So now, again, we can all see that Mike has been right about you this entire time. You are not here to debate.
I can post several topics that Mike won't discuss.
(1) Mike has claimed that he wants to revise the bad parts of copyright law. I've asked him whether he thinks that any parts are good, and if so, what those parts are and what should be done to enforce them. He won't discuss this.
(2) Mike has claimed that copyright is not fulfilling its purpose to promote learning because copyright is used to prevent textbooks from being created that would include certain copyrighted material. I've asked him to explain how he squares this argument with the fact that copyright says to promote the progress by giving authors the right to have their works excluded from anything they want, including textbooks. He won't discuss this.
(3) Mike has claimed that Secretary Napolitano is not fit to hold office because she doesn't use email. I've asked him to provide actual evidence beyond his baseless innuendo. He will not discuss this.
(4) Mike has claimed that television reporting on elections has no effect the results. I asked him if he could back up this claim. He will not discuss this.
(5) Mike has claimed that Perfect 10's cert, petition that was denied was a shame because the Court wouldn't address squarely the important fair use issues therein. I asked him how he squares that claim with the fact that fair use was not the issue on appeal. He will not discuss this.
I can honestly go on and on with hundreds of times that Mike has been called out for his nonsense. And pretty much every time that he decides to say anything, it's only to pretend like I'm some sort of child for even asking him to explain himself in the first place. It's just a silly deflection that he uses to avoid discussing the issue directly. On another computer, I have well over 100 bookmarks of threads where Mike ran away, unwilling and unable to actually address a criticism on the merits. I'd love to post them all and have Mike go through them one-by-one addressing the criticisms, but you and I both know that Mike will never do this because he's a liar and a coward. I am here to discuss Mike's errors. Mike would obviously prefer if no one challenged him on any of his nonsense.
I wish Mike would just ban you.
Yeah, obviously you don't like it when the King of Bullshit gets challenged either. Shocker.
I am leaving Mike alone. I'm merely responding to Pixelation who asked me a direct question, just like I'm now responding to you. The fact is that Mike refuses to discuss many things with me and others who call him out on his nonsense. The reason is obvious: he's a manipulative zealot who knows that what he's saying is bullshit. My attempting to engage him in a substantive discussion of issues that he writes about profusely is not the action of a two-year-old. On the contrary, his constant excuse-making and running away when called out are the actions of a little child who knows he's been busted. All Mike ever has are excuses, excuses, excuses. If he wants to prove that I'm so beneath him debate-wise, why do you think he wouldn't just prove it by pouncing me on the merits of some issue? Instead, it's just excuses, excuses, excuses. Cracks me up that someone who tears apart the beliefs of others for a living can't even defend his own beliefs when challenged.
"Want me to? I'll post the issues, and you can prove to everyone that you are willing to discuss them."
Um, you didn't post them...
Right, because Mike doesn't want to talk about any of those issues with me. If he wants to discuss those things, I'm ready at a moment's notice. I'll debate any place, any time, on any issue. But he prefers that I leave him alone, because he knows he can't discuss those things with me without him coming out looking like an idiot. He doesn't want to be constantly reminded that several of his positions are indefensible and untenable. The last thing in the world Mike wants is for anyone to ever question the ridiculous things he says about copyright. I tried for years to get him to just have a normal conversation, but all he's ever had are excuses. He lies and says that he won't discuss these things with me because I'm just not worthy or able, but the FACT is that he knows his bullshit can be easily ripped apart. He'll go to any length to never have to defend some of the nonsense he posts. He just wants to lie and manipulate people without recourse or challenge.
I've clearly proven you a liar. You claim I refuse to debate critics. That's empirically false. I do so all the time. The only person I generally don't engage with is you, and it's not because I'm scared of you.
Yes, you obviously debate some people some of the time (but only when it's something silly and you know you can score a point). But you don't debate *me* and others who call you out for your purposeful misrepresentations about copyright law. You run away from the tough discussions--the ones where you know I (and others) can easily prove you wrong.
If you weren't so scared of me, you would stand behind your claims when challenged. But all we ever get are excuses and posts like this where you talk about talking about it. I can name several issues right here, right now that you REFUSE to discuss. Want me to? I'll post the issues, and you can prove to everyone that you are willing to discuss them. Instead of pretending like you're not scared, you can prove it right here, today. I know you won't, though. You can't wait for me to stop reminding everyone that you're a fake and a coward.
