Why in the world would he waste his time personally telling you his stance on anything(ignoring for the moment that he does essentially just that in every article on the site he writes, something you'd know if you bothered to actually read them), when you've shown that A) you don't care, you've already made up your mind on the stances you think he has, and B) you've proven that you simply cannot hold a mature discussion with him or anyone, as shown by your constant ad-homs, strawman arguments, insults, and incessant whining about how he 'Won't debate you'?
Seriously, who exactly do you think you're fooling with your laughable insults and strawman attacks?
I do care. That's why I ask. I do read his articles. He's very careful to never take a definitive position on whether and why he thinks authors and inventors should have any rights in the first place. I can hold a mature conversation. I'm trying to do that right now. I'm not even looking for a debate. I'm just wondering what his beliefs are. All these threads turn into talking about talking about it and personal attacks at me. I'm not insulting and attacking. I think he truly is anti-IP and pro-piracy, and the fact that he won't engage in a direct and honest discussion about his beliefs only reaffirms my views. All we get are excuses for why he won't talk about it or claims that he's already talked about it, yet no one can ever explain what his views exactly are. I'm clearly touching on a very sensitive topic for him. That only tells me that I'm right. Don't think for one minute that he won't answer the questions because it's me asking. Ask him yourself. He just won't talk about these issues. He refuses to be pinned down on a position.
An excellent point. It's mostly simple-minded people whose views can fit on a fortune cookie. Things get complicated out here in the real world.
I agree that things are complicated, and that was the point of my comment. Some patent attorneys and academics are worried about *how* these patents are being invalidated under 101. I'm suggesting that this new view of 101 could have negative consequences for innovation. Mike's argument seems to be that invalid is good, no matter how we get there and no matter what effect this will have in the long run. That's a "fortune cookie" view of things, IMO.
This entire site is a statement of his copyright and patent views. Not everyones views fit on a fortune cookie
I agree that Mike's anti-IP, pro-piracy position comes through loud and clear based on his posts. Yet he pretends like he's really neither of those things. I'd love for him to spell out whether he thinks inventors and authors should have any exclusive rights, what he thinks those rights should look like, why he thinks they should have those rights, etc. I don't want the "fortune cookie" sized answer. I love nuance. Yet Mike won't ever explicitly tell us what he believes about these most basic issues. From what I can tell, he just wants the plausible deniability whenever someone accuses him of being anti-IP and pro-piracy.
I know the extent of analysis on Techdirt is "less patents = good thing," but it's possible that this change to the 101 jurisprudence will have unintended consequences for innovation.
For example, as Mark Lemley mentioned in his interview with Gene Quinn: "And the problem is I think that Section 101 is just a really coarse filter to try to distinguish the good from the bad in software or anything else. And so the kind of impact of too many people asserting some dubious patents or patents that they’ve over claimed maybe the backlash is bad and a bunch of legitimate patents are gonna get swept into the invalidation."
You are being purposely obtuse now. Apple is obviously embracing free as some part of their business plan by paying for and then giving away the music for free. By accepting Apple's cash for doing this, U2 is also embracing "free" as a part of their business model.
U2 has done nothing of the sort. U2 was paid handsomely for their product, that is, the music. They didn't give it away for free. They sold it for a nice profit.
That's a lame analogy. Buying someone a beer is nowhere near a multi-million dollar music deal.
You (just like Bono) are misunderstanding the nature of "free". The fact that that Apple paid them upfront doesn't change the fact that "free" is part of the business model that paid them.
I did read it, and I thought it was pretty funny. U2 granted Apple a license for millions of dollars. That's not giving it away for free. If I buy you a beer at a bar, the bar has not embraced "free." Give me a break.
Curious if you could point to any argument we've ever made that says artists must give away their work for free?
Thanks.
Otherwise, an apology would be nice.
Also, if no one else can make that decision, other than the artist, can you explain how many record labels make that decision for the artists anyway? Thanks.
