Just curious as to what happens here. Without wikipedia the DR will have no experts on anything.

Corporate ass-kissers aren't going to like this. How dare the Internet industry not bow down to the Hollywood cartel!

#1 | Posted by salamandagator

:-) By the way not a bad time for everyone who uses Wikipedia to kick them a couple bucks, It's not perfect but it pretty dam good.

#3

I should, as use it on an almost daily basis but that would require me having money first.

How does RCADE stand on this issue. Isn't this a pretty important controversy, especially in his world? Would DR junkies live through 24 hours without this place?

You mean for 24 hours people will have to look shit up in peer-reviewed sources instead of reality by consensus? GASP! The internet will collapse!

Without wikipedia the DR will have no experts on anything.

#1 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR AT 2012-01-17 06:19 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

No kidding, I literally just tried to look something up and got the blackout notice. What to do now??? :) At least the Wiki link to SOPA and PIPA still work!

Think this is the first time ever this particular type of protest tactic has been used to this effect.

Even Google gave a nod to the movement by going with a blacked out doodle.

The anti-SOPA movement including this blackout seem to be having the desired effect.

Controversial anti-piracy legislation, already on life support in the House, is now in serious doubt in the Senate, where the confluence of a Republican rump rebellion, White House concerns and a Wednesday blackout by Wikipedia, Mozilla and other big-name websites is enough to give some senators second thoughts.

Republican Sen. Scott Brown, locked in a reelection fight with Elizabeth Warren in Democratic-leaning Massachusetts, announced on Twitter on Tuesday that he'd vote against the Senate's PROTECT IP Act and the House's Stop Online Piracy Act. Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), once a co-sponsor, now opposes the bill, and sources involved in the fight say they expect more lawmakers to drop their support for the measure.

How does RCADE stand on this issue.

Also curious as to how the blog-god stands on this issue most likely being waaaay more informed on the subject than the rest of us.

How say ye, Rcade?

Thumb up or down here?

Be Well.

How does RCADE stand on this issue. Isn't this a pretty important controversy ..
#5 | Posted by danni

lol, thanks 4 the validation guys ..
~ danni, spud, & friends scrambling for someone to tell them what to think
perhaps Hans-job will stumble in after he get his marching orders and fill the Lib-drones empty vessels

alas ~ critical thinking still alive & well on the "right"

'Cade stands how-ever "they" tell him to stand.

Um, yeah, no.

It's different for liberals.

Instead of lining up to have daily talking points regurgitated into your open mouths like regressive repugs do, liberal progressives tend to think for themselves.

Messier that way but we kinda like it.

You really oughta try it one day.

Just once is all Spud's askin'.

See how it goes after that.

Be Well.

Just went to Democratic Underground and got this...

Democratic Underground is offline from 3am EST to 9pm EST Wednesday January 18 to protest forthcoming Internet blacklist legislation known as SOPA and PIPA.

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) proposed by the U.S. House of Representatives and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) proposed by the U.S. Senate have the potential to severely cripple the free and open Internet. Democratic Underground is proud to join the many websites taking part in today's action to protest these bills by blacking out our site between the hours of 3am EST and 9pm EST.

To learn more about these devastating bills, and for information on how you can help to stop SOPA and PIPA, please visit the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Action Center.

STOP THE INTERNET BLACKLIST LEGISLATION!

So there's that.

The lobbyists have spent a shit ton of coin making sure SOPA/PIPA passed and now it looks like it might be money spent in vain although even if it does fail now they definitely will not stop trying and Spud would not be surprised to find another incarnation of this bill trotted out some time in the near future.

Stealing people's work is bad but providing an all-too-easy to abuse mechanism for censorship that has never existed before on the internet reeks of over-reach.

Be Well.

Google has their "token" black-out.

You can use google cache to look at any wikipedia page today.

Instead of lining up to have daily talking points regurgitated into your open mouths like regressive repugs do, liberal progressives tend to think for themselves.
#12 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-18 07:10 AM

Just went to Democratic Underground
#13 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-18 07:47 AM

Anyone else see the irony here?

"You can use google cache to look at any wikipedia page today."

True, but I'll bet there are a gazillion students (plus or minus a zillion) who're shitting themselves today.

Anyone else see the irony here?

#17 | Posted by JOE

It literally writes itself.

Should we go dark as well? Do we have the self-strength to not post? Obviously I don't.

How does RCADE stand on this issue.

These bills will make it possible for the government to enact Chinese-style speech suppression on American websites. Though the rationale is to fight piracy, to the delight of the big media conglomerates, once the precedent is set it will be easy to extend to other areas.

One of the powers the bill's authors wanted was the ability to completely shut down domains so they can't be found by users. Another is to remove sites entirely from search engines. Laws like these will push us closer to the days when you have to be rich and connected to reach a global audience.

I didn't take the Retort black today because I'm too lazy, but I'll be calling my Congress members today to oppose the legislation.

If you try to load almost any Wikipedia page today ...

I am a little surprised Google did not go black. Their YouTube is the elephant in the room. How many clips of Seinfeld and Marky-Mark before you piss off the industry?

Obama has to be against this, before he can be for it. If SOPA is put on his desk, Obama will sign it.

Too many campaign donations are on the line.

"These bills will make it possible for the government to enact Chinese-style speech suppression on American websites."

Why can't any of these web wizards look up the definition of the word "dedicated" on the intertubes, as used in the phrase "rogue sites dedicated to copyright theft"...?

"I didn't take the Retort black today because I'm too lazy..."

Plus the hampster who provides the oomph for the generator is contractually obligated to keep plugging away, regardless of extenuating circumstances. But, then, I'm lucky: a tough negotiator.
~ Mr. Cadenhead

.
......sad.......just so sad.......
.
The Mexicanization of America continues.
In this case perhaps its the Russification.

"rogue sites dedicated to copyright theft"...?

Posted by Danforth at 2012-01-18 10:09 AM | Reply

Since when has any government agency cared about semantics when they believe you to be guilty?

I'm totally against SOPA, but I'm not sure that re-creating AOL in 1998 is going to have much of an impact.

Damn You Tesla And Edison!!!!

"Since when has any government agency cared about semantics when they believe you to be guilty?"

Since when have you forgotten the brow-wiping over allowing the RIAA to sue illegal downloaders? Wasn't that supposed to destroy the intertubes? Wasn't that going to shut down every benign site which merely provided a link?

Liberals have been supporting countless laws and regulations since the Progressive Era.

A State that is powerful enough to take away the rights of others, is powerful enough to take away your rights.

This is blowback time.

Why can't any of these web wizards look up the definition of the word "dedicated" on the intertubes, as used in the phrase "rogue sites dedicated to copyright theft"...?
#24 | Posted by Danforth

How does the bill define it?

"Vado a bordo, cazzo"

Shouldnt corporations have the right to protect their copyrighted material?

Why can't any of these web wizards look up the definition of the word "dedicated" on the intertubes, as used in the phrase "rogue sites dedicated to copyright theft"...?

Why would you pretend that the only provisions in SOPA regard "rogue sites dedicated to copyright theft?" You are aware that Section 103 is not the only piece of the bill, correct?

Second, the bill itself defines "dedicated." One such definition is where the site operator "operates a site with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out [copyright infringement] as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement." Thus, one prior act of promotion would render the site "dedicated" to copyright infringement.

If you have faith that our government won't stretch those provisions to their limits, and eventually expand them, you're nuts.

"Since when have you forgotten the brow-wiping over allowing the RIAA to sue illegal downloaders? Wasn't that supposed to destroy the intertubes?"

Remember when Jack Valenti said the VCR would destroy Hollywood? Remember that folks, when you hear the crying from Hollywood.

Remember when artists claimed that record players would destroy their livelihood as performance musicians?

Remember when Hollywood thought television would destroy the movie industry.

Remember when buggy whip makers denounced automobiles.

"How does the bill define it?"

I don't know, look it up. But the applicable phrase is "rogue websites dedicated to copyright infringement". Yesterday, even Craigslist was ringing alarm bells. Really?!? Is anyone actually going to view CL as a "rogue website dedicated to copyright infringement"...?

"This year the movie industry made $30 billion (1/3 in the U.S.) from box-office revenue.

But the total movie industry revenue was $87 billion. Where did the other $57 billion come from?

From sources that the studios at one time claimed would put them out of business: Pay-per view TV, cable and satellite channels, video rentals, DVD sales, online subscriptions and digital downloads."

I'm not up on this issue as much as some are, but it seems to be at least in part about sites like these that say they do not house but rather redirect to sites that house popular TV series and movies.

They have free with ads, many of which are major advertisers, or monthly non-ad rates.

#38

I wonder how much more they and the music industry would have made if theives like you didn't rob them, dull?

"Remember when artists claimed that record players would destroy their livelihood as performance musicians?"

Remember when Nullifidian, after denouncing the corporate masters in the music industry, stood up for the artists who are being ripped off by sending them money directly?

Oh...right...that never happened.

Right after denouncing how little the corporations leave for the musicians, he left them even less, by downloading their copywritten material illegally, paying them nothing.

IOW, Nullithiefian is complaining about the treatment artists receive from people who treat the artists better than he does.

Anyone ever seen a bigger case of hypocrisy?

Goatman and Jack Valenti Danforth, the oil industry shill and Hollywood cartel shill, would rather engage in ad hominem than discuss the actual issue. As usual.

You can use google cache to look at any wikipedia page today.

Or just disable javascript.

It's not down down just an incredible simulation.

Is funneh. Over at Fark, the owner, Drew Curtis, has gotten very drunk and is greenlighting submissions at a heady rate while adding his own ALLCAPS commentary in hilariously misspelled English.

But it's really no laughing matter.

The imprecise language of the thing has gotten several legal eagle types concerned and while the tech lobby was slow to react to this thing they may well have woken up in time to put a big chill on the proceedings.

If it passes in it's current form Obama needs to veto it plain and simple.

Unlike the NDAA, which had veto-over-riding majority, this thing is weaksauce atm and it is still politically possible to kill it in it's cradle, so to speak.

Be Well.

Why can't any of these web wizards look up the definition of the word "dedicated" on the intertubes, as used in the phrase "rogue sites dedicated to copyright theft"...?
#24 | Posted by Danforth

"How does the bill define it?"

I don't know, look it up.
#37 | Posted by Danforth

#45 | Posted by 101Chairborne

That's hilarious. Hollyforth is promoting this bill and doesn't know what's in it. Obeying his masters at the RIAA.

--"How does the bill define it?"
I don't know, look it up. --
#37 | Posted by Danforth

You're the one making an argument based on the word, I figured you would know the applicable definition.

--But the applicable phrase is "rogue websites dedicated to copyright infringement".... Is anyone actually going to view CL as a "rogue website dedicated to copyright infringement"...?--
#37 | Posted by Danforth

Well, it appears that at least on of us, Joe, actually did bother to look up how the word is defined before making a claim about the subject, so let's consider your question in light of that definition:

".... the bill itself defines "dedicated." One such definition is where the site operator "operates a site with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out [copyright infringement] as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement." Thus, one prior act of promotion would render the site "dedicated" to copyright infringement."