And, like a two year old, I expect you'll now refuse to live up to your promise here.
I am going to leave you alone. If you ever decide you want to have a substantive discussion about your beliefs (which will *never* happen), you know where to find me. I'm not too scared to discuss ANYTHING with you. Any topic, any place, any time. I will never run from you. Never. I'm not a fake, and I'm not a coward. I stand behind my claims when challenged.
If the court's order is wrong, then it's not wrong to disobey it.
This is basic stuff:
We begin with the well-established principle in proceedings for criminal contempt that an injunction duly issuing out of a court having subject matter and personal jurisdiction must be obeyed, irrespective of the ultimate validity of the order. Invalidity is no defense to criminal contempt. United States v. United Mine Workers, 1947, 330 U.S. 258, 67 S. Ct. 677, 91 L. Ed. 884; Howat v. State of Kansas, 1922, 258 U.S. 181, 42 S. Ct. 277, 66 L. Ed. 550; Gompers v. Bucks Stove and Range Co., 1911, 221 U.S. 418, 31 S. Ct. 492, 55 L. Ed. 797; Walker v. City of Birmingham, 1967, 388 U.S. 307, 87 S. Ct. 1824, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1210. "People simply cannot have the luxury of knowing that they have a right to contest the correctness of the judge's order in deciding whether to wilfully disobey it. * * * Court orders have to be obeyed until they are reversed or set aside in an orderly fashion." Southern Railway Co. v. Lanham, 5 Cir., 1969, 408 F.2d 348, 350 (Brown, C. J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).
United States v. Dickinson, 465 F.2d 496, 509 (5th Cir. La. 1972).
An injunction duly issuing out of a court of general jurisdiction with equity powers upon pleadings properly invoking its action, and served, upon persons made parties therein and within the jurisdiction, must be obeyed by them however erroneous the action of the [190] court may be, even if the error be in the assumption of the validity of a seeming but void law going to the merits of the case. It is for the court of first instance to determine the question of the validity of the law, and until its decision is reversed for error by orderly review, either by itself or by a higher court, its orders based on its decision are to be respected, and disobedience of them is contempt of its lawful authority, to be punished. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 450; Toy Toy v. Hopkins, 212 U.S. 542, 548. See also United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563, 57 3.
Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181, 189-190 (U.S. 1922).
That's not a good apology, Mike. Only you could be a complete asshole while apologizing. But you did apologize nonetheless, and I appreciate it.
Don't pretend for one second that I can't be engaged in a normal debate. I've been trying for YEARS to have a substantive discussion with you. All you do is change the subject, get hostile, lie, squirm, run away--anything but just have a normal conversation.
I've been hoping for years that you and I could have a productive discussion. I've tried everything I could, relentlessly, to get you to just have an honest back and forth. But you have refused, always with excuses, games, and ridicule.
You, of course, then refused to have the conversation that you claimed *I* was avoiding. I didn't avoid anything. Everyone can see that I stayed in that thread for days, waiting for you to have the conversation you were pretending I ran away from. All you had were excuses. That's all you ever have. And you, of course, wouldn't just have the conversation you claimed *I* didn't want to have.
To pretend that I'm not able to engage you is laughable. I have over a hundred bookmarks of threads where you ran away, unwilling and unable to discuss some silly claim you'd made. You're a complete coward, Mike. You won't stand behind your own words because you know they're bullshit, and you care nothing about the truth. All you care about is manipulating people and spreading FUD. All I care about is the truth.
I'm now 100% positive that you act in bad faith 100% of the time. For 2.5 years I've tried to get you open up and have meaningful discussion, but you have proved over and over and over again that you won't and you can't. I know you're trying to save face by pretending the problem is me, but the fact is that I've been ready, willing, and able to discuss issues with you for years--and all you've ever had were excuses. You're a complete fake and coward through and through. No wonder your most ardent fans are imbeciles.
Shh. Mike only wants to talk about how lame and stupid this judge is. He doesn't care that the woman did wrong in not obeying the court order. But then again, clearly Mike has zero respect for our government. "Anything to discredit the U.S. government!" is the TD motto.
