us what you believe. You just want to shit on everybody else while being too scared to answer even the most simple question about your own beliefs.
It's a total, 100% bullshit cop-out and you know it. You're a complete and total fake and you know it. You're a coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We have ~190 years of one form of copyright and ~30 of a much more strict kind.
But, we also have very different conditions today thanks to the internet and widespread ability to create. What we don't have are enough data on what kinds of creativity and production and industry you get with such tools at different levels of protection.
And now you're saying that we would have to have a no-copyright system before you could say. How convenient
I am not saying that. I am saying that it would be good to have tests or experiments to test hypotheses. Often you can find that data through natural experiments, rather than having to revamp the entire system.
Look, I know your position: for whatever reason, you have a general dislike for me. You have decided that I am (a) completely anti-copyright and (b) somehow too "dishonest" to admit that. Neither of these points are true, and no matter how many times I explain this to you, you seem to only use it to further your insistence that I am too dishonest.
I really don't see any point in further discussing it with you, because any time I say anything that disagrees with the crazy fake Mike in your head, your response is to claim that I'm dishonest and this is further proof. Under such a scenario, there is no way for me to prove that what I am saying is the truth. So, really, there is logically no reason to engage with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are the most opinionated person I can think of, and you write and obsess about copyright more than any other person in the world. Yet, you have no opinion about whether there should be any copyright? Absolute bullshit. You are too dishonest and cowardly to take even the slightest stance on this issue, even though you clearly have very deep feelings about it and have thought about it more than probably anyone else. Grow a pair. Seriously. This is why I hate your guts, Mike. You are 100% a fake and a coward. All you care about is shitting on what everyone else believes while you're too scared to say what you believe. Total fake. Total coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, I'm sure you'd be glad to debate me, since you're not a coward or scared to say what you believe in (and it would be hypocritical after just calling Mike those things if you were to run away).
So, I've got some loaded questions, which I insist you answer with yes or no answers, of which I will then take your answers (if you're man enough to respond) completely out of context and accuse you of lying. Won't that be fun? We'll start with your favorites: copyright and ethics.
1) Is it ethical for the government to automatically put anything creative under copyright the moment it is created (or put into a fixed form) if the creator has not expressed a desire to have it copyrighted?
2) Is it ethical for a company that owns the rights to a work to restrict someone from making, sharing, or distributing a work that other person created that is vaguely similar or contains small portions of the original work?
3) Is it ethical for the government to extend the copyright term length to prevent an existing work from going into the public domain despite that it was created under a different assumed balance between the creator's rights and the public's?
4) Is it ethical for the government to shorten the copyright term length for the opposite reason as 3)?
I look forward to your responses. I'm sure you won't run away, like a coward, hypocrite, and a fake would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) Is it ethical for the government to automatically put anything creative under copyright the moment it is created (or put into a fixed form) if the creator has not expressed a desire to have it copyrighted?
2) Is it ethical for a company that owns the rights to a work to restrict someone from making, sharing, or distributing a work that other person created that is vaguely similar or contains small portions of the original work?
3) Is it ethical for the government to extend the copyright term length to prevent an existing work from going into the public domain despite that it was created under a different assumed balance between the creator's rights and the public's?
4) Is it ethical for the government to shorten the copyright term length for the opposite reason as 3)?
Sure, I'm glad to share my opinion. I will directly answer your questions with no word games and no running away.
(1) Yes, I think it's ethical for copyright to subsist upon fixation. That's the way it works in pretty much every country in the world. We could go back to using formalities, but I haven't seen any real push to do that. I know the conventional wisdom in the anticopyright view is that the formalities are preferable, but I've never seen a persuasive argument for why. I read a journal article last year that argued that the formalities wouldn't make that much difference. Personally, I think the formalities are fine, and I wouldn't be opposed to switching back. But I also don't think the current system is bad either. Either way would be ethical.
(2) You're asking about the line between appropriation and misappropriation. That's a difficult line to draw, and courts have struggled with that for decades. But there's lots of lines that are difficult to draw in the law, such as liability that turns on whether something is reasonable or not or that turns on whether someone acted because of a result or despite the result. But yes, it's completely ethical to prevent other people from copying if that copying crosses the line. Some copying is fine, and it's important to remember that fair use can be grounded in the First Amendment. The copyright holders' rights are important, and so are the rights of the would-be users of the materials. Too much copyright is bad, and not enough copyright is bad. Balancing those rights is difficult, and I believe that while the current system is adequate, it would be even better if we gave would-be users broader and more definite rights. I think we should work through the democratic process and change it if we feel it could be better.