Hey, Mike! Why don't you tell us explicitly what you believe about copyright so there's no doubt where you stand? Oh, yeah, you won't do that. I guess you like the perceived plausible deniability too much to give us straight answers. I guess *that's* why you're such a weasel when it comes to being explicit about your beliefs. No one can pigeonhole you, right? Sigh.
Before I give my two cents…I work in IP. I love Techdirt. I’m also usually okay with the general anti-IP view of writers and commenters here. Often it is justified, sometimes not, but I’m love that the Techdirt is here to challenge the system on a daily basis.
Techdirt is certainly "anti-IP," and sadly, Mike can't explicitly admit it. Ask him to clearly present his views on anything IP-related, and his response makes it seem like you asked him to sacrifice his first-born child. But the posts speak for themselves. We all know where he stands. That he can't admit it is priceless fun for me.
That said, this is one of those Techdirt posts that make me cringe. Beside the legal aspects that are glossed over, the needless comments about how dumb one would have to be to confuse the two brands make the writer seem clueless on the subject matter. There are so many good examples of IP overreach and IP abuse out there, but this is not one of them. The writer is so cock sure in his comments, but just plain wrong about the subject matter.
I agree. This post is terrible. There's no actual infringement analysis, such as the strength of the senior mark, the defendant's intent, or the consumer's degree of care. The author fails to demonstrate even a basic understanding of trademark infringement. Posts like this make me laugh when Mike attempts to smear other sites for their lack of journalistic prowess, as with the recent series of posts slamming HuffPo. Mike should get his own house in order before throwing stones. His own team of "journalists" come across as morons. Journalism!
I appreciate the write-up, Mike! I haven't followed the net neutrality stuff at all, and I needed an introduction like this--this is why I donated to your crowdfunding cause. I'm sure there's other points of view worth investigating, but this has given me a good starting point. Thanks!
Could you expand on that a bit? My understanding is that when there's multiple towers, the signals can be triangulated and the location of the phone can be calculated accurately. That's how, for example, the map application in a phone knows where the phone is located. Mike says "too many people confuse cell site location data with GPS," but I don't believe phones even have GPS. Is that right?
That's quite obvious from your choice of user names.
You'd have a better argument over my avatar, since "antidirt" could just reflect my desire for cleanliness. Regardless, I did in fact donate to the site because I value it. I've been an avid reader for several years, so I'm happy to help out. I no longer read anything by "the Tims" or Leigh, but I do value Mike's posts--even though I often disagree with his take. I wish this site was more open to opposing views. Sometimes there's good discussions in the comments, but not as often as there would be if Mike set a better example, IMO.
In this thread: whiny, harrassing manchild believes Mike owes him answers after refusing to accept them the first 5 dozen(+) times
If he's answered it so many times, what's the answer to my question? All I see is Mike stomping his feet and making more excuses. And let me ask you this: Do you agree with me that Mike treats Tor users differently, thus making TD part of the very same problem the folks at Tor are identifying? If not, why not? Let's have some substance.
The only thing you've tried to do for years is have him answer questions on your terms.
I've seen your version of "debate me". It's essentially, "Here is my question to you mike. [inserts question here] Now, you can answer it. Just keep in mind your answer has to be either [inserts Answer Choice 1 here] or [inserts Answer Choice 2 here]. Those are your only possible choices. Anything else is just 'weasel words' and a sign that you refuse to answer my question honestly or debate me."
Here's a simple question that he won't answer: Mike, do you believe that authors should have any exclusive rights to their writings? He won't answer that question. I'm not trying to get him to answer on my own terms. I just want a straightforward answer to a simple question. He can answer it anyway he wants. I'd be happy so long as when he's done, we all know the answer. But he will not answer that question in any way. Ask him yourself. It doesn't matter who's asking. He won't discuss it. He pretends like he won't answer it because it's me asking. That's him dodging a question he doesn't want to answer. This isn't hard.
Mike doesn't out you, you out yourself.