Yeah, Most Likely to Succeed in high school, Univ. of Virginia law school, clerked on the Ninth Circuit, U.S. Attorney for Arizona, Attorney General of Arizona, Governor of Arizona, then Secretary of DHS.
Yet you have not provided a single piece of empirical evidence to support your claim. Without such evidence, your claim is as baseless as you say Mike's is.
My claim is simply that Mike has no evidence that her lack of use of email affects her job performance negatively. Can you point to Mike's evidence? No. That proves my claim.
I'm pointing out the fact that this article is baseless FUD. It's Mike lashing out at anything and everything government-related that he can possibly cast aspersions on. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's clear that Mike only cares about posting idiotic, anti-government/anti-authority nonsense.
There is not one iota of evidence that the Secretary performs her duties less capably because she doesn't use email. This story epitomizes the essence of Mike Masnick. He runs with a story that makes someone in authority/government look bad, regardless of whether there's any actual actual evidence that there is in fact a problem.
Here's the extent of Mike's thought process: "Hey, that kind of makes someone in power look bad at first blush. New article! Fuck you, government servant!" That's how shallow he is.
I *wish* Mike would conduct himself like Karl does, having intelligent discussions with those who challenge him. But Mike will *never* do that. All he cares about is pleasing the 4chan kiddies.
No wonder Mike won't engage me (or any of the other critics) in a substantive discussion. He's just not *albe* to. It's all making sense to me now. What a waste of an ivy league MBA.
It's all just unsubstantiated FUD. You have not, nor has Mike, identified one single duty of hers that is performed inadequately because she doesn't use email. She may not use email, but that doesn't mean she can't understand it (a child understands it). Give me a break. This is just Mike pandering to the dregs of the internet. How sad.
It's not rude to point out the fact that you're being an asshole. Don't worry. I know you're not capable of actually saying anything substantive. Mike prefers his legions to be mindless idiots. You fit the bill perfectly. Congrats.
to be Blunt: If you want to be in charge of technology, it might be nice to know a LITTLE something about it.
Her job is administrative. How hard is it to understand the concept of email? Just because she doesn't use it doesn't mean she lacks any necessary knowledge of the technology to carry out her duries. This is just simple anti-government FUD.
I'm beginning to realize that Mike only cares about spreading FUD. He cares not about having a substantive discussion of the issues. As long as the 4chan kiddies like his posts, he's satisfied. How sad.
On the post: DHS Boss, In Charge Of Cybersecurity, Doesn't Use Email Or Any Online Services
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can post several topics that Mike won't discuss.
(1) Mike has claimed that he wants to revise the bad parts of copyright law. I've asked him whether he thinks that any parts are good, and if so, what those parts are and what should be done to enforce them. He won't discuss this.
(2) Mike has claimed that copyright is not fulfilling its purpose to promote learning because copyright is used to prevent textbooks from being created that would include certain copyrighted material. I've asked him to explain how he squares this argument with the fact that copyright says to promote the progress by giving authors the right to have their works excluded from anything they want, including textbooks. He won't discuss this.
(3) Mike has claimed that Secretary Napolitano is not fit to hold office because she doesn't use email. I've asked him to provide actual evidence beyond his baseless innuendo. He will not discuss this.
(4) Mike has claimed that television reporting on elections has no effect the results. I asked him if he could back up this claim. He will not discuss this.
(5) Mike has claimed that Perfect 10's cert, petition that was denied was a shame because the Court wouldn't address squarely the important fair use issues therein. I asked him how he squares that claim with the fact that fair use was not the issue on appeal. He will not discuss this.
I can honestly go on and on with hundreds of times that Mike has been called out for his nonsense. And pretty much every time that he decides to say anything, it's only to pretend like I'm some sort of child for even asking him to explain himself in the first place. It's just a silly deflection that he uses to avoid discussing the issue directly. On another computer, I have well over 100 bookmarks of threads where Mike ran away, unwilling and unable to actually address a criticism on the merits. I'd love to post them all and have Mike go through them one-by-one addressing the criticisms, but you and I both know that Mike will never do this because he's a liar and a coward. I am here to discuss Mike's errors. Mike would obviously prefer if no one challenged him on any of his nonsense.
