Australian Website Bans ... Australians

Nazlfrag writes "Earlier this month the blog and discussion forum ZGeek was sued for $42 million AUD over a user's comment. The plaintiffs are aspiring movie producers who claim to have lost a movie deal due to a 9/11 conspiracy discussion thread. Even though the initial lawsuit has been thrown out, and the company complied with lawyers' demands by taking down the offending posts, it is believed the plaintiffs will file suit again. In addition to suing the forum, in an Australian first they have been granted an injunction to force the ISPs to disclose the IP addresses of the two posters involved. Due to the risk of incurring even greater legal costs the company is closing its doors in Australia, and will ban their fellow countrymen from posting there again."

Comments

Poor Aussies

[Gravedigger3]

Why does everyone keep treating them like a bunch of criminals?

Re:Poor Aussies

[houstonbofh]

Why does everyone keep treating them like a bunch of criminals?

The sad part is that it seems that only Aussies treat Aussies like a bunch of criminals. Yes, I get the joke, but considering the great firewall and more, it just seems less funny.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Derkec]

They're used to it, because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them

Re:Poor Aussies

[DoofusOfDeath]

Why does everyone keep treating them like a bunch of criminals?

Oh come on... we can't be dicks to a penile colony?

Re:Poor Aussies

[girlintraining]

Why does everyone keep treating them like a bunch of criminals?

Because the purpose of every country's legislative branch is to add laws, not remove them. The judiciary's job is to review laws, not remove them. And the executive branch's job is to suggest, review, and approve laws, not remove them. Therefore, the older the country, the more laws. And it doesn't take long before all the major ones required have been added, so there is an inevitable climb toward the bottom, to regulate even the smallest matters, until everyone is a criminal, though they may not know or consider themselves as such, in some fashion.

Consider this: The Ten Commandments contain 297 words, the Bill of Rights 463 words, and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address 266 words. A recent federal directive regulating the price of cabbage contains 26,911 words.

Re:Poor Aussies

[eleuthero]

Why are we regulating cabbage? Are they requiring the price to be low to combat anti-competition tactics in cabbage syndicates? This is amazing. It would be decidedly less amazing if our national dish included cabbage like a number of eastern European countries, but ... I don't know anyone who actually eats it on a regular basis apart from a monthly (maybe) trip to KFC for some. This will likely get marked flamebait, but I am actually curious as to the need for regulation here. Is it related to potatoes / corn syrup / sugar?

Re:Poor Aussies

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

A recent federal directive regulating the price of cabbage contains 26,911 words.

Which would be notable, if that was the only thing it was regulating.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Kozz]

Consider this: The Ten Commandments contain 297 words, the Bill of Rights 463 words, and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address 266 words. A recent federal directive regulating the price of cabbage contains 26,911 words.

I'm shocked nobody has called bullshit on this one yet. Damn, dude. Check snopes.
http://www.snopes.com/language/document/cabbage.asp

Unless of course you also read this on snopes and decided it was a good time to perpetrate an urban legend. *shrugs*

Re:Poor Aussies

[girlintraining]

Why are we regulating cabbage? Are they requiring the price to be low to combat anti-competition tactics in cabbage syndicates?

The government has regulated the cost of food for a long time for many reasons...

1. The free market cannot be trusted to maintain price stability. If there was a sudden drop or rise in the price of food, then people might not be able to afford it, or in the reverse, that farmers would go bankrupt and supply would diminish. When it comes to basic needs things like food, electricity, water, stability often sought after.

2. There is no cabbage cabal, only Zuul.

3. Incorporating a price floor prevents large corporations from winning based on economy of scale -- they cannot undersell smaller operations, thus existing infrastructure (land, mainly) will never be repurposed at a lower cost. But it "protects rural america" doing this.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true - see David Hicks (probably is one, doesn't excuse his treatment), Schappelle Corby (probably is one), Stern Hu (maybe is one, currently languishing in a Chinese jail for espionage), the beer mat lady (definitely is one)...and that doesn't include the longish list of Australian drug mules executed by Singapore/Thailand.

Then there's that hacking mob that ran out of RMIT in the early 80s...the list is long

Re:Poor Aussies

[AndrewNeo]

Who the heck moderated this interesting? It's supposed to be funny!

Re:Poor Aussies

[Bobb9000]

There's some validity to your point, though I think you're overstating things. Larger populations with more communication and more encompassing economies require more regulation. However, instead of engaging you further on this interesting political question, I would merely like to point out that the thing about cabbage regulation is a long-time rhetorical legend with no basis in fact. Please take more care about repeating stories without checking them.

See Snopes for more info.

Re:Poor Aussies

[DoofusOfDeath]

Who the heck moderated this interesting? It's supposed to be funny!

Actually, I was shooting for "-1 Overrated". Apparently I missed.

Re:Poor Aussies

[girlintraining]

I'm shocked nobody has called bullshit on this one yet. Damn, dude. Check snopes.

First, Not. A. Dude. I'm a dyke, get it right. Second -- who gives a damn whether it's an urban legend or not, the point still stands. And if you want to drive the point home differently, we have entire libraries dedicated to containing our code of laws. Judicial rulings also form part of that code, and even a law professor will tell you the answer to any legal question these days is a definitive "maybe."

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably the latter, but there is a lot to be said about the proliferation of laws and the fact that we (U.S.) keep electing lawyers. Kind of goes hand in hand.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Werkhaus]

A recent federal directive regulating the price of cabbage contains 26,911 words.

Ah, yes. Also known as "Cole's Law".

Re:Poor Aussies

[kzieli]

Most of the ten commandments are not enforceable by law though. Murder the theft are crimes. Bearing false witness is only a crime in some circumstances. More to the point it is against the law to enforce some of them, seeing as most western countries have some provisions for freedom of religion).

Laws do get removed and replaced over time. What tends to happen is that breaches of some particular law first start getting minimal sentences. Then cases invoking it start getting dismissed the public prosecutor stops bringing the charges forward.

After a while no one remembers the law and no one heeds it. Eventually someone will notice and it will get repealed. These days there are openly practicing Wiccans in most western countries. Go back far enough and you will find laws prohibiting the practice of witchcraft. It was once a crime but is no longer viewed as a crime.

Re:Poor Aussies

[jamesswift]

Snopes says... http://www.snopes.com/language/document/cabbage.asp

Re:Poor Aussies

[FatdogHaiku]

A recent federal directive regulating the price of cabbage contains 26,911 words.

Please, oh PLEASE tell me they called it "Cole's Law".

Sorry, I'll go be quite now...

Re:Poor Aussies

[sumdumass]

1. The free market cannot be trusted to maintain price stability. If there was a sudden drop or rise in the price of food, then people might not be able to afford it, or in the reverse, that farmers would go bankrupt and supply would diminish. When it comes to basic needs things like food, electricity, water, stability often sought after.

You would be surprised at how unobvious that is to so many people. I recently spent the better part of 5 or 6 posts talking to a guy over subsidies and their intent while all along he couldn't distinguish between protecting a food source (starvation) compared to protecting manufacturing jobs and so on.

Don't be surprised.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Wingman 5]

First, Not. A. Dude.

From the American Heritage Dictionary
3 Slang.
      2. dudes Persons of either sex.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

You could at least have the decency to shout "whooosh" as you sail over everyone's head.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting if it were true!

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

a penile colony? well hey at least you can't complain when they all act like dicks (...or cocks!!)

Re:Poor Aussies

[Dayze!Confused]

Dude, lighten up a bit. Dude is a generic term and a filler word. This is a tech forum, let's not bring sexual (mis)identity into this.

The Ten Commandments contain 297 words, the Bill of Rights 463 words, and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address 266 words.

By removing your urban legend portion your point is now lost. Unless, of course, we also remove the Gettysburg address since it isn't actually law of any sort, then we see a pattern forming; although you can't really make a good pattern based off of two occurrences.

This is all assuming that your "point" was that laws are using up more and more words, which wasn't very clearly stated at all; or possibly that laws are getting more and more specific. Which still, you gave four documents which range widely in purpose and use.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, It can be traced to Australia's history as a penal colony. Australia has stupidly strict and arbitrarily applied libel and slander laws, inherited from Britain.

Australia stated life with a powerful ruling class (those in charge of the colony and soldiers) and an underclass (the prisoners and lower ranked soldiers). The the libel/slander laws evolved into a weapon for the powerful to keep the powerless in check. Unsatisfied with the status quo? Don't complain against your oppressor or you will be sued for "damaging" their reputation. This situation still exists, whereby the only people who can afford to "protect their reputation" (in reality silence their critics) are the wealthy.

The truly obscene thing is that companies count as "people", so companies (such as Gunns) sue individuals who opposes their exploitative, and even illegal, practises, under the guise of "protecting their reputation".

Re:Poor Aussies

[MaskedSlacker]

Well by your logic, Americans have the most criminal society on the planet, what with having more than China. Somebody should just lock everyone in that country up and be done with it.

/sarcasm -- Because I know the mods would have missed it.

Re:Poor Aussies

[MaskedSlacker]

Personally I prefer +5 Troll.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

First, Not. A. Dude. I'm a dyke, get it right.

You put too much emphasis on your gender and sexual orientation.

From your user profile:
"A geek like you, but who doesn't get the respect you do because I wear a skirt and you wear pants."

