Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who are the two mystery men you talk about,, NAME THEM !!! or admit to lying.
What could that reason by ??
Maybe that it's irrelevant? The point of the anecdote was that, in person, Mike is often seen as optimistic. He could have quoted his wife and kid, for all that it mattered.
That fact that you do not want to know who they are, just looks like you totally believe 100% what mike is telling you..
I never said that I didn't want to know. I asked how knowing would help you determine the truth of his statement. You still haven't answered, by the way. If Mike answered and named two people who fit the bill, how would you verify that?
If he is willing to make claims about people, and himself, he should be able to back up those claims..
Yes, God forbid that he only tell us the relevant parts of an anecdote. I mean, I love having my time wasted by hearing unnecessary details. /sarcasm
Otherwise, again, he just looks like a dirty, nasty, liar, who is doing it to get money from you..
First, he's never looked like a dirty, nasty liar, so your statement is pretty crazy. Next, not naming the two people that called him optimistic doesn't make him a liar. Last, in what way is Mike attempting to extort money from us with that anecdote?
If I make a truthfull statement, and someone calls me a liar, I will PROVE I DID NOT LIE, on principle, I will not have someone call me a liar if I did not lie..
That's patently untrue. You've lied on many occasions, and have been called on it on many occasions. Ironically, I'm calling you a liar.
But Mike does not seem to think that way, that means either two things, 1. IT IS A LIE, and mike is ashamed of it and wont admit he lies to his readers.
Or... maybe it means that the names were irrelevant and he had better things to do on New Year's Eve than stick around and read your demands for details.
Or it is not a lie, and for some, unknown reason for the first time in mikes like he refuses to name two artits who have been successful with an alternate method. But he will not name them at all..
Where did you get the idea that Mike was 'refusing' to disclose those names? Did you speak to him and ask him to disclose those names? Did I miss a post where he stated that he was refusing to disclose those names? Or are you just assuming that he 'refusing' to disclose them because, again, he had better things to do on a holiday weekend than stick around and read your ravings?
Or defend himself,, I know Mike you cannot defend youself, when you know you are guilty as charged...
Again, at what point has he refused to defend himself? Can you point it out, please?
So why bother even trying, and Rose why appologise for him??
I'm not apologizing for anyone. I'm simply the voice of reason that so often follows illogical posts, many of which are from you.
Re: Re: Re: Who are the two mystery men you talk about,, NAME THEM !!! or admit to lying.
Just knowing the names would be very helpful.
Again, as I said to Darryl, how would that help?
Consider the story of Motoboy, a musician that gives his music away and made money by selling a limited edition of signed music boxes. It's a nice idea that might buy a few cases of champagne, but it's not going to pay the rent.
First, it's more than he would have made with a label, since most acts end up in debt. I think a few cases of champagne in return for doing what you love is a whole lot better than a heap of debt, don't you?
Next, who said that art has to pay the rent? Artists do what they love because they love to do it. Anything more is gravy.
Last, there is plenty of evidence that more artists are making more money than they were with the old exploitative label system. Are they all partying like rock stars? No, but that's not necessary for the creation of art. :)
I think that you're misinterpreting the phrase 'community standards'. Community standards on obscenity are about what the community thinks is too obscene for anyone, not about different community standards for different age groups.
For instance, Oklahoma's community standards don't allow the sale of penetration porn to anyone. It's 'obscene'. That doesn't mean that we think that non-penetration porn is okay for children, it simply means that we don't believe that it's obscene, via Miller.
In short, community standards don't change based on who might be watching. If a boob is obscene on television in that area, then a boob is obscene anywhere in that area, and strip joints and the sale of Maxim should immediately cease.
Oh, and you can take time and care with whatever you like, and I'll do the same, including just picking out an interesting bit when I see it. You don't get to dictate what I should and shouldn't do, even concerning your comment. I wouldn't expect such rudeness from an Anonymous Coward.
I believe in honest boundaries for relationships, and polyamory is almost the norm nowasays, but in reality, 1 out of 5 adults has genital warts, not to mention rates of chlamydia and everything else.
On the post: New Year's Message: From Pessimism To Optimism... And The Power Of Innovation
Re:
Is it sad that I'm amused?
On the post: New Year's Message: From Pessimism To Optimism... And The Power Of Innovation
Re: PROVE IT IS NOT A LIE MIKE ??? if you can, NAME THEM !!!!
On the post: New Year's Message: From Pessimism To Optimism... And The Power Of Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who are the two mystery men you talk about,, NAME THEM !!! or admit to lying.
Maybe that it's irrelevant? The point of the anecdote was that, in person, Mike is often seen as optimistic. He could have quoted his wife and kid, for all that it mattered.
That fact that you do not want to know who they are, just looks like you totally believe 100% what mike is telling you..
I never said that I didn't want to know. I asked how knowing would help you determine the truth of his statement. You still haven't answered, by the way. If Mike answered and named two people who fit the bill, how would you verify that?
If he is willing to make claims about people, and himself, he should be able to back up those claims..
Yes, God forbid that he only tell us the relevant parts of an anecdote. I mean, I love having my time wasted by hearing unnecessary details. /sarcasm
Otherwise, again, he just looks like a dirty, nasty, liar, who is doing it to get money from you..
First, he's never looked like a dirty, nasty liar, so your statement is pretty crazy. Next, not naming the two people that called him optimistic doesn't make him a liar. Last, in what way is Mike attempting to extort money from us with that anecdote?
If I make a truthfull statement, and someone calls me a liar, I will PROVE I DID NOT LIE, on principle, I will not have someone call me a liar if I did not lie..
