"It could very well be when someone is required to purchase a permit to be there dispensing product."
Not sure what that has to do with my displeasure over someone giving away things in front of my business, but OK.
" Even charities cannot just setup shop anywhere and vend."
That's up to the individual jurisdictions. And if he was exercising his free-speech by protesting, then you'll find a harder time in shutting him down. But that's for the courts to decide. Sounds to me like Ean read up on what he was allowed to do and not do in advance, and I'd put my money on the fact that him sharing his lemonade with anyone who asks is not going to be "vending food" or "distribution". But, again, that's up to the court if it gets that far.
"Ean is being an ass, just like his parents for giving him a "cool" way to spell his name."
wow... first, congratulations on a multi-generational ad-hominim. Aces. Second, do some research... "Ean" isn't a 'cool way of spelling it', it's a Hebrew name that's also (strangly) popular in Ireland. Maybe it's a cultural heritage way of spelling it. But, hey, if insulting him and his parents makes you feel superior to him, who am I (and facts) to stop you?
Rather missed the point here didn't you? I'm not trolling. I don't care about the reaction to the post I made (outside of sharing some humor with friends), that goes against the very definition of trolling. And while not included in the definition I borrowed from Urban Dictionary, trolling usually includes anonymity or infrequent contribution to a site. The origin of the name comes from the image of a troll hiding under a bridge only to jump out at random times to harass passers-by.
Just to recap, darryl accused us of trolling... I say "no we're not"... and you say "so you admit to trolling"... I had to check to see if you were the same AC that accused me below of a reading-comprehension fail. It appears you're not, so I'll recommend without derision that you re-read my post and try again. Then, feel free to explain how this says anything about registered names? Good or bad. Go ahead, I'll wait... might be even more entertaining than darryl.
You challenge someone by saying they're hiding their identity... and they say they're not... and you say to prove it with a listing of their real-life personal info... all while hiding behind anonymity... then call me stupid for calling you out on it…
Wow. Ok, I wasn't asking for your identity. I was putting you to the same standard you would put on others because I know you wouldn't meet it. That’s called hypocrisy. And your refusal to even establish an identity here with a regularly-used name tells me that I don't need to take you seriously. If you had valid points to make and wanted to make them with conviction, you'd give others the ability to view your statements as compared other statements you've made. Otherwise, you're a one-trick pony who just wants to be heard.
Now, I read below where someone calls Jay out on weighing a point based on who said it instead of its merits… I know you’re about to go there, so let me stop you. EVERYONE weighs the value of a point they’re hearing based on who says it. Every point. If Al Gore says the world is ending, and a large contingent of educated, experienced, and established scientists say otherwise… who are you going to believe? Same thing around here. If Jay says something about copyright, and I go read his history to see if it sounds like he knows what he’s talking about; and Darryl says the exact opposite (whom I can’t verify his history, but I have read quite a bit of his… contribution), guess who I’m going to believe is more likely to have a valid argument. The trick is to do both… which most of the commenters I read do (in my opinion)… they see who’s making the statement and then check the accuracy and validity of what’s written. But I’m not going to waste much time verifying if Darryl is right or wrong… sorry, but history is against him.
And yes, I could be wrong… Jay could be pulling something out of his ass and I could catch him in it. But guess what… the next time Jay weighed in on something, I’d have that bit of datum to give him some new doubt. See? That’s what having an identity here does. It helps us establish the history and context against which we weight the value of a statement.
Ah, well, you see the little snowflakes next to your name? Yeah, I can tell (at least in the same thread) when sock-puppetry is going on with you. Glad you have a friend to back up your opinion.
Considering that when you go look at the history of my account and can see the fact that I've been posting for years (with a couple of notable gaps), I think my identity is established to the satisfaction of most of everyone else here. If someone creates their own account with the name Gabriel Tane, puts up the same picture, and makes posts the make him sound like the worst person in the world, a simple click into the accounts will see that there are two separate people at play.
As far as me posting under separate accounts so I can say things that won’t come back to bite me? Yeah, I could do that if I wanted to. But I have personal integrity. I don’t really care if you believe me on it or not. My initial point that started all this was: it’s really easy to be a troll when no one is ever going to be able to prove you said it. If I say something around here, you know who said it. My purpose is not to prove to you whether or not I’m lying. I’m proving to you that I take the opinion of a registered person more seriously than an AC.
As for claiming an identity is dishonest… Sounds like you have an issue with trusting anyone. No matter what proof someone could give you, it can always be called into doubt. I could have someone show up to your door and claim to be me in real life and you’d never be able to prove either way. So that argument really does wind its way into absurdity. Let me flip it around for you… what kind of proof would satisfy you? If nothing will ever satisfy you that anyone has any identity online, then why are you even here? We’re all just faceless “them”s to you and nothing of what we say would have any value at all.
