This Week In Techdirt History: April 21st - 27th
from the what-went-down dept
Five Years Ago
This week in 2014, James Clapper was busy giving speeches to students to try to prevent any admiration of Ed Snowden, and working hard to stop members of the intelligence community from talking to pretty much anyone. Homeland Security was warning parents that typical teenage behavior might be a sign of terrorist radicalization, while a court was telling the DOJ it must release the memo that described the justificiation for a drone strike on a US citizen.
Meanwhile, we were wondering why the US government was getting involved in the Aereo case (on the broadcast industry's side of course), though at least it appeared at the time that the SCOTUS justices understood the gravity of the case, even as so many people persisted in describing Aereo's compliance with copyright law as circumvention of copyright law.
Ten Years Ago
This week in 2009, while the entertainment industry was doing its best to celebrate the recent verdict against the Pirate Bay, some folks in Sweden noticed that the judge in the case appeared to have ties to the copyright lobby, while journalists were beginning to realize that Google can do anything The Pirate Bay could. Meanwhile in the UK, British Telecom was voluntarily blocking the site as an act of unnecessary self-regulation.
We also took a look back at ten (failed) years of the V-Chip, and witnessed the end of an era when Yahoo announced it was killing off Geocities.
Fifteen Years Ago
This week in 2004, we witnessed both slightly good and worryingly bad omens regarding the future of patent reform — but we also saw the birth of the EFF's excellent patent-busting program. A lawsuit over liability for Napster's investors was headed to court, while the RIAA was ditching its absurd amnesty program for file sharers, various groups were trying to automate the booting and blocking of file sharers — though there were early signs of a shift in piracy from file sharing to stream ripping. We also saw the first person ever charged under a seven-year-old internet stalking law.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hey look, another banner day for the turds that pay Masnick's rent:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-26/google-staffers-share-350-stories-of-system ic-retaliation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please offer the definitive proof — with proper citations — that Google pays anyone at Techdirt, let alone Mike Masnick, to figuratively kiss Google’s ass…or for any reason, for that matter. (The image of Copia Institute sponsors is not “proof”.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Proof? - He was told by an AC on Breitbart. It must be true!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think the reason that people are so suspicious of Techdirt is because Techdirt acts so strangely. MIke seldom responds to straightforward questions - instead he seems to either “lurk” or post under false names. The posters with tens of thousands of posts are too uniform in their opinion - obvious groupthink that is consistently denied as obvious groupthink. Sometimes people admit that posters are phoney and paid to voice certain opinions and not others, sometimes this is denied. Mike gets awards for “free speech” while silencing critics and hiding their messages from view. This is somewhat similar to the NYT getting awards for their coverage of Trump’s collusion, which never existed.
There is a lot of obvious proof of dishonesty and avoidance and misdirection. Anyone who reads this site can smell it, occasionally see it, and will always be silenced for stating the obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No one believes in your conspiracy except you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What about Sleeper Sam? He thinks it’s odd, too. People rising from the dead. And not a few, not happenstance, but dozens and dozens that he has repeatedly documented.
Huh? What about him? He think it’s a farce, too. And just becauase he’s my cousin doesn’t mean squat.
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
'Conspiracy' is giving it way more weight than it deserves, they're just lying and making shit up(as usual).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So they are a conspiracy theorist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wouldn't even give them that, as a conspiracy theorist takes facts(or what they believe are facts) and attempts to come up with an explanation for them, whereas they just lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please provide proof of the following claims of fact:
Mike Masnick posts in the comments section under “false names”.
Commenters “with tens of thousands of posts are too uniform in their opinion”.
Commenters have admitted they were “paid to voice certain opinions”.
Also: Your charge of “silencing critics and hiding their messages from view” is called moderation. The people who have their comments hidden most often are not critics, but trolls — like you — who make outrageous claims of fact without any proof, expect everyone else to take their “opinions” seriously, and whine when they are not. That you and the troll brigade so often insult both Mike and Techdirt commenters, even while criticizing (or attempting to criticize) a position offered in a given article or comment, says a lot about y’all…and ain’t none of it good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“Please provide proof” - why? You wouldn’t believe it anyway, any more than you could admit that Trump DID NOT collude with the Russians, but Hillary did.