Yeah, I don't think that Craigslist is being alarmist (Sarcasm). Have you ever visited that site before?

If it passes in it's current form Obama needs to veto it plain and simple.
Unlike the NDAA, which had veto-over-riding majority, this thing is weaksauce atm and it is still politically possible to kill it in it's cradle, so to speak.
#44 | Posted by dethspud

This might be off topic, but did you just suggest that it was reasonable for the President to sign a bill that he didn't believe in because it was going to get vetoed anyway?

"Thus, one prior act of promotion would render the site "dedicated" to copyright infringement."

Just like one download made you eligible to be sued by the RIAA.

Thanks for showing the alarmism aspect. Off to rehearsal.

Goatman and Jack Valenti Danforth, the oil industry shill and Hollywood cartel shill,

I'm not sure how denouncing theft makes me a shill, dull. Can you explain this to me, please?

Thanks, thief.

Rogers should take the links to Wikipedia down. Wikipedia has been hijacked by Malware today.

Just like one download made you eligible to be sued by the RIAA.
Thanks for showing the alarmism aspect. Off to rehearsal.
#49 | Posted by Danforth

People are often sued by the RIAA for just one, or a few, cases of infringement. But these bills allow for more than that. They allow for the "infringing" site to be taken down prior to any due process.

This might be off topic, but did you just suggest that it was reasonable for the President to sign a bill that he didn't believe in because it was going to get vetoed anyway?

No, just saying that the NDAA had such overwhelming support in both the House and Senate that Obama would have had to have been nuts to veto it even if he did have strong reservations over it because it would have over-turned anyway and made him look weak and also cos it would have been used against him in November.

Because there are two powerful sets of lobbyists at cross purposes here the SOPA/PIPA bills can be vetoed if need be without that fear.

That's all Spud is saying with that.

Be Well.

Once you go black you never go back.

Solly.

Thanks for showing the alarmism aspect. Off to rehearsal.

Nice to see you run off. I noticed you didn't address the other definitions of "dedicated," nor did you acknowledge that "dedicated" sites aren't the only ones affected by SOPA. Are you aware that Section 103 is not the only operative provision in the bill? Have you read Section 102 yet? Do you know about its applicability to search engines, regardless of "dedication?"

Or are you just knee-jerking your way to a defense of the bill because its purported purpose is to protect your clients?

The music and movie business has been consistently wrong in its claims that new platforms and channels would be the end of its businesses. In each case, the new technology produced a new market far larger than the impact it had on the existing market.

1920's--the record business complained about radio. The argument was because radio is free, you can't compete with free. No one was ever going to buy music again.
1940's-- movie studios had to divest their distribution channel-- they owned over 50% of the movie theaters in the U.S. It's all over, complained the studios. In fact, the number of screens went from 17,000 in 1948 to 38,000 today.
1950's-- broadcast television was free; the threat was cable television. Studios argued that their free TV content couldn't compete with paid.
1970's--Video Cassette Recorders (VCRs) were going to be the end of the movie business. The movie businesses and its lobbying arm MPAA fought it with end of the world hyperbole. The reality? After the VCR was introduced, studio revenues took off like a rocket. With a new channel of distribution, home movie rentals surpassed movie theater tickets.
1998--the MPAA got congress to pass the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), making it illegal for you to make a digital copy of a DVD that you actually purchased.
2000--Digital Video Recorders (DVR) like TiVo allowing consumer to skip commercials was going to be the end of the TV business. DVR's reignite interest in TV.
2006 - broadcasters sued Cablevision (and lost) to prevent the launch of a cloud-based DVR to its customers.
Today it's the Internet that's going to put the studios out of business. Sound familiar?

--"How does the bill define it?"

I don't know, look it up.
#37 | Posted by Danforth

If you're that uninformed, why do you comment?

Posted by Danforth

Deflections to irrelevent topics notwithstanding, you are still a thief, dull.

Care to address that fact instead of deflecting with C&Ps?

Would DR junkies live through 24 hours without this place?

#5 | Posted by danni

I'm sure you'd have a hard time not blaming Bush for whatever happened in that time frame.

Sent a message to my congressman and 2 senators.

Interesting link on the perceived problems with PIPA particularly the attempts to "narrow the scope" when it was changed from COICA to PIPA.

The new additions to the bill include the addition of "interactive computer services" "information location tools" to the list of intermediaries that can be issued and injunction, and the new ability for copyright owners to initiate the enforcement process themselves"at least, as regards ad networks and payment processors.

"Information Location Tools" "Interactive Computer Services:" Much More than Just Search Engines

This addition has often been referred to as the "search engine" portion of the bill, with the idea that it's directed towards search engines that will include infringing sites in search results or sponsored linksâ€"a complaint that came up a number of times in Congressional hearings. How this is meant to differ from the existing standards of the DMCA's section 512(d) isn't exactly clear, aside from the fact that the Attorney General is the actor here, not private entities.

But a larger problem lies within this provisionâ€"it's not limited to search engines. In fact, it uses a definition with an extremely broad scopeâ€"and a scope that has been read broadly by courts for years. "Interactive computer service" is defined in the Communications Decency Act's section 230, which prevents interactive computer services from being held liable for others' speech. Because the CDA was intended to preserve the ready flow of information on the Internet, judges have historically read "interactive computer service" broadly, encompassing ISPs, message boards, blogs, mail services, and lots of other online presences. If the idea behind the new bill is to be better targeted than the old one, this is not a particularly good way to go about it. Using such a broad definition subjects broad swathes of the Internet to this new enforcement mechanism.

In fact, if the scope of "interactive computer services" is as broad under this bill as it is under the CDA, then domain names could just as easily fall back in to the scope of the bill, despite the fact that domain name registries and registrars no longer explicitly appear within it. In some cases at least, the CDA has applied to the providers of domain names. So "exchanging" registries and registrars for interactive computer services might well have broadened, rather than narrowed, the scope of the bill.

Say what you want, these bills are about one thing and one thing only - eliminating outlets of free speech, thought and commerce.

And if you don't like it, they can arrest you with no charges and torture you with no consequences, all thanks to other bills passed to protect american corporations.

Welcome to the land of the un-free.

kinkytwink.com is still up. -Northguy

Just like one download made you eligible to be sued by the RIAA.
Thanks for showing the alarmism aspect. Off to rehearsal.

#49 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2012-01-18 10:58 AM | REPLY | FLAG

But, suppose RIAA decided to sue everyone who made the download. Just because they haven't doesn't mean they couldn't, and if they did, then it would have a huge impact. A site could be dedicated to infringement if they display a bottle of soda or a song, and could be shut down. Your argument is that they may not be shut down, which when talking about speech, makes me wonder about you.

Obama would have had to have been nuts to veto it even if he did have strong reservations over it because it would have over-turned anyway and made him look weak

If Obama can't use the veto stamp to overturn a bill that strikes at the heart of a free society whilst enjoying a majority in Congress he doesn't look weak; he is weak.

SOPA and PIPA, like any legislation these days, should be judged by the amount of money that is thrown at it to get it passed. You can blindly conclude that the more money it takes, the more wretched the law. No less than 150K to each of the co-sponsors. And what strange alliances this bill hath wrought. The entire California delegation paired with lickspittle Southern rednecks, many of them freshmen which makes them cheap by Congressional standards.

Dan makes a good enough argument, and artists do need protection as much as they need to figure out for themselves how to make a living in a changing market. However, I don't care if a bill promises to end child poverty, increase cup sizes across the board, and find my fucking car keys; if it is built on the back of payoffs to the most sleazy members of Congress I know there is shit in the small print that will harm us all.

Doing homework last night with my son for biology.

And during it--wiki flips the switch.

They linked the cites to our congressman and both CA senators.

Everyone should send an email.

"If Obama can't use the veto stamp to overturn a bill that strikes at the heart of a free society whilst enjoying a majority in Congress he doesn't look weak; he is weak."

Shameful that we have no right to expect more.

Everyone should send an email.
#66 | Posted by MURPHY

Send an email because SOPA/PIPA are bad legislation or because Biology Homework time was interrupted? I need to get the requisite talking points in order.

"The entire California delegation paired with lickspittle Southern rednecks, many of them freshmen which makes them cheap by Congressional standards."

Nothing shows how cynical and hypocritical Hollywood is more than their love affair with anti-civil liberties, anti-choice, anti-gay bigot Lamar Smith. These people wouldn't invite him to their private parties, but will write big checks for his political campaigns.

Shameful that we have no right to expect more
Agreed.
Doing nothing in defense of claimed core principles is judged correct because it is politically advantageous.

With liberals like this, who needs enemies?

Obama has to be against this, before he can be for it. If SOPA is put on his desk, Obama will sign it.
Too many campaign donations are on the line.
#23 | POSTED BY BLOODSACRAFICE

Google's doodle is blacked out, but Google still works, you twit. If you had taken even a moment to look it up, you'd notice Obama came out against SOPA and the IP bill weeks ago. He has promised a veto. Senate Republicans, including Eric Cantor, are still trying to pass it.

But good job pretending he'll sign it should it ever get to his desk. That way if it doesn't get there, you can still claim he'd have signed it.

Doing nothing in defense of claimed core principles is judged correct because it is politically advantageous. With liberals like this, who needs enemies?
#70 | Posted by BluSky

I usually like it when people agree with me.

Not this time.

:(

Doing homework last night with my son for biology.
And during it--wiki flips the switch.
They linked the cites to our congressman and both CA senators.
Everyone should send an email.

#66 | POSTED BY MURPHY AT 2012-01-18 11:40 AM | REPLY | FLAG

Let it remind you that when doing research, instead of reality by consensus, you should have been looking up reliable and informed sources.

#73 | Posted by soheifox at 2012-01-18 12:06 PM | Reply | Flag: Wedgies clearly cause lasting damage.

#68 correct. point is, the internet is a place to get information. SOPA/PIPA are already interfering with that function. when it passes, then website owners will have to police themselves, and will no doubt engage in self-censorship on any close calls. that erodes the margins of free speech, and therefore the freedoms of people to share information over the internet.

it is slow and insidious, and has the potential of watering down the last frontier of a truly free place to express oneself.

Everyone should send an email.

#66 | POSTED BY MURPHY

and read about the bill

"If Obama can't use the veto stamp to overturn a bill that strikes at the heart of a free society whilst enjoying a majority in Congress he doesn't look weak; he is weak."

Shameful that we have no right to expect more.

You have no right to expect more if you vote for retards like Obama.

I don't know, just seems this being the 21st century and all and technology being what it is, if you don't want people reading your stuff or listening to your music without paying a fee, it should be easy enough to use technology to prevent it and not ancient laws.

Until then if you don't want people reading, listening to, copying, or posting the crap you think is so important that you deserve compensation for, take some responsibility and don't put it out there where everyone can see, copy, listen to, or read. $10 bucks says technology answers this issue long before congress and laws do.

