How Not To Email Constituents: The Brian Nieves Story
from the doing-it-wrong dept
The intersection of technology and politicians is often wrought with speed bumps of silliness. But to truly see a great example of how to do technology wrong, you need only look to Missouri State Senator Brian Nieves. The story begins with an email mailing list for Nieves, which Bart Cohn of Wildwood, MO somehow found himself on. Cohn's political views are described to be about as much at odds with Nieves' as is humanly possible. Upon seeing the email, Cohn responded by asking to be removed from the mailing list and throwing the word "freak" in for good measure. Nieves, who apparently has little else to do, then began a wonderfully aggressive email exchange, beginning with:
Who are you? Is there something wrong with you? Are you incapable of communicating in a way that common, decent people do? Tell me this, how did you ever even get on MY Distribution list?Cohn responded by again asking to be removed. The exchange went on from there. You really should click the link to get the whole thing, but the best of the lot is the last of the exchange, in which Nieves takes the opportunity to affirm his heterosexuality (um...) and insulting Cohn's intelligence.
Wow. Your communications are so thought provoking, well written, and intelligent. Perhaps you secretly want to be on my distribution list because every time you send me a message, your email is recaptured and put on my distribution list. I'm tiring of taking you off every time you email me AGAIN so unless you are in love with me or have some other sort of sick obsession with me (sorry, I'm straight as an arrow) you should probably stop emailing me so that you don't keep getting put back on the list. Should I type these instructions slower? Are you having a hard time understanding? BTW - I archive ALL questionable emails like yours in case there's ever any doubt about who got ugly first. Go back to the grade school playground where people you can successfully bully and out smart are playing cuz junior... You are way out of your league with me.This, ladies and gentlemen, is an elected official in public office talking to one of his constituents. And thanks to the internet, those words he chose to email will live on in perpetuity. So be careful who you elect to office, because they might just be a jerk.
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: brian nieves, missouri
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having read the whole exchange on the linked site, however, this elected offical is a true moron. Not only does he quickly launch into idiotic personal defenses, he goes straight into things like "I'm sure your very Big & Bad & Tuff". Wow. I'd expect that from a 12 year old, not someone elected to run his constituency.
Is it really so hard for an adult discussion to take place? Even if Cohn was being particularly abusive, it should be the official's job to divert confrontation and get to the meat of a real issue, not act like a child. Also, (and apologies here for anyone who finds this opinion disagreeable) I'm sadly not surprised to see that Nieves is a Republican with a self-proclaimed patriotic and religious stance. Those guys always seem to be obnoxious morons. Not that Cohn appears to be the epitome of polite discourse himself, but he's not the one supposedly representing thousands of people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree. Even though I am a registered Republican. The thing is, I can't see any discernible difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both want to screw the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There may not be a huge gap between them in terms of actual policy, especially given the way US politics is generally skewed to the right, but only one side tends to come "wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross" as the quote goes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
- Abortion (I'm morally and possibly religiously against but I recognize the choice is up to the women)
- Homosexual marriage (really, love and affection know no boundaries. I'm hetero without even the slightest bisexual inclination)
- Euthanasia (if I want to end my life it's my own damn choice)
- Free speech (while I may not agree with some people worshiping and preaching about how The Devil, Nazism is the way to go they have the right to do so as long as they do not interfere with other peoples rights)
A truly evolved society wouldn't even be discussing such rights, they should be granted by default regardless of what whoever thinks about how those are being used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's always interesting to see abortion proponents trot out that particular strawman. The simple fact is, by the time abortion becomes an option, the woman has already made her choice. (And in cases where her pregnancy was not a result of a willing choice, most people--even those who oppose abortion on general principle--see it differently. But that doesn't stop the abortion proponents from using it as their other favorite strawman.)
It's not about "choice;" it's about taking responsibility for the natural consequences of your choices. The terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are both horribly disingenuous, and they both mean the exact same, very ugly, thing: "those who disagree with my position are against this value that everyone agrees is good." (You wouldn't want to be anti-life, would you? And you wouldn't want to be anti-free will, right?)
