"Had the creator been a lady (_"Jane could have Jinder, and so on."_) it would have been praised as innovative and endearing. But since it's a dude it's automatically creepy."
Uh, no, not at all. The creepy aspect of this app is that one person went through all the trouble of developing it to get that one person a date, then pimped it to the wider internet and social media. I don't give a hot shit whether that one person is male or female, that shit is creepy.
That said, I apologize for having triggered you so completely. I suppose I should have spent a paragraph explaining that this wasn't a gender judgement in anticipation of your inference-based offense. You see, it's just so hard trying to anticipate ALL of the potential inferences out there, which is why I missed this one.
You have my deepest, sincerest, in no ways sarcastic or petulant apology.
Guys, I was able to get some source material this morning that made it it clear the suspended sentence works much like in the US, and that Solokovsky will spend no more time in prison as a result of it. I have added an update to the post and altered the title.
As always, the comments and community here have been helpful. Thank you!
Well, yes, that same line is in the first pull quote I included above. The problem is nobody seems to be clear on what that means in the Russian system given he was only detained a year or so ago....
Re: "pre-populated" is not even a valid concept, let alone for PRE-PARED form.
It's been a long time since I've run into the Language Police Department, the folks who don't understand that language can go beyond strict definitions for ease or flavor.
How are things around the department water cooler these days? I assume still depressing and generally unhappy?
And I didn't include that Satterthwaite quote because whether or not what she says is true is ENTIRELY besides the point when it comes to the emoluments clause. Trump hasn't divorced himself from his business, and his business is currently getting trademarks approved with speed when he previously got denied at every turn. Whether those trademark apps are valid from a business perspective doesn't matter at all. All that matters is that China reversed course on the trademarks once Trump became a potential political figure. Now that he's President, I'm arguing this violates the emoluments clause, whether the trademark apps are appropriate or not....
"Tim didn't write that it was not crazy to think that it "smells". He wrote that it was not crazy to think it "unconstitutional". For it to be unconstitutional, it has to violate some clause in the constitution. So, if not the Emoluments Clause, which one?"
Huh? The whole post is about the emoluments clause. Why are we discussing anything else?
"TD should just honestly state its opinion instead of tap dancing around it ... that is 'the Red Chinese are now bribing Trump'"
Pardon me, scooter, but I did state my opinion clear as day in the original post on this topic, linked above: it's an emoluments violation and China is trying to generate favor with the president by granting him these favors.
This post was a rebuttal to what some said about the first post: it's just one trademark approved after, like, forever! That's not the case any longer, hence the post.
As the resident Techdirt mascot of dick jokes, I'm pretty sure there should be a tshirt featuring me. I'd buy it, for sure, so that's one guaranteed sale....
Re: Re: Re: Out of all topics in the world, your notions on spelling and update on Lindsay Lohan?
"as long as they are NOT LGBQT xyz what ever... Right? You are being a Hypocrite Tim. and You are my hero on here."
What in the sweet hell are you talking about?!??! I'm someone who has screamed to the sky that businesses should be allowed to discriminate against the LGBT community as loudly as I can. I'm in no way a hypocrite on that topic. I've even written about in these very pages and addressed why I think they should be allowed to do so, specifically back when Mike Pence was mincing around his state thinking he was being Jesus-y....
Re: Out of all topics in the world, your notions on spelling and update on Lindsay Lohan?
"He/you are already busy ignoring that AdRoll this week broke contract with InfoWars specifically to suppress its political opinions."
Oh, I see: you're a crazy person. A crazy person that doesn't understand what and to whom the First Amendment and free speech protections actually apply. Hint: an ad agency can conduct business with whomever it wants, and it can certainly exclude a bunch of whiny, sycophantic tin-pot wearing conspiracy theorists that cannot even come up with good fake conspiracies and mostly hide under their mother's bed from its customer roll if it so chooses.
And you're here WHINING about that in the name of free speech? Dingus, the business has free speech rights to, and not doing business with your favorite bullshit-peddler is one of them. So you're not only crazy and ignorant, you're a hypocrite to boot. Go away. I'll enjoy my "sinking ship". I'm sure you Ron Paul video to watch or something....
"The left is setting up a dangerous precedent - that a President can only come of a political background."
Uh, not they aren't. They can come from any background they like. They simply can't profit from being in office once they are, which is why the norm is for Presidents to divest of their business or put it in a blind trust so that they know fuck all about what would help them profit or not. And that's a pretty sweet precedent to have set, btw.
You guys keep saying that he's paying a fee to have applied for the trademark as though that mattered. It doesn't. He's receiving something of enormous value from a foreign govt. This isn't nearly as hard as you guys are trying to make it...
On the post: Trademark Has Come To This: Tinder Opposes Dating App With Only One Lonely Dude On Its Dating Roster
Re:
Uh, no, not at all. The creepy aspect of this app is that one person went through all the trouble of developing it to get that one person a date, then pimped it to the wider internet and social media. I don't give a hot shit whether that one person is male or female, that shit is creepy.
That said, I apologize for having triggered you so completely. I suppose I should have spent a paragraph explaining that this wasn't a gender judgement in anticipation of your inference-based offense. You see, it's just so hard trying to anticipate ALL of the potential inferences out there, which is why I missed this one.