I may have implicitly "outed" myself. But the fact remains that Mike explicitly "outed" me. It's hilarious how you guys spin this. Mike absolutely and explicitly connected my old account to my new account. Pretending like he didn't is dumb. And of course, he only does this sort of thing with critics. It's sad. Good grief.
Oh, good lord, not this again. This statement is a prime example of why having a substantive discussion with you is impossible. This discussion has already been had, more than once, and Mike has explained his stance multiple times, sometimes in talking with you but more often (and more completely) in his articles.
The problem is that Mike's stance isn't as black-and-white as you want it to be -- you're wanting him to say "I am for/against copyright", when his actual stance is more nuanced than that. If you really want to know his stance, read what he wrote. He hasn't hid anything at all.
Your asking if he is pro-piracy -- a question he has answered unambiguously (he's against it) is also fascinating, and feeds into my strong suspicious that all you are really trying to do is maneuver him into a rhetorical trap.
I'm sure he thinks it's a trap. He's only answered at a very general level, and he won't get into the specifics. I've been trying for four years to have this conversation with him. You see how much he freaks out when it comes up. He'd rather have any other conversation in the world. I think the reason is obvious: He doesn't want to admit the specifics about what he believes. I've waited four years. I can wait many, many more. Funny how this thread got turned into this conversation. I really only wanted to point out that he's doing the same thing to Tor users as the folks at Tor have identified as a new problem. And of course Mike can't simply admit that either. The man does not take criticism well.
Oh, by the way, since I am a financial contributor to you and your site, the least you could do is take a few seconds and take my home IP off of whatever list it's on that causes all my posts to go to the spam filter. I donated because I actually value your site. I read it everyday. Don't confuse my desire for you to be clear about your views of copyright for hate or childishness. I'm genuinely curious what you think. If you need my IP address so you can help me out, just email me. Of course, I'm sure you can figure it out without my help. Thanks, Mike. I hope you'll do me that solid as a gesture of good faith. (And I hope the gear I ordered comes soon! It's been a couple weeks already!)
Just to clarify, since you continue to want to play idiotic games: If I were revealing something private, you may have a point. I did not. Your comments under this alias are nearly identical to your comments under a previous alias and also (much more commonly) to your comments as an AC. I did not reveal anything that YOU DID NOT REVEAL PUBLICLY. The "connection" is the same one that plenty of other commenters noted. I did not look to see if the comments are coming from the same email address or IP address. It's simply obvious. Hell, for all I know you COULD be a mimic. My "confirmation" is based on nothing but public information -- public information you revealed.
Only *you* go off on your stupid lies claiming I have to "debate you." There was a whole meme on here for a while "why won't you debate meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee" based on your childish behavior. It's obvious who you are.
Revealing info that you yourself are making public is not violating anyone's private information. Apparently you didn't take your time away from the site to actually mature, huh?
Again, it's these childish games which shows why you are not worth debating with.
I will not check this thread again. I have actual work to do.
You explicitly did link "my current username to my old username," as I indicated. That you deny doing this is hilarious. And sad. Everyone can see that you did it. That you can't have a substantive discussion on the merits about anything that actually matters is sadder still. I don't bite. I promise. You really shouldn't be so scared of me. But, yeah, keep making excuses. I'm sure the dumber folks are buying it. All I want is for you to be explicit as to your personal beliefs about copyright. Let's get to the bottom of whether you're really anti-copyright and/or pro-piracy. But you don't want to have that conversation. Hmmm. I wonder why.
On this one point: I did no such thing. You identified yourself as the same comment via your comments. It's obvious to anyone who is reading the comments that you are the same person. As far as I know, you may be using different email addresses and IPs. I would have no way of linking any two accounts anyway, other than by the obvious: that you gave it away by your comments.