The only accurate description of the abortion sides small enough to fit in a sound bite like that are "pro-responsibility" and "anti-responsibility." But for some reason, no one seems to want to frame it in those terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you talk about taking responsibilities then tell the woman that wishes to abort about the possible consequences: sterility, depression and so on. Being a catholic I've been on both sides of this issue and ultimately I concluded this is not for me to bend it to my will but to keep it on a neutral ground. And the neutral ground implies the woman must be able to choose. I'd say that the father should have some say in that as a baby is not generated out of thin air but then again he is not carrying the 9-month "ordeal" so I'm not sure. I do think we need some sane discussion devoid of simple religious myths. Again, I'm catholic.
I still don't understand what do you mean by pro/anty-responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
ex.. I am for having the choice, but would never consider abortion, I think it's wrong.
So where do I fit in the nice neat boxes that have been offered as my only 2 choices?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pregnancy happens as a natural consequence of having sex. Sex does not always result in pregnancy, but it's rather difficult to get pregnant without it. (Unless you're really trying hard to get pregnant, with the assistance of medical professionals. But that's not what we're talking about here.)
The woman already has a choice whether or not to have sex. (Some people use cases in which the woman did not have that choice (ie. rape) to try to derail the discussion, but again, that's not what we're talking about here. Such pregnancies are quite rare, and can be dealt with according to their own principles. They do not invalidate the principles under discussion here.)
If we understand that she choose to do so, and then became pregnant as a result of her choice, then the question of abortion becomes much simpler: Is she going to attempt to avoid the natural consequences of her actions by having an abortion, or take responsibility for her choices?
Without bringing any religious or "mystical" concepts whatsoever into this explanation, the pregnancy involves a distinct human life. (Biologically, it is a life form. Genetically, it is human and distinct from the mother.)
In any other context, choosing to end a human life in order to avoid the consequences of your actions is considered a truly monstrous act. It is generally only done to prevent some dark secret (ie. that you have already committed some other monstrous act) from coming to light.
I have never understood why abortion is treated as a special case by so many people, especially considering the circumstances. The fact that you had sex and got pregnant may be embarrassing, but it's hardly regarded as a horrible monstrous act in today's society.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh please, your moralism is showing. There are several stances where this can go wrong. The condom can fail. The pill can fail. Also, get madly passionate with a girl and try to think straight while in one of those moments where hormones start raging (pro tip: you will do stupid things if you don't get protection while you are still under control and actually that's why me and my gf decided it was safer to use pills to prevent pregnancy).
Is she going to attempt to avoid the natural consequences of her actions by having an abortion, or take responsibility for her choices?
It's not up to you to decide. Even if the woman did screw up and didn't take the precautions she should still have the choice to abort. Simple as that. I am vehemently against this so I'll always try to dissuade any girl from doing it, specially if I'm the one responsible for the pregnancy. It's a matter of educating girls on the consequences of their acts, be them religious or physical.
Biologically, it is a life form. Genetically, it is human and distinct from the mother.
Agreed. So if I take a fetus that hasn't even formed a nervous system out and let it live it'll be alright. Right?
In any other context, choosing to end a human life in order to avoid the consequences of your actions is considered a truly monstrous act.
Your bias is showing. I too agree to some extent to this but IT DOES NOT GIVE ME ANY POWER TO INTERFERE WITH THOSE WHO DON'T.
The fact that you had sex and got pregnant may be embarrassing, but it's hardly regarded as a horrible monstrous act in today's society.
There are several issues with undesired pregnancies. I'd rather have an embryo aborted than children that'll spend their life being mistreated and suffering because of absent parents. There's also public health costs (although that's a problem for countries that have a public health care system).
For all your eloquent talk about people not willing to deal with stuff you seem to fail at exactly that. It's people like you that should stay away from politics. Because you aren't capable of ruling neutrally on something that you have established moral or religious beliefs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think Nieves should be held to a higher standard, given his position...but...
I find it odd, however, that when someone claims to be a patriot, or a religious or faith driven person, they are denigrated as if they are less then the person commenting on them.
It seems to me that most of the so-called 'tolerant' crowd only seem to be tolerant of others just like themselves. Seems kinda like the pot and kettle story to me.
