Slashdot Mirror


Florida Man Sues WikiLeaks For Scaring Him

Stoobalou writes "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been accused of 'treason' by a Florida man seeking damages for distress caused by the site's revelations about the US government. From the article: 'David Pitchford, a Florida trailer park resident, names Assange and WikiLeaks as defendants in a personal injury suit filed with the Florida Southern District Court in Miami. In the complaint filed on 6th January, Pitchford alleges that Assange's negligence has caused "hypertension," "depression" and "living in fear of being stricken by another heart attack and/or stroke" as a result of living "in fear of being on the brink of another nuclear [sic] WAR."' Just for good measure, it also alleges that Assange and WikiLeaks are guilty of 'terorism [sic], espionage and treason.'"

340 comments

  1. What's next? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Funny

    It will be hard for anything else to beat this for the dumbest thing I've seen on the internet today.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:What's next? by ehrichweiss · · Score: 3, Funny

      The kicker is when they describe the plaintiff: "a Florida trailer park resident"

      Who didn't see that one coming?

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    2. Re:What's next? by onkelonkel · · Score: 2, Informative

      I suppose so, since it was yesterday that Sarah Palin claimed she was being accused of murdering Christian babies to use their blood in unholy rituals.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    3. Re:What's next? by Nialin · · Score: 1
      What I find ridiculous is the following:

      living in fear of being stricken by another heart attack and/or stroke

      Did he have a previous heart attack/stroke from the information provided by Wikileaks, or is he just some old fart?

    4. Re:What's next? by ByOhTek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yeah. but not surprising. Yey trailer parks, the bring out the best of this wonderful country...

      Seriously, how the hell can it be treason if he isn't a US citizen (or otherwise legal resident)?

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    5. Re:What's next? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't be the first time someone's used a phrase thinking it was appropriate without first making sure they knew what it meant. FWIW, I think it makes perfect sense to describe what people were saying about Palin, and if I hadn't seen all the furore about the proper meaning of the phrase, I would probably have thought it quite a good description.

    6. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't admit to knowing only one context of a word.

    7. Re:What's next? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Everybody owes fealty to the United States; because we are the best nation in the world. Some people just don't realize it yet, which is why we have to spend so much on our armed forces and prisons...

    8. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, living in fear? If there was a nuclear war, he might be grateful of the heart attack/stroke. It would be a quick death compared to fighting giant radioactive scorpions in the desert for a share of dog corpse for dinner.

    9. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If fascism and ignorance makes the best nation on the world you are right! :)

    10. Re:What's next? by Somewhat+Delirious · · Score: 1

      I think the sad thing is that when you look at American polls this seems to be a pretty accurate description of a major percentage of public opinion regarding Wikileaks in the US.

      --
      The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
    11. Re:What's next? by eyenot · · Score: 0

      What are you saying about Florida's trailer parks? There are some really, really, really nice trailer parks down there. Briny Breezes, for example. They got an offer for the whole thing at roughly $1mil per trailer. It's beautiful. Just north of there in Palm Beach there are two really gorgeous trailer parks that are practically gated communities. But I think I see what you're saying: south Florida is really damn sharkish and I would totally expect some loon in a trailer park down there to not only have the wherewithal, the money and the time to spend with a lawsuit such as this, ultimately I think you're right -- just where I'd expect it to come from.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    12. Re:What's next? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are "fascism" and "ignorance" some kind of degenerate foreign-speak for "national unity" and "moral certainty" respectively?

    13. Re:What's next? by Zen-Mind · · Score: 1

      I think Wikileak should plead guilty and be willing to provide the man with proper equipment to make sure he can live peacefully from now on.

    14. Re:What's next? by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      Sadly, some trailer homes cost more than the average house (property value not included in either).

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    15. Re:What's next? by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Funny

      She's as dumb and arrogant as the day is long

            And you say this in January, right after the winter solstice when in Alaska the days are short as hell...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    16. Re:What's next? by zoomshorts · · Score: 0

      A trailer park resident??? Woot.

    17. Re:What's next? by cortex3299 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Isn't the day 24 hours long in Alaska ?