I did not ever say I'm the same person who has posted under another user account. People may have suspected it, but I never said it explicitly. You, however, did. You said, "Did you go away for a while and then come back with a new account pretending people would forget this?" and then you posted a link which connects this new account to my old one. You confirmed for anyone who suspected as much that it's true. That's not respecting my anonymity. And of course you did it only so you could attack me personally (rather than have a substantive discussion on the merits, which is all that I want).
Separate from that, I have not revealed who you are, meaning that you are still anonymous.
Respecting your posters' anonymity means more than not simply giving out their real names. I know you don't get it, but that's my point. Thanks for confirming that you think anonymity only means someone's real name. That's sad, but I'm glad you admit it.
Finally, despite your repeated LIES, we did not delete your account. We did not block you. I did not "reinstate" your account. Hell, I don't even know if there's a way to do such a thing in our system.
This is so sad it hurts. I was being blocked left and right last summer and you know it. My home IP is currently being routed to the spam filter. You could fix this today if you wanted to, but you don't want to. Why don't you just work with me to fix it if you don't think my home IP shouldn't be routed in this way? Let your actions speak for themselves if you really want me to not be blocked. It is a fact that I could not login to my old account before, yet now I can. Of course you deny it. You can't even admit what went down last summer. Maybe that wasn't you. Maybe that was one of your flunkies. But you know it happened. I could dig up the links if you really want me to. I don't really care about that, though.
You have a sick desire to blame your own problems on me, and I don't know why that is. But I do know that it is simply yet another example of why engaging with you is futile. I have, do and will engage with people who can debate without throwing a childish tantrum. That, unfortunately, is a set of people that apparently does not include yourself.
There's no childish tantrums. That's just an excuse you pull out over and over rather than have a discussion about something that matters. Want to prove me wrong? Then have a meaningful discussion with me where you don't dodge the tough questions. That's all I want and you know it. But you will never have that conversation, will you? And it's not just me. There's certain tough questions you won't answer no matter who asks them, and you know it. Instead of pretending like I don't want a substantive discussion, why don't you engage in that discussion with me. You won't do it. And it has nothing to do with me. You just don't want to talk about those things. It would be so incredibly easy for you to prove me wrong, yet all you do is put out sad excuses for why you won't even try. Imagine how glorious it would be if you attempted to have that discussion and I then turned it into something else. Rather than pretending like I don't want that discussion, you could prove it. But you won't even try because you don't want to talk about it.
On the post: Be Happy: Software Patents Are Rapidly Disappearing Thanks To The Supreme Court
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously, who exactly do you think you're fooling with your laughable insults and strawman attacks?
I do care. That's why I ask. I do read his articles. He's very careful to never take a definitive position on whether and why he thinks authors and inventors should have any rights in the first place. I can hold a mature conversation. I'm trying to do that right now. I'm not even looking for a debate. I'm just wondering what his beliefs are. All these threads turn into talking about talking about it and personal attacks at me. I'm not insulting and attacking. I think he truly is anti-IP and pro-piracy, and the fact that he won't engage in a direct and honest discussion about his beliefs only reaffirms my views. All we get are excuses for why he won't talk about it or claims that he's already talked about it, yet no one can ever explain what his views exactly are. I'm clearly touching on a very sensitive topic for him. That only tells me that I'm right. Don't think for one minute that he won't answer the questions because it's me asking. Ask him yourself. He just won't talk about these issues. He refuses to be pinned down on a position.
On the post: Be Happy: Software Patents Are Rapidly Disappearing Thanks To The Supreme Court
Re: Re: Re:
I agree that things are complicated, and that was the point of my comment. Some patent attorneys and academics are worried about *how* these patents are being invalidated under 101. I'm suggesting that this new view of 101 could have negative consequences for innovation. Mike's argument seems to be that invalid is good, no matter how we get there and no matter what effect this will have in the long run. That's a "fortune cookie" view of things, IMO.