I have an idea. Why not respect the opinions and values of others, even if they don't have respect for yours?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you don't like what they stand for, vote them out. Educate yourself, your friends and relatives. The biggest reason the majority buys any political idiocy is ignorance. Lack of knowledge on the policies being discussed. If you let the media, or those with an interest in seeing the policies passed, feed you their interpretation of what is going on, you have no one but yourself to blame.
I usually research both side of an argument or policy in order to have the broadest understanding. I decide for myself what I think is best for me an mine. (Mine = my family, friends, community, nation, world).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, my experience is that the more outwardly a person tries to project a "patriotic" or "religious" image, the more they're either hiding something or trying to compensate for something. This happens everywhere, sadly, but Americans are more vocal about it than most - and it usually seems to be the Republicans who use religion and obsessive patriotism as their defences.
Perhaps I'm being unfair, I was just noting that one angry idiot who acted like a schoolkid on was also listed as a Republican who lectures religion and "patriotism". In my experience those people have tended to come across as the most arrogant, least intelligent people to communicate with on any issue. However, as I've already mentioned, the guy he was talking to was hardly the model of maturity himself. It's just that he's not an elected official who is partly responsible for the political direction of the US.
"It seems to me that most of the so-called 'tolerant' crowd only seem to be tolerant of others just like themselves. Seems kinda like the pot and kettle story to me."
Well, if you simplify everything down to "us vs. them", you will see it like that. Who calls who "more tolerant", anyway, or is that just a convenient way of pretending someone's a hypocrite without addressing their actual argument?
"Why not respect the opinions and values of others, even if they don't have respect for yours?"
Because they not only don't respect mine, but actively try to make life worse for myself and others I care about. While I'm not American, I do have many people I care about in that country and so have a vested interest in following the political discussion. There's a lot of horrendous arguments made where people only point to their religion or nationality as their argument, and sadly they're not restricted to the internet.
If someone's interested in a real discussion about issues, I can happily do so, but you have to bring nuance and evidence. If you're going to reach for your bible or birth certificate as your only reasoning, your opinion is invalid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A million times this. As soon as someone starts wrapping themselves in the flag or some religious doctrine, I know that they have nothing of substance behind their position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would like pose a couple of rhetorical questions.
1. What is the purpose of Science?
2. what is the purpose of 'other' Religions?
Do you see what I did there? You see, they are both after the same thing. One is as much a religion as the other, they just use different methods to look for the answer.
So, if someone comes to you espousing the dangers of Global Warming, do you assume they have nothing of substance behind their position?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, actually, they're not. Science is after the "what" and "how", and religion is after the "why".
Yes, if what they have to back up their position is patriotism or religious beliefs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think most religious texts have plenty of "How" and "What" in them. And there is plenty of "Why" in science.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's hard to talk about one without bringing in aspects of the others. But that changes nothing.
For example, when religion mentions the "how" and "what," it does so in a way that tends to be wildly inaccurate. The same is true when science mentions a "why". In both cases, the formulation is used as a kind of shorthand and so they are inevitably inaccurate.
Science does not, has never, and never will address the "why" question. The "why" questions are not the type that yield to scientific study in the first place. This is not a fault of science, it's simply not what science is meant to do.
Religion has a history of trying to answer "what" and "how," but that's because it was hard to say "why" if you can't say "what". In the modern day, religion has the freedom to avoid addressing those questions and has been largely happy to do so, since they're tangential to religion's purpose. Also, the answers that religion has given (when it has given actual answers and not dodges like "because it's God's will") have tended to be very, very wrong -- because those aren't the type of questions that yield to religious investigation.
In short, I don't see how science and religion are even remotely similar, aside from the useless abstraction of saying they both groups of truth-seekers.
That there are very religious people who are also hardcore scientists at the top of their fields (I know that they exist because I've worked with them) seems to indicate the two fields are not diametrically opposed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I understand and agree with most of what you are saying, the main difference is in the purpose. To what end is the good of knowing what and how if not to answer why?
"Why does the sun come up in the east?"
"Why do the stars migrate across the sky every night?"
"Why are we here?"
"Where did we come from?"
I stand by my statement. The ultimate goal of science (religion) is to answer the ultimate question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd like to respond to a few points you made.