But that's just me.

"Web Protests Piracy Bills, and 2 Senators Change Course

Internet protests on Wednesday quickly cut into Congressional support for anti-web piracy measures as lawmakers abandoned and rethought their backing for legislation that pitted new media interests against some of the most powerful old-line commercial interests in Washington.

Freshman Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, a rising Republican star, was first out of the starting gate Wednesday morning with his announcement that he would no longer back anti-Internet piracy legislation he had co-sponsored. Senator John Cornyn, the Texas Republican who heads the campaign operation for his party, quickly followed suit and urged Congress take more time to study the measure that had been set for a test vote next week."

THEY BLACKED OUT MY PORN!!!!!!!!

We have learned too many times that bills named after noble intent, such as "Clean Air Act," "No Child Left Behind," "Internet Child Protection Act," and now "Stop Online Piracy Act," that they use names nobody could oppose on bills no one would support.

Why should aiding and abetting a intellectual property crime go unpunished when aiding and abetting a crime like burgulary results in punishment?

It should be the government's responsibility to publish a list of banned sites (in a computer readable format) and it should be the responsibility of search engines (especially) to prevent those sites from appearing in search results.

As it is, these laws are going nowhere fast, which is why the WH doesn't have to do anything dramatic.
#79 | Posted by Corky

The only thing the WH has done that was dramtic was the Alice in Wonderland Party.

The acts are bullshit, you don't punish or sensor all so to prevent criminals.

When it comes to these technocratic internet issues that have many nuances and that can be convincingly swayed by billions of dollars from vested profit making interests, and that are not for the benefit of freedom loving Americans, I will go with the views of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The special interests try their damn-dest to make their views political so that it will come down to infighting by the red and blue teams. They failed to do it with SOPA.

This site would be affected by SOPA. Think about it: how many of us actually goto the sites linked to here? I bet for most stories, most of us just read the summary here and debate the main theme. That is stealing traffic from the NYT,MSN, CBS, Newmax, etc.

-Alice in Wonderland Party

I missed that. Did you go as the Doormouse?

The Alice in Wonderland party was in 2009, but talked about in 2011.

Why can't any of these web wizards look up the definition of the word "dedicated" on the intertubes, as used in the phrase "rogue sites dedicated to copyright theft"...?
#24 | Posted by Danforth

If you really believe thats the case, can you think of a way around this bill then, and how useless it would make the bill?

If it passes in it's current form Obama needs to veto it plain and simple.

Be Well.

#44 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-18 10:51 AM | Reply

Obama (the I don't care if I'm re-elected POTUS) will check to see what way the wind is blowing and then make his decision.

Seems to me the Drudge Retort has been "dark" for several years now. Little worth reading is ever posted here anymore. It's a great place to go if you simply want to read cheap insults, personal attacks, wrong information, and every violation of debate standards possible.

Not having come by here much for the past few years, I can't tell if Spud's presence indicates a return from a long absence, or a brave doubling down to continue to post here on f-you-NO-f-YOU.com, where lofty dialogue is guaranteed by precedent.

I have noticed on my rare visits here that post counts are WAY down from years ago. Anybody seen Tony Roma? He used to actually make sense. Well, a big shout out to da Spud while my comet passes through this particular sector. Now, if you'll excuse me, I must be on my way.

how easy it would be to surgically alter one's nose to spite one's face.

The cliche doesn't work. By allowing NDAA to go through without a peep Obama effectively cut off his own nose to spite the opposition's face. All on the presumption that standing up for liberal principles would cost him the so-called undecided vote.
First I'd challenge the presumption as shaky and myopic. More importantly I'd like to point out that "undecided" has become euphemism for the know-nothing, care about nothing, uninvolved, least-informed among us, and for once I'd like a so-called liberal to just come out and say, or with their actions show, they don't give a shit about courting such a voter. Fuck them and the fence they rode in on.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I must be on my way.

#91 | Posted by Jimi_left at 2012-01-18 01:13 PM | Reply

I believe Jimi left.

In the end, we must have faith in the system and the people. We must believe that our efforts will work to stop this, and maybe then we can feel empowered enough to take on the bigger fish.

In many ways, this kind of awareness and drive to action would not be possible without the Tea Party and OWS who brought back protest after it was killed by "Free Speech Zones" and "Loyalty Oaths."

Apparently today's blackout is having some effect. Senators Rubio and Cornyn have reversed their positions of SOPA.

Obama will sign the bill. Remember NDAA?

"The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it," the president said in a statement. "I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists."

Weak can be far more dangerous than evil.

Apparently today's blackout is having some effect. Senators Rubio and Cornyn have reversed their positions of SOPA.

Sweet.

Even one of the bill's co-sponsors has dropped out.

Ben Cardin (D-Md.), once a co-sponsor, now opposes the bill, and sources involved in the fight say they expect more lawmakers to drop their support for the measure.

That's pretty telling.

Be Well.

Keep Pressure on Congress. This is an election year, so use it! I let Bill Nelson know he lost my vote because of NDAA and he can possibly earn it back by voting right now.

Obama will sign this bill if it comes to his desk, he is too weak to veto it. We must stop it before it gets to the Oval Office!

Spud,

Rubio was a sponsor as well, so that makes two who dropped out.

Well, a big shout out to da Spud while my comet passes through this particular sector. Now, if you'll excuse me, I must be on my way.

Back atcha with bells on!

Yer excused, don't fergit to "kiss the sky" somewhere along the way.

And the wind whispered...

Be Well.

Rubio was a sponsor as well, so that makes two who dropped out.

Interesting.

Well, "strange bedfellows" and all that, eh?

Strange days, indeed.

Be Well.

Ask your Republican official....do we need more regulations on the internet, because that's exactly what SOPA and PIPPA are about, for the benefit of Hollywood entertainment at the expense of liberty and innovation.

for the benefit of Hollywood entertainment at the expense of liberty and innovation.

That is the cover story. This is really about getting the ability to shut down the internet should an Arab Spring start in America legally put in place without people saying "wtf?"

Weak can be far more dangerous than evil.

#96 | Posted by kanrei

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

There are no good men left in Washington.

Ask your Republican official....do we need more regulations on the internet, because that's exactly what SOPA and PIPPA are about, for the benefit of Hollywood entertainment at the expense of liberty and innovation.

#102 | POSTED BY ROBSON AT 2012-01-18 01:33 PM | REPLY | FLAG

why not your Democratic official? in Cali, both Senators are for it (Boxer being a co-sponsor). this is not a partisan issue, and the Democrats are equally willing to throw free speech under the bus, if not moreso.

Obama will sign this bill if it comes to his desk, he is too weak to veto it. We must stop it before it gets to the Oval Office!

Best way to stop it is to contact your representative and tell them in no uncertain terms the reservations you have about the bill.

That will give them an excuse to stop taking money from the BigMedia lobbyists and start taking it from the techie lobbyists.

Pols make bank twice.

BigMedia lobby regroups and licks it's wounds and prepares to fight another day.

Netizens dodge a bullet.

And no, Obama is not too weak to stop this bill with a veto, unlike the NDAA, even with the defections we already know about.

Pretty sure he would veto it if it passed his desk in it's current form as he's sed he would but we prolly won't find out for sure now cos it won't go that far.

So 'agree to disagree' there.

Be Well.

Best way to stop it is to contact your representative and tell them in no uncertain terms the reservations you have about the bill.

I have.

Pretty sure he would veto it if it passed his desk in it's current form as he's sed he would but we prolly won't find out for sure now cos it won't go that far.

See my quote from him about signing NDAA. He is too weak not to sign it should it reach his desk.

Saying Obama is too weak to veto it is BS. He want's the power to control one more part of our lives.

COpy of Letter I sent to Sen Bill Nelson of Florida:

You must vote against this. Voting for NDAA was pretty bad, but if you vote for this as well I will have no choice but to support any opponent this fall in your bid for re-election. Freedom is the most sacred of all American attributes and any attempt to limit them is an affront to us all.

While I am sure your intent with this bill was noble, as usual the putting of it into practice is troublesome and the wording of the bill leaves too much open to future government officials who may see it a different way and use it for nefarious purposes.

It is always better to side with more freedom rather than less. The risks of SOPA being abused in the future is too great to allow a bill like this to be passed.

Please vote against it. I voted for you before and would very much like to do so again. I cannot vote for anyone who votes against freedom.

Saying Obama is too weak to veto it is BS. He want's the power to control one more part of our lives.

Posted by STIRSUMUP at 2012-01-18 01:46 PM

Know your audience and phrase things in a way they can take it. If I said it like that, they would not listen. If I phrase it as "I know Obama won't abuse this, but PResident Santorum would" and I might get through.

I cannot vote for anyone who votes against freedom.

Posted by kanrei

He might have believed you until he got to the last line.

I just heard back from Bill Nelson:

Dear Mr (my name is blocked out)

Thank you so much for providing us with your name, address, and point of view. Thanks to the NDAA bill I voted for, we no longer have to tolerate these types of ramblings from "voters." Please make sure you are home when the DHS comes to get you. It only gets worse if we have to look for you.

Oh fuck me!

He might have believed you until he got to the last line.

#113 | Posted by STIRSUMUP at 2012-01-18 01:53 PM |

Too cheesey? The writer in me likes to end letters on an emotional appeal.

--But the applicable phrase is "rogue websites dedicated to copyright infringement".... Is anyone actually going to view CL as a "rogue website dedicated to copyright infringement"...?--
#37 | Posted by Danforth

Absolutely. In fact it's already happened. Here.

RCade has received notices on multiple occasions about copyright material being redistributed without permission on this very site. When it gets serious enough, he reminds us to only cut-n-paste a portion of the article to comply with the "fair use" provision.

It's like you live in a different universe when it comes to this issue, Danforth. One where you think a million dollar judgment against a woman who shared two dozen songs is a step in the right direction, and a sensible use of local law enforcement, the FBI, and the Federal court system.

In related news, it will be interesting to see what technology mushrooms up overnight if this passes. You don't need a website to share files. An email system could distribute .tracker files quite effectively.

Paul Ryan

The Internet is one of the most magnificent expressions of freedom and free enterprise in history. It should stay that way. While H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act, attempts to address a legitimate problem, I believe it creates the precedent and possibility for undue regulation, censorship and legal abuse. I do not support H.R. 3261 in its current form and will oppose the legislation should it come before the full House.

Heh, I got Blumenauer - his receptionist is wonderful. I was told that he doesn't support the acts and that Wyden is possibly going to offer an alternative - which I have concerns about. He's turning into a Republican - the health care industry kickbacks to politicians are killing us.

Merkley's inbox is full and they aren't answering their phones.

Wyden's number is still a busy signal - I hope that's good. I'm going to get him.. eventually.

"It's like you live in a different universe when it comes to this issue, Danforth"

Hollyforth had to go to "rehearsal", er, other threads.