    18. Re:What's next? by Stargoat · · Score: 0

      Above comment FTW

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    19. Re:What's next? by datapharmer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Being a Florida resident I think you are mixing up the words "trailer" and "manufactured home". They are completely different.Trailers have wheels, and (at least at one point) could be moved from one location to another on them. Modular/manufactured homes can be as bad as a trailer or as nice as a mansion. They are often trucked in in prefab sections that are assembled together on-site. If you have any doubts which is which just drive past after a hurricane. If there is an empty lot with some aluminum debris it was most likely a trailer.

      --
      Get a web developer
    20. Re:What's next? by X3J11 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It will be hard for anything else to beat this for the dumbest thing I've seen on the internet today.

      A CHALLENGER APPEARS!

      Canada bans Dire Straits' "Money for Nothing"

    21. Re:What's next? by surfed · · Score: 2

      We need a National Dire Straits Money for Nothing Day where we play nothing else on our Stereos, best to coincide with Pride day?

    22. Re:What's next? by natehoy · · Score: 1

      I fear for the republic.

      You should sue Ms. Palin, then, under the same grounds this guy is suing WikiLeaks. ;)

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    23. Re:What's next? by KeymasterX · · Score: 1

      True. People like this just waste other people time for nothing.

    24. Re:What's next? by ByOhTek · · Score: 2

      Fascism? That's a bit of a strech. Ignorance less, so, but then again, every country is full of ignorance. Need proof for yours? Look in a mirror.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    25. Re:What's next? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      If he wins, I'll sue Stephen King's ass off.

    26. Re:What's next? by spamking · · Score: 3, Funny

      Are you telling me there's not one condo available in all of Del Boca Vista?

    27. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to America!
      Here, take your free suing kit, the first class action is free of charge. It does not even need to have a valid reason!

    28. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I believe I'm going to sue David Pitchford for scaring me with the possibility that his actions may shut down Wikileaks.

    29. Re:What's next? by golden+age+villain · · Score: 1

      Yes, today! And it speaks volume that you did not say this week or this month.

    30. Re:What's next? by Beat+The+Odds · · Score: 1

      Isn't the day 24 hours long in Alaska ?

      Only in the summer and only if you're far enough north.

    31. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's kind of sad since the song was using the word ironically to show how bigoted some people can be.

    32. Re:What's next? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Funny how Alan Dershowitz, no less, said Palin's use of the phrase was perfectly acceptable.

      It wasn't the best use of the phrase, but everybody is missing the point here. Some lunatic murders several people, and everyone points the finger at Sarah Palin. It's shameful political opportunism. I'd never vote for Palin for president, but the left must really be afraid of her if they are going to blame her for this.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    33. Re:What's next? by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that's just "run-of-the-mill Canada" crazy. It's not even close to "over-the-top crazy old man Florida" crazy.

      --
      That is all.
    34. Re:What's next? by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

      This deserves a Stella-Award.

      Seriously, courts worldwide (but especially in the US) need a sanity check: if the lawsuits reeks of insanity, throw it out without trying it.

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    35. Re:What's next? by twidarkling · · Score: 2

      Man, your calendar must be fucking *hell* to sync up with when you're travelling. Leave, stay somewhere for a week, come back to find a month's passed in Alaska?

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    36. Re:What's next? by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      There are radio version that leaves out or change those lines.

    37. Re:What's next? by raddan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What's interesting is that, in modern parlance, "trailer park" has a pejorative quality to it, but this wasn't always the case. Steinbeck's Travels with Charley waxes poetic about the freedom mobile homes, even describing them as a necessity of modern life, given that jobs in the "modern era" (i.e., 1960's) were no longer as stable as they once were. I can see how we got to our present-day understanding of the term, but sometimes I think, wistfully, that Steinbeck's vision isn't such a bad one.

    38. Re:What's next? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      According to several Jewish Rabis on TV last night, she not only used the phrase correctly, but its use was not offensive unless you're idiot. They said it more PC than I did but the point remains.