My original point stands: someone with an account is an individual that creates a history of themself... AC's are all part of a nameless blob that can be tracked only in individual threads by the snowflakes (as long as they keep posting from the same IP).
“I can't find anything to actually argue against your point, so I'll just insult you by implying that doing what you're doing makes you look like an ass, all without actually having anything to back that up... instead I'll rely on the assumption that my opinion is better than yours.”
But hey, it makes you feel all intelligent and right about something, so go with it.
Yeah, but my displeasure doesn't make it any less legal. Unless, of course, I have more money (and therefore, more power to sway the law enforcement) than he does.
"He could have easily given away the lemonade in front of his own house, but it would be unlikely to provoke a response. For me, that makes him a jackass. It's not about free lemonade, it's about stirring up the shit and getting your video on you tube."
Apparently, the very idea of making a statement is lost on you. Did he do this to make sure people had lemonade? NO. The whole purpose, which he even tried to explain to Blasdell, is that this is a solidarity (read: protest) against the 'enforcement' against children's lemonade stands.
Do you really think (as Blasdell apparently does) that one guy with a couple of bottles of lemonade is a significant threat to 'proper' vendors? Really?
1) Is there a reason to refer to the money received as an "FRN"? I know it's a Federal Reserve Note, but why not just say "$17"? Is it a north-east or New England thing? Forgive a Floridian's ignorance :|
and
2) Is it a violation of City Ordinance to affix signs to city property? At the end, the Honorable Pres. Blasdel (I think that's him) is attaching a (clearly) home-made "not a member" sign on the City's parking sign. I wonder if the City Ordinance Enforcement would have anything to talk to him about after, of course, putting Ean to rights for dispensing food products without a license. Must be busy people, those Ordinance Enforcers.
Troll: (n, /trol/)- One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.
See, here's the difference... we're having a humorous exchange at your expense. We're not trying to 'cause maximum disruption and argument' because we don't really care what you have to say in response.
"When I say something, I stand behind it with a trackable identity. Just because I don't want you personally showing up at my door in real life, does not mean that this is not who I am." - me, two comments above
What's yours? Don't bother answering, I don’t' really care (see above)... I'm just wondering if your money can go anywhere near your mouth.
No, see, here's the difference... if Jay posts something, you can say "oh, that's Jay" and then call him out if he says something contradictory with his past, call him to task for repeated offences, etc.
With ACs, you all hide within a great, blurry blob of people who cannot be distinguished from one another. If I think you're a particular AC, I can try to call you out, but you'll just say "No! That was the other AC... not me!" Those little snowflakes help, most of the time, but only within a single thread.
So, when an AC comes in here and blasts his or her mouth off, we call them out for cowardice (hence the C part of AC). When I say something, I stand behind it with a trackable identity. Just because I don't want you personally showing up at my door in real life, does not mean that this is not who I am.
It doesn't say anything about personal use or non-commercial gain. Now, the 'fair use' would come in if they were copying down recipes that were not of the author's own creation. If I write a book that is nothing but a compilation of others' recipes, then I don't hold the copyright on those recipes.
Example: a local company in my town asks for recipes from its business partners, compiles and prints them, and distributes the book back to those partners. They do not own the copyright on those recipes.
"It is limited use for educational purposes, and who is to say that they are copying down information from the book, they might be writing a list of books they intend to buy !"
Who's to say? Probably the guy who took the picture who was probably watching them for a few minutes to figure out what they were doing.
But you're right... they could be making a list of books. They could be college students on a special project to dress as old ladies, get books, and count the number of words in each.
They could be space aliens who are using the bookstore activity as a cover for their covert military planning.
But I think we'll stick with the most likely scenario: the guy who took the pic knew what was going on. Sound good to you?
"its people trying to make an issue out of something like this who make it impossible to take you seriously when you do try to address a 'real' issue."
Someone already took the "satire fail", so I'm going to sail on...
"If you cannot see the difference between market sellers selling bootleg DVD's and ladies copying out some cooking tips then you do not understand the issues, you do yourself a disservice by trying to press such weak arguments."
We can see the difference just fine... it's the MPAA and RIAA who lump them all in the same group that can't see the difference. And it's you who doesn't see the similarities between a couple of old ladies 'sharing' (did you notice that word there?) some recipes (a practice as old as cooking) and me letting a friend of mine borrow some of my music so he can become a friend and support that artist.
