Why didn't and doesn't "ignorant motherfucker" (in case at link not even part of ongoing exchange) offend "the community" standard?
Are you really that dense? There is a huge difference between being an obtuse asshole, day in and day out and some swear words.
Because you pirate-fanboy-trolls actually can't stand my DISSENTING VIEWPOINT, nothing else.
Bullshit. I've had thousand word discussions with AJ (like the one you linked to) who's viewpoints I absolutely detested. We disagreed, but were still able to remain mostly cordial. Pretty sure the problem is on your end, Sparky.
First, here's you giving a PRIOR to common law notion of "natural law":
And this proves what, exactly? I was in a discussion and was talking about the basic, ingrained human instincts of imitation and dissemination of information that have existed forever and used the term "natural rights" (not "natural law") for lack of a better term.
Common law is as up-to-date...blah..blah...blah....
Crazy word salad. Response not required.
You can point, but are wrong / lying as usual, and are definitely not on-topic yourself.
Oh, I've never complained about being off-topic, nor do I aspire to stay on-topic myself. I was just pointing out your hypocrisy. Intelligent conversations are fluid and the tangents can be more interesting than the original topics. Some of the best discussions I've had here have had absolutely nothing to do with the article they were on.
...let's go to physical where unquestioned that YOU have a right to walk around on a business property that invites you (that's a Right to private property which the business has ceded to The Public in hopes of gain), until give CAUSE to be thrown out.
Blue, you have already given plenty of cause to be thrown out.
If you don't believe me, go into any restaurant an behave like you do here at Techdirt. Criticize and insult the owner making sure to tell him how to run his restaurant, insult the patrons (fanboys!) and scream out random words during your conversation (CAPS!) and see how long before you are asked to leave.
WHY THE HIDING OF COMMENTS HERE WHICH ARE ON-TOPIC AND WELL WITHIN COMMON LAW?
First, I would like to point out that YOUR comment is not on-topic.
Secondly, knowing that you use the ancient, outdated definition of "common law", I have to point out that village idiots in the times that your definition was in use were often physically abused and sometimes killed for spouting nonsense. You should be happy that all this village does is hide your nonsense behind an extra mouse click.
Not according to Blue. To him it apparently means some mystic appeal to universal principles he can't explain?
The definition that nasch gave has only been in use for the last 150 years or so. From the earliest times until around the middle of the 19th century the term "common law" was actually defined similar to the way Blue uses it. From Wikipedia:
As used by non-lawyers in popular culture, the term "common law" connotes law based on ancient and unwritten universal custom of the people. The "ancient unwritten universal custom" view was the view among lawyers and judges from the earliest times to the mid-19th century. But for 100 years, lawyers and judges have recognized that the "ancient unwritten universal custom" view does not accord with the facts of the origin and growth of the law, and it is not held within the legal profession today.
The funny thing is, a good number of us regular commenters probably feel the same way ..
I think that a large percentage of Techdirt readers (well, at least a large percentage of those who comment and vote on comments) are "Copyright Minimalists" using the definitions put forth by long-time commentor Karl:
Techies should not be wealthier than those they supposedly enable to exist on the internet. Search is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself, but the revenue is making the latter seem the case.
Hmmm. Do you also believe that recording industry executives should be less wealthy than the average studio musician?
Each of these sites has its own audience that it can feed into the pool of traffic, and that pool can link others via their own communications.
Yeah. That was already tried in the 90's. It was called a "webring" and fell to the wayside because people preferred search engines.
Thanks for responding. I did some fiddling and it does work in beta mode, but doesn't work in original mode like it used too. I've been resisting switching to the beta version because like the byline and keywords in a column on the left, but that's just a preference, not a deal breaker. Thanks.
Both of those features require Javascript to be enabled. Make sure it is enabled on your browser or if you are using something like NoScript make sure techdirt.com is whitelisted.
My biggest annoyance with the site redesign is when you set your page width option to "Variable" it isn't honored anywhere but the front page. I prefer to read the articles and comments using my whole screen instead of a tiny column down the middle.
Where, exactly are we supposed to report stuff like this? I've mentioned it a couple of times in the comments, but I guess they were missed by Leigh.
That's proven by, as I note below, you are "sponsored" by Google...
Let me get this straight. If you accept a gift or a one time sponsorship from someone, you are considered a "shill" for them until the end of time, even if you constantly call them out for doing stupid shit?
If we use your (faulty) logic, we would have to assume that YOU are a Techdirt shill, since you freely accept Techdirt's "gift" of allowing you to publish your comments here.
My public high school back in the late 70's/early 80's actually had a "Bible Lit" class which was short for "The Bible as Literature" that you could take as one of your required English credits. I never took it, but some of my friends did.
