Re: Week of yapping ankle-biters demanding my attention!
He claims wants to discuss...
I did wish to discuss the details of your half-baked notions. Like I said, in the three years you have posted here, I don't recall you ever discussing the actual real-world details of these empty rallying cries you toss around. But you can't or won't, so empty your rallying cries remain. No skin off my back.
..but won't state any of his own views...
You really want my view? Be careful what you ask for...
I think that you, Blue, are a narcissistic, hypocritical grifter. You even stated as much this week when you said:
So what exactly is the draw to Techdirt? I like it because a small forum where I stand out, which leverages my rants without the bother of my own web-site... Source
You basically admit that you leech off the hard-earned readership of Techdirt. You also acknowledge that hosting a website is work, but you'd rather grift off the graciousness of others for your purposes. You are one of those grifters you are always yapping about.
Basically, your constant hypocrisy offends and annoys me, as it should any intelligent person.
Re: Phony PR, while Google omits how much routinely sells gov't.
So what exactly is the draw to Techdirt? I like it because a small forum where I stand out, which leverages my rants without the bother of my own web-site...
[OOTB to English translation]:
I had my own website once, but nobody visited it, so now I leech off the hard-earned readership of someone else's.
Is a Blue one of those grifters he/she keeps yapping about? You decide.
Re: Re: Re: Re: If childish enough to sit through the "Transformers" movie,
PS: Mike and/or Leigh, if this comment happens to rank in the top for insightful for this week, I'd like to pass the honors to the next most insightful comment.
It's become very apparent that all you wish to do is post outlandish statements that you think everyone should just buy into just because you delusionally think you're smarter than everyone else in the world. You take anyone asking for clarification of your stated views as an attack as opposed to using that as way to actually garner support for your ideas. That's pretty close to crazy in my book.
I'm done trying to have a civil debate about the notions you keep bringing up because it's painfully obvious by your defensive nature that you really haven't thought these notions all the way through. If you had, it would be easy to answer a few simple questions regarding them. You have failed repeatedly, over many weeks, in that regard.
I've specifically stated that the applicable definition is how Internal Revenue used it at first. "Unearned" is basically all that's NOT wages.
Ok. At least you've finally given me something to go off of. I'm not sure I can get on board with your notion if that is your definition. Wouldn't that mean that the owner of the small business I work for would have to pay higher taxes and therefore less wages to me? How would this be beneficial to anyone, especially with such a wide scope that you are implying?
YOU MUST STATE SOMETHING THAT I CAN DISAGREE WITH, OR STATE WHERE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME.
Right back at you, Blue. Stating some general concept without providing the all important details is exactly the same as stating nothing at all. How would one know if they agree or disagree without ALL of the information and background that you are basing these ideas on?
You are ONLY trying to put on the appearance of discussion.
Bullshit, Blue. I have been nothing less than civil with you one these threads. You are the one resorting to name calling and evasive answers.
Re: Yeah, patents protecting poor inventors WOULD hinder Rich VCs...
Special note to "Gwiz": do you understand what "unearned" means?
I am aware of a few differing definitions for that phrase. I would like to know YOUR definition though as you seem to have different definitions for a lot of things.
Are you referring to the Lockean definition? Are you referring to the Social Securities Administration definition? Are you referring to the US tax code definition? Or are you referring to some definition you made up on your own?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where the fanboys LIE about me in advance!
As far as I can deduce, Blue's concept of "common law" is basically that for anything Blue doesn't approve of, he/she can find some outdated law somewhere and say "Common Law!" and that trumps every statute and ruling that has superseded it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where the fanboys LIE about me in advance!
Lol Blue.
I have to assume (and probably most others here) based on your non-answers and constant ad-homs that you don't have the answers and your half-baked notions are simply empty rallying cries. Thanks for the confirmation.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where the fanboys LIE about me in advance!
YET AGAIN, you only troll me without stating anything.
I've stated that I wish you to quantify your "tax the hell out rich" slogans. I might even agree with you on them, but you have never, ever (as far as I recall) provided enough information for me to make an intelligent decision.
This ball is your court, Blue. You are the one throwing out the slogans, not me. If you want me (or anyone else reading this thread) to consider your point of view you have to give me more then a vapid "tax the hell out of the rich" rallying cry.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Where the fanboys LIE about me in advance!
I rarely read comments after I've made mine.
