'nuff said? How about the rest of the quote and the context surrounding it?
Sorry, should I have specified that by "context", I meant "the actual information pertaining to the conversation" and not just "a small out-of-context snippet that supports my side"? My bad.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
No, that isn't the point? Why does everything have to end up as a bizarre absolute? Are you unable to understand the idea of a middle ground, compared to the two extremes?
Hmm... interesting. I though that having discussions online about things over which people disagree ('on-line' being the new public forum... hence the name "forum" for these little online areas) was the middle ground between (government autonomy with no oversight) and (blowing up what we don't like).
how is it not coddling the government when someone says "stop asking all those questions! the government is afraid of doing anything for fear of someone not liking it!"
(insert sidewalk analogy)
Good analogy, actually. But let me ask you this... if the majority want a sidewalk and a few don't... should that few just shut up and take the sidewalk? How is their opinion about grass vs concrete less valid just because they're the minority? And are all minority dissenters "crackpots" who should be dismissed? I don't think you believe that, so why bring it here? Are you saying that we're crackpots who should be dismissed?
"Stop your city truck to get gas, and some citizen notices that you take a few minutes to get a coffee. They film it and put it on youtube as "city workers take extra coffee breaks", not realizing that perhaps when his break was on before, he was working and couldn't stop. What does it do? It encourages the worker to take his coffee break in the middle of work, and as a result take longer to complete his job. The observing became a hinderance."
No... that's the sensationalist media making a hindrance... the observation and posting didn't. And I think you're the one taking things to an extreme with this one. Give me an example where someone made a singular observation that lead to such a hindrance that didn't turn out to be the tip of a bigger iceberg? And if you want to stay on this channel, how about we flip it around? What if that coffee break observation lead to an investigation that revealed that these truck drivers really were 'wasting time' or otherwise costing taxpayers more money? Should it all have just stayed quiet and we all just keep paying because the alternative is a hindrance? What about the later result of a more efficient system with proper oversight?
"The idea in the end is to be observant, to raise the flag when something is really wrong. But at the same time, most people don't have scale (as you have shown with your bizarre absolute argument above), and as a result, they feel they need to report everything all the time. It isn't beneficial."
Based in who's definition of "really wrong"? In my opinion*, the war is really wrong, the treatment of Manning is wrong, but I don't really care as much about the healthcare reform. My matter of scale tells me that the healthcare reform can go leap so long as we have other things more important to work on. So who's to say which of my opinions I should engage in discussion and become active over? Oh, that's right... it would be me.
And I'm going to disagree with you on what is beneficial in full disclosure. I think that stopping any of that information is wrong, and it's up to us (as decision makers) to filter the data that is pertinent to us. I'll show you everything... it's up to you to decide which bits are most important to you.
*Everyone please note: my points of opinion here are for illustrative purposes... I will not engage in discussion on those particular points in this thread. Please don't attempt to argue me on those. Thank you.
What you seem to miss is that from over here, Mike Masnick does the same thing. He is very good at leaving out relevant facts, or sub-setting data, or setting things up in a manner that supports his view and disguises or blocks opposing views.
When you pick and choose your "facts", or what you build "facts" out of opinions (like the USPTO willy nilly approving patents claim), you don't get to claim the high moral ground.
and again, feel free to provide evidence. As far as the USPTO, it's obvious that they are issuing patents which seem to go against the purpose of the patent... as pointed out by others in the arena. If Mike chooses to describe it as "willy nilly", how is that failing on a moral high-ground? It's a choice of vocabulary.
"It is incredibly hard to have a discussion of the facts when the facts themselves are in question"
I don't disagree with you. But what I was talking about is that the only people who are 'shouted down' are the ones who disagree with a stance, call those that do "stupid" or "freetards" etc, and don't actually challenge the facts, only point and laugh at the people using the facts.
"Do people ignore your points and just say "you don't know anything at all"?"
Yes. One goes by the name Anonymous (not 'anonymous coward'), and the other (on some rare occasions when he's in a bad mood) Average Joe. There's also Darryl, but I haven't seen him around much anymore (vacation maybe). The Anti-Mike seems to still be rolling around under the Anonymous Coward moniker and is notorious for attacking Mike himself and not so much the statements Mike makes.