"I do wish that your political system had more than 2 parties though, that's for sure."
There are more than 2 parties. They are just not widespread or relevant in most cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States
"my experience is that the more outwardly a person tries to project a "patriotic" or "religious" image, the more they're either hiding something or trying to compensate for something. This happens everywhere, sadly, but Americans are more vocal about it than most - and it usually seems to be the Republicans who use religion and obsessive patriotism as their defences."
While I agree that political figures have to justify their reasoning on many issues. It is not limited to, or more prominent in any one party. "For the children" seems to be a popular phrase from both sides right now (and on Techdirt). Our current president has been using that one ALOT recently in a effort to restrict our rights.
"Well, if you simplify everything down to "us vs. them", you will see it like that. Who calls who "more tolerant", anyway, or is that just a convenient way of pretending someone's a hypocrite without addressing their actual argument?"
I am not taking sides in this as I believe both are wrong. There is no "us vs. them" in my statement. I was merely pointing out that just because your beliefs are different than someone else's, it doesn't give you the right to demean their beliefs.
As for the 'tolerance' issue, that is the battle cry of one of our main political parties - hint, it's not the Republicans - and again, that group is only 'tolerant' of people with similar ideals. I see no difference in either party, they both are only interested in demonizing each other and those that support them. I see nothing 'tolerant' on either side.
"There's a lot of horrendous arguments made where people only point to their religion or nationality as their argument, and sadly they're not restricted to the internet."
On this we agree. In today's political environment, the sound bites are what matter. My nation is now run by whomever can handle the media the best and pander to the largest audience. It has little to do with the facts or what is best for the nation as a whole and more to do with what does a candidate, incumbent, or party have to say to remain in power.
Ambrose Bierce hit the nail on the head in the Devil's Dictionary, "Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage." To this point, there is no difference in any political party I have found to date.
Finally,
"If you're going to reach for your bible or birth certificate as your only reasoning, your opinion is invalid."
I Agree in principle with what you are saying, but I think it's a little too absolute. I don't think anyone would list religion and birth certificate as their "only" reason, but they do play a part in every decision you make. If you care for your family and friends, their welfare has some input in your decision to fight the guy who insulted your wife, fight a war, climb a mountain, ride a motorcycle, jump out of an airplane, or even stay out late partying. In the same manner, your community has some input in the decisions you make, and your Nation, and your faith. To separate any of these influences from your decisions, whatever the decision, is a disservice to you and those you proclaim to care for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course I realise that. I meant mainstream parties. The problems are that most people will only vote for one of the mainstream parties, and certain aspects of the system (such as debates that only feature 2 parties) work to cement this. I hope that both parties have radical elements break off and join/form other parties so that there's at least 3 realistic options (at the very least a centrist party with a true left and right wing option), but the system seems built to discourage this.
"I don't think anyone would list religion and birth certificate as their "only" reason"
You've had different discussions to me, possibly because cultural differences mean I notice different things. Last time I was in the US I got into a heated discussion with a guy about healthcare. I couldn't understand why he was so opposed to a system that would not only help the poor but also streamline the systems already in place (the US pays more per capita in taxes toward healthcare than any other country, and this guy was also paying nearly as much in insurance for his family as my entire tax bill).
When it came down to it, he couldn't concoct a reason for his opposition other than a vague notion of "socialism". His only opposition to that was that it was "unAmerican". His blind patriotism stopped him from considering the actual problems.
Anecdotal for sure, but I've heard similar arguments relating to education, immigration, terrorism, military action, equal rights, contraception, etc. - "because Jesus" or "because America" seem to be a depressingly common reactions to complex issues that shut down honest discussion before they even begin.
Of course those things have some sort of effect in the decision everybody makes, even if it's a lack of religion or patriotism. But Republicans are usually the ones who make it their entire argument in my experience - that's really all I meant. There's stupid rhetoric on all sides, though, I agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As an American Independent, I believe that the party system is the root of so much of what is wrong in American politics and should never have happened. Party systems only serve to polarize and divide people into groups of us versus them.