Provide any evidence that you have EVER cared about evidence. Show me one instance when your opinion CHANGED when presented with FACTS. Every time you are confronted with the TRUTH, you change the conversation to SHIT and ASSHOLES.
And yes, I have a LOT of evidence, I don’t need to present it separately, because it is been proven hundreds of times.
Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
…because he and his campaign staff were too incompetent to directly collude with the Russians.
Insults, baseless claims of fact, and contrarianism for its own sake are not “the truth”. And if you dislike the words I say or the context in which I use them, get a userscript to censor them; I will not censor myself to comfort your ignorance.
If it has been proven “hundreds of times”, you should be able to cite the proof. Instead, you deflect and hope nobody notices that you are lacking when it comes to proving the things you claim. (Are you lacking in other areas, Hamilton? Got a little…shrinkage problem going on?) When you want people to take you seriously instead of taking potshots at you because you are a troll, show us the evidence that proves your claims. Until then, you will be regarded as a troll and treated accordingly.
Oh, and one last thing:
Your rhetorical gimmick will not work on me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You know I love it when you say that, right?
ON a related note, I will say again that I think UTube has changed. I watched four hours of Victor Davis Hanson (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Couo-cxNipI) yesterday, wow is he smart. There is a WHOLE LOT of right of center material that I have never seen before suddenly being offered to me. And it’s REALLY GOOD!
I think with the Mueller report out, no Collusion, no reason to obstruct the investigation of something that NEVER HAPPENED, times they are a’changin.
Right? (Chuckle)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
(A) no
(B) Obstruction of WHAT? An investigation that continued and concluded no collusion?
I think it’s hilarious to talk about obstruction of the investigation, which continued to completion and concluded that a crime that never occurred. Are you serious?
Obstruction of a false charge that was proven phony, and paid for by Hillary. Yeah, that’s a great reason to invalidate millions and millions of votes.
Yeah, right.
I remember after Trump won the election, and the pendulum and clearly swing back away from radicals like Obama and his administration, I really things would just continue in the right direction. And they did, except for the Mueller investigation, which was phony from the word go. However, it was relentlessly supported and promoted by nearly ALL the news media.
Now, it’s over. All the idiots are on display as supporting a ridiculous and phony story that was crafted by the Russians on Hillary’s behalf.
The pendulum is due some momentum now, and I feel that momentum picking up.
Reallly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"radicals like Obama and his administration"
If a centrist like Obama, who actually swung right on a global scale is a "radical" leftist to you, I actually fear for how utterly screwed up your political viewpoint is.
"Now, it’s over"
You tell yourself that. The sane people will look forward to seeing what all that redacted content due to "ongoing investigations" reveals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 3.4 percenter
Hey hamilton you sound really scared for your boy. Good news is those masks you love to put on blue balls will he 1/2 off soon bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Provide any evidence that you have EVER cared about evidence
Dontcha just love internet discourse folks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Trump DID NOT collude with the Russians, but Hillary did."
Wait, what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is one of Trump's rambling points. He didn't collude but Hillary of course did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That fact that he did not collude with the Russians is now on public display. To deny it just means you are an idiot.
The fact that Hillary and the DNC PAID to have Russians write a phony story and use that phony story as the basis to SPY on Americans is also well known. Now, the details will continue to emerge. I predict Comey in Prison. Maybe Hillary.
Time will tell.
Hey Mike, how’s Chelsea doing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not to mention that Trump and family were apparently too stupid to collude
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Too stupid to mastermind it, perhaps, but certainly capable of being used by people who know what they're doing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I dare you
Hey hmailton. Say phony one more time and you will win a free copy of The Catcher In The Rye.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't forget how many lies the Muller report cataloged...