It seems that you have self-steem issues you need to sort out.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Landshark17]

Don't be so quick to trust snopes... http://xkcd.com/250/

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

A recent federal directive regulating the price of cabbage contains 26,911 words.

This can't be false, just look how accurate the word count is.

Re:Poor Aussies

[tpgp]

The government has regulated the cost of food for a long time for many reasons...

Hey dude, as someone else has pointed out in this thread, your tale of cabbage regulation is an urban myth

Do you have anything to back up anything you're saying - or are you just trolling?

Re:Poor Aussies

[lena_10326]

How cute.. you conveniently left out the other male oriented usages knowing fully they were more commonly used, lower numbered, and more numerous.

American Heritage

dude n.

1. Informal. An Easterner or city person who vacations on a ranch in the West.

2. Informal. A man who is very fancy or sharp in dress and demeanor.

3. Slang. 1. A man; a fellow. 2. dudes Persons of either sex.

Oh yes.. don't forget Random House. Listed before the American Heritage passage.

Random House.

dude -noun

1. a man excessively concerned with his clothes, grooming, and manners.

2. Slang. fellow; chap.

3. a person reared in a large city.

4. Western U.S. an urban Easterner who vacations on a ranch.

And then there's the etymology.

dude

1883, "fastidious man," New York City slang of unknown origin. The vogue word of 1883, originally used in ref. to the devotees of the "aesthetic" craze, later applied to city slickers, especially Easterners vacationing in the West (dude ranch first recorded 1921). Surfer slang application to any male is first recorded c.1970. Female form dudine (1883) has precedence over dudess (1885).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dude

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

First, Not. A. Dude. I'm a dyke, get it right.

How the hell is that dude supposed to know what your proclivities are? Low blow.

Second -- who gives a damn whether it's an urban legend or not, the point still stands. And if you want to drive the point home differently, we have entire libraries dedicated to containing our code of laws. Judicial rulings also form part of that code, and even a law professor will tell you the answer to any legal question these days is a definitive "maybe."

Your point does NOT stand, primarily because one leg is an urban legend and the other (Gettysburg Address) is a speech, not a piece of legislation.

You want to know who had one of the deepest bureaucracies with the most convoluted laws man has ever seen? The Chinese. 800 years ago.

Re:Poor Aussies

[fractoid]

How on earth is this redundant? They *clearly* cannot take the whine in front of ZGeek!

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely you can't be under the impression that anything you've just typed out contradicts what Wingman stated?

"How cute" - really? You might want to save the oh-so-arch comments for when you've actually made some sort of point.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The sad part is that it seems that only Aussies treat Aussies like a bunch of criminals.

That's because they forgot to kick out the guards.

Re:Poor Aussies

[twostix]

That's an extremely starry eyed and naive idea of much primary production regulation.

The alternative and reality in most cases is that huge corporate interests, often the supermarkets and generally large agricultral management corps want to apply pressure on smaller and independant farmers. Large supermarkets don't like having to deal with small farmers and in many cases are in direct competition with smaller farms through their own holdings in large agricultural management firms. And obviously large agri-holdings have many reasons to want to shove the small old school independents out of business.

But you keep believing the government is acting primarily in the interests of the handful of small 100 - 2000 acre unorganized independent farmers remaining in the west rather than the large billion dollar agri-corps and supermarkets that give politicians hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign funds each year.

Re:Poor Aussies

[MillionthMonkey]

If we could afford to completely imprison our entire public, we would do it, sure. But now with this recession it's only a dream.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The free market cannot be trusted to maintain employment stability. If there was a sudden drop or rise in the employment, then people might not be able to afford food or shelter, or in the reverse, the employers would go bankrupt and supply would diminish.

What's the difference between not having cheap enough food and not having enough money to buy food?

Re:Poor Aussies

[MrNaz]

I think you just came up with a great idea on how to spend stimulus money!

Re:Poor Aussies

[Bigjeff5]

Lobbyists, duh.

Does the GP ACTUALLY think that the massive and powerfull aggricultural lobbies exist to keep corporations from "winning"? Large "family" farms (usually a corporate operation privately owned at that size), very large family farms, and non-family farms (8 percent of all farms) account for 68% of production in the US. Who do you think is benefiting most from a price floor? Cut prices by 3/4 and eliminate the competition or make twice as much with a price floor. Hmmm... USDA stats on the matter are here.

Not too many high paid lobbyists schmoozing politicians for the guy who works but can't afford a decent meal. The fact that the corporations can make more money ripping off their customers via the US government than they can by killing off small family farms is just a happy side effect for the little guys.

The food price stability argument is bullshit. If the government were really concerned about food shortages in times of crisis they would set up emergency food supply stores across the country. You would only need to store things like grains, which last for a very long time and provide enough nutrition to live on until the crisis has passed. This would cost the US citizen significantly less per year than the farm subsidies do.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool story bro.

Re:Poor Aussies

[atmurray]

The beer mat lady? Her friends later admitted to putting the beer mat in her bag as a joke without her realising, but they still locked her up. An interesting thing that all your quality examples have in common is that western style judicial process wasn't really followed in any of the cases, their trials were all a farce. I guess that says something about most of the world.

Re:Poor Aussies

[sumdumass]

The difference is that there is plenty of sources of food outside your employment. Government aid is one of them, private charities are another while friends and family should not be forgotten.

If you lose your job, there will be something you can eat in order to stay alive. Homeless people with absolutely no jobs at all are able to live. It happens all the time.

Re:Poor Aussies

[sumdumass]

The food price stability argument is bullshit. If the government were really concerned about food shortages in times of crisis they would set up emergency food supply stores across the country. You would only need to store things like grains, which last for a very long time and provide enough nutrition to live on until the crisis has passed. This would cost the US citizen significantly less per year than the farm subsidies do.

Lol... You must be a special kind of ignorant. This is already done and has been since the mid 1930's. That's what most of the subsidies do. OF course instead of letting the grain rot, we give it away as foreign aid when we rotate it out. But then again, if all the farms went under, we couldn't even do that now could we? Maybe you should look at the USDA site a little better. Pay particular attention to the Commodity Credit Corporation. And don't be thrown off by the words Corporation in there.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention our lack of an R18+ rating for videogames/online content (resulting with a ban for anything rated higher than MA15+).

I'm getting sick of living here.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Tubal-Cain]

Maybe she assumes we read the usernames of the people we respond to.
Which actually happens about as often as I read the articles.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Carewolf]

What's the difference between not having cheap enough food and not having enough money to buy food?

Why isn't that obvious to you?

If you don't have enough jobs you can still pay the unemployed unemployment benefits, but if your country doesn't have enough food, even with full employment someone is going to starve.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider this: The Ten Commandments contain 297 words, the Bill of Rights 463 words, and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address 266 words. A recent federal directive regulating the price of cabbage contains 26,911 words.

I see this as a plus point, if they could regulate cabbage in 269 words they could pass 100 times as many laws.

Re:Poor Aussies

[R2.0]

"After a while no one remembers the law and no one heeds it. Eventually someone will notice and it will get repealed. These days there are openly practicing Wiccans in most western countries. Go back far enough and you will find laws prohibiting the practice of witchcraft. It was once a crime but is no longer viewed as a crime."

That's because Wicca:Religion::Kwanza:Seasonal Holiday. Nobody really takes it seriously, but recognizing it makes a minority happy.

(I'll take my +5 Flamebait now, thank you.)

Re:Poor Aussies

[highways]

Why does everyone keep treating them like a bunch of criminals?

We were all criminals about 200 years ago. The authorities think nothing has changed.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

These days there are openly practicing Wiccans in most western countries. Go back far enough and you will find laws prohibiting the practice of witchcraft. It was once a crime but is no longer viewed as a crime.

This is because Wicca was invented by a former civil-servant in the 1950s. Other than the appropriation of some terminology, it bears very little resemblance to the sort of witchcraft described in the Malleus Maleficarum.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

stupid new moderation system. I rolled my finger on the scroll wheel to scroll the page. Didn't realize the focus was on your post. You got modded +1 informative. Posting to lose the mod.

Re:Poor Aussies

[juancnuno]

Consider this: The Ten Commandments contain 297 words, the Bill of Rights 463 words, and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address 266 words. A recent federal directive regulating the price of cabbage contains 26,911 words.

Not true:

http://snopes.com/language/document/cabbage.asp

Re:Poor Aussies

[u38cg]

Do, please, name one well governed country with stable property rights, a functioning financial systems, and access to world markets, that has ever suffered a famine.

Re:Poor Aussies

[MindlessAutomata]

If prices rises, farmers will likely try to increase their yields leading to eventually lower prices, or more farms will open. If the price falls, then that would almost certainly be due to supply. You say that farmers would go bankrupt and supply would diminish if prices fell too much, but you fail to ask why prices would fall--it would almost certainly be due to an overproduction of any particular foodstuff to begin with, so farms going out of businesses would be a corrective measure. The reason small farms are subsidized is because some people find that way of life fanciful and want to protect it, and for political capital first and foremost. Price controls and farm subisides are political largesse, period.

Anyway, there is no free market, and never has been, and you both are portraying extremely unlikely and overly paranoid scenarios that are not applicable in today's economy to apologize for populist political measures. And not to mention that Americans eat too much to begin with...!