"One where you think a million dollar judgment against a woman who shared two dozen songs"

Ah, that old tactic: lie.

Obama came out last night and said: I promised to unite you and, by signing and supporting this endless stream of bad bills, we, the members of both parties, have united you. I kept my promise.

"One where you think a million dollar judgment against a woman who shared two dozen songs"
Ah, that old tactic: lie.
#121 | Posted by Danforth

70 Posts on this thread since he went off to rehearsal and this is the one to which he returns to respond.

It's a case of Liberal blowback. If you want big government, you're going to have to pay for it.

"Hollyforth had to go to "rehearsal""

Yup, rehearsing with a 3-time Grammy nominee. You know, like the guys you steal from.

"70 Posts on this thread since he went off to rehearsal and this is the one to which he returns to respond."

We get breaks at odd intervals; what can I tell you? And they're short to the point where I can only read a few posts.

Wow, you're really important. Did you tell the "nominee" that you skipped a grade in grammar school? I'll bet the "nominee" was impressed.

a 3-time Grammy nominee.

AKA 3 time loser.

"Wow, you're really important."

Important enough for you to feel the need to express your jealousy. Thanks.

(Oh, and no need to put "nominee" in quotes, especially more than once. It makes it look like you're unfamiliar with the term.)

Yup, rehearsing with a 3-time Grammy nominee. You know, like the guys you steal from.

#125 | Posted by Danforth

Yeah, but do you own a Porsche?

And they're short to the point where I can only read a few posts.

#126 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-01-18 02:49 PM | Reply |

Now we understand why he never understands the context in which he's posting.

Important enough for you to feel the need to express your jealousy.

Jealous of delusions on the INTERNET? Don't you know we are all award winning actors, former politicians, and Generals from the most famous battles of all time. Oh, and we head 3 unions each too. And I haven't posted much today because I was doing open heart surgery on a 5 time Academy Award nominee.

Danforth cleary supports anything that grows government and increases their power and he will fake being an expert from the front lines of the issue regardless of the issue.

I was doing open heart surgery on a 5 time Academy Award nominee.

#132 | Posted by kanrei

Piker. I did open heart surgery on a 5 time Academy Award "winner" while fucking a Grammy Nominee in the poop chute.
Must run, off to dinner with martha Stewart, and then doing drinks with the Clintons.

"and odd need to brag"

You must have missed the part where I did it for Nullithiefian's benefit.

"Tell us some more interesting and made up shit about yourself"

If you think it's made up, pussy, wager me on it. Say, a little Mittsie amount?

"We get breaks at odd intervals; what can I tell you? And they're short to the point where I can only read a few posts."

Like some HS girl hoping anyone paid attention to her and wrote on FB in between classes...

So, you're GayZat from now on...

#133 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2012-01-18 02:56 PM | Reply

Sorry, you'll have to stand in line----last night I named him "anal retentive Dan".

"Danforth cleary supports anything that grows government and increases their power and he will fake being an expert from the front lines of the issue regardless of the issue."

Another pussy who never did the work but still wants the glory checks in.

Another pussy who never did the work but still wants the glory checks in.

#139 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-01-18 02:59 PM

That doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense. What glory do I want? If you think pointing out your constantly shifting back story is glory, then you overestimate your value. You are a meaningless shill for big government who cheerleads on any subject and then claims you were right there from the start. It is laughable. Even more so that you clearly believe your own hype. If I weren't bored right now, you would be ignored as you usually are.

"last night I named him "anal retentive Dan"."

Yeah, after I dared to catch him plagiarizing someone else's work.

He thought it "anal retentive" of me, since I read the post once and immediately knew it was beyond Matslop's abilities.

That'll piss him off every time.

You must have missed the part where I did it for Nullithiefian's benefit.

"Tell us some more interesting and made up shit about yourself"

If you think it's made up, pussy, wager me on it. Say, a little Mittsie amount?

#136 | Posted by Danforth

Yes, GayZat, there's always some piss poor reason or excuse, or goal-post moving when you're called out. Whether it's pretending you make more than us, skipped grades, took "x" number of vacations, head this committee or that committee, worked here or there, it's not that you're bragging on the net, it's because it was for somebody's benefit...And that somebody would be you, you thin skinned insecure parsing piece of shit.

"Another pussy who never did the work but still wants the glory checks in."

Sounds like dancing dan is stealing from the Big Salad episode.

Still haven't run into any sites aside form Wikipedia who have blacked out. Have yet to run into any sites, including Wikipedia, who would have any problems due to SOPA. All it means is they'd have to spend some time answering SOPA inquiries or complying with the law. God forbid Jimmy Wales can only afford THREE gold-plated swimming pools next year.

Of course if I go to a torrent site today I'd run into someone who'd be forced into hiding by SOPA, but really piracy shouldn't be so damned easy.

Yeah, after I dared to catch him plagiarizing someone else's work.

He thought it "anal retentive" of me, since I read the post once and immediately knew it was beyond Matslop's abilities.

That'll piss him off every time.

#141 | Posted by Danforth

What about when you corrected Murphy and made a point to tell her that 5 months isn't 22 weeks, you sloppy cunt?

Yup, rehearsing with a 3-time Grammy nominee.

#125 | Posted by Danforth

Are you showing Betty White how to use a Catheter?

This is my favorite Danforth false brag:

GFY. I've served on health committees since we referred to AIDS as "new cancer". What you're saying isn't just idiocy, it's recklessly irresponsible. God help anyone who believes your crap.

#42 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-01-09 10:54 PM |

Get a load of this thin skinned loser...

First, 5 months IS NOT 22 weeks. 2nd, you said cases, plural.

#223 | Posted by Danforth

"You are a meaningless shill for big government who cheerleads on any subject and then claims you were right there from the start."

LMAO... You mean like Obamacare? Where he will defend against any RW'er who criticizes it, yet still claim has been against it from the beginning?

I found out who Danforth really is based on all he claims to be an expert at: Adventurer/surgeon/rock musician Buckaroo Banzai!

Thank you Danforth for defeating John Bigbootay.

On top of everything else he claims, he is also an expert in disease and medicine.

#147 | Posted by kanrei

He learned about it through osmosis while doing the theater fag's taxes.

Yeah, after I dared to catch him plagiarizing someone else's work.

He thought it "anal retentive" of me, since I read the post once and immediately knew it was beyond Matslop's abilities.

#141 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-01-18 03:02 PM | Reply

After not putting some info in quotes which obviously was not mine and Dan squawks. And that's why he's "anal retentive Dan". I did promise "anal retentive Dan" that if I see him lurking in the background on a thread inbetween his work with academy award winners that I would put info of not my making in quotes just to appease him.

"your constantly shifting back story"

WTF are you talking about?

Lovin' this thread.

"After not putting some info in quotes which obviously was not mine"

Yeah, obviously not his, once he got caught.

"your constantly shifting back story"

WTF are you talking about?

Posted by Danforth at 2012-01-18 03:09 PM |

So we finally found something he isn't an expert at: understanding the written word.

What am I talking about? YOUR CONSTANTLY SHIFTING BACK STORY.

RIF.org can help.

Get a load of this thin skinned loser...

First, 5 months IS NOT 22 weeks. 2nd, you said cases, plural.

#223 | Posted by Danforth

#148 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2012-01-18 03:06 PM | Reply

Like I said; "anal retentive Dan".

Why the internet?

It's the only thing governments got left to fuck up.

Period.

What a beatdown. Mrs. Lamar Smith should've stayed at rehearsal.

First, 5 months IS NOT 22 weeks

Depends on the months covered. The average is 4 weeks per month, so 5 months is 5 x 4 weeks or about 20 weeks. Danforth can't do math either.

"After not putting some info in quotes which obviously was not mine"

Yeah, obviously not his, once he got caught.

#155 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-01-18 03:10 PM | Reply |

Obvious to anyone but "anal retentive Dan".

Why the internet?

#158 | Posted by SHEEPLESHEPERD at 2012-01-18 03:12 PM |

This is really about getting the ability to shut down the internet should an Arab Spring start in America legally put in place without people saying "wtf?"

#103 | Posted by kanrei at 2012-01-18 01:35 PM |

#152 | Posted by matsop at 2012-01-18 03:08 PM

The best part is when the dumb bastard opens his yap on a subject he has ZERO clue about, and actually tries to challenge someone who does. Most of the time it blows up in the desperate fools face. Case in point, he actually had a go around with me on a simple speedbag, and linked a double endded bag and argued for days how I was still wrong. LMAO!!!

When I perfect my brain to digital data (wifi of course) interface this argument is going to really get kooky....I will be able to play or show you anything that my eyes and ears have recorded.

This "need to police the internets" has been going on since the internets were invented by Al Gore and his censorship queen ex....remember the big blackout in the nineties?

"One where you think a million dollar judgment against a woman who shared two dozen songs"

Ah, that old tactic: lie.

Apologies, I added a zero. I stand corrected.

Danforth, you think a $220,000 judgment against a woman who shared two dozen songs is a good thing and a step in the right direction.

I hope you can understand why you're so alone on this, Danforth. And that the only ones taking your side are a select few of the best right-wing authoritarian thugs the DR has to offer.

"What a beatdown. Mrs. Lamar Smith should've stayed at rehearsal."

I have no doubt dancing dan was getting a beatdown by the three time grammy loser as well. Probably forgot to order extra cheese on his sandwich...

#152 | Posted by matsop at 2012-01-18 03:08 PM

The best part is when the dumb bastard opens his yap on a subject he has ZERO clue about, and actually tries to challenge someone who does. Most of the time it blows up in the desperate fools face. Case in point, he actually had a go around with me on a simple speedbag, and linked a double endded bag and argued for days how I was still wrong. LMAO!!!

#163 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2012-01-18 03:14 PM | Reply |

I've been in medicine for years and the guy tells me he's an expert and then argues points that make no sense that he doesn't understand----even when you link him facts to disprove his position.

Congrats Danforth,

You did not want people discussing the insidious nature of this bill and you have succeeded. You have hijacked this thread and made it about you. Well done. Big Brother must be so proud. With enough morons like you carrying their water, they won't need bills like SOPA to shut down websites. Look at how well you have done on this thread alone.

Still haven't run into any sites aside form Wikipedia who have blacked out. Have yet to run into any sites, including Wikipedia, who would have any problems due to SOPA.

#144 | Posted by soheifox at 2012-01-18 03:04 PM

This is really about getting the ability to shut down the internet should an Arab Spring start in America legally put in place without people saying "wtf?"

#103 | Posted by kanrei at 2012-01-18 01:35 PM |

#162 | Posted by kanrei at 2012-01-18 03:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

What I had in mind was a little less conspiratorial, like RIAA and others wanting to shut down P2P networks and torrents without courts and such involved and without appeals process', etc.

"Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." TJ

And that the only ones taking your side are a select few of the best right-wing authoritarian thugs the DR has to offer.