"The problem, of course, is that the new law -- usually poorly written and passed in a fit of hysteria -- is too late to apply to the case it was designed for. But it does then apply to everyone else.
Maybe a new regulation that new laws cannot be brought about until after a cool-down period. That's the stated reason for waiting periods on handgun purchases... maybe the same idea here?
On the post: Concord PD Hits For The Cycle: Lemonade Stand + Camera + Wiretap Law
Re: Absurd!
On the post: Concord PD Hits For The Cycle: Lemonade Stand + Camera + Wiretap Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's up to the individual jurisdictions. And if he was exercising his free-speech by protesting, then you'll find a harder time in shutting him down. But that's for the courts to decide. Sounds to me like Ean read up on what he was allowed to do and not do in advance, and I'd put my money on the fact that him sharing his lemonade with anyone who asks is not going to be "vending food" or "distribution". But, again, that's up to the court if it gets that far.
wow... first, congratulations on a multi-generational ad-hominim. Aces. Second, do some research... "Ean" isn't a 'cool way of spelling it', it's a Hebrew name that's also (strangly) popular in Ireland. Maybe it's a cultural heritage way of spelling it. But, hey, if insulting him and his parents makes you feel superior to him, who am I (and facts) to stop you?
On the post: Commerce Is Bad?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just to recap, darryl accused us of trolling... I say "no we're not"... and you say "so you admit to trolling"... I had to check to see if you were the same AC that accused me below of a reading-comprehension fail. It appears you're not, so I'll recommend without derision that you re-read my post and try again. Then, feel free to explain how this says anything about registered names? Good or bad. Go ahead, I'll wait... might be even more entertaining than darryl.
On the post: Commerce Is Bad?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow. Ok, I wasn't asking for your identity. I was putting you to the same standard you would put on others because I know you wouldn't meet it. That’s called hypocrisy. And your refusal to even establish an identity here with a regularly-used name tells me that I don't need to take you seriously. If you had valid points to make and wanted to make them with conviction, you'd give others the ability to view your statements as compared other statements you've made. Otherwise, you're a one-trick pony who just wants to be heard.
Now, I read below where someone calls Jay out on weighing a point based on who said it instead of its merits… I know you’re about to go there, so let me stop you. EVERYONE weighs the value of a point they’re hearing based on who says it. Every point. If Al Gore says the world is ending, and a large contingent of educated, experienced, and established scientists say otherwise… who are you going to believe? Same thing around here. If Jay says something about copyright, and I go read his history to see if it sounds like he knows what he’s talking about; and Darryl says the exact opposite (whom I can’t verify his history, but I have read quite a bit of his… contribution), guess who I’m going to believe is more likely to have a valid argument. The trick is to do both… which most of the commenters I read do (in my opinion)… they see who’s making the statement and then check the accuracy and validity of what’s written. But I’m not going to waste much time verifying if Darryl is right or wrong… sorry, but history is against him.
And yes, I could be wrong… Jay could be pulling something out of his ass and I could catch him in it. But guess what… the next time Jay weighed in on something, I’d have that bit of datum to give him some new doubt. See? That’s what having an identity here does. It helps us establish the history and context against which we weight the value of a statement.
On the post: Commerce Is Bad?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Considering that when you go look at the history of my account and can see the fact that I've been posting for years (with a couple of notable gaps), I think my identity is established to the satisfaction of most of everyone else here. If someone creates their own account with the name Gabriel Tane, puts up the same picture, and makes posts the make him sound like the worst person in the world, a simple click into the accounts will see that there are two separate people at play.
As far as me posting under separate accounts so I can say things that won’t come back to bite me? Yeah, I could do that if I wanted to. But I have personal integrity. I don’t really care if you believe me on it or not. My initial point that started all this was: it’s really easy to be a troll when no one is ever going to be able to prove you said it. If I say something around here, you know who said it. My purpose is not to prove to you whether or not I’m lying. I’m proving to you that I take the opinion of a registered person more seriously than an AC.
As for claiming an identity is dishonest… Sounds like you have an issue with trusting anyone. No matter what proof someone could give you, it can always be called into doubt. I could have someone show up to your door and claim to be me in real life and you’d never be able to prove either way. So that argument really does wind its way into absurdity. Let me flip it around for you… what kind of proof would satisfy you? If nothing will ever satisfy you that anyone has any identity online, then why are you even here? We’re all just faceless “them”s to you and nothing of what we say would have any value at all.
My original point stands: someone with an account is an individual that creates a history of themself... AC's are all part of a nameless blob that can be tracked only in individual threads by the snowflakes (as long as they keep posting from the same IP).