You have my deepest, sincerest, in no ways sarcastic or petulant apology.
On the post: Ruslan Sokolovsky Gets 3 And A Half Years Suspended Sentence And A Conviction For Playing Pokemon In A Church
Update
As always, the comments and community here have been helpful. Thank you!
On the post: Bethesda's Pete Hines Shrugs His Shoulders About Trademark Dispute With No Matter Studios
Re:
On the post: Ruslan Sokolovsky Gets 3 And A Half Years Suspended Sentence And A Conviction For Playing Pokemon In A Church
Re: Re: Re: Minor correction
On the post: Ruslan Sokolovsky Gets 3 And A Half Years Suspended Sentence And A Conviction For Playing Pokemon In A Church
Re: Minor correction
The source post for this article seemed to question whether or not that was actually the case.
On the post: Atlus Loosens Streaming Restrictions For Persona 5, Still Has In-Game Checkpoints For Streaming Rules
Re:
On the post: Atlus Loosens Streaming Restrictions For Persona 5, Still Has In-Game Checkpoints For Streaming Rules
On the post: That Was Fast: Denuvo's Version 3 Update Has Been Cracked
Re:
On the post: Denuvo Strikes Back: The DRM Has Been Patched And Is Working... For Now
Re:
On the post: Majority Of Intuit's Lobbying Dollars Spent Trying To Stop IRS From Making It Easier To File Your Taxes
Re: "pre-populated" is not even a valid concept, let alone for PRE-PARED form.
How are things around the department water cooler these days? I assume still depressing and generally unhappy?
On the post: China Busily Approving 'Trump' Trademarks With Stunning Speed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfounded Leaps
And I didn't include that Satterthwaite quote because whether or not what she says is true is ENTIRELY besides the point when it comes to the emoluments clause. Trump hasn't divorced himself from his business, and his business is currently getting trademarks approved with speed when he previously got denied at every turn. Whether those trademark apps are valid from a business perspective doesn't matter at all. All that matters is that China reversed course on the trademarks once Trump became a potential political figure. Now that he's President, I'm arguing this violates the emoluments clause, whether the trademark apps are appropriate or not....
On the post: China Busily Approving 'Trump' Trademarks With Stunning Speed
Re: Re: Re: Unfounded Leaps
Huh? The whole post is about the emoluments clause. Why are we discussing anything else?
On the post: China Busily Approving 'Trump' Trademarks With Stunning Speed
Re: Re: Re:
Pardon me, scooter, but I did state my opinion clear as day in the original post on this topic, linked above: it's an emoluments violation and China is trying to generate favor with the president by granting him these favors.
This post was a rebuttal to what some said about the first post: it's just one trademark approved after, like, forever! That's not the case any longer, hence the post.
On the post: What Should We Add Next To The Techdirt Gear Store?
More me, obviously.
On the post: Lindsay Lohan Won't Put Her GTA5 Lawsuit Out Of Its Misery
Re: Re: Re: Out of all topics in the world, your notions on spelling and update on Lindsay Lohan?
What in the sweet hell are you talking about?!??! I'm someone who has screamed to the sky that businesses should be allowed to discriminate against the LGBT community as loudly as I can. I'm in no way a hypocrite on that topic. I've even written about in these very pages and addressed why I think they should be allowed to do so, specifically back when Mike Pence was mincing around his state thinking he was being Jesus-y....
On the post: Lindsay Lohan Won't Put Her GTA5 Lawsuit Out Of Its Misery
Re: Out of all topics in the world, your notions on spelling and update on Lindsay Lohan?
Oh, I see: you're a crazy person. A crazy person that doesn't understand what and to whom the First Amendment and free speech protections actually apply. Hint: an ad agency can conduct business with whomever it wants, and it can certainly exclude a bunch of whiny, sycophantic tin-pot wearing conspiracy theorists that cannot even come up with good fake conspiracies and mostly hide under their mother's bed from its customer roll if it so chooses.
And you're here WHINING about that in the name of free speech? Dingus, the business has free speech rights to, and not doing business with your favorite bullshit-peddler is one of them. So you're not only crazy and ignorant, you're a hypocrite to boot. Go away. I'll enjoy my "sinking ship". I'm sure you Ron Paul video to watch or something....
On the post: Google Report: 99.95 Percent Of DMCA Takedown Notices Are Bot-Generated Bullshit Buckshot
Re: Re: 99.5 or 99.95?
Probably more effective to just fix my fingers to get them to press the keys I intended to, but it's certainly true that I don't math good...
On the post: Chinese Trademarks And The Emoluments Clause: Do They Intersect In The Trump Presidency?
Re: Re: Re: Is it really a "gift"?
Uh, not they aren't. They can come from any background they like. They simply can't profit from being in office once they are, which is why the norm is for Presidents to divest of their business or put it in a blind trust so that they know fuck all about what would help them profit or not. And that's a pretty sweet precedent to have set, btw.
On the post: Chinese Trademarks And The Emoluments Clause: Do They Intersect In The Trump Presidency?
Re: Re: Re: Is it really a "gift"?
On the post: Chinese Trademarks And The Emoluments Clause: Do They Intersect In The Trump Presidency?
Re: Is it really a "gift"?
Hint: something doesn't have to be a gift to violate the emoluments clause. To prove this, you need only read the text of the clause....
Next >>