I wish Mike would just ban you.
Yeah, obviously you don't like it when the King of Bullshit gets challenged either. Shocker.
On the post: DHS Boss, In Charge Of Cybersecurity, Doesn't Use Email Or Any Online Services
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: DHS Boss, In Charge Of Cybersecurity, Doesn't Use Email Or Any Online Services
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um, you didn't post them...
Right, because Mike doesn't want to talk about any of those issues with me. If he wants to discuss those things, I'm ready at a moment's notice. I'll debate any place, any time, on any issue. But he prefers that I leave him alone, because he knows he can't discuss those things with me without him coming out looking like an idiot. He doesn't want to be constantly reminded that several of his positions are indefensible and untenable. The last thing in the world Mike wants is for anyone to ever question the ridiculous things he says about copyright. I tried for years to get him to just have a normal conversation, but all he's ever had are excuses. He lies and says that he won't discuss these things with me because I'm just not worthy or able, but the FACT is that he knows his bullshit can be easily ripped apart. He'll go to any length to never have to defend some of the nonsense he posts. He just wants to lie and manipulate people without recourse or challenge.
On the post: DHS Boss, In Charge Of Cybersecurity, Doesn't Use Email Or Any Online Services
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, you obviously debate some people some of the time (but only when it's something silly and you know you can score a point). But you don't debate *me* and others who call you out for your purposeful misrepresentations about copyright law. You run away from the tough discussions--the ones where you know I (and others) can easily prove you wrong.
If you weren't so scared of me, you would stand behind your claims when challenged. But all we ever get are excuses and posts like this where you talk about talking about it. I can name several issues right here, right now that you REFUSE to discuss. Want me to? I'll post the issues, and you can prove to everyone that you are willing to discuss them. Instead of pretending like you're not scared, you can prove it right here, today. I know you won't, though. You can't wait for me to stop reminding everyone that you're a fake and a coward.
And, like a two year old, I expect you'll now refuse to live up to your promise here.
I am going to leave you alone. If you ever decide you want to have a substantive discussion about your beliefs (which will *never* happen), you know where to find me. I'm not too scared to discuss ANYTHING with you. Any topic, any place, any time. I will never run from you. Never. I'm not a fake, and I'm not a coward. I stand behind my claims when challenged.
On the post: Judge Orders Woman To Delete Her Facebook Page For Typing LOL About Her DUI
Re: Re: Re: Walker v City of Birmingham
This is basic stuff:United States v. Dickinson, 465 F.2d 496, 509 (5th Cir. La. 1972).Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181, 189-190 (U.S. 1922).
Are you sure you're a lawyer?
On the post: DHS Boss, In Charge Of Cybersecurity, Doesn't Use Email Or Any Online Services
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't pretend for one second that I can't be engaged in a normal debate. I've been trying for YEARS to have a substantive discussion with you. All you do is change the subject, get hostile, lie, squirm, run away--anything but just have a normal conversation.
Karl and I just had a very good conversation. Unlike you, Karl is not scared to stand behind his beliefs. As I mentioned above, someone made this comment: "Couldn't agree more. These discussion are some of the best I've seen on TechDirt." Source: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120915/13334520392/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdirt .shtml#c3329
I've been hoping for years that you and I could have a productive discussion. I've tried everything I could, relentlessly, to get you to just have an honest back and forth. But you have refused, always with excuses, games, and ridicule.
Here's a case in point: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120908/13441520319/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdirt .shtml#c6009
You claimed: "*poof* AJ disappears into thin air."
But I hadn't gone anywhere. I waited around for days to address the ONE question you claimed that I had been dodging. Finally, days later you showed back up: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120908/13441520319/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdirt .shtml#c6764
You, of course, then refused to have the conversation that you claimed *I* was avoiding. I didn't avoid anything. Everyone can see that I stayed in that thread for days, waiting for you to have the conversation you were pretending I ran away from. All you had were excuses. That's all you ever have. And you, of course, wouldn't just have the conversation you claimed *I* didn't want to have.
To pretend that I'm not able to engage you is laughable. I have over a hundred bookmarks of threads where you ran away, unwilling and unable to discuss some silly claim you'd made. You're a complete coward, Mike. You won't stand behind your own words because you know they're bullshit, and you care nothing about the truth. All you care about is manipulating people and spreading FUD. All I care about is the truth.