On the post: Concord PD Hits For The Cycle: Lemonade Stand + Camera + Wiretap Law
Re: Re: Re:
But hey, it makes you feel all intelligent and right about something, so go with it.
On the post: Concord PD Hits For The Cycle: Lemonade Stand + Camera + Wiretap Law
Re: Re: Re:
Apparently, the very idea of making a statement is lost on you. Did he do this to make sure people had lemonade? NO. The whole purpose, which he even tried to explain to Blasdell, is that this is a solidarity (read: protest) against the 'enforcement' against children's lemonade stands.
Do you really think (as Blasdell apparently does) that one guy with a couple of bottles of lemonade is a significant threat to 'proper' vendors? Really?
On the post: Concord PD Hits For The Cycle: Lemonade Stand + Camera + Wiretap Law
Two questions...
and
2) Is it a violation of City Ordinance to affix signs to city property? At the end, the Honorable Pres. Blasdel (I think that's him) is attaching a (clearly) home-made "not a member" sign on the City's parking sign. I wonder if the City Ordinance Enforcement would have anything to talk to him about after, of course, putting Ean to rights for dispensing food products without a license. Must be busy people, those Ordinance Enforcers.
On the post: Concord PD Hits For The Cycle: Lemonade Stand + Camera + Wiretap Law
Re: Re:
On the post: Concord PD Hits For The Cycle: Lemonade Stand + Camera + Wiretap Law
Re:
Good thing those 'professional malcontents' got stopped before tossing a bunch of tea in Boston Harbor then signing a few documents huh? Oh... wait...
On the post: Commerce Is Bad?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
See, here's the difference... we're having a humorous exchange at your expense. We're not trying to 'cause maximum disruption and argument' because we don't really care what you have to say in response.
See how that works?
On the post: Commerce Is Bad?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What's yours? Don't bother answering, I don’t' really care (see above)... I'm just wondering if your money can go anywhere near your mouth.
On the post: Commerce Is Bad?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
With ACs, you all hide within a great, blurry blob of people who cannot be distinguished from one another. If I think you're a particular AC, I can try to call you out, but you'll just say "No! That was the other AC... not me!" Those little snowflakes help, most of the time, but only within a single thread.
So, when an AC comes in here and blasts his or her mouth off, we call them out for cowardice (hence the C part of AC). When I say something, I stand behind it with a trackable identity. Just because I don't want you personally showing up at my door in real life, does not mean that this is not who I am.
On the post: Commerce Is Bad?
Re: Re: Prostitution.
On the post: Commerce Is Bad?
Re: Re:
Form Of... missing the point and misunderstanding the topic!
Form Of... incomprehensibility, also missing the point, and horrible grammar!
On the post: Stop The Scourge Of Illegal 'Downwriting'
Re: fair use.
You really need to go read up on Fair Use... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
It doesn't say anything about personal use or non-commercial gain. Now, the 'fair use' would come in if they were copying down recipes that were not of the author's own creation. If I write a book that is nothing but a compilation of others' recipes, then I don't hold the copyright on those recipes.
Example: a local company in my town asks for recipes from its business partners, compiles and prints them, and distributes the book back to those partners. They do not own the copyright on those recipes.
Who's to say? Probably the guy who took the picture who was probably watching them for a few minutes to figure out what they were doing.
But you're right... they could be making a list of books. They could be college students on a special project to dress as old ladies, get books, and count the number of words in each.
They could be space aliens who are using the bookstore activity as a cover for their covert military planning.
But I think we'll stick with the most likely scenario: the guy who took the pic knew what was going on. Sound good to you?
Someone already took the "satire fail", so I'm going to sail on...
We can see the difference just fine... it's the MPAA and RIAA who lump them all in the same group that can't see the difference. And it's you who doesn't see the similarities between a couple of old ladies 'sharing' (did you notice that word there?) some recipes (a practice as old as cooking) and me letting a friend of mine borrow some of my music so he can become a friend and support that artist.
On the post: Stop The Scourge Of Illegal 'Downwriting'
Missed a great joke
"If only there were a place where I could rent books for free! Oh..."
On the post: Teachers In Missouri Sue For The Right To 'Friend' Their Students On Facebook
Re: talk about reaching ...
The quote includes some additional links which make for some other great example of why "dead kids make bad laws". http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/24/dead-kids-make-bad-laws
Maybe a new regulation that new laws cannot be brought about until after a cool-down period. That's the stated reason for waiting periods on handgun purchases... maybe the same idea here?
On the post: Teachers In Missouri Sue For The Right To 'Friend' Their Students On Facebook
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WTH!
On the post: Teachers In Missouri Sue For The Right To 'Friend' Their Students On Facebook
Re: Re:
Next >>