Kinda like what those "Photography is not a Crime" trolls do.
I find it interesting, knowing that you are law enforcement and have good working knowledge of Constitutional law, that you refer to people exercising their rights as "trolls". Perhaps that mindset by LEOs is the actual cause of the friction and not so much because of the lawful actions of citizens.
Most First Amendment auditors use the same tactics that law enforcement uses in auto theft stings. They set up a situation and wait for a LEO to CHOOSE to violate their rights. Just like in a bait car sting, the perpetrator must choose to violate the law or it's considered entrapment. Is really all that different just because it's a citizen catching a LEO doing something illegal?
[And just to show that I have thought on latter: the only non-violent way to deal with grifters getting too rich is steeply progressive income tax rates on all UNEARNED income.]
Please define "unearned income". Your examples of Kim Dotcom, Spotify, and Youtube all seem not to apply. Somebody had to spend time, money and energy to create those platforms. Programmers had to be paid, servers had to be bought and bandwidth must be paid for.
My personal favorites included the articles that exclaimed there is a single “truth” and all other views are pointless. Wow, that’s a new slant on journalism and the art of persuasion.
[citation needed]
I don't believe Mike ever said that. He did say that the journalistic tradition of presenting "both" sides of a story is kind of pointless because (1) there is always more than two sides to a story and (2) journalists are, by nature, biased one way or another and it shows in their writing, so why should they be forced into half-assed attempts to give "the other side".
It has helped that the fanboys and re-writers are uniformly nasty and unable to defend their views with anything besides ad hominem.....
I have coherently rebutted you many times, usually on the same subjects, only to have you regurgitate the same incorrect crap the very next day. It is actually YOU who dosen't defend their views very well, you just simply ignore any opposing views or claim that they are just ad homs, very much like a 4-year old child clamping his hands over his ears screaming "I can't hear you".
You can argue that you're a human with rights, but that's exactly what creators do when say "I made it, therefore I own it".
When it comes to copyright there is more to that equation. You conveniently leave out the part that says: "I SOLD it to you, but I STILL own it".
On an aside: Why did the variable page option stop working over the weekend? I prefer to view Techdirt using my entire monitor, not just a tiny column down the center.
On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside
Re: Re: Re: Re: Show it or stow it, kid.
Are you really that dense? There is a huge difference between being an obtuse asshole, day in and day out and some swear words.
Bullshit. I've had thousand word discussions with AJ (like the one you linked to) who's viewpoints I absolutely detested. We disagreed, but were still able to remain mostly cordial. Pretty sure the problem is on your end, Sparky.
On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And this proves what, exactly? I was in a discussion and was talking about the basic, ingrained human instincts of imitation and dissemination of information that have existed forever and used the term "natural rights" (not "natural law") for lack of a better term.
Crazy word salad. Response not required.
Oh, I've never complained about being off-topic, nor do I aspire to stay on-topic myself. I was just pointing out your hypocrisy. Intelligent conversations are fluid and the tangents can be more interesting than the original topics. Some of the best discussions I've had here have had absolutely nothing to do with the article they were on.
On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside
Re: Re: Show it or stow it, kid.
Blue, you have already given plenty of cause to be thrown out.
If you don't believe me, go into any restaurant an behave like you do here at Techdirt. Criticize and insult the owner making sure to tell him how to run his restaurant, insult the patrons (fanboys!) and scream out random words during your conversation (CAPS!) and see how long before you are asked to leave.
On the post: US Newspapers Now Salivating Over Bringing A Google Snippet Tax Stateside
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First, I would like to point out that YOUR comment is not on-topic.
Secondly, knowing that you use the ancient, outdated definition of "common law", I have to point out that village idiots in the times that your definition was in use were often physically abused and sometimes killed for spouting nonsense. You should be happy that all this village does is hide your nonsense behind an extra mouse click.
On the post: Another Nail In The Coffin For Fair Use: TVEyes Agrees Not To Carry Fox News
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Loss to the Commons
The definition that nasch gave has only been in use for the last 150 years or so. From the earliest times until around the middle of the 19th century the term "common law" was actually defined similar to the way Blue uses it. From Wikipedia:
On the post: Another Nail In The Coffin For Fair Use: TVEyes Agrees Not To Carry Fox News
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think that a large percentage of Techdirt readers (well, at least a large percentage of those who comment and vote on comments) are "Copyright Minimalists" using the definitions put forth by long-time commentor Karl:
https://tritonester.wordpress.com/2014/09/21/normative-views-on-copyright/
On the post: Google Threatens To Shut Down Google News In Europe Over Article 11 As Publishers Whine About 'Publicity Stunt'
Re: Re: Re:
Hmmm. Do you also believe that recording industry executives should be less wealthy than the average studio musician?