Right. Because you are afraid to debate your notions on their merits without resorting to ad-homs.
In any case, I see you were adequately answered there by another commenter:
That was only an answer to one question and it wasn't YOUR answer. You are the one constantly throwing out your "tax the hell out of the rich" slogans. Can you not back them up with realistic ideas on how we would accomplish such a thing?
Re: No, "correctly pointed out" was decided NOT TRUE.
You've still a duty to moderate comments....
Care to provide a citation on that one? That really makes no sense, even before electronic communications. If I rent you my megaphone, do I have a responsibility to moderate what you say when you use it? How would this be different?
Safe harbor statutes can't extend beyond common law.
Say what? What the hell are you talking about? Statutes can and do quite often supersede common law rulings. I don't know what your definition of common law is, but for the rest of us it simply means existing caselaw and court decisions.
On the post: USTR Insists Secret, MPAA-Backed TPP Is 'Most Transparent Trade Negotiation In History'... From Hollywood Studio
Re: But why doesn't Mike ever worry about the globalist aspects?
And when you have a self-admitted lack of formal education, everything looks like a conspiracy.
On the post: Nicholas Weaver's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Week of yapping ankle-biters demanding my attention!
I did wish to discuss the details of your half-baked notions. Like I said, in the three years you have posted here, I don't recall you ever discussing the actual real-world details of these empty rallying cries you toss around. But you can't or won't, so empty your rallying cries remain. No skin off my back.
..but won't state any of his own views...
You really want my view? Be careful what you ask for...
I think that you, Blue, are a narcissistic, hypocritical grifter. You even stated as much this week when you said:
You basically admit that you leech off the hard-earned readership of Techdirt. You also acknowledge that hosting a website is work, but you'd rather grift off the graciousness of others for your purposes. You are one of those grifters you are always yapping about.
Basically, your constant hypocrisy offends and annoys me, as it should any intelligent person.
On the post: Google's Latest Transparency Report Mocks The Gag Order FISC Puts On Them Over NSA Requests
Re: Phony PR, while Google omits how much routinely sells gov't.
[OOTB to English translation]:
Is a Blue one of those grifters he/she keeps yapping about? You decide.
On the post: The MPAA's Plan To Piss Off Young Moviegoers And Make Them Less Interested In Going To Theaters
Re: Re: Re: Re: If childish enough to sit through the "Transformers" movie,
On the post: The MPAA's Plan To Piss Off Young Moviegoers And Make Them Less Interested In Going To Theaters
Re: Re: Re: If childish enough to sit through the "Transformers" movie,
- If you think that Blue engages in "reasonable discussions" on Techdirt please press the "Report" button on this comment.
- If you think that Blue is here to troll and disrupt with his half-baked notions and comments please press the "Insightful" button on this comment.
We are going to let the community decide what it is you actually do here Blue.
On the post: The MPAA's Plan To Piss Off Young Moviegoers And Make Them Less Interested In Going To Theaters
Re: Re: Re: If childish enough to sit through the "Transformers" movie,
Ummm...you run like a scared rabbit or hide in your ad-hom filled hidey-hole whenever anyone tries to engage you in a "reasonable discussion", Blue.
You really need to get a grip on reality.
On the post: Top Venture Capitalists Demand Real Patent Reform, Put To Rest Myth That VCs Love Patents
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yeah, patents protecting poor inventors WOULD hinder Rich VCs...
*sigh*
It's become very apparent that all you wish to do is post outlandish statements that you think everyone should just buy into just because you delusionally think you're smarter than everyone else in the world. You take anyone asking for clarification of your stated views as an attack as opposed to using that as way to actually garner support for your ideas. That's pretty close to crazy in my book.
I'm done trying to have a civil debate about the notions you keep bringing up because it's painfully obvious by your defensive nature that you really haven't thought these notions all the way through. If you had, it would be easy to answer a few simple questions regarding them. You have failed repeatedly, over many weeks, in that regard.
On the post: Top Venture Capitalists Demand Real Patent Reform, Put To Rest Myth That VCs Love Patents
Re: Re: Re: Yeah, patents protecting poor inventors WOULD hinder Rich VCs...
Ok. At least you've finally given me something to go off of. I'm not sure I can get on board with your notion if that is your definition. Wouldn't that mean that the owner of the small business I work for would have to pay higher taxes and therefore less wages to me? How would this be beneficial to anyone, especially with such a wide scope that you are implying?