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/04/mueller-report-donald-trump-russia-lies/
B ig lies. Everytime he talks, the dishonesty is just overwhelming.
Kinda like with Blue Balls - he just says stupid shit and expect everyone to believe it without fact-checking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Stripped of hyperbole, there still remains the undeniable fact that many of your observations accurately portray how dissenting opinions are treated at this site by both its principals and its dedicated fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The undeniable fact is that when making statements you should be able to back them up.
The undeniable fact is that when pointing out the lack of verifiable fact the person in question either silently scampers off or starts spouting nonsense attacking everyone.
The undeniable fact is that the person in question calls everyone not agreeing exactly with his viewpoint for damn pirates that should be in jail.
It has been pointed out on many occasions that if he just was honest in his debating he wouldn't look like a troll and be treated as such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Meh, if Blue Balls could actually cite what "Laws" TD is breaking, or show a single un-moderated discussion webpage he'd have done it by now. He can't, so he just shows up and screams nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There is no "dissenting opinion" coming from this person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
“dissenting opinions”
That’s a very strange way to say hot garbage, outright lies and lunatic ranting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Trump DID NOT collude with the Russians"
This is still unproven, of course.
"But the very beginning of Mueller’s report makes it clear the special counsel did not evaluate whether there was collusion, because “collusion” is not a federal crime or a commonly used legal term."
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/18/18485465/bill-barr-summary-clipped-quotes-mueller-report-c ollusion-coordination
Barr himself didn't say that collusion was disproven, only that it wasn't proven. The criminal activity uncovered was worth the effort even if it had been disproven - but it hasn't been.
"but Hillary did"
Need I say - citation needed.
"And yes, I have a LOT of evidence"
But you'll refuse to present any of it. What a strange coincidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
OK, Paul, I can read your post carefully and see that you care about this issue.
I would just say that “time will tell”. IMHO, the rule of law has been followed, and Mueller did not make a case against Trump. This is well publicized for everyone to see.
Why Mueller had to do so to begin with, when this FBI investigation had ALREADY CONCLUDED there was NOTHING WRONG done by Trump is an open question. Whether Comey, Clapper, Brennan and Clinton broke any laws with their behavior is another open question. They did all lie, and in some cases, lying is breaking the law. Some cases not, of course.
We will all find out together. The truth, I mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RanDoM cApItalS toTaLly mAke U lOOK sANe
“when this FBI investigation had ALREADY CONCLUDED there was NOTHING WRONG”
You got a citation for your BULLSHIT homeboy?
No of course you don’t.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RanDoM cApItalS toTaLly mAke U lOOK sANe
Peter Strzok: “There’s no there there”. Many others. Two congressional hearings.
You paint yourself as a wacko that can’t accept the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: RanDoM cApItalS toTaLly mAke U lOOK sANe
That’s so sad and pathetic an excuse for a evidence that even Sarah Sanders would have shut her cake hole instead of uttering that bit of hot garbage. Do you have any actual evidence bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: RanDoM cApItalS toTaLly mAke U lOOK sANe
Bro. Broken. Broken theory. A coup that failed. Criminal indictments for Comey, Clapper, Brennan and Hillary. Coming. Bro. Watch and see. Rule of law returning to the US of A.
Watch Barr. I know what he’s going to say. Watch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: She lost get over it
Oh you’re on of the Qanon nutters. Good luck with the recovery from your serious head injury bro. Otherwise it’s gonna break your wee little heart when none of that continues to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RanDoM cApItalS toTaLly mAke U lOOK sANe
"Rule of law returning to the US of A."
You may be correct about that, but not for the reasons you think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wonder if ANYBODY FUCKING CARES that a man FALSELY ACCUSED of something he DIDN’T DO is still being SMEARED by LIARS.
Your side lost. Get over it.
Or maybe, since it will happen again in 2020, get used to it.