Re:Poor Aussies

[MindlessAutomata]

Farms would certainly go under, but this would be a corrective measure. Populist farm measures were implemented to keep farmers in business, not to prevent starvation--there are too many chefs in the pot already, and instead of letting the market correct itself (who wants poor ol' farmers to have to feel the pinch?) it's more politically expedient to prop up the excess farms and get votes.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Lloyd_Bryant]

Consider this: The Ten Commandments contain 297 words, the Bill of Rights 463 words, and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address 266 words. A recent federal directive regulating the price of cabbage contains 26,911 words.

I'm shocked nobody has called bullshit on this one yet. Damn, dude. Check snopes.
http://www.snopes.com/language/document/cabbage.asp

Unless of course you also read this on snopes and decided it was a good time to perpetrate an urban legend. *shrugs*

What's truly silly about this urban legend is that there are plenty of *real* examples of excessively long government documents. Google for "military brownie specification" for an example ("wc" tells me it's only 9660 words, but I'm sure there are some others that can equal or exceed the 26,911 number).

Re:Poor Aussies

[rtb61]

In this case it represents the difference in slander laws. You can be sued for slander if you make a statement of fact about someone that you cannot prove to be factual in a court of law, rather than only having to demonstrate that you believed that fact to be true. The simple solution is to couch statements as opinions rather than as facts or where you manage a forum ensure that all users are informed that 'all' postings regardless of content are the 'opinions' of the poster and should not be construed as statements of fact, include an agreement to this in the sign up that no one reads.

So opinion is not suppressed only false statements of facts. Would it be better if they took on similar laws in the US, probably, especially when politicians, lawyers, PR executives, lobbyists, corporate executives purposefully lie to you and when you go to the trouble to prove that lie false, without any shame, conscience or, remorse they look you straight in the eye and repeat the exact same lie again and again and again, even when those lies are personal attacks and attacks against organisations, hiding behind the deceit that they believed them to be true at the time.

Re:Poor Aussies

[evan_arrrr!]

Whoosh.

Re:Poor Aussies

[YourExperiment]

Ah, yes. Also known as "Cole's Law".

That bill should have been shredded.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

And how many arguments are caused by different interpretations of the bill of rights? Even 1 or 2 of the ten commandments has had people trying to in vain to pin down the exact meaning (coveting a neighbours ass is bad, but no mention of coveting anything else? his wfie would be ok to covet?)

IF we hadn't invented weasel lawyers that twist the laws to their own devices, then maybe we wouldn't need 25k word directives on the sale of cabbage. But we did, and we do - otherwise our distant future descendants will be going to war over whether cabbage should be 23c or 28c.

Re:Poor Aussies

[L4t3r4lu5]

They didn't have Lawyers when the 10 Commandments were written.

Re:Poor Aussies

[ted.hansson]

Because the purpose of every country's legislative branch is to add laws, not remove them.

Actually, this is a flaw exclusive to the common law system. In systems with civil law, it is fairly common to have the legislative body remove old laws that no longer serve a purpose or have been replaced by modernised versions.

It is also a plus that civil law can be applied in the smallest matters without thereby adding new laws through precedent, though I'm sure it makes cabbage feel more important. :)

Re:Poor Aussies

[digitig]

If we could afford to completely imprison our entire public, we would do it, sure. But now with this recession it's only a dream.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought +5 Troll was saved for the Mac vs PC debate

Re:Poor Aussies

[Haxzaw]

I applaud you sir (or ma'am). I believe you hit the nail squarely on the head. Always follow the money.

Re:Poor Aussies

[TheLink]

There are also strategic "national security" reasons. For instance if there's a big war, you would want to still be able to produce your own food.

If you have lots of land and do away with your farms, you can't just restart them up instantly.

FWIW, the USA does protect military manufacturing jobs ;).

If you're a small city state with no land for farms, just don't start any wars, and hope nobody bothers to take over your itsy bitsy country ;).

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

Sugar price floor anyone? (link to PDF: here)

Re:Poor Aussies

[TheLink]

Yeah, and some of us just bother about the content/post and not the messenger, much less their gender or sexual orientation (or whether they're a Slashdot "Friend" or "Foe").

If the content is incorrect, then some correction is fine or even a rebuke if it appears to be very sloppy work.
If it is flameworthy then flame away ;).
If it is good but scored poorly, then it gets a "Mod Parent Up!".

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

For some great implementation ideas for this see the DWs document at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwQsTzGkbiY

Re:Poor Aussies

[TheLink]

Maybe she doesn't get the respect others do because when she's wrong she doesn't admit it (or realize it even when people attempt to correct her).

Heck if she's actually right she should link to the relevant cabbage regulations, then we can learn something...

FWIW snopes did link to a pdf about US cabbage standards which is about 3 pages and has a fair number of words.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider this: The Ten Commandments contain 297 words, the Bill of Rights 463 words, and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address 266 words. A recent federal directive regulating the price of cabbage contains 26,911 words.

For a little diversion, consider ALR (The 1794 Prussian general law of the land). About 19000 regulations. A lot more than OVER NINE THOUSAND regulations or words.

Re:Poor Aussies

[plague3106]

Second -- who gives a damn whether it's an urban legend or not, the point still stands.

Um, not really. The point was that a single law about something exteremly specific was an absurd number of words. That's not the case.

And if you want to drive the point home differently, we have entire libraries dedicated to containing our code of laws.

That points to the number of laws.. oh and laws which negate earlier laws, or amend them, often restating the orginal law. Yes, its complex, but that's what happens because if you're not precise, something slips though a technicality. Personally, I don't mind that when dealing with things like workers safety, as too commonly they are the ones getting away with endangering their employees to save a buck.

Judicial rulings also form part of that code, and even a law professor will tell you the answer to any legal question these days is a definitive "maybe."

Case law is not law though. The fact that it can (and should) be ignored if appropriate is why the answer is maybe. The reality is that pretty much each situtation is unique, and so we can't be sure of anything until its done

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

Be that as it may ... the people in question must be suing for a pittance, because no one in their right mi nd invests in an Australian movie.

How much does he want you to invest in his movie?

Tell him he's dreamin'!

Re:Poor Aussies

[mcgrew]

I'm normally for heavy regulation of corporations so long as it is GOOD regulation; corporations NEVER have the public welfare or public good in mind. People say the electricity problems in California were from overragulation, but rather than overragulation they stemmed from BAD regulation.

In the US, there is a lot of BAD regulation regarding farming. Small family farms are dying, big megacorporation food factories are taking over. And the food sucks. I'm glad I have a back yard I can grow a garden in, too bad the city won't let me keep livestock.

Have you ever driven past a mega hog factory? They're environmental nightmares.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah. Is that the "American Dream" I keep hearing about?

Re:Poor Aussies

[david_thornley]

According to snopes.com, nobody has found that directive, and that claim has circulated for several different documents, none of which are identifiable, always just below 27,000 words.

Re:Poor Aussies

[BoothbyTCD]

Consider this: The Ten Commandments contain 297 words, the Bill of Rights 463 words, and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address 266 words. A recent federal directive regulating the price of cabbage contains 26,911 words.

Nice try but that is a very old troll indeed.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Rich0]

Uh, wasn't that the whole reason Austrailia was settled in the first place (ignoring the aboriginals)? Getting back to our roots, are we?

Re:Poor Aussies

[mcgrew]

But the fact is, as the GP pointed out, you don't have to be male to be called "dude". It was obvious that he wasn't calling girlintraining a city slicker or a fancy dresser. From the context it was obvious the meaning was "fellow". Kennedy would say "My fellow Americans", Obama would more likely use the more contemporary "Dudes". Kennedy wasn't just referring to men whan he spole to his "fellow Americans".

Re:Poor Aussies

[geekoid]

"Who do you think is benefiting most from a price floor? C"

The citizens.

Food is cheap in the US, and historically speaking corporate farms are more efficient, safer, and reliable then small farms.

Why do you think the corporate modal is used? Because it's efficient, generally speak, that is.
Not as efficient as most government bureaus, but still a lot more efficient then the family farm.

Yes, most government bureaus and projects are far less wasteful then the corporate counter parts. Take a look at the books some time, they should be available at your library.

Re:Poor Aussies

[geekoid]

Have you even looked at countries that do that? I'll stick with consistent, safe and reliable foods, thank you very much.

Re:Poor Aussies

[CrimsonAvenger]

Americans have the most criminal society on the planet, what with having more than China. Somebody should just lock everyone in that country up and be done with it.

We have more than China because China is more willing to just shoot them rather than locking them up....

Re:Poor Aussies

[geekoid]

Your scenerio would need infinite arable land.

Price fall for a variety of reasons. Farms aree NOT a corrective measure the way youi think of them. You can't stop and start a farm business, yit needs constent work. When you happen to ahve a poor yield, you need to work it so it's ready for the next year. If we let just the amrket drive it, we wil have a low yield years, farmers will go out of business, and then the next year we wont have enough.

  A bad year, or decade even, can be caused by forces other then market forces. too little water, too much water,a freeze, insects, and disease can kill a yield even when demand is high.

You do realize we are talking about food here, right? People die without it?

maybe you should take a look of what farming and food markets are actually like before yapping off?

Re:Poor Aussies

[mcgrew]

Most of the ten commandments are not enforceable by law though

They were in the time and country they were written in. You could be stoned to death for blasphemy, for example.

Bearing false witness is only a crime in some circumstances

Bearing false witness against your neighbor is slander, a civil offense. Do it in court and you'll go to jail. A better example would have been adultery, which in Illinois bears no penalty whatever as I found when I divorced my adulterous ex-wife.