YOU MUST STATE SOMETHING THAT I CAN DISAGREE WITH, OR STATE WHERE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME.
Right back at you, Blue. Stating some general concept without providing the all important details is exactly the same as stating nothing at all. How would one know if they agree or disagree without ALL of the information and background that you are basing these ideas on?
You are ONLY trying to put on the appearance of discussion.
Bullshit, Blue. I have been nothing less than civil with you one these threads. You are the one resorting to name calling and evasive answers.
On the post: Top Venture Capitalists Demand Real Patent Reform, Put To Rest Myth That VCs Love Patents
Re: Yeah, patents protecting poor inventors WOULD hinder Rich VCs...
I am aware of a few differing definitions for that phrase. I would like to know YOUR definition though as you seem to have different definitions for a lot of things.
Are you referring to the Lockean definition? Are you referring to the Social Securities Administration definition? Are you referring to the US tax code definition? Or are you referring to some definition you made up on your own?
On the post: Privacy Groups Want The Government To Investigate Google Over The NSA's Hacking
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where the fanboys LIE about me in advance!
On the post: Privacy Groups Want The Government To Investigate Google Over The NSA's Hacking
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where the fanboys LIE about me in advance!
I have to assume (and probably most others here) based on your non-answers and constant ad-homs that you don't have the answers and your half-baked notions are simply empty rallying cries. Thanks for the confirmation.
On the post: Privacy Groups Want The Government To Investigate Google Over The NSA's Hacking
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where the fanboys LIE about me in advance!
I've stated that I wish you to quantify your "tax the hell out rich" slogans. I might even agree with you on them, but you have never, ever (as far as I recall) provided enough information for me to make an intelligent decision.
This ball is your court, Blue. You are the one throwing out the slogans, not me. If you want me (or anyone else reading this thread) to consider your point of view you have to give me more then a vapid "tax the hell out of the rich" rallying cry.
On the post: Privacy Groups Want The Government To Investigate Google Over The NSA's Hacking
Re: Re: Re: Re: Where the fanboys LIE about me in advance!
Right. Because you are afraid to debate your notions on their merits without resorting to ad-homs.
In any case, I see you were adequately answered there by another commenter:
That was only an answer to one question and it wasn't YOUR answer. You are the one constantly throwing out your "tax the hell out of the rich" slogans. Can you not back them up with realistic ideas on how we would accomplish such a thing?
On the post: Privacy Groups Want The Government To Investigate Google Over The NSA's Hacking
Re: Re: Re: Heh, heh. Google IS a willing co-conspirator.
Says the ad-hom king. Too funny!
On the post: Privacy Groups Want The Government To Investigate Google Over The NSA's Hacking
Re: Re: Where the fanboys LIE about me in advance!
Umm. You are the one that is apparently afraid of a debate, Blue.
I've asked you repeatedly for specifics concerning your half-baked "tax the hell out of the rich" notions.
You have yet to answer.
On the post: 'Attribution Troll' Issues DMCA Notice To Remove Critical Posts From Techdirt, Boing Boing And Popehat
Re: Re: Ah, just the kind of hissy fit anomaly that Mike and minions enjoy!
Blue would then want to tax you at a 250% tax rate on that "unearned" income.
On the post: Google Gets Total Victory Over Authors Guild: Book Scanning Is Fair Use
Re: Re: return of fake out_of_the_blues -- These kids just LIE.
On the post: 'Attribution Troll' Issues DMCA Notice To Remove Critical Posts From Techdirt, Boing Boing And Popehat
Re: Ah, just the kind of hissy fit anomaly that Mike and minions enjoy!
Why should anyone care if YOU care?
On the post: 'Attribution Troll' Issues DMCA Notice To Remove Critical Posts From Techdirt, Boing Boing And Popehat
On the post: Appeals Court To Explore If A Site With 'Dirt' In The URL Loses All Liability Protections For User Comments
Re: No, "correctly pointed out" was decided NOT TRUE.
Care to provide a citation on that one? That really makes no sense, even before electronic communications. If I rent you my megaphone, do I have a responsibility to moderate what you say when you use it? How would this be different?
Safe harbor statutes can't extend beyond common law.
Say what? What the hell are you talking about? Statutes can and do quite often supersede common law rulings. I don't know what your definition of common law is, but for the rest of us it simply means existing caselaw and court decisions.
Next >>