"At the end of the day, any dissenting views on TD are quickly attacked not on logic, but usually on attacking the person, their writing style, whatever you like. That is the sign of closed minds, and that does nothing to advance your cause."
citation or bullshit. I don't usually resort to foul language, but you just included me in that. And it's flat-out wrong
If you actually read my previous comments, you'd know that logic is one of my big things. If someone comes in with fallacious arguments, yes, I point that out and challenge them to make legitimate arguments. The only one's I've attacked in the past are Anonymous (mainly because he's proven beyond all doubt that he refuses to engage in honest debate) and RJR (for the same reason). I'm all for logical arguments, but when the other side fails to play nice, I'll damned sure call them out on it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
"The problem I see is that so many people are busy playing private detective and youtube journalist that the very people we count on to do the jobs that need doing every day are spending more and more time on "being exactly right to avoid problems" and less and less time on actually getting the job done."
I don't think that's the problem... If they are doing the right job for the right reasons, then they should not fear the increased scrutiny. If the doers are worried about their actions being 'called out', they should ask "why would people have problems with what I'm doing, and should I be doing it in that case?"
If there are more crackpots who are now more visible/vocal that will call out against everything that the doers do, they'd still be the minority since the number of "regular people" will be increased well. Thus, the ones who are not in agreement with the majority will still be out-voted and out-voiced. but then again, just because these 'crackpots' don't agree with the majority does not mean that their voice should not be heard.
Or do you feel that dissenting opinion should be repressed? It almost sounds that way.
If you want to run your city, your country, the world, then get into politics yourself. It is as easy as pie to stand out on the outside and launch verbal (or video) bombs into the fray, but it's different when you actually take responsibility and do something about it. If you want to change the system, get involved.
if you just want to be meddlesome and tell other people what to do, keep up the good work. You are well on your way to "hey you kids, get off my lawn" without even realizing it."
Again, why are these two things mutually exclusive? You seem to think that just because I talk about issues online that I'm not also writing letters to my representatives and supporting movements financially & with man-hours.
how does Techdirt encourage "shouting down the opposition"? If you actually read what the regulars say around here, the only time we "shout down" anyone is when people like Anonymous just keep spouting the same tired rhetoric without providing any facts, figures, or support...who are doing so just to promote the very hostility you say you're against.
So who's shouting down the opposition? Regulars here the calmly and rationally state their cases and provide supporting info, or the 'opposition' who reply with "LOL U R Dumb"?
so sayeth the non-lawyer fool who has never backed up their statements with fact (you know.. reality) and refuses to admit error when everyone else is not only showing him errors, but doing so with citations and fact...
So... who is refusing reality here?
So let's look at the score...
1)ad hominim attacks irrelevant to the conversation
2)no facts or figures to back it up
3)pure straight-from-the-source hypocrisy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
"I think it has crossed the line and gone from just being observant to being an annoyance, a hinderance"
Wait... what? are we supposed to coddle our government now? If they were working for us instead of special interests and lobby income, they wouldn't have to worry about our oversight.
And the enemy of progress is the fear of change. Fear itself has been a fuel of progress throughout history... look how the fear of death and disease has worked our for the health industry.
Work for change... post on Techdirt... You act like these two things are mutually exclusive. You assume that no one here spends any time doing anything outside of reading and writing in these discussions. How omniscient of you.
This about this for a second... who is going to be more effective at working change? A person who feels something is wrong in the world and says to their reps "Hey, let's stop this! Its bad!". Or a person who discusses the issues with others, gains points of views they never had, finds new facets to research on, and then says to their reps "Hey, let's stop this! Its bad because..."
Or do you just dislike us here because we believe things differently than you do?
And when you ever... even once... back up your statements with actual fact, instead of just your opinion, someone around here besides AJ, might actually think about trusting anything you say. Maybe.
By the very definition of 'amendment', the 1st Amendment changes the nature of all things that come before it in the scope of its address. By the very definition of 'amendment', any part of the Constitution that deals with speech, religion or the press is modified by the 1st Amendment.
If you really believe your stance, why do you have to resort to something that is so patently wrong to defend yourself? Next, you’ll be arguing that up is down and left is right.
Re: Re: Response to: average_joe on Feb 3rd, 2011 @ 10:49am
Joe, are you having an off day? Usually, you're really on top of things and have a solid stance on whatever you're on about... But did you just say "his questions are good ones"?
"This looks like garden variety grandstanding to me. Holder and Morton don't have to answer questions whenever a Senator feels like firing off a letter. Give me a break. If you didn't agree with this guy, you'd be all over him for grandstanding."
Doesn't sound like you agree too much from what you said just a few posts ago.
And from your other posts, you're sounding more and more like Anonymous in his arguments... I'm worried about you man... at this rate, your responses will soon be reduced to "LOL... U R so dumb!" I'm really not trying to bust your balls on this one, but either you're off today or someone stole your password to log in.
"That you (and many others here) are stupid enough to buy into it just makes me shake my head."
So that's what the rattling sound was. Hmm... mystery solved.