Why is it legal to fuck your congressman's wife but not to pay her for it?

Re:Poor Aussies

[geekoid]

"And obviously large agri-holdings have many reasons to want to shove the small old school independents out of business."

Yes, they want o end a bunch of people who hardly compete with them.

Government is acting on the behalf of it's citizens, that's why there is a floor.

Political realities being what they are, politician generally do not want to move against small farms because it will be used against them and they won't get re-elected. At which point they get jack from anybody.

If they dodn't we would ahve nothing but corporate farms. This, BTW, would be a good thing.

Re:Poor Aussies

[geekoid]

No he didn't, he just spouted of irrational nonsense you happen to agree with.

When you think about it, it actually makes no sense. Like almost every piece of anti-corporate and anti-government post on this site.

Re:Poor Aussies

[geekoid]

That explains why some of the commandments are bout stupid shit like thought control and 'respect'.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Hognoxious]

The thing is, any of those three prerequistes could disappear pretty darn quick.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if GP read her username, how would GP know her sexual orientation? Like I said, low blow.

Like another AC said, girlintraining places too much emphasis on her gender identity and sexual orientation. Somewhat understandable considering her self identified gender confusion but it could have passed without it becoming an issue.

Look at this shit. Half this subthread's up/down mods and shit regarding girlintraining's sexual orientation/identity. Which has nothing to do with the whole cabbage thing, which has nothing to do with the original topic.

Re:Poor Aussies

[story645]

A geek like you, but who doesn't get the respect you do because I wear a skirt and you wear pants.

As much as I agree that she's totally over-reacting about the whole dude thing (I use it to refer to everyone and anyone within a ten mile radius), sexism in the sciences/engineering/tech world is incredibly well documented.

It seems that you have self-esteem issues you need to sort out.

You may be right in a totally unintended way. A friend once said the key to getting respect in the tech field is answering a question sounding like your %100 sure it's the right answer, and the more traditionally feminine diplomatic communication style usually lacks that assertiveness.

Re:Poor Aussies

[story645]

Your point does NOT stand, primarily because one leg is an urban legend and the other (Gettysburg Address) is a speech, not a piece of legislation.

Even the other two are sketchy 'cause while the initial documents are short, they don't mean much of anything without all the clarifications, explanations, technicalities, and details codified in the old testament and tons of legal codes and cases.

Re:Poor Aussies

[story645]

(coveting a neighbours ass is bad, but no mention of coveting anything else? his wfie would be ok to covet?)

Her and slaves and all his stuff are part of the 10th commandment, and she's folded into the one on adultery. (At least the Hebrew version, but then again they're sort of subject headings for all the laws covered in the Old Testament/Talmud/commentaries/etc., so I agree with your main point.)

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a dude huh?

on my internets?

Tits plz.

Re:Poor Aussies

[PRMan]

We really need (-1, Whoosh)...

Re:Poor Aussies

[orngjce223]

You need to do that non-anonymously, btw :P

Re:Poor Aussies

[HiThere]

Actually, it makes a lot of sense. I don't know whether it's true or not, but it makes a lot of sense.

OTOH, I *HAVEN'T* followed the money. I can see where it's likely to have gone, but I haven't traced it personally, and neither has anybody I've ever talked to. If you have a plausible reason why one shouldn't accept the "most plausible" scenario as to how the money is flowing, I would be interested in hearing it.

(Do note that as nobody else has proven how the money flows, I'm not requiring it of you. What I'm asking for is what others have offered: a plausible scenario WRT how the money is flowing and why.)

Re:Poor Aussies

[HiThere]

And *I* would assert that any system that has more words in the law than any person could plausibly read in their lifetime, and also has a rule saying "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is guaranteed to be corrupt and unfair.

This particular law is possibly an urban legend (I don't totally trust Snopes...I think I've caught them in mistakes before now). This class of law is definitely NOT merely an urban legend. Neither is the $10,000 monkey wrench. (I may have the exact figure wrong. The company didn't want to fill out the paper work for a single monkey wrench, so they tried to get underbid. They failed. But the budgetary process didn't allow paying for a guy going to a hardware store to get a monkey wrench, and nobody wanted to pay for it out of their own pocket. Stupidly enough, when the story hit the news the blame landed on the company, not on the paperwork required.)

Re:Poor Aussies

[u38cg]

Yes, but their dissapearance would prbably involve some sort of event that had a major impact on access to food markets anyway, so the point is rather moot. Look at what Kirchner has done to the Argentine farming community. Argentina might not be in famine or anywhere near it, but they pay more for their food than they should. If she pursues her current policies, it will get worse.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Bobb9000]

I don't dispute that the government is perhaps larger than it should be, and that there's a lot of waste. However, I'd like people to use real facts in their arguments, not good-sounding stories they have no actual evidence for.

Speaking of which, I don't know what you're talking about with the $10,000 monkey wrench. The closest thing I could find was the $400 hammer, which as it turns out didn't actually cost $400.

Now, I didn't spend very long checking your facts, and maybe I missed something, and there really was such a monkey wrench, or the hammer really did cost $400. I apparently spent more time checking your facts than you did, though. We're supposed to be nerds here, and nerds care about facts, not half-remembered anecdotes. If you're going to assert something, please back it up.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Hognoxious]

If your blame-the-poms claim that you inherited Britain's libel laws is true, you also inherited the defence of fair comment. Which as you probably don't know means if what you say is true, you're in the clear.

Re:Poor Aussies

[lena_10326]

Btw.. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fellow. #1 usage is masculine. You're saying I'm not considering the context. Bull. You are not considering context. All the other definitions do not match the context. Really now, do you believe a dude ranch vacationer applied there in the GP? A person reared in the city? Come on. If you did, you are a superficial thinker. You're also ignoring the dominant slang usage, which is masculine. Lastly, only a zombie with the reasoning skills comparable to a syntax parser would ignore common sense and conclude "dude" was gender neutral in the GP's usage.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Schadrach]

Just another victim of the manocentric maleocracy?

Re:Poor Aussies

[Schadrach]

Ah, the Witches' Hammer. great work, everyone should read a translation of it. No, I'm being serious. It's an interesting read, and gives insight into the view of the time, from persons who were educated on the topic at the time.

Re:Poor Aussies

[MindlessAutomata]

Your argument is assuming the preferability of the small-farm farming model, which may not be the most efficient method of farming, particularly today.

If you would see the history of populistic legislation on farm subsidies you will see that its main goal was to prop up small farms even if doing so was not economically viable.

Re:Poor Aussies

[sumdumass]

I'm normally for heavy regulation of corporations so long as it is GOOD regulation; corporations NEVER have the public welfare or public good in mind.

First off, you need to change never to rarely or often. Any good ran corporation knows that if it's product sucks, it's competitor will take them over. Any good corporation knows that if it's product is too expensive, their competitors will take them over because people will either look for the value or the cheapest. GM is proof of this, so is walmart compared to other retailers.

Second, I don't necessarily disagree with your statement over the regulation except that I think it should be as minimal as possible and the regulation needs to be as effective as possible as well as enforced. All regulation raises the bar for entry and the ability for smaller operations to remain in business. This is probably why you have your attitude towards corporations, if there isn't sufficient competition, and the likelihood of the competition arriving seems low, then there is no incentive to worry about who if purchasing your products and services.

People say the electricity problems in California were from overragulation, but rather than overragulation they stemmed from BAD regulation.

I agree. But wrong or bad regulation is almost the same as over regulation so we are somewhat splitting hairs.

In the US, there is a lot of BAD regulation regarding farming. Small family farms are dying, big megacorporation food factories are taking over. And the food sucks. I'm glad I have a back yard I can grow a garden in, too bad the city won't let me keep livestock.

This isn't as bad as you might think. Something like 92% of farms in America are considered small farms (making less then $250,000 in annual sales) and this accounts for about 67% of the land currently being farmed. Now don't get confused when small farms are incorporated- That's just a way to insure losses don't crop over to other income.

As for the garden, I have one too, I also do farm and raise cattle. Here is a secrete that might help you with your livestock problem though. Farm land currently rents in my area for around 50-80 dollars per acre per year. All you need is someone with some pasture land who isn't using it, find a couple of friends to go in with you and rent 5-10 acres of scrub land with a water source. With that, you can place some Dexter cattle on it (2 times as many normal cattle), put up a couple of those canvas lean to's or pop-up garages for the shelter, depending on the amount of cattle, feed round bales once a day or every other day (you shouldn't go much longer the 2 days without looking at all your live stock on a small farm and Dexters will eat about 1/3 as much as a full grown cow). You can also use a small 150'x25' section to put a couple of hogs in, and make a chicken coop out of bamboo and chicken wire so you can easily pick it up and move it around.

For the chickens, I don't know how much feed they will need but the pigs will need about 9-10 bushel of corn and half a bushel of soybean (in the first 75 lbs of growth and both cracked) per pig if that gives you an idea of how much they need if you want to get more land and attempt to grow your own feed. An acre, depending on if you use fertilizers and pesticides and all should give between 100-200 bushels of corn. Scrub land will probably be less unless you can make a shit load of compost to put on it before drilling the crop. One ton of soil will cover an acre about the thickness of a dime so you would need roughly 10-20 tons to have a decent effect per acre. You can usually find a close by farmer who will work the ground and drill a couple acres of corn cheap. Of course then you will need a means to store it. And remember, when looking at feed corn, protein content is what is important, not sugar content as if you were growing sweet corn for human consumption.