On the post: Be Happy: Software Patents Are Rapidly Disappearing Thanks To The Supreme Court
Re: Re:
I agree that Mike's anti-IP, pro-piracy position comes through loud and clear based on his posts. Yet he pretends like he's really neither of those things. I'd love for him to spell out whether he thinks inventors and authors should have any exclusive rights, what he thinks those rights should look like, why he thinks they should have those rights, etc. I don't want the "fortune cookie" sized answer. I love nuance. Yet Mike won't ever explicitly tell us what he believes about these most basic issues. From what I can tell, he just wants the plausible deniability whenever someone accuses him of being anti-IP and pro-piracy.
On the post: Be Happy: Software Patents Are Rapidly Disappearing Thanks To The Supreme Court
Re: Re:
And then I saw your username.
Is my username also preventing you from responding substantively?
On the post: Be Happy: Software Patents Are Rapidly Disappearing Thanks To The Supreme Court
For example, as Mark Lemley mentioned in his interview with Gene Quinn: "And the problem is I think that Section 101 is just a really coarse filter to try to distinguish the good from the bad in software or anything else. And so the kind of impact of too many people asserting some dubious patents or patents that they’ve over claimed maybe the backlash is bad and a bunch of legitimate patents are gonna get swept into the invalidation."
Source: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/09/07/the-software-patent-problem-not-emphasizing-the-technological-c ontribution-of-the-innovation/
Care to share your views on patents, Mike? Or is that super-secret information, like your views on copyrights?
On the post: U2 Still Insists No Value In 'Free' Music, Despite Making Millions From It
Re: Re: Re: Re:
U2 has done nothing of the sort. U2 was paid handsomely for their product, that is, the music. They didn't give it away for free. They sold it for a nice profit.
That's a lame analogy. Buying someone a beer is nowhere near a multi-million dollar music deal.
Do you not understand how an analogy works?
On the post: U2 Still Insists No Value In 'Free' Music, Despite Making Millions From It
Re: Re:
You (just like Bono) are misunderstanding the nature of "free". The fact that that Apple paid them upfront doesn't change the fact that "free" is part of the business model that paid them.
I did read it, and I thought it was pretty funny. U2 granted Apple a license for millions of dollars. That's not giving it away for free. If I buy you a beer at a bar, the bar has not embraced "free." Give me a break.
On the post: U2 Still Insists No Value In 'Free' Music, Despite Making Millions From It
Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Thanks.
Otherwise, an apology would be nice.
Also, if no one else can make that decision, other than the artist, can you explain how many record labels make that decision for the artists anyway? Thanks.
Hey, Mike! Why don't you tell us explicitly what you believe about copyright so there's no doubt where you stand? Oh, yeah, you won't do that. I guess you like the perceived plausible deniability too much to give us straight answers. I guess *that's* why you're such a weasel when it comes to being explicit about your beliefs. No one can pigeonhole you, right? Sigh.
On the post: U2 Still Insists No Value In 'Free' Music, Despite Making Millions From It
On the post: Breweries Fight Over Trademark Of Hikers That Don't Look Alike
Re: I guess I need medical help
Techdirt is certainly "anti-IP," and sadly, Mike can't explicitly admit it. Ask him to clearly present his views on anything IP-related, and his response makes it seem like you asked him to sacrifice his first-born child. But the posts speak for themselves. We all know where he stands. That he can't admit it is priceless fun for me.
That said, this is one of those Techdirt posts that make me cringe. Beside the legal aspects that are glossed over, the needless comments about how dumb one would have to be to confuse the two brands make the writer seem clueless on the subject matter. There are so many good examples of IP overreach and IP abuse out there, but this is not one of them. The writer is so cock sure in his comments, but just plain wrong about the subject matter.
I agree. This post is terrible. There's no actual infringement analysis, such as the strength of the senior mark, the defendant's intent, or the consumer's degree of care. The author fails to demonstrate even a basic understanding of trademark infringement. Posts like this make me laugh when Mike attempts to smear other sites for their lack of journalistic prowess, as with the recent series of posts slamming HuffPo. Mike should get his own house in order before throwing stones. His own team of "journalists" come across as morons. Journalism!