Elected members of a party believe they were elected to represent that party and uphold that party line, not the interests of their constituents who elected them. Typically a Republican will not represent the Democrats who voted for them, a Democrat will not represent the Republicans who voted for them, and neither party will represent the Libertarians, Consititution, Green, Independent, or other parties who voted for them. This is how we get filibusters on every major piece of legislation by whichever party is not a majority at the time and no concessions ever to meet in the middle.
For example, can you be pro health care reform and pro gun rights and have both opinions represented by the same elected official if the party line is yes to one but no to the other? Can you be pro copyright/patent reform if neither dominant party supports it? Should you really say that you won't represent 47% of your electorate and expect that same 47% to vote for you anyway just because some of them are members of your own party?
There should be only one "party" in the US: the American Party. All interests and opinions represented. Trend towards the middle through compromise, not extremes by division.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because claiming to be a patriot, religious, or faith-driven invariably proves to be the rhetoric of a confidence trickster, and a lot of people are learning to call them on it. If a politician were to say, "God bless you" to me and I didn't just sneeze, I would check my wallet to make sure his hand wasn't stuck in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you saying that everyone who claims to be a patriot is lying? Everyone claiming to be faith-driven is lying?
Or are you saying that they were being truthful... until they became a member of congress?
Based on current crime statistics, all African-Americans should be in jail if I used your statement as a guide.
It's generalizing statements like yours that lead to things like racism. Please be careful of using words like 'invariably'. It's far to absolute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ 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:
Most of what I see in the news are bad, nasty things. Does that mean nothing good is out there? Should I just assume that everyone outside my family is after my life/liberty/possessions?
"Charlatans very frequently hide behind religion and nationalism."
The also frequently hide behind "The Greater Good" and "Tolerance" and "Free Market" and "For the Children". Does that mean we should close down the Boys and Girls Clubs of America?
The fact is, there are bad people everywhere. But that does not give anyone the right to ASSUME, based on an expression of love for their nation or religion that a person has any ulterior motives.
I repeat my question, "It's OK to be loud and proud of your children, your sports team, or your university, but not your nation or your beliefs. Do I have that right?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apples & oranges. I'm talking about how a person presents himself, not about what status or group the person belongs to. Not all religious people need to be treated with caution. Only those who behave as if their religion justifies their actions. The same is true of all the groups you cite, including muslims.
Indeed so. And what I said above applies to these groups as well.
That's just a silly thing to say. This discussion has nothing to do with closing anything down at all.
Again, very true. However, certain types of bad people are more attracted to some things than others. Con artists are attracted to things that are likely to make people have confidence in them. Religion is a very big, easy target to use this way.
I have the right to assume anything at all. But I'm not talking about assuming that anyone has ulterior motives. I'm talking about engaging in due caution. This is common sense stuff. Some groups present a hire risk than others, due to no fault of their own.
For example, if I go onto a used car lot shopping for a car, it's prudent to be cautious when talking to the salesman. Used car lots present a hire-than-normal risk of ripping you off. That's not the same as suspecting that the specific lot you're on are crooks, but a common-sense recognition of a general increased risk.
Also, we're not talking about a simple expression of love for nation of religion. We're talking about how that type of rhetoric is often used by crooks for nefarious purposes.
No, you do not have that right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They are no longer "democrats" or "republicans"; they are no longer "liberal" or "conservative".
They are "Corporatists", or they are "Populists".
"Corporatists" are thoroughly in the pay of corporations, and have no desire or care to represent the actual people who elected them. They are bought and paid-for whores, and far less trustworthy.
"Populists" are those with at least a modicum of dedication to their constituents, those people that actually pay their salaries too. They understand what it means to be a "public servant", and they work hard to be exactly that.
So can we PLEASE get this right?? The other bent terms are too confusing to allow usage as they are, any longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> it should be the official's job to divert
> confrontation and get to the meat of a real
> issue, not act like a child.
He definitely has a child's grasp of grammar. Someone should head down to his senate office with a PowerPoint presentation on the proper uses of 'your' and 'you're'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You don't watch many news programs featuring our elected officials do you?
[ 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:
Not that I expect that to work, what with every spam email most likely being not only unmonitored, but also a throwaway one-time deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But as you said, most are just spoofed addresses. Spamcop has a functionality like that where you can automatically forward them spam email for analysis... but you know, it's spamcop. The only real way to achieve this would be to flood/attack/whatever the originating IP, but even that can be spoofed rather easily.