Have a nice day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Poor sad broken man
You do apparently bro. By the way where did all that evidence you had go to? It’s almost like you’re changing the subject because you don’t actually have anything but crazy conspiracy theories and a broken home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"IMHO, the rule of law has been followed"
IMHO, you're very wrong. Let's see whose opinion is proven correct, but I fear it won't be yours since you openly base it on bullshit:
"this FBI investigation had ALREADY CONCLUDED there was NOTHING WRONG done by Trump"
Does it hurt to lie about the basis of your argument like that? Even Barr didn't say that Trump was exonerated, only that there wasn't enough of a legal definition and non-destroyed evidence to pin something on him legally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your argument is ridiculously inept. Prosecutors NEVER exonerate, you fucking idiot. That is not how the LAW has worked for (literally) thousands of years, you ignorant asshole. Get a clue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is a master class in projection, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The image of Google sponsoring his astroturf org isn't proof? Oh ok, dumbass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
He honestly doesn’t know. Mostly because he’s twisted that single basic fact into the lynchpin of so many conspiracies, that he can’t remember if it’s Area 51 Grey Aliens or Google bred lizard people from the center of the Earth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You TD useful idiots have a really difficult time accepting there is more than 1 person here mocking you, don't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One nutjob looks like any other
Poor baby. Can’t take little bit of ribbing. Best get back to your safe space before you soil your nappy again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One nutjob looks like any other
No there are different kinds. Do you identify as Pro-Nazi, Sod-Cit, Tin-Foil, or something else? What kind of troll would you like to be identified as, other than the Ad-Hom spewing Alt-Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One nutjob looks like any other
Pro American, asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flying solo
Ah it’s shit-talking qanan drone. You don’t usually see these in the wild without a pack of like minded useful idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Flying solo
Have you seen the same change on UTube that I have? I am getting a LOT of really good conservative content, but it only started several days ago. To be honest, I’ve been more connected to my TV than Techdirt, because there is much more interesting content there.
I also seems my ad rate has increased, but I’m OK with that, because I like the content.
I think maybe UTube is trying to “win over” conservatives now, and collecting ad revenue in return. Very effective.
What does that tell you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Flying solo
I'm glad you keep referring to "UTube", since your fantasy version of how things work only make sense if you are indeed not talking about YouTube. Although it is strange to see someone who is so single-mindedly obsessed with attacking Google not only have no idea how they actually operate, but also use their service daily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Flying solo
So that’s a no, you have not seen any change in UTube. (I spell it that way because it saves me two letters and everybody knows what I mean).
I think UTube is making a conscious decision to cater to right of center watchers, unlike before when everything was biased to the left.
In return for their generous offerings of right of center speakers, I watch their ads, usually to the end. Even if there are more of them.
I think they like me now. I think it’s a change. And I’m happy to see it. Really happy. Prayer U, for example, very interesting speakers. Victor Davis Hanson, very good. Lots of titles I’ve never seen before. Good stuff, really.
I think I’ll go back and watch some more - thanks for the attention. Always nice to hear from you.
You’re not American, right? Go fuck yourself with your stupid comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do they have reruns of The Nanny on YOutube?
“Go fuck yourself with your stupid comments.”
Poor baby hamilton. Run back to your safe space before you get called out again. You’ve been told before to not try to insult people because you’re so pathetically bad at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flying solo
"I spell it that way because it saves me two letters and everybody knows what I mean"
It also indicates that you're extraordinarily lazy, and that you don't care much about accuracy in your statements.
"I think UTube is making a conscious decision to cater to right of center watchers, unlike before when everything was biased to the left."
I think you've had some kind of brain injury that has made you forget the very basics of how the site you're using actually works, and I probably have more evidence of what I've said than you do.
"Lots of titles I’ve never seen before:
I've never heard of those guys either, but thanks for the heads up on what I should avoid should it ever appear on my feed. It's just a shame you're too dumb to understand the real reason why you see them and I don't...
"You’re not American, right?"