On the post: Everything You've Wanted To Know About Net Neutrality But Were Afraid To Ask
On the post: Turns Out Cell Phone Location Data Is Not Even Close To Accurate, But Everyone Falls For It
Re:
Source: I have worked with E911 services.
Could you expand on that a bit? My understanding is that when there's multiple towers, the signals can be triangulated and the location of the phone can be calculated accurately. That's how, for example, the map application in a phone knows where the phone is located. Mike says "too many people confuse cell site location data with GPS," but I don't believe phones even have GPS. Is that right?
On the post: Tor Asks For Help In Keeping Net Anonymity As An Option For Anyone, At Any Site
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
You'd have a better argument over my avatar, since "antidirt" could just reflect my desire for cleanliness. Regardless, I did in fact donate to the site because I value it. I've been an avid reader for several years, so I'm happy to help out. I no longer read anything by "the Tims" or Leigh, but I do value Mike's posts--even though I often disagree with his take. I wish this site was more open to opposing views. Sometimes there's good discussions in the comments, but not as often as there would be if Mike set a better example, IMO.
On the post: Tor Asks For Help In Keeping Net Anonymity As An Option For Anyone, At Any Site
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
If he's answered it so many times, what's the answer to my question? All I see is Mike stomping his feet and making more excuses. And let me ask you this: Do you agree with me that Mike treats Tor users differently, thus making TD part of the very same problem the folks at Tor are identifying? If not, why not? Let's have some substance.
On the post: Tor Asks For Help In Keeping Net Anonymity As An Option For Anyone, At Any Site
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
I've seen your version of "debate me". It's essentially, "Here is my question to you mike. [inserts question here] Now, you can answer it. Just keep in mind your answer has to be either [inserts Answer Choice 1 here] or [inserts Answer Choice 2 here]. Those are your only possible choices. Anything else is just 'weasel words' and a sign that you refuse to answer my question honestly or debate me."
Here's a simple question that he won't answer: Mike, do you believe that authors should have any exclusive rights to their writings? He won't answer that question. I'm not trying to get him to answer on my own terms. I just want a straightforward answer to a simple question. He can answer it anyway he wants. I'd be happy so long as when he's done, we all know the answer. But he will not answer that question in any way. Ask him yourself. It doesn't matter who's asking. He won't discuss it. He pretends like he won't answer it because it's me asking. That's him dodging a question he doesn't want to answer. This isn't hard.
Mike doesn't out you, you out yourself.
I may have implicitly "outed" myself. But the fact remains that Mike explicitly "outed" me. It's hilarious how you guys spin this. Mike absolutely and explicitly connected my old account to my new account. Pretending like he didn't is dumb. And of course, he only does this sort of thing with critics. It's sad. Good grief.
On the post: Tor Asks For Help In Keeping Net Anonymity As An Option For Anyone, At Any Site
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
The problem is that Mike's stance isn't as black-and-white as you want it to be -- you're wanting him to say "I am for/against copyright", when his actual stance is more nuanced than that. If you really want to know his stance, read what he wrote. He hasn't hid anything at all.
Your asking if he is pro-piracy -- a question he has answered unambiguously (he's against it) is also fascinating, and feeds into my strong suspicious that all you are really trying to do is maneuver him into a rhetorical trap.
I'm sure he thinks it's a trap. He's only answered at a very general level, and he won't get into the specifics. I've been trying for four years to have this conversation with him. You see how much he freaks out when it comes up. He'd rather have any other conversation in the world. I think the reason is obvious: He doesn't want to admit the specifics about what he believes. I've waited four years. I can wait many, many more. Funny how this thread got turned into this conversation. I really only wanted to point out that he's doing the same thing to Tor users as the folks at Tor have identified as a new problem. And of course Mike can't simply admit that either. The man does not take criticism well.