Anyways,

Re:Poor Aussies

[sumdumass]

Think of food as a utility and not a commodity. You cannot live without food, you can live without an Xbox or an Iphone. Remember when food prices jumped 60% 2 years ago when the Mississippi flooded and most of the corn in the Midwest was wiped out? If course you don't. That's because of the food source being protected. IF we didn't do that and all those corrective measured disappeared, then when 20% of the food supply disappears, the only alternative is for prices to go up in so that it self rations the supply. That has a devastating effect on the population that I don't think either of us want to see.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

You talk like Foreign Aid is a good thing. And I suppose after natural disasters and brief other times it is, but Foreign Aid as routine is bad.

Foreign Aid is the reason we need to give Foreign Aid. We should cut it back and let the areas we're giving Foreign Aid to develop their own agriculture so they have jobs and income and are generate wealth from themselves instead of having a lot of free time and cheap weapons to wage war on each other.

Fact is, we produce far too much and consume far too much. It's a waste of resources that are not, in fact, infinite.

Re:Poor Aussies

[sumdumass]

You mean like Ireland in the 1800's. Much of their potato famine was a direct cause of access to world markets. They sold everything else to the British.

Or should we go with something like Mexico and some south American countries who were griping just a few years ago that the poorest people couldn't afford to eat because the open market grain prices were so high that their food was being sold over seas instead of at home driving the costs up even more.

But it gets even worse if you look at the natural disasters. Australia is taking outside food donations to help deal with the bush fires and recent flooding. Closer to home, we have Columbia which is struggling against a volcanic eruption, landslides and flooding. Sites like webaid will list a lot of what is going on and their relief efforts.

This is all without acknowledging the fact that the Current US aid incorporates an abundance of US crops to automagicaly assist these foreign countries after a disaster. We recently expanded our operations by almost 800 million dollars. Your question would be obvious in the answer if the US didn't do the things we do.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

So because the #1 usage is masculine that means no one can use it in any other way? Please, you're just trying to pick a fight and have no leg to stand on.

Let your statements and your ideas stand on their own and stop bringing gender in to it.

Re:Poor Aussies

[sumdumass]

Exactly!

Re:Poor Aussies

[Lost Engineer]

Yet some how there's fruit in the grocery store every single year, single crop interruptions notwithstanding. And there's my point. It's ok if cabbage prices double overnight because we can always eat spinach.

Electricity prices too are set by the market, but we rarely seem to run out of that.

In the event of a sort of catastrophe wherein all the crops failed, price floors would do nothing and price ceilings would create shortages.

Re:Poor Aussies

[bill_mcgonigle]

Yes, most government bureaus and projects are far less wasteful then the corporate counter parts.

You mean in areas where they've granted themselves a monopoly, right? When you can get rid of the costs of marketing, r&d, and competition in general you do achieve better efficiency.

Re:Poor Aussies

[MillionthMonkey]

Aqua Ater

Re:Poor Aussies

[iamangry]

I dunno, sounds like a "shovel ready" project to me.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact she calls herself a 'girl' (never in all my years met a self-respecting lesbian who publically addressed herself with such a patronising label) and the fact that she makes a point of putting that antagonistically on her profile leads me to think that regardless of the posters' biological gender -that account was made with the intent of trolling.

So, to summarize, YOU've been trolled. By a bitch. So SUCK IT, faggot.

Re:Poor Aussies

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL

Nice Burn....

I love how idealist liberal corporate monkeys will use myth and other BS to make a worthless point.

Here is a basic FACT.

FACT: Goverment regulation can not EVER be for the people when the persons writing the regulation is owned by big business.

Proof: CRA, CSMA, FSMA

You want to see what liberalism (really socialism in a pretty wrapper) does.

CRA - Causes the Economic crash
Cap and tax - pays big business to offshore to our #1 debt holder
Health Care Reform - helps big business get labor without paying Union Coverage
Tarp - Bankrolled Bank consolidation
GM bailout - helped big business get around union contracts and drop private investors like bad habit.

Thanks Obama ... now go introduce yourself to a high speed train

Re:Poor Aussies

[HiThere]

I was trusting my memory, so I didn't check my facts at all...if I had I wouldn't have disclaimed knowing the precise amount. It happened, I can't remember the decade. And I may have the price wrong. But the reason was what I said. (Yeah, I heard about the hammer, but I don't know any details about that one.)

OTOH, there were also some rather expensive bolts that were perfectly justified. They were intended for an application where they had to meet some rather exacting stress performance specification. So merely seeing a high price doesn't mean that it's not justified. (Unfortunately, some of the bolts purchased turned out to not meet the specs...and the company that sold them was trusted with having ensured that they did. I don't know that this resulted in aircraft crashes...but somehow it came to the attention of an inspector a few years later.)

P.S.: This isn't a claim that government is too big. It may be, but that's not what I'm claiming. I'm claiming that ignorance of the law should be an excuse, but possibly not a completely exculpatory one. I'm also claiming that the red tape rules are excessively binding. There should have been a way to buy the wrench without going out to bid. (I think there is now, or was a decade ago...but there are all sorts of special situations, so I wouldn't want to claim that as a fact. The monkey wrench was one of the things that got some of the rules changed...at least in one area.)

It's a real problem, and one that programmers should be aware of as it's the same one that tends to lead to crufty code when several different developers work on it sequentially. The solution isn't obvious. Particularly in laws, where they don't do any beta testing, or even alpha testing. They just go with the first version written. True, they've got a very intelligent interpreter (the court system), but that doesn't fix design flaws.

Re:Poor Aussies

[mcgrew]

Any good ran corporation knows that if it's product sucks, it's competitor will take them over.

Which rule of acquisition is that one, Quark? A company's profits has little to nothing to do with the good of society.

All regulation raises the bar for entry and the ability for smaller operations to remain in business.

Good regulations don't.

Re:Poor Aussies

[sumdumass]

Which rule of acquisition is that one, Quark? A company's profits has little to nothing to do with the good of society.

Perhaps you should go back to business school. If no one is buying your products, you have no profit. If you alienate a certain portion of the population, you make less profits. It's in your best interest that the population or society at large is not only willing but capable of buying your products. They are intertwined more then it seems you can fathom.

Good regulations don't.

No, all regulation does. It places requirements and costs that wouldn't have already been there. It's entirely possible that the rise in the bar for entry and cost doesn't substantially limit competition in some cases, but it always raises the bar for entry and places a burden on smaller businesses.

Re:Poor Aussies

[mcgrew]

Perhaps you should go back to business school.

I'm a nerd, not a salesman. You're still talking about selling products, I'm talking about the general good. IBM's profits don't help society; the only segment of society IBM cares abdout is IBM's stockholders.

Your argument doesn't stand up in the face of the poison peanut butter last year, or all the other poison food sold (I'm talking salmonella and e-coli, not WMDs), or the poison dog and cat food the year before, or the fire in the Georgia chicken processing plant in the eighties that killed 25 people who couldn't get out because management chained the doors shut. It doesn't explain why Jack in the Box is still open for business, despite the fact that its poisoning outbreak ten or so years ago killed children. It doesn't explain the Pinto or the exploding police cars; in the case of the Pinto, Ford would rather let people die a fiery death for the sake of ten dollars per car. It doesn't explain Enron - that was an example of BAD regulation. Enron (and the California blackouts/brownouts) happened after deregulation.

Regulations must place requirements, but not not necessarily costs. Regulations can be written to help the small businessman at the detriment of the megacorp, but you don't see it because the megacops have the legislatures paid off.

And if keeping your food poison-free requires regulation (which has been proven time and again), you are a fool to be against regulation. If you can't keep salmonella out of your products, I don't want them on the market. Underregulation is as bad or worse than overregulation.

Re:Poor Aussies

[sumdumass]

I'm a nerd, not a salesman. You're still talking about selling products, I'm talking about the general good. IBM's profits don't help society; the only segment of society IBM cares abdout is IBM's stockholders.

The reasons for your misconceptions do not make them right. IBM's concern is to the society in which it sells and has to reconcile that with the stock holders. IF IBM were to forget about the society in general, or at least their market segment, they would go out of business because there is enough competition to over take them when society turns against them. Now, you do no need to be a business major to see that going out of business is not in the interest of the stockholders.

Your argument doesn't stand up in the face of the poison peanut butter last year, or all the other poison food sold (I'm talking salmonella and e-coli, not WMDs)

Silly boy, don't confuse results with intent and don't confuse the actions of one with many. First of all, neither company knew it was poisoning people with it's food. They were completely oblivious until after the fact and they all stop selling the contaminated products. Second, you are not even considering the outcome, tomatoes were banned for a while, so was spinach. What possible benefit to the share holders could no being able to sell a perishable product bring about? What possible benefit to the share holders can the massive lawsuits over the even have to the shareholders. If you look, you will find that the peanut butter issue was because of a roof leak that supposedly was not noticed until after the contamination and that company is completely out of business now. What possible benefit to the share holder did that bring? The benefit would have been to avoid the contamination in the first place and profitable sell safe food instead of going out of business or losing an entire crop.

or the poison dog and cat food the year before

And I believe that the chinese responsible for it faced a death penalty because of how wrong it was, their sales have dropped, they were forced to do a product recall and import restrictions around the world were placed on the company. How is that in the interests of the stock holders?

fire in the Georgia chicken processing plant in the eighties that killed 25 people who couldn't get out because management chained the doors shut.