Nope, and my nationality has nothing to do with the conversation at hand, although it is nice of your to confirm for anyone lurking what a xenophobic idiot you are. No wonder you love stepping in the right-wing echo chamber, it must have been very scary for you to be exposed to differing opinions by YouTube for a while there. You must be so happy to be in your safe space where you are unchallenged by different viewpoints.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flying solo
America is not a “safe space”, quite the opposite, in fact.
Your nationality has everything to do with your view. That’s why you don’t like MAGA - because you’re not American, and never will be. That’s why it’s so easy for you to lie about American values and American ideals and criticize American heroes like Trump.
I saw Victor Davis Hanson speak recently (I believe I mentioned him previously) about the Obama coalition - basically the ANW+NLL (Angry Non-Whites) combined with NLL (Negro Loving Ladies )(Obama appealed to a lot of fantasies). He wasn’t really quite black, or honest, or intelligent, but as Americans, we all wished him well when he got the votes.
He squandered those wishes with a disaster of an administration, many of whom will now face jail time under Barr. His guerilla looking wife in lipstick and high heels cannot command his coalition (who would fantasize about her?), so she’s not going to run. Basically, the tyranny of the angry minorities has come to an end, with even the LGBT crowd being without a leader (Mayor Pete is a hopeless dud unable to provoke even Mike Pence)..
Why would you say my viewpoints are unchallenged? Many Americans would challenge my viewpoint, that’s a sign of a healthy society. I don’t represent everybody, just the majority.
Unlike Techdirt, which merely silences anyone they don’t agree with. Techdirt has a TINY but very vocal minority that completely dominates the social discourse here. LIke you. Which is fine.
I’m too dumb to understand what again? I understand you just fine - you’re a paid shill posting tens of thousands of comments for no purpose and without any conviction whatsoever. You’re a posting whore, a posting prostitute, an empty shell of a fake person with a fake name and a fake opinion that no one cares about except you and your sponsors.
Which is fine - In parting I would just add fuck you and fuck the horse you rode in on.
Have a nice day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flying solo
"America is not a “safe space”, quite the opposite, in fact."
Well... nice of you admit that your country has severe problems, though your lack of intelligence has led you to completely misunderstand and/or misrepresent what I was actually referring to. But, nice try.
"you’re not American, and never will be"
Nor would I want to be
"Why would you say my viewpoints are unchallenged? "
Because you've just admitted to hiding in an echo chamber, where you prefer being fed videos that conform to your pre-existing beliefs.
"Techdirt has a TINY but very vocal minority that completely dominates the social discourse here"
Yes, some of us do like to exercise our freedom of speech. Do you have a problem with people exercising their rights?
"you’re a paid shill"
I wish! But, your rejection of anything that doesn't pander to you directly is yet again noted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flying solo
Note away, idiot boy. Or girl. You write like a girl. Are you trans?
America has the BEST problems, and the BEST people, and the BEST president, and the BEST of EVERYTHING! Absolutely the best, without exception, we call it American Exceptionalism.
That’s why, as a country, we’re RICH!
Yes, I promote free speech, even speech from foreigner idiots like you. I enjoy it when you talk, because the best argument against you is YOUR OWN SPEECH. Free Speech means everyone is free to speak, and everyone else is free to ignore them.
I’m not ignoring you, because I am a NICE American. My friends are not so nice. Want to meet them? They want to meet you. They never met anyone pretending to be a man (Paul) that’s actually a lesbian. Are you a separatist, too?
Oh, wait, I forgot, you will lie about your identity because you’re a leftist. I think Leftists Invented lying, am I right about that?
Please talk some more - there is nothing better than a pathetic liar that lies about who they are, what they are, and what they think to reinforce why America and Americans are so great.
Speak! Speak! Tell us about your ideals, your heroes, your wishes and dreams. Oh, shit, forgot about - you’re an empty shell of a fake human being with nothing interesting to say.
Speak anyway! You’re FUN to ridicule!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flying solo
So, did you just forget to take your meds again, or are you just yet another victim of a medical system that fails those most in need? Your grip on reality is clearly slipping, at the very least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flying solo
OK, fall back to some made-up criticism, avoid any real topic, run like a little girl when asked a simple question like “are you a man, or not”. You’re just another fucking phony in a long line of phonies on this forum. Phony ponies, most of you. That’s your new name.