(3) I have no problem with copyright terms extensions that have happened and I think it is ethical to do so. If another extension were to be suggested, I would be dubious and curious as to why it was being suggested. I think life+ is definitely the way to go, and I see no reason to extend it any further than where it's at now. IP rights worldwide are fairly harmonized at the moment. Works for me.
(4) Shortening? That's a good question and I haven't given it much thought. My initial reaction is that there would perhaps be a takings clause problem, i.e., it might violate the constitutional rights of the people who owned the rights that were shortened. That would be unethical. I think you could do it safely, that is, without the risk of violating people's constitutional rights, if you did it prospectively. I have no problem with doing that, but in my opinion it should be life+.
Hope that answers your questions, and if not, let me know and I'll try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now that the 2 year old antics are finished, let's get down to business.
1) If it is ethical for the government to act against or without knowing the desires of the creator, what makes that different from society, or individuals, deciding the infringe on copyright against the desires of the artist, or without knowing whether the artist approves? Don't cop out and head down the legal path - we're talking ethics, not legality.
2) Nice fence sitting. I can't decipher where you actually stand. You sound like a politician trying not to piss off anyone.
3&4) So you have no problem with taking works from the public (ie, Golan), yet potentially have problems taking things away from the rightsholder. When you have gotten rid of your cognitive dissonance, try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Masnick the Evader.
I'll paste in MY notions from elsewhere so posterity will have in one place a clear comparison between Masnick's hogwash and a statement of bedrock beliefs:
Fundamentals of Rational Copyright Somewhat redundant to clarify related aspects.
) Creators inherently have SOLE RIGHT TO COPY their work.
) Creating is and has always been more difficult than copying.
) The special provisions in law for copyright stem from the above 2 facts. It's specific setting out of "intellectual property" rights for creating works given the relative ease of copying.
) Copyright specifies WHO can gain money from the works, AND that no one else is to gain money from them. (For a limited time, but after in public domain, it's still unethical to grift on the work of others; ONLY the cost of reproduction should be charged.)
) Copyright law is indeed exactly to prevent copiers and the general public from copying works (during the limited time). The societal agreement is that only creators can attempt to gain from it during that (limited) period.
) There are NO rights whatsoever granted to or held by copiers. No one's "right to copy" is at any time removed or diminished because it never exists prior to the creation of a work.
) Machines doing the labor of copying doesn't confer any new right to do so.
) Copyright has a worthwhile societal purpose to encourage the creation of various works, even if only for trivial entertainment.
) Even indirect income from in any way providing "for free" the protected work of others is clearly illegal, immoral, and unethical.
) Putting an entire digital movie / music files online for anyone to download is NOT sharing, not fair use, nor fair to its creators; it does remove some degree of potential profit and some degree of actual profit.
) Copying rights are granted by the public for the public good (or was until unilaterally changed by moneyed interests) and we all have a general duty to respect the special provisions made for creators.
) Possession of authorized physical media is license to access the content any number of times (which can be one-at-a-time library use, yet not "public" display). In the absence of physical media, there's no clear right to access content, only perhaps an authorized temporary permission. But at no time does possession of digital data confer a right to reproduce it outside of the terms and conditions as for physical media, no matter how easy it is to do so.
) Emphasizing an aspect of the just above point: digital data is even less "owned" by the purchaser than with physical media, not more.
) When independently rendered, fashion "ideas", "art" in general, "look and feel", jokes, bits of wit, and musical "riffs" are not copyright-able because not significant effort. Don't throw those in to confuse the topic. (Specific clarification for music: you may play "stolen" riffs to parody or add spice, but not use actual "sampled" audio as basis for your main theme.)
) Many persist in using the canard of "copyright can't guarantee income". -- Misleading. The older body of copyright (beginning in the US Constitution) was to guarantee creators a monopoly on the ATTEMPT at income from a given work for a limited time period. No one else has the right to even MAKE such attempt.
) Nothing above is invalidated or weakened by results being imperfect, nor by attempts to indefinitely extend time and scope of copyright: the latter are driven by greed and should of course be resisted, but by more general means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did you tell your wife that you've jumped back to using your computer? Have you satiated her for the night, then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Oh man, talk about dishonesty, and being a total fake.
I care that he's too dishonest to discuss his own beliefs when he's made criticizing other people's beliefs his life's work.
No, you aren't intelligent enough to understand Mike's answers, which he constantly gives you when you go on your spiel of "DEBATE ME MIKE HOMG"
What a coward.
It's not cowardice to constantly state your beliefs to a person too thick to understand them and then walk away upon realising the pointlessness of the "debate".
Go home, AJ, you're drunk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]