      I believe she has no place in politics. She doesn't seem to be well informed, just the same, far too many people seem to be on a irrational witch hunt which seems to highlight their own prejudices and ignorance more-so than hers.

    39. Re:What's next? by cawpin · · Score: 2

      From the comments on that link:
      "What some fail to understand is that the CBSC sets voluntary guidelines. They can ban the song if they want but radio stations are under no obligation to abide by the ruling. There are no penalties involved. The guidelines and organization have no powers other than those given to it by it's members the station owners."

      I don't know if that's actually true but it does make sense.

    40. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One Dire Straits song down, lots to go.

    41. Re:What's next? by flaming+error · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Blood libel" makes perfect sense? I never heard the phrase before yesterday, and I couldn't make any sense of what it could mean when I read it.

      I had to look it up, and the most generic definition I found was from http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Blood_libel

      Blood libel - Definition

      Blood libels are allegations that a particular group kills people as a form of human sacrifice, and uses their blood in various rituals. The alleged victims are often children.

      I really can't fathom how she came up with that phrase.

      It is a fact that Palin put out a map with crosshairs over Gifford's district. It is a fact that Giffords spoke publicly about where that could lead.

      Palin brought gunsights to the fight. Now she's facing criticism. If she can't take it, she shouldn't start it.

    42. Re:What's next? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Those are called RV's not trailer homes.

      RV's are a whole different ball of wax.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    43. Re:What's next? by Kozz · · Score: 1

      It will be hard for anything else to beat this for the dumbest thing I've seen on the internet today.

      A CHALLENGER APPEARS!

      Canada bans Dire Straits' "Money for Nothing"

      Your title suggesting "Canada bans..." is misleading. The first sentence says, "The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has ruled that Dire Straits’ 1980s [unedited] hit Money for Nothing is too offensive for Canadian radio." Now try and tell me that this is is very far from the kind of crap we get here in the US with the FCC.

      Which is just downright stupid, anyhow... radio stations I've listened to here in the US always play a radio-edit version which completely removes the "faggot"-lyric verse. I didn't even KNOW all the lyrics or that that I was getting a radio-edited version for the longest time.

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    44. Re:What's next? by daremonai · · Score: 2

      Funny you should ask. I just happen to have one available. Excellent investment property. Short sale approved. No, those two statements don't contradict each other. Well, all right, they do.

    45. Re:What's next? by Venison · · Score: 1

      YOU are an idiot. and most of you other geeks for going off the deep end on Assange.

    46. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't say that. He said she used the term correctly, but he certainly didn't say that it was a great idea for her to say it.
      Anyway, Dershowitz' career will probably survive. Palin's will not.

    47. Re:What's next? by russ1337 · · Score: 1

      how many hours between Days?

    48. Re:What's next? by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      These are not RVs, they're mobile homes. Only they call them manufactured homes now as mobile homes have the negative stigma mentioned above.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    49. Re:What's next? by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      In your 24 hour day, when is night? In Alaska, night is almost 24 hours long, but is now decreasing.

    50. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are some really, really, really nice trailer parks down there. Briny Breezes, for example. They got an offer for the whole thing at roughly $1mil per trailer. It's beautiful.

      I was curious so I searched it: http://www.flickr.com/photos/70063259@N00/1539242302/

      Beautiful indeed... if your name is Mary Lou and you date your cousin perhaps?

    51. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will be hard for anything else to beat this for the dumbest thing I've seen on the internet today.

      What, a "dumb fucking American files a dumb fucking American lawsuit" story?
      You'd best get off the internet now, son.

    52. Re:What's next? by jopsen · · Score: 1

      this for the dumbest thing I've seen on the internet today.

      Agree... Why is it even news worthy? Any reasonable judge would dismiss the case immediately...

    53. Re:What's next? by ReallyNiceGuy · · Score: 2

      Maybe they will start censoring Mark Twain's work, too...

    54. Re:What's next? by jace_d · · Score: 2, Informative

      aluminium

    55. Re:What's next? by Sean+Hederman · · Score: 1

      She's as dumb as arrogant as the day is long

      And you say this in January, right after the winter solstice when in Alaska the days are short as hell.