You mean the Hamlet chicken processing plant fire that resulted in the forever closing of the plant, the owner serving 20 years in prison and the highest fines ever levied at that time? How was that any good for investors? Clealy they lost more then any occasion theft through fire exist would have been stopped due to the chaining of the doors.

It doesn't explain why Jack in the Box is still open for business, despite the fact that its poisoning outbreak ten or so years ago killed children.

You mean the lettuce contamination from a single store who instead of purchasing from a company's authorized supplier ended up buying from a local farmer? Why should the entire chain be shut down because of the actions of an Isolated store that was taken completely outside of their approved procurement processes? Also, they sales dropped, they almost did go out of business nation wide and can you tell me how that was good for the share holders? If I remember correctly, they didn't even save money buying the produce fresh, they were just attempting to help out someone a manager knew.

It doesn't explain Enron - that was an example of BAD regulation. Enron (and the California blackouts/brownouts) happened after d

world screwing

[nixish]

So Aussie website bans Aussies Wells Fargo sues itself now all we have left is, the world screwing itself ....oh wait, that's what Is happening already...

Re:world screwing

[bertoelcon]

Maybe its a good thing we have not found a way to leave earth (permanently) yet, we only have to deal with running one planet into itself.

Local solution

[DoofusOfDeath]

Throw anotha lawya' on the barbie, mate?

Re:Local solution

[masmullin]

Maybe tha dingo ate yor legaal systim

Forum website FTW

[moon3]

or /. flamers and trolls are in serious danger.

So Where is the Forbidden Thread?

[JumperCable]

So a 9/11 Australian conspiracy theorist, Greg Smith, gets his butt whooped in an on-line thread that he participated in (big surprise). And now he wants to sue over his damaged character? I suspect his damaged reputation has much more to do with what he said and how he handled it.

So where is the cache of the thread?

So much for the First Amendment.

[Anonymous Coward]

Blah.

Re:So much for the First Amendment.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the one relating to Senate session commencement dates? Huh?

Re:So much for the First Amendment.

[Nefarious Wheel]

Sorry, amendment to what? We don't have that fancy-schmansy Bill of Rights you yanks have, we go back to the Magna Carta, mate.

Oh, wait...

Australia is a little jumpy right now

[circletimessquare]

what with Sasha Baron Cohen making a contentious movie about a flamboyant gay Australian

and their favorite Australian son, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is having major troubles in Caleefornya

but Australians will always have the Sound of Music, Mozart, the Tyrolean Alps, and Hitler

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[smash]

That's austria. I know you guys in the US are often geographically challenged, but come on... literally on the other side of the world.

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[Anonymous Coward]

*Whoosh*

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[Firethorn]

From the language, tone, not to mention the multitudes of errors, I'd say he was joking or trolling.

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[Anonymous Coward]

It Is Australia...wth are you talking about ;)

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[MichaelSmith]

"circletimessquare" has a fairly narrow view of the world. A couple of hundred metres across, in fact.

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[justinlee37]

Expertly trolled. 10/10.

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[Anonymous Coward]

right, and crimea is populated with criminals

i dont need the internet to tell you you are wrong

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[Anonymous Coward]

*WHOOSH*

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[Anonymous Coward]

...and clearly you have no idea where Hitler or Mozart was from, or basic European geography.

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[bertoelcon]

Congratulation, you have been awarded "BIGGEST DUMBASS ON SLASHDOT" award for posting the dumbest comment I have ever read on here.

Judging by your UID, there wasn't much competition. Its the dumbest I have seen too, but I know there is years worth that I have never seen.

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[Anonymous Coward]

In our defence, we did vote Hitler out at the last Federal election.

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. I am an Australian and I approve this message....

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[jaxtherat]

I think he was referring to this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480494/Bush-confuses-Austria-Australia-latest-gaffe.html

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot one of the most famous Australians ever: basement dad

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh!

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot really needs a -1 Dumbass for people like you.

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[Aussie]

That's just the kangaroos.

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[kramerd]

Holy crap, there are 15 hidden comments on this troll...at 0.

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[Godwin O'Hitler]

You, Sir, circletimessquare, are my hero. Without even trying you have managed to make about fifteen people look like fools with their answers. :)

This could indeed be a record-breaking post.

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[evan_arrrr!]

Total whoosh.

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[oliderid]

Lol, it reminds me that picture posted a while ago "The world according to America " :-) http://i8.tinypic.com/6h89yes.gif

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[evan_arrrr!]

*WHOOSH*

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[deniable]

Niiiice one, maaate. You've mastered a classic Austrian sport, baiting foreigners. All we need to do now is show our new tourism ad, "Wolf Creek."

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[fast turtle]

Governor Schwarzenegger is Austrian, not Australian as you can tell simply by listening to his speech. He doesn't say G'Day Mate, nor does he properly pronounce "put nother shrimp on the barbie"

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[geekoid]

Yes, and now you begin to see the humor of the post.
I mean, if he just said one of them, then yeah maybe its a dumb mistake. But come on, use your head instead of assuming us yanks are stupid.

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[mcgrew]

and their favorite Australian son, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is having major troubles in Caleefornya

Arnold is Austrian, not Australian. Australia is in the southern hemisphere, Austria is in Europe.

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't seem very bright. Are you Slashdot's token retard?

Re:Australia is a little jumpy right now

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely you have that back to front.

damn mood killer

[Anonymous Coward]

weeps. I hate you lawyers. I hate you stupid money grubbing world. Why are you so stupid. Damnit, if you need to sue someone, sue yourself.

i'm sorry

[circletimessquare]

it must be a freudian thing

Sorta like Amazon.com banning sales...

[macraig]

... by affiliates in certain states that just can't resist the temptation to wield the law in ways unfavorable to Amazon and the rest of its customers, huh? Sound vaguely familiar?

Sad to see you go.

[slack_justyb]

Dear Australia,

Hate to see you guys drop off the face of the Internet, but I guess that's what happens when you get a bunch of pricks in Parliament.
But I guess that the government will figure it out when no one wants to deal with Australia as far as the Internet goes.

Re:Sad to see you go.

[TapeCutter]

You need to read something else besides slashdot reporting greatly exagerated news of our demise. This bunch of pricks are the same as the last bunch of pricks when it comes to mandatory filters; all talk to impress a couple of independent senators. There has never been, nor will there ever be, an Australian "great firewall". The closest thing we have is "the great rabbit fence" but even that leaked rabbits all over the place.

Re:Sad to see you go.

[VoltageX]

I'm in Australia and I just registered and posted.

Re:Sad to see you go.

[NoMaster]

There's also the dingo fence, which originally was to keep the dingos on one side away from the sheep on the other side, but nowdays largely serves to keep the dingos on one side away from the dingos on the other.

It does make a really cool noise when you drive through it, though...

Re:Sad to see you go.

[Angostura]

You forgot the obligatory 'NO CARRIER' half way through the sentence.

Re:Sad to see you go.

[deniable]

Sorry, I'm only in my thirties. I don't remember the time before pricks in Parliament. Neither do my parents.

Re:Sad to see you go.

[slack_justyb]

There has never been, nor will there ever be, an Australian "great firewall".

Never said that there was a "great firewall." Just said that this intervention that the government is doing is going to hurt in the long run. Ergo, people are going to shy away from doing business on the Internet if they feel the government is going to constantly pry into things.

To equate, let us say you own a physical business and the government wants you to keep a log of all the people who buy stuff from you? I know that in reality this would be a hit or miss thing to enforce. But the idea is to, oh what is the word I am looking for(?), dissuade people from whatever it is that you sell.
It is much like gun control here in the states. The government mandates a three-day background check period. The selling point is that it will identify problematic people trying to buy guns. We all know here in the states that, that is not a true point (it is hit or miss, take a look at the Virginia Tech shooting) but the ultimate goal isn't to stop people from buying guns or just simply getting guns, just dissuade them or at the very least make them think about what it is that they are doing.

There again, people are going to do what they want, when they want to. But that is people in general. A business operates on a different standard. They could do whatever they want to, but it would not pay off in the long run to do so in a country that regulates whatever it is they do, counter to whatever wishes the government wants to dissuade.

Therein lies my point. Companies (In more specifics ISP companies) are going to really think about setting up shop in a country that dissuades rampant, unchecked Internet traffic. That is the point of this type of regulation, to drop the hint to people (companies et al.) that this sort of thing is not encouraged by the government. So, it is not a great firewall but the rabbit fence is there to make a point. We don't like rabbits and we are willing to take steps to prevent them.

As far as pricks go, last time I checked (and it is really just my honest opinion) any government that puts private interest groups (ARIA and their crew) over the best interest of the public are pricks. So yeah, we've got a lot of them here in the US as well. I think it comes with the territory of government.
Just my two pennies.
PS: How the hell did I get modded Insightful when I posted like ten minutes before going to bed? I guess dead tired people are insightful.

SEND HELP

[justinlee37]

I was going to say the same thing. Thank you. That man is an embarrassment to my country.