Yeah. That was already tried in the 90's. It was called a "webring" and fell to the wayside because people preferred search engines.
On the post: Arizona The Latest To Explore Dumb Porn Filter Law, This Time To Help Fund Trump's Fence
Re: Re: Yet another politician who thinks math is a foreign lang
You have to use the correct pronouns these days. Maybe "non-binary math"?
On the post: Google Still Says Our Post On Content Moderation Is Dangerous Or Derogatory
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey Michael,
Thanks for responding. I did some fiddling and it does work in beta mode, but doesn't work in original mode like it used too. I've been resisting switching to the beta version because like the byline and keywords in a column on the left, but that's just a preference, not a deal breaker. Thanks.
On the post: Google Still Says Our Post On Content Moderation Is Dangerous Or Derogatory
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Huh. I guess I never noticed that. I knew the Submit a Story link was down there, but I don't think I ever clicked on the Help & Feedback link before.
On the post: Google Still Says Our Post On Content Moderation Is Dangerous Or Derogatory
Re: Re: Re:
Both of those features require Javascript to be enabled. Make sure it is enabled on your browser or if you are using something like NoScript make sure techdirt.com is whitelisted.
My biggest annoyance with the site redesign is when you set your page width option to "Variable" it isn't honored anywhere but the front page. I prefer to read the articles and comments using my whole screen instead of a tiny column down the middle.
Where, exactly are we supposed to report stuff like this? I've mentioned it a couple of times in the comments, but I guess they were missed by Leigh.
On the post: Google Still Says Our Post On Content Moderation Is Dangerous Or Derogatory
Re: Re: Re:
Let me get this straight. If you accept a gift or a one time sponsorship from someone, you are considered a "shill" for them until the end of time, even if you constantly call them out for doing stupid shit?
If we use your (faulty) logic, we would have to assume that YOU are a Techdirt shill, since you freely accept Techdirt's "gift" of allowing you to publish your comments here.
On the post: Producers Of Movie About Falling In Love With Nazis Using DMCA To Silence Criticism
Re: Re:
Gah. Above comment is mine.
On the post: Another State Lawmaker Thinks Teachers Should Be Banned From Discussing 'Controversial' Issues
Re:
My public high school back in the late 70's/early 80's actually had a "Bible Lit" class which was short for "The Bible as Literature" that you could take as one of your required English credits. I never took it, but some of my friends did.
On the post: The Internet Giant's Dilemma: Preventing Suicide Is Good; Invading People's Private Lives... Not So Much
Re: Re: Opting out
I find it interesting, knowing that you are law enforcement and have good working knowledge of Constitutional law, that you refer to people exercising their rights as "trolls". Perhaps that mindset by LEOs is the actual cause of the friction and not so much because of the lawful actions of citizens.
Most First Amendment auditors use the same tactics that law enforcement uses in auto theft stings. They set up a situation and wait for a LEO to CHOOSE to violate their rights. Just like in a bait car sting, the perpetrator must choose to violate the law or it's considered entrapment. Is really all that different just because it's a citizen catching a LEO doing something illegal?
On the post: Millions Upon Millions Of 'Takedown' Notices To Google... For Links That Aren't Even In Google
Re: Re: Re:
Please define "unearned income". Your examples of Kim Dotcom, Spotify, and Youtube all seem not to apply. Somebody had to spend time, money and energy to create those platforms. Programmers had to be paid, servers had to be bought and bandwidth must be paid for.
On the post: New Year's Message: Do Something Different
Re:
[citation needed]
I don't believe Mike ever said that. He did say that the journalistic tradition of presenting "both" sides of a story is kind of pointless because (1) there is always more than two sides to a story and (2) journalists are, by nature, biased one way or another and it shows in their writing, so why should they be forced into half-assed attempts to give "the other side".
On the post: New Year's Message: Do Something Different
Re: Re: Re:
I think you might need a year or so and an army of mental health specialists.
On the post: Antipiracy Outfits Routinely Claim Copyright Infringement Against Sites That Simply Report When Torrents Are Released
Re:
I have coherently rebutted you many times, usually on the same subjects, only to have you regurgitate the same incorrect crap the very next day. It is actually YOU who dosen't defend their views very well, you just simply ignore any opposing views or claim that they are just ad homs, very much like a 4-year old child clamping his hands over his ears screaming "I can't hear you".
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
When it comes to copyright there is more to that equation. You conveniently leave out the part that says: "I SOLD it to you, but I STILL own it".
On an aside: Why did the variable page option stop working over the weekend? I prefer to view Techdirt using my entire monitor, not just a tiny column down the center.
Next >>