And yes, I was being sarcastic. Any bozo can install a php mailing list software through web hosting and misconfigure/misadminister it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i dont know why he bothered. did he really think that Cohn wasn't doing the same thing? did he really think that there was no way that the 'conversation' would not end up on the 'net? if someone is 'way out of your league', i would suggest it to be Nieves! what a moron!! how the hell you people manage to elect such complete prats into so important an office, i do not know!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*raises hand*
Ahem. That would be on par with the technological knowledge of our lawmakers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...which Bart Cohn of Wildwood, MO somehow found himself on"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "...which Bart Cohn of Wildwood, MO somehow found himself on"
Even if you're correct, that means that Nieves has his email system set up to automatically add anyone who sends him spam to the mailing list. That must cause a monstrous waste of time and resources to manage the resulting deluge for every member of said list. Your defence of him hardly makes him look any better, even if you ignore Nieves' own lack of professional tone (as you chose to).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "...which Bart Cohn of Wildwood, MO somehow found himself on"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "...which Bart Cohn of Wildwood, MO somehow found himself on"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "...which Bart Cohn of Wildwood, MO somehow found himself on"
Just saying there are underhanded reasons to do exactly what he seems to be implying... not that this would be useful for anything other than a talking point, but then do Politicians do anything other than "talking points?"....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds to me like...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Blacklist:
1) a list of things the official not speak about publicly.
2) a list of things for the official to deny (even if true).
3) a list of the officials sexual partners, while married.
4) a list of donors that have bought the officials vote.
5) a list of political enemies to be destroyed at all costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blacklist
Blacklist? Pfft, sack that for a lark. Just use a whitelist instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New personal best
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2013/04/brian_nieves_senate_floor_speech.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New personal best
Whenever I read about most of the stuff on techdirt I feel close to bursting with a mixture of anger and sadness, and I would think that others do as well and although it might be unflattering I would really like to see politicians who fell the same way show a little passion as well, not just monotone flat speech all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: New personal best
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sad to say, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps Nieves ought to read the above as "Look Ma, I've got daddy's shoes on!".
What a twat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How is it that a Public official can claim privacy rights when a) pubic funds pay them; b)the use of public funds for all other parts of their job duties.
These two guys are both asshats, however one is a PUBLIC representative, and "should" be held to a much higher standard.
why is is allowed??
this is the problem with "most" elected officials, they have set it up so they are the "Boss", we we as a nation have failed because we let them.
(if you feel you should not be held to a higher standard it's quite simple, stay out of the public office, same with security, if the public office you hold scares you don't run, cause that's the nature of the biz sweetheart, as it SHOULD be)
/end rant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having spent several years in MO...
*shrug* Some people appreciate brash honesty and lack of tact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solution : do away with politicians entirely
It's not like we don't have solutions to crowdfund public necessities on a permanent basis. Built right into money itself.
Lie this : https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_3:_Assurance_contracts
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Smar t_Property
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Dominant_Assurance_Contracts
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Dist ributed_markets#Pay_to_policy_outputs
We can vote with our wallets for what we know that we need.
So. Would YOU rather pay for Mars, or for Wars?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Solution : do away with politicians entirely
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He got into it with a jerk. We've all been there. Give the guy a break.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, they don't have a way to exclude an email from being put back on the list?
"I archive ALL questionable emails like yours in case there's ever any doubt about who got ugly first."
Great. See how much good it does you in this case.
""Tell me who you are and how you ever got on my list."
"The ONE and ONLY way for you to have gotten on my list is by YOU having communicated with me via email. "
Why ask the question if you know the answer?
"Are you threatening an elected official?"
Obviously not. Are you paranoid?
"Also, don't ever send anything to this email address again"
Don't ask questions and then tell someone to not respond.
Obviously not.
"Go back to the grade school playground where people you can successfully bully and out smart are playing cuz junior... You are way out of your league with me."
What, you're saying you are a bigger bully? And you think this email exchange was an attempt to "out smart" you? Man, if you think this email exchange was designed to test the limits of your intelligence... oh, and by the way, you failed the test by responding like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]