But my country is also an embarrassment so what else is new. SEND HELP. I'm sorry we bombed everything and assassinated a bunch of foreign politicians. Really. It was our congress and our military. The whole country has been seized by idiotic bi-partisanism and a capitalist mentality so strong that it doesn't matter who you vote for because the corporate lobbyists will buy out whoever wins and pull on their puppet strings anyway. Unfortunately the only people who get elected are those who have billions of dollars to run for office (usually through corporate donations) because the people at large are stupid enough to base their vote on a 30-second video clip of propaganda (sorry "political advertisement"), and not everyone even votes in the first place!

If we had runoff elections where people ranked their candidates in order of preference, instead of just picking one, bi-partisanism would crumble, people would vote for who they really wanted, and maybe we'd actually elect an honest politician or two. Unfortunately the bi-partisanism means that no one currently in office will honestly support the kind of election reform that would erode the base of their power!

So SEND HELP. Country has been hi-jacked. Plus we have all these idiots who can't tell the difference between Austria and Australia.

Re:SEND HELP

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what to do. The question is why don't you do it?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world."

Re:SEND HELP

[justinlee37]

Gun control? Apathy? Risk-aversion? Pick your favorite.

Re:SEND HELP

[zsau]

Apathy makes better government than caring too much. If no-one really cares, no laws are created, enforced or obeyed and everyone just gets on with life.

Re:SEND HELP

[justinlee37]

So, instead of caring more, everyone else should just care less. Brilliant. A thorough and convincing rationalization.

Re:SEND HELP

[zsau]

The great thing about my philosophy is, I don't care what you think! :)

[Your sarcasm suggests you disagree with my view. You present the even more thorough and convincing rationalisation of "I can use sarcasm to make your view look bad, therefore you're wrong", so even if I did care, you don't care enough to even try to convince me, so why would I care?]

Incidentally, I think very few people will need to care less for us to have a society with a healthy degree of apathy. Those few, however, will have to care a great deal less.

Re:SEND HELP

[justinlee37]

I don't disagree but it's still a hilarious rationalization. I might use it in the future just to befuddle.

Bandwagon

[BatGnat]

I think I might sue them as well - it is a clear cut case of discrimination.

i'm sorry

[circletimessquare]

it must be freudian thing

British...

[irving47]

I'm starting to have serious concerns about anyone who puts the queen on their money.

Re:British...

[DoofusOfDeath]

I'm starting to have serious concerns about anyone who puts the queen on their money.

Funny, I have concerns about anyone who puts his money on a queen.

You are the yin to my yang.

Re:British...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have concerns about anyone who puts his dick in a queen. Just kidding gay people are good because it leaves me with a slightly better chance to find a female to mate with. Yeah who am I kidding this is /. I am a virgin basement dweller and always will be.

Re:British...

[deniable]

Better a harmless old lady (and her useless offspring) half a world away than some idiot who believes he has a mandate from the people and the power to do something about it.

Microsoft can sue Slashdot, or any other pro-Linux

[Doug52392]

Using the logic used in this lawsuit, Microsoft could sue Slashdot, and every other pro-Linux website for defamation, claiming millions of dollars in lost sales due to attacks on Windows.

Shame shame shame

[unreadepitaph]

As an Australian I am disgusted at this decision. To show my distain for this website I will never be visiting it again.

Banned? Not so much.

[Fex303]

Due to the risk of incurring even greater legal costs the company is closing its doors in Australia, and will ban their fellow countrymen from posting there again.

Wait what?

As a longtime user (~10 years) of Zgeek, and an Aussie, I'm pretty sure we haven't been banned. It's just that the site, which is hosted in the US already is going to legally set up shop outside of Australia to avoid these kinds of legal hassles.

For the record, the whole lawsuit thing is a joke, and everyone's aware that it's doomed to failure. The problem is that since Zgeek is essentially run by one guy in his spare time, he doesn't have the resources to fight it effectively, so it's better to run away rather than set yourself up for future problems.

For the record, the site really isn't too much more than a place were people post random news, and a forum which is dominated by in-fighting, trolling, and a bizarre 'shit-in-his-shoes' meme (it was started after Google started rating us highly as place to get life advice). And yes, it's as much fun as it sounds.

*WHOOOOSH*

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally on BBC News we go to Sheila McCarthy, who is braving the UNIX longhairs on Slashdot to bring us a *WHOOOOSH* post. What's happening there Sheila, you big-titted should've-been-a-pornstar shagpot? Oh, thinking out loud again. Errrrm, cut to Sheila, cut to ...

- At Slashdot -

I'm reporting live from Slashdot where someone has just mis-understood a joke. "Now what's unusual about that, you news-readin' ho'?" You might ask. The person doing the mis-understanding is a male, basement-dweller, with an enormous beard and a stupendously huge ... collection of adult videos. But the unusual thing is how smash here is a four-digit UID'er. This is someone who has spent literally millenia on Slashdot, yet when he saw this -- fairly elementary -- joke, it flew right over his head. Let me tell you, Dermot MacDermott, it was quite a sight and not something this community is likely to forget in a hurry.

- back in the studio (where Dermot is scratching his crotch with one hand, whilst gesticulating toward a monitor screen with another) -

Those fuckin' tits man, they're like what they model implants on, you sure they're fuckin' real man? *Ahem* So Sheila ... Is it likely that Slashdotters will erect some sort of monument to this event, maybe erect a ... ummm ... statue?

- Outside Slashdot HQ, Soviet Nealistan -

There have been discussions of celebrating this event yearly, some names for the event have been discussed, but have all been shit so far. For example: "smash-n-whooosh", "-1 Funny Day" and "Day of the Whooosh" are some of the names suggested. Since these are a bit shit, it has been decided -- in a joint meeting of Neal Industry executives, Netcraft's resident BSD troll, and Rob - Dingo Ate Ma Baby - Malda -- that a name for this soon-to-be historic occassion be opened up to the wider Slashdot community. With a winner being the first post following this one to be moderated "+5 Troll". We're attempting to get an interview with smash, but until we can find him it's back to Dermot in the studio in London, where hopefully he's not having a wank like during the report on women's mud wrestling last Thursday, dirty bastard.

Re:*WHOOOOSH*

[an.echte.trilingue]

With a winner being the first post following this one to be moderated "+5 Troll".

I claim my reward, or by "this one" did you mean the gp?

Re:*WHOOOOSH*

[Godwin O'Hitler]

That is truly an amazing post. I tip my hat to you and hereby hire you to work for the BBC.

On a more serious note, the original poster should be ashamed not knowing that Australia and Austria are two entirely different countries. Austria is in Africa. Everyone knows that.

Well, everyone who's seen an Austrich knows that.

Re:*WHOOOOSH*

[L4t3r4lu5]

You win an Internet.

Re:*WHOOOOSH*

[justinlee37]

I think, now that I've just re-read the post, that he wanted people to post suggestions for names as replies, and the first suggested name to be moderated "+5 Troll" would then be the name of the annual event.

Re:Microsoft can sue Slashdot, or any other pro-Li

[dakameleon]

You mean all those 0.92% of sales that went to Linux? I can see Microsoft lining up its lawyers now...

Re:Banned? Not so much.

[Psychotria]

For the record, the whole lawsuit thing is a joke, and everyone's aware that it's doomed to failure. The problem is that since Zgeek is essentially run by one guy in his spare time, he doesn't have the resources to fight it effectively, so it's better to run away rather than set yourself up for future problems.

I admire your optimism. But just because everyone is aware that it's insane does not mean the lawsuit will fail.

First. Almost certainly a 43 yo hairy greek man.

[Anonymous Coward]

First, Not. A. Dude. I'm a dyke,

First, you're almost certainly a 43 year old American-Greek man named Dimitri with hairy feet, who still lives with his mother (moved out for a year, but couldn't cope doing your own washing).

Second -- who gives a damn whether it's an urban legend or not, the point still stands.

The point does not stand. You've chosen to illustrate your point with an urban legend. You're clearly rather credulous and there's no good reason to listen to your ideas.

Some snippets of the thread from caches.

[Doug52392]

Here it is, ladies and gentlemen, The Thread That Cost Someone $42.5 Million Dollars:

Page 1.
Page 2 (John posts as "Doghead" on this page).
Page 4.
Greg Smith's threat/post.

Mirror - Page 1
Mirror - Page 2
Mirror - Page 4
Mirror - Greg's Threat

If there are any other pages I missed that got picked up in the cache, post them here.

Lawyers...

[XDirtypunkX]

The system seems to be broken if lawyers can bring about this kind of boobery.

Bill of Rights.

[sc0ob5]

I've said it before and I'll say it again we need a Bill of Rights in the country. Currently we have almost none. Freedom of religion and free opinion of the government. Nothing else... Free speech would be nice.

Re:Bill of Rights.

[timmarhy]

the problem is you'd never get agreement on what to put in it now. and who would you trust to draft it? the government? it'd be over run with clauses to suit which ever policical party was in power.

our chance at such a document that actually benefits everyone, has long sailed.

Re:Bill of Rights.

[Anonymous Coward]

...and it still wouldn't stop civil defamation cases and privately run web sites being allowed to accept or block whoever they choose.

You don't actually understand what it is you say you want, do you?

Re:Bill of Rights.

[Ben1220]

It would be nice! It would also put a stop to nonsense like this filter, do you ever wonder why stuff like this never gets off the ground in USA, despite the massive number of brain dead Fundies? They have actually tried, I remember reading about it a year ago or so, but its always deemed unconstitutional instantly. Thanks to their bill of rights.

Re:Bill of Rights.