On the post: Tor Asks For Help In Keeping Net Anonymity As An Option For Anyone, At Any Site
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
On the post: Tor Asks For Help In Keeping Net Anonymity As An Option For Anyone, At Any Site
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
Only *you* go off on your stupid lies claiming I have to "debate you." There was a whole meme on here for a while "why won't you debate meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee" based on your childish behavior. It's obvious who you are.
Revealing info that you yourself are making public is not violating anyone's private information. Apparently you didn't take your time away from the site to actually mature, huh?
Again, it's these childish games which shows why you are not worth debating with.
I will not check this thread again. I have actual work to do.
You explicitly did link "my current username to my old username," as I indicated. That you deny doing this is hilarious. And sad. Everyone can see that you did it. That you can't have a substantive discussion on the merits about anything that actually matters is sadder still. I don't bite. I promise. You really shouldn't be so scared of me. But, yeah, keep making excuses. I'm sure the dumber folks are buying it. All I want is for you to be explicit as to your personal beliefs about copyright. Let's get to the bottom of whether you're really anti-copyright and/or pro-piracy. But you don't want to have that conversation. Hmmm. I wonder why.
On the post: Tor Asks For Help In Keeping Net Anonymity As An Option For Anyone, At Any Site
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
I did not ever say I'm the same person who has posted under another user account. People may have suspected it, but I never said it explicitly. You, however, did. You said, "Did you go away for a while and then come back with a new account pretending people would forget this?" and then you posted a link which connects this new account to my old one. You confirmed for anyone who suspected as much that it's true. That's not respecting my anonymity. And of course you did it only so you could attack me personally (rather than have a substantive discussion on the merits, which is all that I want).
Separate from that, I have not revealed who you are, meaning that you are still anonymous.
Respecting your posters' anonymity means more than not simply giving out their real names. I know you don't get it, but that's my point. Thanks for confirming that you think anonymity only means someone's real name. That's sad, but I'm glad you admit it.
Finally, despite your repeated LIES, we did not delete your account. We did not block you. I did not "reinstate" your account. Hell, I don't even know if there's a way to do such a thing in our system.
This is so sad it hurts. I was being blocked left and right last summer and you know it. My home IP is currently being routed to the spam filter. You could fix this today if you wanted to, but you don't want to. Why don't you just work with me to fix it if you don't think my home IP shouldn't be routed in this way? Let your actions speak for themselves if you really want me to not be blocked. It is a fact that I could not login to my old account before, yet now I can. Of course you deny it. You can't even admit what went down last summer. Maybe that wasn't you. Maybe that was one of your flunkies. But you know it happened. I could dig up the links if you really want me to. I don't really care about that, though.
You have a sick desire to blame your own problems on me, and I don't know why that is. But I do know that it is simply yet another example of why engaging with you is futile. I have, do and will engage with people who can debate without throwing a childish tantrum. That, unfortunately, is a set of people that apparently does not include yourself.
There's no childish tantrums. That's just an excuse you pull out over and over rather than have a discussion about something that matters. Want to prove me wrong? Then have a meaningful discussion with me where you don't dodge the tough questions. That's all I want and you know it. But you will never have that conversation, will you? And it's not just me. There's certain tough questions you won't answer no matter who asks them, and you know it. Instead of pretending like I don't want a substantive discussion, why don't you engage in that discussion with me. You won't do it. And it has nothing to do with me. You just don't want to talk about those things. It would be so incredibly easy for you to prove me wrong, yet all you do is put out sad excuses for why you won't even try. Imagine how glorious it would be if you attempted to have that discussion and I then turned it into something else. Rather than pretending like I don't want that discussion, you could prove it. But you won't even try because you don't want to talk about it.
On the post: Tor Asks For Help In Keeping Net Anonymity As An Option For Anyone, At Any Site
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy much?
Then you haven't been looking. "Whatever" has a post above that's being hidden: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140904/09583328416/tor-asks-help-keeping-net-anonymity-as-option -anyone-any-site.shtml#c976
What does he say that deserves the post being reported?
Next >>