The question is this: are these students, regardless of their status as citizens (even a legit foreign student is not considered a citizen), to be afforded the same rights of privacy that the constitution grants us? If so, then they should not be denied the privacy by being tracked 24/7... That’s what we do to home-arrest criminals, not people who are a 'flight risk' while under some investigation... those get detained without bail.
If they don't get the same freedoms, then detain or deport them. If they haven't even been charged for anything, then why is any action at all being taken against them?
If tracking this is not illegal because of their status as non-citizens, do you really think it's the best way to go in foreign relations? Obviously not, since the Indian government has already said they don't agree with the treatment of their citizens.
“Hmm… we think something may be going on, so let’s come up with some new and interesting action to take while ignoring all the systems we already have in place to deal with immigration situations”. Sounds like ICE to me… considering how they ignored the existing process for stopping infringement with the domain seizures.
Yeah, I'm just waiting for him to announce his bid for presidency and then flip-flop and pander to the money. :/
I don't want to be cynical on this, but I still have a hard time believing that a politician would do work for anything other than Lobby money... much less work for the people or for what's right.
On the post: Gabriel Tane's Favorites Of The Week: Censorship At Home And Abroad
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, should I have specified that by "context", I meant "the actual information pertaining to the conversation" and not just "a small out-of-context snippet that supports my side"? My bad.
On the post: Gabriel Tane's Favorites Of The Week: Censorship At Home And Abroad
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
how is it not coddling the government when someone says "stop asking all those questions! the government is afraid of doing anything for fear of someone not liking it!"
Good analogy, actually. But let me ask you this... if the majority want a sidewalk and a few don't... should that few just shut up and take the sidewalk? How is their opinion about grass vs concrete less valid just because they're the minority? And are all minority dissenters "crackpots" who should be dismissed? I don't think you believe that, so why bring it here? Are you saying that we're crackpots who should be dismissed?
No... that's the sensationalist media making a hindrance... the observation and posting didn't. And I think you're the one taking things to an extreme with this one. Give me an example where someone made a singular observation that lead to such a hindrance that didn't turn out to be the tip of a bigger iceberg? And if you want to stay on this channel, how about we flip it around? What if that coffee break observation lead to an investigation that revealed that these truck drivers really were 'wasting time' or otherwise costing taxpayers more money? Should it all have just stayed quiet and we all just keep paying because the alternative is a hindrance? What about the later result of a more efficient system with proper oversight?
Based in who's definition of "really wrong"? In my opinion*, the war is really wrong, the treatment of Manning is wrong, but I don't really care as much about the healthcare reform. My matter of scale tells me that the healthcare reform can go leap so long as we have other things more important to work on. So who's to say which of my opinions I should engage in discussion and become active over? Oh, that's right... it would be me.
And I'm going to disagree with you on what is beneficial in full disclosure. I think that stopping any of that information is wrong, and it's up to us (as decision makers) to filter the data that is pertinent to us. I'll show you everything... it's up to you to decide which bits are most important to you.
*Everyone please note: my points of opinion here are for illustrative purposes... I will not engage in discussion on those particular points in this thread. Please don't attempt to argue me on those. Thank you.
On the post: Gabriel Tane's Favorites Of The Week: Censorship At Home And Abroad
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't disagree with you. But what I was talking about is that the only people who are 'shouted down' are the ones who disagree with a stance, call those that do "stupid" or "freetards" etc, and don't actually challenge the facts, only point and laugh at the people using the facts.
Yes. One goes by the name Anonymous (not 'anonymous coward'), and the other (on some rare occasions when he's in a bad mood) Average Joe. There's also Darryl, but I haven't seen him around much anymore (vacation maybe). The Anti-Mike seems to still be rolling around under the Anonymous Coward moniker and is notorious for attacking Mike himself and not so much the statements Mike makes.
citation or bullshit. I don't usually resort to foul language, but you just included me in that. And it's flat-out wrong
If you actually read my previous comments, you'd know that logic is one of my big things. If someone comes in with fallacious arguments, yes, I point that out and challenge them to make legitimate arguments. The only one's I've attacked in the past are Anonymous (mainly because he's proven beyond all doubt that he refuses to engage in honest debate) and RJR (for the same reason). I'm all for logical arguments, but when the other side fails to play nice, I'll damned sure call them out on it.
On the post: Gabriel Tane's Favorites Of The Week: Censorship At Home And Abroad
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
If there are more crackpots who are now more visible/vocal that will call out against everything that the doers do, they'd still be the minority since the number of "regular people" will be increased well. Thus, the ones who are not in agreement with the majority will still be out-voted and out-voiced. but then again, just because these 'crackpots' don't agree with the majority does not mean that their voice should not be heard.