#165 | Posted by snoofy at 2012-01-18 03:15 PM

#170 | Posted by SHEEPLESHEPERD at 2012-01-18 03:25 PM

That is too limited for how wide spread the law goes. This is about Flashmobs and social media under the guise of stopping piracy. Remember, they always name horrible bills with names nobody can question.

Remember Jake Baker ??

"I've been in medicine for years and the guy tells me he's an expert and then argues points that make no sense that he doesn't understand----even when you link him facts to disprove his position."

The dumb fuck argued with me about 125's even after telling him the former company I worked for bought up all that was left on the secondary market and directly from the defunct lender back in 2000. Yet to this day he still argues they had a hand in the Housing crash of 2008. The best part being after months of him embarrassing himself, he revealed he didn't know the difference between a 1st and 2nd TD. Almost like someone not knowing football and soccer are not the same game...

But hey, he did skip at least one grade, has a clientele list that Arie Gold would envy, and of course not only works with three time Grammy nominees, but gets to sniff actresses like Kidman. So glad he blesses us here and not some other site... lol

Nothing like anecdotal evidence and statements not backed up by facts to settle a debate.

#169 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Did you ever see the exchange I had with this clown about John Kerry? I was simply recounting the day John Kerry raped and killed that retarded amputee teen in vietnam by shooting him in the back, when I mentioned that john kerry stuck a semen soaked bamboo chute up the teen's ass. That dumbfuck Sohefox posts about an hour later with "I just spent the last 45 minutes scouring google and there's no mention of John Kerry and semen stained bamboo chutes, you're a liar"...

When I mentioned it was such an obvious exageration/lie, he claimed I was backtracking after having been caught by him...

I swear it was so odd that I'm having a hard time believing anyone can be that fucking stupid...except for northgay, axe, monstman, and donnerboy.

So glad he blesses us here and not some other site... lol

#174 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2012-01-18 03:29 PM | Reply

You gotta admit he's entertainment. Sometimes I give him too much credit by thinking he takes positions just for an argument purpose. Whatever the reason, he's a piece of work.

I count 1 person on his side; Super Agent Fox.

#171 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Also, Goatman, till he threw Danforth under the bus and ran off.

geez, danforth getting ripped to shreds again.

and yet, no doubt, he thinks the fact that countless posters accuse of the same things over and over and yet it still isn't his own fault.

1. elitist (skipped 3rd grade)
2. works in "entertainment"
3. union shill
4. has a MIL and that makes him an expert on voter ID
5. sits on a committee which makes him an expert on health care
6. prepares personal taxes which makes him a corporate tax expert.
7. belongs to a union which makes him an expert in all unions
8. smelled rosanne barr's ass once. said it was "great".
9. knows some gays....makes him an expert on constitutional law
10.when all else fails....just critique spelling

there's more...but I'm done.

You fuckers are going to be sorry when he get's done "rehearsing" and spell checks this thread.

.when all else fails....just critique spelling

11. Convenient rehearsal times that always seems to coincide with his most severe thrashings here and allows him to retort when everyone else is gone.

Pretty sure he would veto it if it passed his desk in it's current form

Yeah. Obama always objects to unpopular bills "in their current form." Then a few meaningless changes are made, and he signs it on a Saturday.

Good god, man. The Americans on this site who relentlessly support Obama no matter how many times he fucks them over are pathetic. For a Canadian to do it? Beyond sad.

You fuckers are going to be sorry when he get's done "rehearsing" and spell checks this thread.
#179 | Posted by wisgod at 2012-01-18 03:36 PM

The very first fucking bite, and the dog gets more of it than I did. Thank the gods I didn't make soup...

DANFORTH: "Oh my God. I'm back. I'm home. All the time, it was... We finally really did it. [screaming] You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"

I part ways with Danforth on the appropriateness of his industry's response to emerging technology, or "magic" as he once called it.

I haven't built up a whole complex about it though.

Did you ever see the exchange I had with this clown about John Kerry? I was simply recounting the day John Kerry raped and killed that retarded amputee teen in vietnam by shooting him in the back, when I mentioned that john kerry stuck a semen soaked bamboo chute up the teen's ass. That dumbfuck Sohefox posts about an hour later with "I just spent the last 45 minutes scouring google and there's no mention of John Kerry and semen stained bamboo chutes, you're a liar"...

When I mentioned it was such an obvious exageration/lie, he claimed I was backtracking after having been caught by him...

I swear it was so odd that I'm having a hard time believing anyone can be that fucking stupid...except for northgay, axe, monstman, and donnerboy.

#175 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2012-01-18 03:30 PM

He'll probably threaten to veto it unless they grant him a little extra authority he thinks he needs. Like with the NDAA, and then sign it and write a signing statement lamenting how much authority he REALLY wanted and was not granted...

Good god, man. The Americans on this site who relentlessly support Obama no matter how many times he fucks them over are pathetic. For a Canadian to do it? Beyond sad.

Obama is one of a handle of sane people left in your government.

The fact that you see him as the problem and not the batshiat insane already proven-to-fail fiscal policies of the GOP or their rampant, shameless obstructionism or perpetual regard for the agenda of the 1% at a cost to everyone else is what is truly pathetic here.

Be Well.

How is it a Canadian gets so partisan? Is American politics like watching a really fucked up football game, where, in the end, everyone loses?

I’m as adamant a supporter of Web free speech as you’ll find. And there’s a lot to dislike about the Stop Online Piracy Act. But when my stories about Web free speech are stolen and posted in their entirety by “rogue” websites, my head hurts. Stealing content is a funny way to prove your anti-SOPA credentials.

"his most severe thrashings here"

Dream on.

Is American politics like watching a really fucked up football game, where, in the end, everyone loses?

I think it is more being the neighbor to a house that gets new tenents every 2 years and some you like, others you don't and you can't help but form opinions about how they act which are not always based on the full story.

regard for the agenda of the 1% at a cost to everyone else

#187 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-18 03:45 PM

I had hoped to avoid the DR on my swing back past the Third Stone, but here it is, proving my point: The Drudge Retort is nothing but a gutter-level insult den. Unbroken personal attacks since my visit earlier, no substance.

Thanks, Matsop, for "getting it":

I believe Jimi left.

#93 | Posted by matsop at 2012-01-18 01:16 PM

I do it a lot. Doing it again. A few minutes here is like a season in hell. You don't want to believe actual adults squat on this board 24x7 and say the things they do. The smell of a world that has burned.

"A Retort classic, right up with the car antenna, the housing military, and the inability to shake hands or wear watches."

Actually I doubt anything will top the ugly breastfeeding ladies at Target having hyphenated names like some militants retort...

Dream on.

Posted by Danforth at 2012-01-18 03:50 PM |

Let me guess: not only did you create that show, but you were on the ground floor of HBO when they first started and helped invent the TV?

"his most severe thrashings here"

Dream on.

you mean you get thrashed worse somewhere else?

where?

The smell of a world that has burned.

#193 | Posted by Jimi_left at 2012-01-18 03:51 PM

Also, Goatman, till he threw Danforth under the bus and ran off.

Yep, I ran off. Thought I'd get me a bite to eat, vain and dull one. Sorry I can't be around to meet your stoner schedule. Deal with it.

Thanks, Matsop, for "getting it":

I believe Jimi left.

#93 | Posted by matsop at 2012-01-18 01:16 PM

I do it a lot. Doing it again. A few minutes here is like a season in hell. You don't want to believe actual adults squat on this board 24x7 and say the things they do. The smell of a world that has burned.

#193 | Posted by Jimi_left at 2012-01-18 03:51 PM | Reply

You're welcome. Have a great day.

Are you sure that foul odor isn't your pussy?

#197 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

No shit.

Instead of Jimi Left, i wish it was Jimi Douched.

"there's always some piss poor reason or excuse, or goal-post moving when you're called out."

Who was backing down? I said you're full of shit and you should put your money where your mouth is if you think I'm making anything up. No excuse, no reason, no goalpost moving, no matter how desperate you are to pretend.

"What about when you corrected Murphy and made a point to tell her that 5 months isn't 22 weeks"

It's not, and she claimed multiple cases, dumbass.

Depends on the months covered. The average is 4 weeks per month, so 5 months is 5 x 4 weeks or about 20 weeks. Danforth can't do math either."

Classic self-retort, from someone who clearly can't tell 20 from 22.

"and linked a double endded bag and argued for days how I was still wrong"

Bwahahahahahaha!!!

You're a goddamned liar, and it shows what a pussy you are for having to lie about that incident.

"125s"

Oh, that shit, again? Why don't you just admit you claimed they didn't exist, I linked to where they did exist, and then you claimed you meant a different type of 125s.

"What am I talking about? YOUR CONSTANTLY SHIFTING BACK STORY."

Link or stink.

"Danforth, you think a $220,000 judgment against a woman who shared two dozen songs"

I don't think either one of us believes for a second it was two dozen songs.

More to the point: do you believe someone who steals two dozen songs should be held liable for the theft?

It's not, and she claimed multiple cases, dumbass.

#201 | Posted by Danforth

5 months is 22 weeks, you stupid parsing queer.

"You did not want people discussing the insidious nature of this bill and you have succeeded"

You're a pussy. I didn't force anyone to waste their keystrokes on me.

More to the point: do you believe someone who steals two dozen songs should be held liable for the theft?

Posted by Danforth at 2012-01-18 04:37 PM | Reply

NO.

There is no scarcity in digital reproduction. It would be like patenting fire.

Link or stink.

Posted by Danforth at 2012-01-18 04:35 PM | Reply

Past his quitting time. Prolly playing at Skyrim.

"and yet, no doubt, he thinks the fact that countless posters accuse of the same things over and over and yet it still isn't his own fault.
1. elitist (skipped 3rd grade)
Yes I am; no I didn't.
2. works in "entertainment"
I'd say 36 years, 1000+ jobs, two pensions, and never busier onstage would make that a "yes". So you're saying posters "accuse" me of this?
3. union shill
I just tell the truth, and point out the rest of the picture
4. has a MIL and that makes him an expert on voter ID
(Eb gets embarrassed when folks make him take his head out of the sand and address reality)
5. sits on a committee which makes him an expert on health care
Eb also gets jealous around folks who have put in the work for the better part of a generation. And I'd hardly call being elected to be a Trustee on a Health Plan is the equivalent of "sitting on a committee", although Eb clearly would like to pretend.
6. prepares personal taxes which makes him a corporate tax expert.
27 years of taxes, 300 clients. And I never claimed to be a corporate expert, liar.
7. belongs to a union which makes him an expert in all unions
I've never claimed to speak for any but mine, and have admitted the performing Unions are pussy Unions: when we go after someone, it's with our rapier-like wit.
8. smelled rosanne barr's ass once. said it was "great".
No, that was you. My experience was at the SAG Awards when someone walked by who smelled incredible. I turned, and it was Nicole Kidman.
9. knows some gays....makes him an expert on constitutional law
Eb missed the 14th amendment.
10.when all else fails....just critique spelling
Only when the poster is critiquing intelligence.