      All depends on context I guess. From here in the southern hemisphere with our summer solstice she's pretty damn dumb and arrogant

    56. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If so, it's quite a coincidence given that Alaska is on another planet.

    57. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are numerous examples of collusion between corporations and the USG. Wellpoint wrote HCR. Energy companies wrote GWB's energy bill. _literally_, corporations wrote the first drafts of those bills, just as they do with many bills, specifically ones that deal with regulation, tax, subsidy, and global trade. Those are fascist acts and they aren't even hidden from the public. Can you explain how calling a government that commits fascist actions, fascists, is a stretch?

    58. Re:What's next? by bberens · · Score: 1

      It's important to note that if your trailer still has the wheels on it you do not have to pay property tax on the value of the "house". Just the land.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    59. Re:What's next? by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      Shall we compare her to a summer's day?

    60. Re:What's next? by wrencherd · · Score: 1

      Are you telling me there's not one condo available in all of Del Boca Vista?

      Phase I or II?

    61. Re:What's next? by Dishevel · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Target superimposed over congressional districts has been used by both parties for a long time now.

      You and everyone else already know this. Please quit.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    62. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A day is 24 hours long everywhere on earth .. And, there are 7 days a week, to be sure.

    63. Re:What's next? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      God hates them both. Good enough for him, good enough for me.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    64. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's in the summer, in the winter the day goes down to 0 hours long for a while.

    65. Re:What's next? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No one should use it, ever. Palin also specifically uses violent phrasing to go along with it.

      Actually I am assuming you are correct, I have never actually seen that used in a democrat's flier.

      Not that I have views all fliers.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    66. Re:What's next? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Her back peddling is also very telling.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    67. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he wins... Can I sue HIM for "hypertension," "depression" and "living in fear of being stricken by another heart attack and/or stroke" because I would be living in fear of being sued by people like him that file frivolous lawsuits?

    68. Re:What's next? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Shall we compare her to a summer's day?

      In Alaska, that would be the incessant buzzing of mosquitoes and the occasional thump of a Moose as it collapses from a hunter's gunshot.

      All in all, fairly close. Especially the mosquito part.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    69. Re:What's next? by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      Ummm, those are prefab homes, not trailer homes. A trailer home is a home that can be towed like a trailer. You are confusing a "home that can be towed as/like a trailer" with "a prefab home brought in (usually in sections) on the back of a flatbed truck"

    70. Re:What's next? by Dishevel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Try here.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    71. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask Palin. We take bets.

    72. Re:What's next? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Having worked in Florida as an insurance adjuster after Hurricane Andrew, I can assure you that an empty lot with random aluminum debris is equally likely to have been a trailer park or and upscale manufactured home park. Neither of them can take a punch. Also, they burn like thermite bombs, but that's another story.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    73. Re:What's next? by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I've seen a holiday park in Netherland where very nice holiday homes had wheels on them. Presumably for a similar reason.

    74. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Funny that you say that. But it goes both ways. So if you criticze the wording now, please criticize it also when an inhibitant of the usa uses theses words to describe a foreign country.

    75. Re:What's next? by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, because that's the first time anyone has used an X to mark a spot, or said they are "targeting" a district. Clearly she means to communicate to her followers that she intends to shoot democrats from a helicopter. Clearly that is the truth, and you are not an insane fucking moonbat with an ax to grind.

      BRB, SUING LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR THREATENING TO SHOOT ME WITH THOSE "TARGETING YOUR AREA" ANTI-DRUNK-DRIVING COMMERCIALS!!!

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    76. Re:What's next? by apokalyptik · · Score: 1

      Never underestimate the power of human stupidity...

    77. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how many hours between Days?

      zero

    78. Re:What's next? by mcvos · · Score: 2

      It wasn't the best use of the phrase, but everybody is missing the point here. Some lunatic murders several people, and everyone points the finger at Sarah Palin. It's shameful political opportunism.

      Maybe it is, but Palin should definitely be more careful about what she says and what imagery she uses. The might be some loon that takes her seriously.