Or do you feel that dissenting opinion should be repressed? It almost sounds that way.
Again, why are these two things mutually exclusive? You seem to think that just because I talk about issues online that I'm not also writing letters to my representatives and supporting movements financially & with man-hours.
On the post: Gabriel Tane's Favorites Of The Week: Censorship At Home And Abroad
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So who's shouting down the opposition? Regulars here the calmly and rationally state their cases and provide supporting info, or the 'opposition' who reply with "LOL U R Dumb"?
On the post: Gabriel Tane's Favorites Of The Week: Censorship At Home And Abroad
Re:
On the post: Gabriel Tane's Favorites Of The Week: Censorship At Home And Abroad
Re:
So... who is refusing reality here?
So let's look at the score...
1)ad hominim attacks irrelevant to the conversation
2)no facts or figures to back it up
3)pure straight-from-the-source hypocrisy
Congrats Anon... HAT-TRICK!!
On the post: Gabriel Tane's Favorites Of The Week: Censorship At Home And Abroad
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
And the enemy of progress is the fear of change. Fear itself has been a fuel of progress throughout history... look how the fear of death and disease has worked our for the health industry.
On the post: Gabriel Tane's Favorites Of The Week: Censorship At Home And Abroad
Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
On the post: Gabriel Tane's Favorites Of The Week: Censorship At Home And Abroad
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This about this for a second... who is going to be more effective at working change? A person who feels something is wrong in the world and says to their reps "Hey, let's stop this! Its bad!". Or a person who discusses the issues with others, gains points of views they never had, finds new facets to research on, and then says to their reps "Hey, let's stop this! Its bad because..."
Or do you just dislike us here because we believe things differently than you do?
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question @ Joe
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question @ Joe
I truely thought I addressed this the other day.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110202/01203012918/homeland-security-domain-seizures-raise-more -questions-is-embedding-video-criminal-infringement.shtml#c950
Let's try again.
By the very definition of 'amendment', the 1st Amendment changes the nature of all things that come before it in the scope of its address. By the very definition of 'amendment', any part of the Constitution that deals with speech, religion or the press is modified by the 1st Amendment.
If you really believe your stance, why do you have to resort to something that is so patently wrong to defend yourself? Next, you’ll be arguing that up is down and left is right.
On the post: Homeland Security Strapping GPS Devices To Indian Students Victimized By Scam
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Senator Wyden Asks WTF Is Up With Homeland Security Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two things ....
On the post: Senator Wyden Asks WTF Is Up With Homeland Security Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re: Response to: average_joe on Feb 3rd, 2011 @ 10:49am
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110202/23363812934/senator-wyden-asks-wtf-is-up-with-hom eland-security-domain-seizures.shtml#c464
On the post: Senator Wyden Asks WTF Is Up With Homeland Security Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Response to: average_joe on Feb 3rd, 2011 @ 10:49am
Doesn't sound like you agree too much from what you said just a few posts ago.
And from your other posts, you're sounding more and more like Anonymous in his arguments... I'm worried about you man... at this rate, your responses will soon be reduced to "LOL... U R so dumb!" I'm really not trying to bust your balls on this one, but either you're off today or someone stole your password to log in.
On the post: Senator Wyden Asks WTF Is Up With Homeland Security Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re: Two things ....
On the post: Homeland Security Strapping GPS Devices To Indian Students Victimized By Scam
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The question is this: are these students, regardless of their status as citizens (even a legit foreign student is not considered a citizen), to be afforded the same rights of privacy that the constitution grants us? If so, then they should not be denied the privacy by being tracked 24/7... That’s what we do to home-arrest criminals, not people who are a 'flight risk' while under some investigation... those get detained without bail.
If they don't get the same freedoms, then detain or deport them. If they haven't even been charged for anything, then why is any action at all being taken against them?
If tracking this is not illegal because of their status as non-citizens, do you really think it's the best way to go in foreign relations? Obviously not, since the Indian government has already said they don't agree with the treatment of their citizens.
“Hmm… we think something may be going on, so let’s come up with some new and interesting action to take while ignoring all the systems we already have in place to deal with immigration situations”. Sounds like ICE to me… considering how they ignored the existing process for stopping infringement with the domain seizures.
On the post: Senator Wyden Asks WTF Is Up With Homeland Security Domain Seizures
Re: Damn
I don't want to be cynical on this, but I still have a hard time believing that a politician would do work for anything other than Lobby money... much less work for the people or for what's right.
On the post: Senator Wyden Asks WTF Is Up With Homeland Security Domain Seizures
Re: Two things ....
Next >>