Wow...usually I have to audition to have folks so interested in my resume.

Hey Eberly, you going to let Hollyforth trash you like that?

"I haven't built up a whole complex about it though."

You haven't met the folks you're stealing from. I have; they're generally nice people, like you, trying to live a life and raise a family, and they'd like some help from their Union and their government to stop the wholesale theft of their work product.

Turn the table around: if someone invented a magic zapper that would legally blip money from your bank account to my bank account, would you build up a complex?

"There is no scarcity in digital reproduction."

Sure there is: the 1s and 0s are in a very unique order and sequence. There is only ONE set which will produce the end product.

But tell us: should Steven King only own his book until he sells the first one?

Should a singer only own his song until the first time he plays it live?

-Wow...usually I have to audition to have folks so interested in my resume.

you are one of the only idiots here who actually posts his resume.

over and over and over and over.

It's funny to watch to defend it all though.

Buffalobob does the exact same thing with regards to his positions.

It might be why you get beat up just like him, huh?

"Let me guess: not only did you create that show, but you were on the ground floor of HBO when they first started and helped invent the TV?"

Let me guess: you would have written that show, and better, except for those Union goons who conspire behind your back to keep you out of the business, right?

"would rather engage in ad hominem than discuss the actual issue. As usual."

You're a joke.

The actual issue is jackasses like you stole so much of other people's property, somebody decided to put a stop to it.

"It might be why you get beat up just like him"

Why is it pretending I don't have a resume is the equivalent of getting "beat up" in your world? Do you really think a couple of jerks exposing their jealousy is getting "beat up"...?

"This is my favorite Danforth false brag"

You're a liar. I told the truth.

More to the point: do you believe someone who steals two dozen songs should be held liable for the theft?

Even more to the point: Do you think a $54,000 dollar fine is too soft a punishment for stealing 24 songs?

That's what your industry thinks, Danforth.

I will now be reproducing three paragraphs of copyrighted work. Not only to educate you guys as to what's up, but because a post like this could get the DR shut down sans judicial review, if Danforth gets his way.

Nothing like anecdotal evidence and statements not backed up by facts to settle a debate.
#168 | POSTED BY LIVE_OR_DIE AT 2012-01-18 03:22 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Nothing like reading a damned bill and learning what it actually does rather than taking 4chan's word for it.

"Even more to the point: Do you think a $54,000 dollar fine is too soft a punishment for stealing 24 songs?"

I think it's excessive. But look at the rest of the story from your link:

In the (Thomas-Rasset) case, the Recording Industry Assn. of America offered to accept even less -- $25,000 -- if Thomas-Rasset agreed to have the judge vacate the ruling that slashed her damages to $54,000. She insisted instead on having a third jury consider just the issue of what she should pay the RIAA, which is how $54,000 became $1.5 million. (Thomas-Rasset plans to appeal again.)

It seems a jury of her peers thought I was wrong, and she should be made to pay a lot more.

"The judge also ruled that making copyrighted works available on file-sharing networks does not constitute distribution"

Yeah...in the same way holding the light for the looters doesn't constitute looting.

Nothing like reading a damned bill and learning what it actually does rather than taking 4chan's word for it.

#220 | Posted by soheifox at 2012-01-18 05:18 PM

LOL!

what more can these artists and distribution companies do to prevent this theft? other than ask the govt to pass and enforce more stringent laws.

what more can these artists and distribution companies do to prevent this theft?
Posted by eberly

Go back to vinyl.

what more can these artists and distribution companies do to prevent this theft?
Huh? iTunes has sold how many songs again? Well into the billions.
The answer is "make their products available to a public that wants them really bad."

other than ask the govt to pass and enforce more stringent laws.
They've been doing that since 1996.
Do you think it's working?
Do you think more laws will make it work better?

Yeah...in the same way holding the light for the looters doesn't constitute looting.

In the same way a gun manufacturer doesn't constitute accessory to murder.

what more can these artists and distribution companies do to prevent this theft?
Posted by eberly

go back to live performances where electronic devices are banned.

I don't undertand your first answer snoofy. I know nothing about how to steal something online.

Are the folks who are complaining about this theft doing all they can or are they just relying on the govt to do it for them?

I mean when you enter a Best Buy store...

1. security cameras and alarms
2. people at the doors checking receipts
3. everything is barcoded
4. security alarm and locked doors afterhours
5. store personel everywher
6. price their merchandise up to cover for the theft.

etc...even though they can claim, "it's theft" they proactively try to prevent it.

is it at tight online as it is in the store?

"In the same way a gun manufacturer doesn't constitute accessory to murder."

Um, no, not at all. She knowingly posted songs she stole on a site she knew to be a "sharing" (read:thieving) site. She was part of a continuous chain of theft of copyrighted property. Why shouldn't she be held partially responsible for the continued theft?

Think of this as hard goods. She steals it, puts it in a warehouse with a lit STOLEN GOODS sign, and someone comes in and steals it again. In real life she wouldn't be off the hook. Why here?

I know nothing about how to steal something online.

Eberly, you already stole when you read those three paragraphs I quoted from Businessweek, words I copied and distributed without the copyright holder's permission.

Danforth posted a fourth paragraph, which you also stole by reading.

You are leaning fast how to steal online, wouldn't you say!

"you already stole when you read those three paragraphs I quoted from Businessweek, words I copied and distributed without the copyright holder's permission."

Oh, great, now the bullshit comes out.

Just hang the I'm Ignorant of Fair Use banner around yourself and be done with it.

Eberly, you already stole when you read those three paragraphs I quoted from Businessweek, words I copied and distributed without the copyright holder's permission.

Please cite the law that says this would be stealing. Otherwise, like last time you made that bizarre statement, you are lying.

The actual law -- not your interpretation of an existing one.

thanks. I've always been I'm a fast learner.

last night, I played a song on my smartphone, a video from Cars 2, for my son, who turns 4 very soon.

theft?

Oh look, Goatman's come back after everybody's gone. LOL. With allies like Goatman, Hollyforth doesn't need enemies.

"theft?"

Not if they're willing to give it to you for free.

But if they were trying to sell it, and you went to a piracy site and stole it, then yes, theft.

Do you see the difference?

last night, I played a song on my smartphone, a video from Cars 2, for my son, who turns 4 very soon.

theft?

Since we're getting into details, the term of art is not theft, but rather something like "unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material."
This goes for Goatman too, who asked "Please cite the law that says this would be stealing."
Technically, according to the law, it's not stealing, and it's not theft.
Despite the presence of the word "theft" in the title of of the 1996 No Electronic Theft Act, the law does not define that behavior as "theft." Or "stealing."
Glad we could clear that up.

Oh look, Goatman's come back after everybody's gone

Sorry my schedule doesn't fit with yours, crybaby. I suggest you grow up and learn to deal with it, dull. Your whining is pathetic

The actual law -- not your interpretation of an existing one.

There is no actual law that calls it theft or stealing.
Again, glad we could clear that up.

Eberly, your crime is not stealing, but rather unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work.
There was at one time a copy on your computer screen, which you had no right to make.

Glad we could clear that up.

Sugar coat the word if you want, snoofy, but the fact is what you and dull do is against the law. If it wasn't there wouldn't be successful prosecutions and convictions.

duh

Eberly reading a couple of paragraphs out of business week is not illegal.

THe more a thief attempts to justify his actions by sugar coating words or projecting his actions onto innoncent acts of others, the more that person knows he is in the wrong. You are firmly in that camp, snoofy as with your dull cohort

There was at one time a copy on your computer screen, which you had no right to make.

LOL Just as I said in my last post.

So arrest him, snoofy. Call the cops. Be a hero. Goddam I would love to see the look on a prosecutors face when you told him what eberly was doing was against the law and your reasoning. LOL

"Since we're getting into details, the term of art is not theft, but rather something like "unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material.""

What would you call it if someone could electronically take money out of your pocket and put it into yours? Theft works for me: the taking of something not belonging to you.

"Glad we could clear that up."

Then let's get to the underlying issue: should there be such a thing as intellectual property rights? Should, for example, there be patents? Should Steven King own his book? Or should the first person who reads the formula or the novel have the same rights as the creator?

Goatman ran away from this thread like a girlie boy when he saw Hollyforth being thrashed. LOL.

Yep, you're right, dull.

Going to tell us four times?

What a dull repititive mind you have. LOL

What would you call it if someone could electronically take money out of your pocket and put it into yours?

Copying doesn't take anything. It makes a copy.
Surely you understand the difference between taking my $20 bill and Xeroxing it.
(You like the way I used Xerox as a verb, diluting their trademark?)

Dull reminds me of the retarded boy down the street who finds a punch out slug from an electrical box and keeps showing it to his mother, full of pride proclaiming over and over , "Look mom, I found a quarter! I found a quarter!" Finally the mother rather than waste her time trying to teach the dull child something tells him, "yes you did. That is very nice".

Likewise, the dull one has found his shiny "quarter" and will keep repeating what his dull mind thinks is true over and over.

And he thinks this is good business for the "make drugs legal" crowd. LOL

You go, girl!

Goatman ran away from this thread like a girlie boy when he saw Hollyforth being thrashed. LOL.

#242 | Posted by nullifidian

Then let's get to the underlying issue: should there be such a thing as intellectual property rights?
Yes.

Should, for example, there be patents?
Yes.

Should Steven King own his book?
Define "own."
Are you asking if Stephen King should possess the copyright to the book he wrote? Yes.
Should he have the right to transfer that right? Yes.
Should the duration of copyright exclusivity be extended upon transfer between entities? No.

Or should the first person who reads the formula or the novel have the same rights as the creator?
Provided the work is copyrighted, and the copyright period hasn't expired, no.

Hollyforth. It makes me laugh everytime I see it.

Yes I did, dull.

Go for six, my dull yet obedient little puppet. LOL

Instead of lining up to have daily talking points regurgitated into your open mouths like regressive repugs do, liberal progressives tend to think for themselves.
#12 | Posted by dethspud at 2012-01-18 07:10 AM

its great, listen to MSM, ABC, NBC and then log onto the DR and read the lefties parrot every single talking point.

#91 | Posted by Jimi_left

Reading through most of this thread, Jimi has probably made the most relevant post of the day.

Your turn Mr. D,

How did the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act serve the public interest?

Was "nothing at all" a fair payment to The Verve for their chart-topping song which sampled the Rolling Stones?

Do you think you'll catch more flies with honey or vinegar?

"How did the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act serve the public interest?"

Also known as the Mickey Mouse protection act, a major theft of the intellectual commons bought and paid for by the Hollywood media mafia.

Reading through most of this thread, Jimi has probably made the most relevant post of the day.

#251 | Posted by Whatsleft

And you came in a distant 251st.

Dull -- why do your ramblings on this topic always veer off to the evil media moguls while you are never, ever, willing to discuss your theft of intellectual property. Whenever asked about your own illegal pirating, you always shift to "but, but, but the evil media whores". Why do you not want to talk about the other side of the equation: The thieves like you and snoofy?