    79. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nooo, don't draw Mussolini and Franco in this!!

    80. Re:What's next? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      Maybe it is, but Palin should definitely be more careful about what she says and what imagery she uses.

      But the imagery used by liberal democrats is just fine, right?

      Like the LBJ ad implying Goldwater would be using nukes to bomb cute little children?

      I wonder how much responsibility LBJ would have accepted had a wacko attacked Goldwater based on the imagery LBJ used? Probably none.

      By definition, you cannot predict what wackos are going to do, thus it is lunacy to pretend to say "if we don't do X they won't do Y".

    81. Re:What's next? by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the deathclaws.

      Better start saving up on bottle caps now!

    82. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...one AND the same."

      Try to research common phrases before misusing them.

    83. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      According to Alan Dershowitz, "Blood Libel" has a broader meaning - and an appropriate one, in this particular case. From http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/01/12/exclusive-alan-dershowitz-defends-sarah-palins-use-of-term-blood-libel/ :

      The term "blood libel" has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.

      Others (http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2011/01/whats-problem-with-sarah-palin-using.html) say similar things:

      When it comes to Governor Palin's use of the term blood libel, it was totally justified. The progressive media created a lie about Palin causing the death of a child, Christina Taylor Greene. Their charge was blood libel just the same way as the media spreading the al Durah myth, or the way the media spread bogus charges of Israeli massacres during the recent war with Hamas in Gaza (or in the case of Reuters falsified pictures).

    84. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he means "one in the same". Yo, dawg.

    85. Re:What's next? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      You're doing what a sensible, intelligent person does when they hear a phrase they don't know. You're looking up what it means.

      IME stupid people frequently become afraid to ask questions or look into things because they don't want to appear stupid by asking a stupid question. This frequently has the opposite effect, as they instead try to guess the answers and get it royally wrong. Had you heard the phrase "blood libel" and guessed as to the meaning, IMV it seems a perfectly reasonable guess to assume it means something along the lines of "libelling someone by unjustly accusing them of being involved in the killing or maiming of others".

    86. Re:What's next? by Grapplebeam · · Score: 1

      If you paid attention in that episode, the guy that plays Frank Costanza has trouble saying Del Boca Vista. Well, apparently they did those takes several times as he would get tongue tied, and just went with the best one.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree.
    87. Re:What's next? by m0n · · Score: 1

      Maybe I should sue Alex Jones for making me paranoid of my government...

    88. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A day is 24 hours long everywhere.

      If you meant the length of daylight. then in *some* parts of Alaska (above the arctic circle) for *some* part of the year (summer months) the sun does not set. The opposite is also true and is closer to reality this time of year, but I hear the sun is rising in Barrow now so there is no 24hr dark periods in Alaska currently.

    89. Re:What's next? by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      aluminium

      Here's my counter-citation.

      "In 1807, Davy proposed the name aluminium for the metal, undiscovered at that time, and later agreed to change it to aluminum."

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    90. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortionally, it's just usual political language in the US:
      http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/

    91. Re:What's next? by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 0

      Shall we compare her to a Summer's Eve ?

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    92. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just like thermite bombs.

    93. Re:What's next? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      "That little Clampett got his own cement pond;
      That little Clampett, he's a millionaire..."

    94. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAL, but I don't think the plaintiff has standing to bring the espionage and treason charges. And since Assange is not a US citizen, he can't be guilty of treason against the US.

    95. Re:What's next? by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Informative

      As someone who lived in Florida, in a mobile home park ... right across the street from a plant that made 'manufactured homes' ... when a hurricane or in our case a tornado comes through, they both look exactly the same afterwords, randomly thrown around insulation and aluminum.

      They are the same thing, the difference is one they take the wheels off of and set it on the ground, the other they leave them there and set it on blocks. They both can go from trash to mansions, but they are still built like mobile homes and the end result is that anything you can easily truck down the road in preassembled pieces turns out is also light and weakly manufactured enough for high winds to rip it to shreds.