I'm now 100% positive that you act in bad faith 100% of the time. For 2.5 years I've tried to get you open up and have meaningful discussion, but you have proved over and over and over again that you won't and you can't. I know you're trying to save face by pretending the problem is me, but the fact is that I've been ready, willing, and able to discuss issues with you for years--and all you've ever had were excuses. You're a complete fake and coward through and through. No wonder your most ardent fans are imbeciles.
On the post: Judge Orders Woman To Delete Her Facebook Page For Typing LOL About Her DUI
Re: Walker v City of Birmingham
On the post: DHS Boss, In Charge Of Cybersecurity, Doesn't Use Email Or Any Online Services
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fact is, all Mike ever does is chime in with nonsense posts like there where he makes all sorts of excuses.
Ever wonder why he's too scared to have even one substantive discussion with me about copyright law?
Hint: 'Cause he knows I'll expose his nonsense in a second.
On the post: DHS Boss, In Charge Of Cybersecurity, Doesn't Use Email Or Any Online Services
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Admit that you've been mean to me, and then apologize,
or,
have one substantive discussion with me about copyright law,
and then I'll leave you alone through the end of the year.
You game?
On the post: DHS Boss, In Charge Of Cybersecurity, Doesn't Use Email Or Any Online Services
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
She's obviously an incompetent idiot.
On the post: DHS Boss, In Charge Of Cybersecurity, Doesn't Use Email Or Any Online Services
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why are you so scared to discuss your beliefs, Mike?
Just the other day I had a wonderful and very productive discussion with Karl: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120915/13334520392/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdirt .shtml?threaded=false&sp=1#comments
Someone even commented: "These discussion are some of the best I've seen on TechDirt."
Obviously I'm ready and willing to have a productive and substantive discussion with you. But you keep making excuses. Weird.
Scared?
On the post: DHS Boss, In Charge Of Cybersecurity, Doesn't Use Email Or Any Online Services
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My claim is simply that Mike has no evidence that her lack of use of email affects her job performance negatively. Can you point to Mike's evidence? No. That proves my claim.
On the post: DHS Boss, In Charge Of Cybersecurity, Doesn't Use Email Or Any Online Services
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is not one iota of evidence that the Secretary performs her duties less capably because she doesn't use email. This story epitomizes the essence of Mike Masnick. He runs with a story that makes someone in authority/government look bad, regardless of whether there's any actual actual evidence that there is in fact a problem.
Here's the extent of Mike's thought process: "Hey, that kind of makes someone in power look bad at first blush. New article! Fuck you, government servant!" That's how shallow he is.
I *wish* Mike would conduct himself like Karl does, having intelligent discussions with those who challenge him. But Mike will *never* do that. All he cares about is pleasing the 4chan kiddies.
No wonder Mike won't engage me (or any of the other critics) in a substantive discussion. He's just not *albe* to. It's all making sense to me now. What a waste of an ivy league MBA.
On the post: California's Law Barring Demands For Social Media Passwords Sounds Good... But Might Not Be
On the post: DHS Boss, In Charge Of Cybersecurity, Doesn't Use Email Or Any Online Services
Re: Re:
On the post: DHS Boss, In Charge Of Cybersecurity, Doesn't Use Email Or Any Online Services
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: New Data Dump Shows Feds Massively Increased Spying On Who You're Talking To
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: DHS Boss, In Charge Of Cybersecurity, Doesn't Use Email Or Any Online Services
Re: Re:
On the post: DHS Boss, In Charge Of Cybersecurity, Doesn't Use Email Or Any Online Services
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Her job is administrative. How hard is it to understand the concept of email? Just because she doesn't use it doesn't mean she lacks any necessary knowledge of the technology to carry out her duries. This is just simple anti-government FUD.
I'm beginning to realize that Mike only cares about spreading FUD. He cares not about having a substantive discussion of the issues. As long as the 4chan kiddies like his posts, he's satisfied. How sad.
On the post: DHS Boss, In Charge Of Cybersecurity, Doesn't Use Email Or Any Online Services
Re: Re:
I'm sorry, but this is just more anti-government FUD. Is there any part of this country that Mike doesn't hate?
Next >>