It's a rhetorical question, of course. It's obvious no one wants to talk about their own wrong doing when they can point their guilty little fingers at the "man" who is always oppressing them.

Your words and sheer absense and avoidance of other ones is quite telling.

How does RCADE stand on this issue. Isn't this a pretty important controversy, especially in his world? Would DR junkies live through 24 hours without this place?

#5 | Posted by danni

(d)anni is confused whether to support corporate Hollywood, or President Obama.

It's definitely confusing too, because they're both the same types of dealios.

What should she do?

And, oh no, now that Hollywood moguls are starting to withdraw campaign, whatever will Obama do?

It must suck to have no central, foundational beliefs. If you did, you'd already know how to feel about this and not need to ask.

It must suck to have no central, foundational beliefs. If you did, you'd already know how to feel about this and not need to ask.

#256 | Posted by BloodSacrafice

I'm sure she's wearing out her tv remote looking for her belief.

It's a tricky decision for them. Because as soon as they say, BAMMM!! ole' bama might change his mind!!

Remember, Hollywood represents mucho campaign help, think Big Oil to the GOP. And that's one helluva powerful mind-changer.

No wonder she don't wanna say.

Just look at the shear size, of something that should be so simple, and you'll know there's things in it, that you're not going to like.

It ain't rock science, sweetheart. It's okay to support the President on this one, at least until he changes his mind.

But that's just me. You can wear out the channel changer if you prefer.

You Porn and Fox News.com are working, so I'm good.

Just curious as to what happens here. Without wikipedia the DR will have no experts on anything.

#1 | Posted by salamandagator

NEVER use it, unreliable. Twisted and distorted "facts".

As for "Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa) and the Senate's Protect Intellectual Property Act (Pipa)", I know its hard for some people (libtarts mostly) to understand that they can not TAKE OTHER PEOPLES PROPERTY just because they want to.

.....NOPE IN NOVEMBER.....

#261. you're crazy. Wikipedia is great! yes it isn't perfect, but it's a good encyclopedic source to get you to where you want to be.

#261. you're crazy. Wikipedia is great! yes it isn't perfect, but it's a good encyclopedic source to get you to where you want to be.

#262 | Posted by somoco

I'm not hating on it, yea fixed ideas like, why is the sky blue ?

Fine, however more opinionated ideas require you to check (As you should) several other sites to verify Wiki facts which in a significant numbers of cases have been altered on purpose.

So why bother in the first place with some thing that can be edited by the general public.

......NOPE IN NOVEMBER.....

#228 Eberly - Are the folks who are complaining about this theft doing all they can or are they just relying on the govt to do it for them?

I mean when you enter a Best Buy store...

1. security cameras and alarms
2. people at the doors checking receipts
3. everything is barcoded
4. security alarm and locked doors afterhours
5. store personel everywher
6. price their merchandise up to cover for the theft.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;;;;;;;;;

Bingo. Instead of Hollywood defending their property they've bought off our government to require taxpayers to not only pay and defend it, but sacrifice their freedoms in the process.

It's akin to Best Buy using our state police to guard their stores and requiring shoppers to go through taxpayer funded full strip search body scanners before entering...similar to United Airlines using TSA.

We're turning into a fascist corporate controlled nation must faster than any of us would have anticipated. Stage 1 was set on 9-11-01 when the govt. turned "we the people" into likely criminals, when it should have been those in govt. who failed to protect us that were criminally charged. Stage 2 was in 2008-9 when Wall St bankers were handed the keys and trillions to our Treasury and the Federal Reserve.

The winning tribe has been consistent, and the losing tribe likewise, but the losers instead of becoming outraged and paying closer attention want only an NFL Sunday ticket package.

ROFLMAO...I already handed Danforth his ass on this subject from a logic standpoint weeks ago, so I don't have anything to add other that it's funny to watch him squeal like a little pig and call everyone "fushing theefs." And just for the record, it's Stephen King, not Steven King. I may steal from the guy, but at least I can spell his name right, lol:)

"I already handed Danforth his ass on this subject from a logic standpoint weeks ago"

Guess again.

"And just for the record, it's Stephen King, not Steven King. I may steal from the guy, but at least I can spell his name right"

Good catch. I was wrong spelling his name that way.

That said, you're a thief. No "logic" otherwise.

ROFLMAO...I already handed Danforth his ass on this subject from a logic standpoint weeks ago, so I don't have anything to add other that it's funny to watch him squeal like a little pig and call everyone "fushing theefs." ...
#265 | Posted by missesmerelda

Everybody's coming out of the woodwork to trash Hollyforth. LOL.

The answer is "make their products available to a public that wants them really bad."
other than ask the govt to pass and enforce more stringent laws.
They've been doing that since 1996.
Do you think it's working?
Do you think more laws will make it work better?

#225 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2012-01-18 05:37 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Pssst. hey Snoofy? Did you read the bill? It requires the company to prove a reasonable expectation of commercial availability. Under SOPA, if they're not selling what you want, you get to take it and you're immune to prosecution; so long as you don't turn around and try to make money off of it, trafficking it around is perfectly fine. The burden of proof shifts form the person to the corporation.

Read the damned bill. If you're not stealing anything that is being made reasonably available, SOPA actually protects you. You weren't protected before. If you're taking stuff that's available for sale just because you feel like it, it is now not just civilly actionable, it's a strongly punished criminal offense. You wanna know how not to go to jail for stealing?

TOR. Failing that, STOP STEALING.

Everybody's coming out of the woodwork to trash Hollyforth. LOL.

#267 | Posted by nullifidian

Last one here tonight cleans up the mess.

#269 Shit, I'm out, girls always get stuck cleaning up the mess and sleeping in the wet spot.

#268 | Posted by soheifox at 2012-01-18 10:48 PM |

You can always depend on this guy to defend the authoritarian point of view.

It's akin to Best Buy using our state police to guard their stores and requiring shoppers to go through taxpayer funded full strip search body scanners before entering...similar to United Airlines using TSA.

Thanks Robson. That was the point of my question. If they are doing everything then okay....but i suspect they are wanting the govt to do their work for them because perhaps they don't want to go through the expense or work that might erode their bottom line to protect themselves from this theft.

How much do you think Best Buy spends on anti-theft protection when you consider all of those things I listed?

Read the damned bill. If you're not stealing anything that is being made reasonably available, SOPA actually protects you. You weren't protected before. If you're taking stuff that's available for sale just because you feel like it, it is now not just civilly actionable, it's a strongly punished criminal offense. You wanna know how not to go to jail for stealing?

then why are reputable sites that don't steal anything so opposed to this? If it's nothing then why the outrage?

It's obviously an overreach.

"I skunked you on round one "

Bwahahaha! You were outed as a clueless thief. Another Dunning-Kruger prime example.

"why are reputable sites that don't steal anything so opposed to this?"

Probably because they're run by guys who are giving their stuff away for free anyway, and who are internet-savvy enough to be part of the group illegally downloading the copyrighted material.

then why are reputable sites that don't steal anything so opposed to this? If it's nothing then why the outrage?

It's obviously an overreach.

Yes thank you Eberly.

I don't consider Eberly as someone with his ear to the ground when it comes to what's "going down" on the Internet. So either the people who want to steal things from Danforth are really, really dedicated to their craft, to the point they've tricked Eberly into supporting their cause.

Or, it's actually an overreach, just like Eberly says.

When MoveOn and Heritage Foundation are both against something, it's probably pretty bad, right?

Even Danforth can grudgingly be forced to agree on that one.

Or is that too much hope and change.

Another co-sponsor has reversed his position.

"Our Founding Fathers understood that protecting people's ideas is essential to a robust and healthy democracy. With the advent of the Internet, intellectual property theft is a real and growing problem that everyone acknowledges must be combated," Hatch said in a statement. "After listening to the concerns on both sides of the debate over the PROTECT IP Act, it is simply not ready for prime time and both sides must continue working together to find a better path forward."

~Orrin Hatch

So... put a fork in it.

For now.

It will return in another form under another name some time soon.

That cynically noted, noice jorb, internetz!

Be Well.

Stay strong, brothers and sisters. We must fight back against the evil forces of the entertainment industry and their quest to destroy our freedoms.

We must fight back against the evil forces of the entertainment industry and their quest to destroy our freedoms.

#278 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

I used to be the general of some freedom fighters back when freedom fighters were just getting started.
I skipped a bunch of ranks. I command a bunch of 3x Purple Heart nominees as well.
-GayZat

Also, to revisit a previous argument:

month   /mʌnθ/ Show Spelled[muhnth] Show IPA
noun
1. Also called calendar month. any of the twelve parts, as January or February, into which the calendar year is divided.
2. the time from any day of one calendar month to the corresponding day of the next.
3. a period of four weeks or 30 days.

5 months x 30 days / month = 150 days

22 weeks x 7 days / week = 154 days

154 / 150 = 1.02667

I'd say they're pretty damn close to equal.

"I'd say they're pretty damn close to equal."

But they're not, 5 months is less, and if you put an "s" on the end of a word, that means the word is plural.

Hilarious. Pathetic, but hilarious. You go, GayZat!

"Pathetic, but hilarious."

Ah, but not false. That would be Murphy's statement.

Do you know the difference between true and false, or are you going to have problems with definitions again?

Drop it danforth. You lost that point with your pettiness. Seriously. 5 months is ~ 2 days shy of 22 weeks. I'm amazed you think this is a point worth engaging. You only provide more fodder to those who love to label you as a nitpicking pedant

"Seriously. 5 months is ~ 2 days shy of 22 weeks.'

The salient word in that sentence being shy.

The funniest fact about this is if it were reversed, you pussies would spend all day pointing out how I was wrong.

Bwahahahahahahahaha!

Do you know the difference between true and false, or are you going to have problems with definitions again?

#283 | Posted by Danforth

Of course I know the difference. It's true that you're a thin skinned jagoff with an inferiority complex that makes Zat's look like child's play.
I also know that you're the only fucking zero that would argue that 22 weeks isn't 5 months.

5 months is 22 weeks. True.

I also know it's true that you've taken it on the chin in this thread (and most likely at rehearsal...).

Speaking of definitions, have you looked up how "dedicated" is defined yet, dummy? It would seem somebody in your position would have done so prior to commenting on the thread. In fact, I just saw you hypocritically admonishing another poster for commenting on a thread before knowing what they were talking about...

As usual, you aren't special, ZatForth.

Go for it, danforth. I was only trying to help you save face on this.

But if you doubt my post, count how many people told you that you are off base on this one and how many supported you. I promise you that you lost more in the long run by adding to your pedantic image than you think you won by belaboring this stupid and meaningless point.

Just sayin'

"5 months is 22 weeks. True."

False.

Get out a calendar if you must.

Also, danforth, this "5 months is not 22 weeks" will become to you what car antennaes are to bOoB and calculators are to vernon.