      If you sit a mobile home on the ground so the wind can't get under it, it'll hold up just as long as a 'manufactured home'. Likewise, put a 'manufactured home' on blocks off the ground with siding around it so the wind can pick it up and it'll die as fast as a 'mobile home'

      The only difference between the two is they leave the trailer on blocks, which at least means you can put the axels back on it and move it relatively easy.

      Their both still mobile homes, even if you want to pretend they aren't. Neither hold up much better than your typical RV/Travel Trailer and are far less mobile however far more spacious (generally).

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    96. Re:What's next? by JBBW · · Score: 1

      Rarely. In some places the day (as measured by sun-up to sun-down) is more than 24 hours. And then you have the occasion where the people you are with just make it seem to go on for 24 hours.

    97. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I grew up in a trailer too.

    98. Re:What's next? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      I really can't fathom how she came up with that phrase.

      The same what I did, ignorance.

      Before reading your post, I thought blood libel mean someone took some action that directly led to the death of someone else. As an example (only as an example, don't go rampant on me over this): Assange released information that directly lead warlords in Iraq to the location of their enemies which the warlords then promptly killed. Without Assange's release of the information, they wouldn't have known the location of their enemies so they couldn't have killed them, at least not yet.

      That would be my interpretation of what she meant when she said it.

      Clearly, by the definition you posted, that isn't the case.

      However, I would say that no one in the country except the few people who actually have seen the term before she used it would think any different than I did.

      She clearly used the wrong words for what she meant, however its not too difficult to figure out what she meant based on the context of her statement, so the end result is that no one with half a clue would think she meant ritualistic human sacrifices. The only people that WOULD think that she meant that are people who have WAY more knowledge than actual intelligence and have no ability to take context into consideration.

      Perhaps you should consider the context rather than a strict definition that hardly anybody anywhere is aware of. Language changes, and while Palin most certainly is a freaking idiot, you aren't ranking much higher on the intelligence scale by showing that you're incapable of using context to determine meaning. If it was a Rabi saying it, your interpretation may be correct, but in this case it pretty clearly isn't so you don't really have an excuse.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    99. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't the best use of the phrase, but everybody is missing the point here. Some lunatic murders several people, and everyone points the finger at Sarah Palin. It's shameful political opportunism.

      Maybe it is, but Palin should definitely be more careful about what she says and what imagery she uses. The might be some loon that takes her seriously.

      And next of course we should ban all movies, games, television, magazines, books, newspapers and the internet with any violence, robbery, insults, wars, drinking, eating, smoking, lying, cheating, or political correctness, because who knows, some wacko might take it as instructional.
      Blame anyone except those who actually did it.
      Thats the way!

    100. Re:What's next? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      "Blood libel" makes perfect sense? I never heard the phrase before yesterday, and I couldn't make any sense of what it could mean when I read it.

      I'd never heard it before either, but it made perfect sense given what they're accusing her of. Because she said that whats-her-name was a target to beat in the election, they're trying to claim that she somehow made this guy kill her. Thus, they are committing libel (because it's print) over a shooting (you know the phrase "blood on your hands") - put them together and you get blood libel.

      It is a fact that Palin put out a map with corsshairs over Gifford's district.

      Yes, to mark it as an election that they wanted to win. Companies and politicians use that same image all the time to mark a business / personal target - it has nothing in the slightest to do with guns, and you damn well know it. Now, there's the much more rational explanation of the fact that Giffords is pro-illegal in Arizona and that due to everything they've gone through with illegals, someone's bound to snap and start shooting politicians who are pro-illegal (honestly, I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner). This is nothing but an excuse to smear Republicans because a person (haven't read much about him since I've been busy, but I've heard he himself is a Democrat) didn't like Gifford's policies.

      I find Palin to be as much of a moron as everyone else. The difference between you and I is that I'm not going to blame her for someone else's choices just to promote a given political party.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    101. Re:What's next? by Totenglocke · · Score: 2

      Yea, and Target should change both their name and their logo because they're going to cause killing sprees. Give me a damn break.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    102. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am from NC. The only difference between trailers and "manufactured housing" is the amount of money. Both are piece of shit built dwellings sold at much more than their intrinsic value.