Isn’t it weird that when debating, leftists rely so much on race - white privilege, black lives matter, etc. and so on ad infinitude. But when they post on twitter, or Techdirt, the all fucking LIE about who and what they are. Is that weird or what?
I never met anyone who was embarrassed to proclaim their basic identity, especially when using OTHER people’s identity to criticize them. “Are you a boy” was never a controversial question for anyone I ever knew. Even gays know that they are boys (or girls).
Ah, the irony is without end, just like always, with the left. What an incredibly big target they paint on themselves. Do you support the Boston Bomber voting, too? Do you think FREE EVERYTHING is the FUTURE? How wacko are you, really. Tell us. We all want to know.
You know about me - why don’t you tell us about you? That’s fair, right? Right? TELL US!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flying solo
You have a strange obsession with things that are irrelevant to the conversation at hand. What a sad, scared little creature you are. No wonder you prefer cozy lies to actual debate, and get angry when people challenge your misconceptions of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flying solo
Look, you idiot, in case you haven’t noticed, the Democrats are currently selecting a candidate to compete with Trump, and this question about the Boston Bomber being allowed to vote in that election is a real issue.
I guess what you’re saying is that you don’t have a fucking clue about what’s going on the US, but you are happy to send along your criticism of everything American.
So again, yeah, fuck you and your misconceptions based on ignorance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flying solo
Lovely. But, the original conversation had nothing to do with any of those things. At least, not the conversation in this thread. Perhaps your YouTube feed is full of such things, but that conversation is not visible to anyone else here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flying solo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flying solo
You, my friend, by invoking the name of Christ in the fashion that you have, demonstrate you are not a Christian. I will pray for you. Amen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flying solo
Is this sarcasm/satire or just the rantings of an unhinged person off his meds?
I can't tell...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flying solo
I think it is hilarious that you cannot discern the difference between spirited ranting and sarcasm - it says a lot about your lack of humor.
To prove my point, tell me something funny. I would bet money that simple request is beyond your ability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flying solo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flying solo
It's the latter, they go from troll to batshit crazy every so often. Just flag and ignore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flying solo
Oh hamilton is most definitely off his fucking meds. For one thing he thinks he’s related to to A Hamilton, not say a random brown guy to pick a random example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flying solo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flying solo
Ask the tennis critic how to spell it. It doesn’t matter. The left will condemn you for either spelling, or pretty much anything you say. The left does not want ANYONE to SPEAK, it interferes with their tyrannical plans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flying solo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You have to take them every day
“What does that tell you?”
It tells me you’re a nutter who can’t keep his shit together for more than a couple of hours after his meds wear off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abysmal performance by the fanboys.
If you clowns could for one minute grasp how you come off to any new readers, you'd understand why are NO new readers here.
I keep a list of new "accounts" too, and they're down to roughly half of the 2018 level, which in turn is roughly half of the 2017 levels. Very few of those make even a second comment.
By the way: that no one ever asks who "Blue" is means that are only the few long-time regulars reading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Abysmal performance by the fanboys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: truer words etc.
“You have issues. But let’s start with the whole “I hate Techdirt so much that I’m going to constantly surf the site and obsessively collect data on all its users to show Techdirt how much I hate it” thing and work our way out from there.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In Bangladeshis how many people is that?
Looks like poor ole blue tits is a bit put out he’s no longer the lord-mayor of crazy town. Sorry bleu you ain’t the head cheese any more. You got K O d by tranny hammi the first and only fransexual.
It’s delicious, you're so jelly I could spread you on a piece of toast right now bro.
Better watch out little boi blu. Old dogs have a tendency to get put down once the new puppy arrives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Abysmal performance by the fanboys.
Ah, so you've given up on being a ranting lunatic, and have now switched to claiming nobody reads this site anyway. Which you somehow think makes your obsessive lying here look better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]