Mark my words

"count how many people told you that you are off base on this on"

Why? If ALL the Republicans on this site say 5 months=22 weeks, does that suddenly make it true?

Again, we both know if I'd been the one making the bogus claim, you pussies would be all over me for my error. Murphy was wrong, and the more you try to pretend NOT 22 = 22, the more pathetic and desperate you look. Also, she claimed caseS, as in more than one, while just proffering less than one. Either way, it was a lie.

How many months is 22 weeks?

Posted: 10/09/2007 by BWillis

answers; pregnancy is ten months (40 weeks), so halfway is 20 weeks, or 5 months...22 weeks would be 5 1/2 months
posted 10/11/2007 by tbell012999

"22 weeks is 5 months and two weeks."
posted 10/14/2007 by jacara1

I am 22 weeks and I am 5 months and 2 weeks

22 weeks is 5months and 23weeks- 26 weeks is 6months, then 27 weeks 30 weeks is 7months and so for on. My Doctor broke it down to me and gave me brochures on my weeks and how the baby is monitored by weeks.

Whatever, danforth . . . . .

You clearly miss the big picture by focusing on this tiny little microscopic detail. If ever the maxim "can't see the forest for the trees" was appropriate, it is now.

I'll bet you have tears in your eyes, cupcake.

You're the only fool that would claim 5 months isn't 22 weeks and actually be serious about it. As usual, Danforth thinks he sets the rules. Everyone but ZatForth needs to round to the nearest decimal. Everyone but GayZat needs to spell out the obvious.

Everyone but GayZat needs to know what they're talking about prior to commenting. He's "dedicated" to such rules, right ParseForth?
Your lack of self awareness is pure entertainment.

"Of course, based on this thread, he will have no concept of how long 3 weeks really is."

Priceless, coming from the guy who argued 20 = 22.

Silly 101 and Goat,
Don't you know Dan was on the ground floor when G-d was planning just how long to allow a fetus to gestate before birth?

22 weeks is 5months and 23weeks- 26 weeks is 6months, then 27 weeks 30 weeks is 7months and so for on. My Doctor broke it down to me and gave me brochures on my weeks and how the baby is monitored by weeks.

Once again Dan, RIF.org will help you. You really need it.

Holy crap, is Hollyforth still blabbering about this 5 months thing?

I guess it's better than trying to explain why Gay Hollywood loves anti-gay bigot Lamar Smith.

Cut me, Mick. -Danforth Balboa

"22 weeks is 5 months"

Not on any calendar.

Here's the great part: you dickheads are wasting your time harping on how wrong I am, yet every one of you knows the math and the calendar prove I'm right. And if I'd made Murphy's claim, you'd be parading how someone who --what was the phrase-- false brags about his knowledge couldn't even multiply and divide, or look at a calendar.

Have at it. I can use the laughs.

"Priceless, coming from the guy who argued 20 = 22."

More priceless is the moron who argued 22 weeks is not 5 months?

Not on any calendar.

HIJACK THIS THREAD DAN! Keep us from talking about SOPA you shill!

Another Danforth post flagged abusive. I hope Rcade takes hijacks as seriously when a Leftie does it as he does when a Righties does.

"Here's the great part: you dickheads are wasting your time harping on how wrong I am, yet every one of you knows the math and the calendar prove I'm right."

Not that dancing dan ever picked up a basketball... But I am sure many others have played pick up, and know there is always one loser who claims he is right and the nine others are wrong.

Maybe they were teaching months and weeks in the 3rd grade he skipped. Came back to haunt the poor bastard today...

I'll bet danforth wails screams of protest when someone calls a generic tissue a "Kleenex" or refers to any gelatin dish by the brand name of "Jello". He probably slapped his grandma around too, for refering to the Victrola -- when the device was clearly made by Motorola

Lessee...

July - 31 days
August - 31 days
September - 30 days
October - 31 days
November 30 days
***
Total - 153 days

22 weeks x 7 days / week = 154 days

154 / 153 = just about 1.

Mathematically speaking, no sane person would fault someone for claiming 22 weeks is 5 months. And get this, the programming that runs calculators is all approximated, too. So when your calculator tells you what a log is, it's actually breaking it down into a polynomial with whatever the company felt was an acceptable margin of error.

In short, saying 5 months = 22 weeks is a similar exercise in approximation to what the calculators that fuel science, engineering, and NASA are doing.

=D

LoD -- who said the months have to be consequtive? Take out September, add December and you have 5 months that equal 22 weeks exactly.

But wait! Month comes from the word moon since a month was once defined how long it takes the moon to orbit the earth. Is it a synodic month (~27.3 days) or a sidereal month (~29.5 days)? And as Kanrei showed, midwives reckon months and weeks differently.

Seriosuly, what kind of thin skinned loser calls somebody a liar over the claim that 5 months is 22 weeks? Can you imagine the type of inferiority complex a gash like that has?

No wonder he can't get work with an Grammy "winners".

Its not just piracy any big company can shut down anyone who quotes something they said. Unlike existing law where you have to go to court they would just request it and the gov would shut you down no trial.

The liberals have now seen they made a big mistake by allowing the internet to be built and they want to control all the content and stop anyone from speaking out.

It has nothing to do with Piracy existing laws already protect them from pirates and they can shut down any real Pirate in the US they want right now.

Its about shutting down people saying bad things about them that they want to shut down.

If this law did pass I think you would see a new open domain system to buypass the controls in a few hrs that the US could not control.

The Bill appears dead. GOOD JOB AMERICA! See, we can stop bad bills. We can make a difference when we put partisan bullshit aside and work together! Let's keep on this path.

Its about shutting down people saying bad things about them [liberals] that they want to shut down. #307 | POSTED BY TMASTER

I don't think a bypass would come about for a while. It is not websites SOPA will shut down, but access to them. If your computer is hooked up to nothing, it really doesn't matter where the content is based out of.

DANFORTH -

I message from the artists you work for:

#310 | POSTED BY KANREI

But the overwhelming amount of file sharing currently taking place won't be damned up by the SOPA. That's what its supporters hope will happen, but you can't damn up a raging river during a hurricane. And that's what you have right now. If they try damning up the flow of file sharing over websites, the rushing river will find better ground to flow through. You're probably right, it wouldn't happen in a matter of hours, but I would say in a matter of weeks - groups like Anonymous will take it upon themselves to "save the flow of freedom", as I am sure that is how they perceive it.

I am not so sure anymore. Yes, Wifi and smart phones will make it harder to "shut down the INTERNET," but China has shown it can be done.

So these sites are pissed off about unrestricted access to thier internet sites and thier solution is to illiminate access all together? These folks are absolutely out of touch.

The reality is that they are getting filthy rich off of facilitating access to someone elses hard work and are trying to protect thier money train by hiding behind freedom of speech.

Nice try jerks.

DANFORTH -

An open letter to Congress from artists whom you work for:

As creative professionals, we experience copyright infringement on a very personal level. Commercial piracy is deeply unfair and pervasive leaks of unreleased films and music regularly interfere with the integrity of our creations. We are grateful for the measures policymakers have enacted to protect our works.

We, along with the rest of society, have benefited immensely from a free and open Internet. It allows us to connect with our fans and reach new audiences. Using social media services like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, we can communicate directly with millions of fans and interact with them in ways that would have been unimaginable just a few years ago.

We fear that the broad new enforcement powers provided under SOPA and PIPA could be easily abused against legitimate services like those upon which we depend. These bills would allow entire websites to be blocked without due process, causing collateral damage to the legitimate users of the same services â€" artists and creators like us who would be censored as a result.

We are deeply concerned that PIPA and SOPA's impact on piracy will be negligible compared to the potential damage that would be caused to legitimate Internet services. Online piracy is harmful and it needs to be addressed, but not at the expense of censoring creativity, stifling innovation or preventing the creation of new, lawful digital distribution methods...

Signed,

Aziz Ansari
Kevin Devine, Musician
Barry Eisler, Author
Neil Gaiman, Author
Lloyd Kaufman, Filmmaker
Zoë Keating, Musician
The Lonely Island
Daniel Lorca, Musician (Nada Surf)
Erin McKeown, Musician
MGMT
Samantha Murphy, Musician
OK Go
Amanda Palmer, Musician (The Dresden Dolls)
Quiet Company
Trent Reznor
Adam Savage, Special Effects Artist (MythBusters)
Hank Shocklee, Music Producer (Public Enemy, The Bomb Squad)
Johnny Stimson, Musician

but China has shown it can be done.
#313 | POSTED BY KANREI

I said here yesterday, the government is great at name bills nobody could ever support things nobody could ever be against. We often have used the joke "I love puppies" bill, but that is pretty right on.

Clean Air Act did not clean the air
No Child Left Behind left them all behind
Patriot Act was totally unpatriotic
Child Online Protection Act did nothing to protect children

And Stop Online Piracy Act is going to be more about stopping an Arab Spring in America than stopping two 14 year olds sharing the new GNR album.

#314 | POSTED BY BOGEY1355

So then you would disagree with scholars at Harvard:

'[This bill is a] blunderbuss rather than a narrowly tailored response, and its stiff penalties would significantly endanger legitimate websites and services. It would undermine the openness and free exchange of information at the heart of the Internet. And it would violate the First Amendment.' -- Larry Tribe, First Amendment scholar at Harvard

#317 | POSTED BY KANREI AT 2012-01-19 03:15 PM | REPLY | FLAG: NEWSWORTHY FLAG

Well said. Considering the numerous bills that cross congressmen's desk, it's no wonder many of them would sign on in support just by reading the title. I bet more people here on the DR actually read the content of these bills than do members of congress. But again, that should be understandable when you consider who much language is in each bill and how many bills they have to review. You start seeing these congressmen dropping their support for bills that they actually end up reading. That is what you are seeing here. With that said, you are completely correct. It's a sad state of affairs, but is there a practical solution to congress' ineptness?

#317 | POSTED BY KANREI

Though I do find it interesting you named GNR as the 14 year olds' choice for music....you're dating yourself, man :)

The most uninformed person on the DR is probably more informed than the average American. For example, we have been talking about NDAA and SOPA here for a while, but it just became national news last night. Just by being here, even if they are only trolling, they pick things up.

Though I do find it interesting you named GNR as the 14 year olds' choice for music....you're dating yourself, man :)

#320 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2012-01-19 03:23 PM

LOL...I said "album" too.

but China has shown it can be done.

I dunno about here, though. I won't be so bold as to say it can't happen, but our networks are infinitely more advanced and prolific. Also, our hackers (legal and illegal) can do stuff that is just short of magic with the 'tubes. Indeed, it would probably be the underground hackers that rescue and keep the internet alive if "they" ever decided to quell it.

Take away the streaming data and graphics and left with mostly text, I think the internet will always survive.

"They" might be able slow the internet, but to shut it down completely? I'm not fully convinced.

Indeed, it would probably be the underground hackers that rescue and keep the internet alive if "they" ever decided to quell it.
#323 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

Alright! I'm on the same page as GOATMAN. Cheers!