[Zorque]

Freedom of speech, at least in the US, only applies to Government censorship. You can still sue people in civil court for saying things you don't like.

Re:Banned? Not so much.

[Zerth]

Yah, they'll just get sued in whatever country they set up in and have the additional difficulty of getting subpoenaed long-distance.

I'm unaware of any country that both has decent bandwidth and does NOT have stupid laws that affect the internet.

I can think of a few regions that fullfil the second clause and could be brought to fulfill the first, but most of them are populated by people who find bronze tools sufficiently indistinguishable from magic and would likely smash the electronics and use them as spear tips.

Oddly, that also describes the legislative body of my country, which explains the bad laws.

Rabbit-Proof Firewall

[MillionthMonkey]

The list of websites forbidden in Australia:

http://www.wikileaks.org/leak/acma-secret-blacklist-18-mar-2009.txt

I searched for "slashdot" but couldn't find it. So we'd better not badmouth Australians too much; there could be some here.

Re:Rabbit-Proof Firewall

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why people on this site keep perpetrating the myth that Australian internet is censored. The blacklist that the government releases is used by a software internet filter that is provided for parents to try and prevent children from accessing porn. How would I know, I'm an Australian and I can tell you that from this end of the internet you can still access those sites on the acma blacklist (though i'm not willing to try the more questionable sites on that list, after all even sexualised cartoon images of underage women is illegal in Australia).

Re:Rabbit-Proof Firewall

[hodet]

they banned redtube.com. that's just wrong!

Re:Rabbit-Proof Firewall

[MillionthMonkey]

They perpetrate that myth because the only other country known for its government handing down a list of "forbidden" URLs to the public (whether or not it actually blocks them) is China. And the similarities do not end there. For example, China built a 4000 mile Great Wall. And Australia built a 2000 mile rabbit-proof fence. Can you blame us for being confused?

Re:Banned? Not so much.

[superdana]

For the record, the site really isn't too much more than a place were people post random news, and a forum which is dominated by in-fighting, trolling, and a bizarre 'shit-in-his-shoes' meme

So you're saying it's essentially identical to Slashdot, but with an unfortunate twist on "hot-grits-in-pants."

Re:Banned? Not so much.

[syousef]

For the record, the site really isn't too much more than a place were people post random news, and a forum which is dominated by in-fighting, trolling, and a bizarre 'shit-in-his-shoes' meme (it was started after Google started rating us highly as place to get life advice). And yes, it's as much fun as it sounds.

So doesn't that mean it violates /. IP?

Re:Microsoft can sue Slashdot, or any other pro-Li

[countach]

.92% of windows sales would send slashdot broke and keep hundreds of lawyers in beer and skittles.

Re:Thanks America!

[rkit]

Calvin was not a jew, dude.

Re:Microsoft can sue Slashdot, or any other pro-Li

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the percent of linux sales is almost certainly far lower than .92% of the market. Linux is generally not sold, and any statistics you may find relating to its market share are worthless---don't even bother quoting them, unless you're trolling. The best information available tells us that linux has about half the server market, a small percentage of the desktop market, and is present in finitely many embedded devices. Oh, and every modern game system.

The rest of the world, S. Ballmer included, seems to consider linux to be Serious Business. Microsoft has certainly threatened legal action before, and if you think fhey would hesitate for a moment to seize any opportunity to eliminate a competitor, you must be living in bizarro land.

Too Anglocentric, it's not just us Brits

[Kupfernigk]

Nine other European democracies also have "Royal families" and put their heads on their notes. The reason for this is simple (and it applies to Australia and NZ too.) So long as we have the Battenbergs notionally in power, there is no risk of a member of the Bush or Murdoch families ever becoming British (or Head of State. We have a powerless monarchy (and in the UK case the prospect of a tree hugging left wing eco-friendly King) precisely because we've seen how Presidential systems work, and we want nothing of it.

Re:Too Anglocentric, it's not just us Brits

[qc_dk]

I completely agree.

George W: scary as hell
Prince Philip: hilarious

disclaimer: I am neither from the US nor the UK.

Super hungry

[Anonymous Coward]

brb Hungry Jacks on Chapel

It's *entirely* plausible

[Colin Smith]

e.g. EU bananna regulation

Take for example European Commission Regulation (EC) 2257/94

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31994R2257:EN:HTML

What The Fuck... As they say.

The US Will have similar wastes of time and money on it's law books. All laws should have a mandatory default time limit of somewhere around one generation, about 25 years after which they have to be renewed or are removed from the books.
 

Re:It's *entirely* plausible

[HiThere]

25 years is too long. We need to keep legislators HARMLESSLY busy. I recommend 9 years. (8 might be better, but I don't want it to sync with an election year cycle.)

OTOH, if this is to be done safely, there needs to be STRONG limitations placed on lobbyists and campaign funding...even by independent groups. Which means laws.

Oops!

Who owns the Movie rights for

[Big Hairy Ian]

This Idea????

I modded you down

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm modding you down for another comment you made today(I already posted in that thread so I couldn't mod that one down). Let me reprint the offending text here so you can educate yourself:

Yeah, but don't tell the slashdot moderators that. Anything open source at a higher version number than before that's greeted with anything but open arms tends to go -1 pretty fast. It's heresy apparently to suggest that

Mmmm-hmmmm. Yeah, go ahead and insult the moderators. Feel free to second-guess me while I sit here with this week's batch of fresh mod points burning a hole in my pocket. That's really smart ^_^

Sorry, but your "i'm above it all" meta-commentary does not fly with me, enjoy your -1 flamebait. I can see someone else has already down-modded your other comment ^_^

Re:I modded you down

[girlintraining]

Spoken like a true anonymous coward. ^_^ Go ahead. Mod away. You only have five points.

Re:I modded you down

[Enigma2175]

Spoken like a true anonymous coward. ^_^ Go ahead. Mod away. You only have five points.

I don't know about everyone else, but when I get mod point nowadays I get fifteen - not five.

i W0n teh intarwebs!

[circletimessquare]

what's awful is that although its the most spectacular troll i've done in awhile, its this retired chestnut of a joke that should be old and tired and expired by now

i think this silly joke has been featured in at least 100 fark headlines over the years, no?

oy

Wish this could be modded higher than 5

[tekrat]

This needs to go on "Seen on Slash". This clearly a "best of slashdot" entry if there ever was one. Best post I've read in a long while. Scathing humor, done properly. Tip of the hat to you sir. If only the rest of Slashdot could write as well.

Yes, how did "smash" miss that one? It truly boggles the mind.

Re:Thanks America!

[Holi]

Now now Mr. Gibson

"the Forbidden Threat."

[MRe_nl]

OPEN LETTER TO ZGEEK

"atomboy" has claimed that the film MERCHANT OF DEATH is a fraudulent film project. "atomboy" has also claimed that the film does not exist. What has been said is not 'fair comment'. It is not 'editorial exception'. What has been said is clearly defamatory. These defamatory statements have done damage to the reputation of a commercial entity and as such are required to be answered in court.

In case you are in any doubt as to what has transpired, let me briefly remind you of the three proofs for defamation:
- Has the communication has been published to a third person? Yes.
- Does the communication identify (or is about) the plaintiff? Yes.
- Is the communication is defamatory? Yes.

Actions have consequences. Those responsible are about to learn this lesson. I will be holding "atomboy" and the zGeek forum responsible for any fiscal losses to this project that stem from what has been posted on this website.

A website cannot hide behind editorial exception. That is no longer the law in this country. The website hosts are responsible for the posts made on the forum. As such, the zGeek forum will be held at law as being equally responsible for these defamatory posts.

--------------

WHAT!? Speaking of sore losers, I think we have a winner!

42 million what

[Hognoxious]

42 million Australian dollar dollars? I wonder if the author is 6' feet 3" inches tall.

Re:Microsoft can sue Slashdot, or any other pro-Li

[mcgrew]

It isn't slander or lible if it's true.

my god

[circletimessquare]

the first couple of trolled fools were funny

but after awhile, and after the modded up comments below revealing the troll, its just pathetic

unless... your lame explication of 3rd grade geography is also a troll?

urrgh, troll has become trolled

Re:my god

[mcgrew]

I'm afraid I was wooshed.

Re:Microsoft can sue Slashdot, or any other pro-Li

[HiThere]

That depends on how the law reads. And even if it's true, you still may not be able to prove it...especially to the satisfaction of someone who doesn't want to believe it. And even if you can, you STILL may not be able to afford the lawyers' fees.

how is it possible?

[circletimessquare]

assuming you think i'm a complete and utter retard, which obviously you do, do you really think a total retard can maintain all of the austrian cultural references correctly while missing the obvious geographic disconnect?

does not compute man

its hard to feign real stupidity. mainly because its hard to hide competency in full spectrum mental areas at the same time

Re:how is it possible?

[mcgrew]

I never thought you were stupid. Crazy, but not stupid.

Watch out!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to warn all attorneys, Jonathan Nolan rapes and kills all of his legal representation. There's no two ways about it; if you represent Jonathan Nolan in a legal manner, he will rape and kill you.

Mmmm, nothing beats an afternoon session of pseudo-anonymous internet libel. :D

Fucking crybabies

[BozoForPresident]

What a loss that their movie got axed - I'm so devastated. 10 points to anyone that knows who they are...

Plot summary

[Brandybuck]

Nutbag Troofer sues for being exposed as a nutbag Troofer. Hilarity ensues.