That's patently untrue. You've lied on many occasions, and have been called on it on many occasions. Ironically, I'm calling you a liar.
But Mike does not seem to think that way, that means either two things, 1. IT IS A LIE, and mike is ashamed of it and wont admit he lies to his readers.
Or... maybe it means that the names were irrelevant and he had better things to do on New Year's Eve than stick around and read your demands for details.
Or it is not a lie, and for some, unknown reason for the first time in mikes like he refuses to name two artits who have been successful with an alternate method. But he will not name them at all..
Where did you get the idea that Mike was 'refusing' to disclose those names? Did you speak to him and ask him to disclose those names? Did I miss a post where he stated that he was refusing to disclose those names? Or are you just assuming that he 'refusing' to disclose them because, again, he had better things to do on a holiday weekend than stick around and read your ravings?
Or defend himself,, I know Mike you cannot defend youself, when you know you are guilty as charged...
Again, at what point has he refused to defend himself? Can you point it out, please?
So why bother even trying, and Rose why appologise for him??
I'm not apologizing for anyone. I'm simply the voice of reason that so often follows illogical posts, many of which are from you.
On the post: New Year's Message: From Pessimism To Optimism... And The Power Of Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Who are the two mystery men you talk about,, NAME THEM !!! or admit to lying.
Again, as I said to Darryl, how would that help?
Consider the story of Motoboy, a musician that gives his music away and made money by selling a limited edition of signed music boxes. It's a nice idea that might buy a few cases of champagne, but it's not going to pay the rent.
First, it's more than he would have made with a label, since most acts end up in debt. I think a few cases of champagne in return for doing what you love is a whole lot better than a heap of debt, don't you?
Next, who said that art has to pay the rent? Artists do what they love because they love to do it. Anything more is gravy.
Last, there is plenty of evidence that more artists are making more money than they were with the old exploitative label system. Are they all partying like rock stars? No, but that's not necessary for the creation of art. :)
On the post: New Year's Message: From Pessimism To Optimism... And The Power Of Innovation
Remember!
No, seriously, Happy New Year, everyone. The next time you hear from me, I might be sober again.
On the post: New Year's Message: From Pessimism To Optimism... And The Power Of Innovation
Re: Who are the two mystery men you talk about,, NAME THEM !!! or admit to lying.
How would knowing their names help you 'determine the truth'? Are you going to call them up and ask them about it or what, lol?
at present we have to assume you are lying.
Why is that, exactly?
On the post: New Year's Message: From Pessimism To Optimism... And The Power Of Innovation
Re:
On the post: New Year's Message: From Pessimism To Optimism... And The Power Of Innovation
Re: Re: New Year's Message: From Pessimism To Optimism
Oh, I see. You don't actually read anything on here, which would totally explain your posts.
Thanks for clarifying. :)
On the post: New Year's Message: From Pessimism To Optimism... And The Power Of Innovation
Re: Re: NEW YEARS RESOLUTION FOR MASNICK: T-SHIRTS LOOOOOOOTS OF T-SHIRTS
On the post: Janet Jackson's Wardrobe Malfunction Leads To FCC Malfunction: Claims Broadcasters Give Up 1st Amendment Rights
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Does The Myth Persist That Wikileaks Is Indiscriminately Leaking Thousands Of Documents?
I'd like to point out...
On the post: If Wikileaks Is About Cyberwar, Was The Pentagon Papers About A Wood Pulp War? [Updated]
Re: You can be an egotistical moron, and not have to lie !!
And the other, has cables about what some diplomat called some politician.
Also, Wikileaks has shown that our President and government acted unconstitutionally, over and over and over again.
On the post: Janet Jackson's Wardrobe Malfunction Leads To FCC Malfunction: Claims Broadcasters Give Up 1st Amendment Rights
Re: Re: Re:
For instance, Oklahoma's community standards don't allow the sale of penetration porn to anyone. It's 'obscene'. That doesn't mean that we think that non-penetration porn is okay for children, it simply means that we don't believe that it's obscene, via Miller.
In short, community standards don't change based on who might be watching. If a boob is obscene on television in that area, then a boob is obscene anywhere in that area, and strip joints and the sale of Maxim should immediately cease.
Oh, and you can take time and care with whatever you like, and I'll do the same, including just picking out an interesting bit when I see it. You don't get to dictate what I should and shouldn't do, even concerning your comment. I wouldn't expect such rudeness from an Anonymous Coward.
On the post: Janet Jackson's Wardrobe Malfunction Leads To FCC Malfunction: Claims Broadcasters Give Up 1st Amendment Rights
Re:
It isn't really a first amendment issue because they are not curtailing legal speech. Obscenity has always been considered non-protected speech...
Janet Jackson's boob isn't obscenity as defined by the Supreme Court. Neither are expletives, fleeting or otherwise.
On the post: Janet Jackson's Wardrobe Malfunction Leads To FCC Malfunction: Claims Broadcasters Give Up 1st Amendment Rights
Re: Red tape
You mean that the right to sell liquor, run slots, and fix my toiler are guaranteed by the Constitution? AWESOME!
On the post: Janet Jackson's Wardrobe Malfunction Leads To FCC Malfunction: Claims Broadcasters Give Up 1st Amendment Rights
Re: Re: Only seven years?
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why did charge?
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trust issues
Honestly, it's more conventional to secretly cheat on your spouse than it is to stay faithful, so what she did was definitely conventional.
This is why people should discuss what their vows mean before they take them.
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course, we're all under 40 (mostly) so maybe it's a generational gap?
On the post: Guy Faces Five Years In Prison For Reading Wife's Email
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Eh. Formatting shit happens. No biggie.
Next >>