    103. Re:What's next? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Tell that to Julian Assange or whatever the hell his name is...

      Treason I tell you! Treason!

    104. Re:What's next? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      WOW I guess I never really paid any attention to the actual lyrics!

    105. Re:What's next? by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      If you are living in a trailer park in Florida, you've probably got a whole lot more to worry about than being on the brink of nuclear war.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    106. Re:What's next? by Apothem · · Score: 1

      It will be hard for anything else to beat this for the dumbest thing I've seen on the internet today.

      Too bad it's only the dumbest thing you'll see today. I'm sure some moron out there is just gonna set the bar lower tomorrow.

    107. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were using a dartboard as your sight you might have a point, don't see a crosshair anywhere. I see a dartboard, a target to jump on when skydiving?

    108. Re:What's next? by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

      That is funny. Ouor local news skewed Blood Libel as "Groups of Jews who kill Christians for ritual sacrifice"

      --
      . . .gone when the morning comes
    109. Re:What's next? by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      A huge waste of money by a fool filing an absurd law suit. Hell, conservative republicans scare the living hell out of me. Can I sue those idiots just for existing?

    110. Re:What's next? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Obviously you don't know the differences between "a Florida trailer park resident" and "a Texas trailer park resident", the latter is more typically like what your were expecting than the former.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    111. Re:What's next? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      The difference is that in Sara Palin's case she was placed cross hairs on specific districts. It is very easy to connect the district with the representative from that district and imply targeting that representative. When a target is placed on a state there is no direct relationship with a single person.

    112. Re:What's next? by Dishevel · · Score: 1
      If you seriously believe that Sara Palin was slyly communicating that people should kill the representatives of those districts then it is a waste of my time to attempt to communicate thoughtfully with you.

      If you do not believe that then you are just using the injury and death of many to attempt to score political points. In which case I would prefer that I never discuss anything with you ever again.

      Hopefully you are just one of those people who gets "Your Opinions" from talking heads on the right or the left and never gives any real thought to them.

      Sadly I have to hope that your case is the third. Then just maybe you can start developing your own thought out opinions on the things of the world.

      Have a nice day.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    113. Re:What's next? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      I was merely pointing out the difference between targeting a state and targeting a district.

      Was Sarah Palin trying to advocate killing congressional representatives; No. Could putting cross hairs on congressional district be misinterpreted by some nut job and inspire them to kill congressional representatives; yes. The issue is not Ms. Palin's intent but her lack of thought and foresight in using the image on her web site. Many Republicans came out against the site. It is yet another reason why a soccer mom from Alaska who has no diplomatic experience should never be the "most powerful person in the world" (note the quotes because that is becoming debatable).

    114. Re:What's next? by UncleRage · · Score: 1

      Many a day the notion of parking an Airstream alongside some gorgeous lake in Alaska crosses my mind.

      Of course, those daydreams also involve me waxing philosophic while spinning deep cuts of great jazz and wondering how I'm going to get the cute pilot to stop wasting her time with the resident neurotic town MD...

      --
      #SickNotWeak
    115. Re:What's next? by Wingnut64 · · Score: 1

      Palin brought gunsights to the fight. Now she's facing criticism. If she can't take it, she shouldn't start it.

      It's a bit ironic. A basic rule of firearm safety is that you never aim a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot.

      --
      echo 'Header append X-HD-DVD "0x09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0"' >> /etc/apache2/httpd.conf
    116. Re:What's next? by Dishevel · · Score: 0
      Any idiot who thinks that we should think "What would a nut job do if he saw this?" should seriously get the fuck out. Head to Europe. Where free speech evil. I also say screw the fucking Republicans that run and hide so the can look good and get re-elected.

      And .... Screw people like you. The ones that carefully point out that "Well I am not saying so and so is at fault, But they should have known ..." This is the fault of the fucking nut job who pulled the trigger. He is a fucking NUT!

      You do not hear me saying that Obamas treating the Republicans like enemies speech is going to get someone killed. That is because I know as a rational being what he meant. I need to look no further into it.

      One can see your true purpose here. Your last sentence was a political attack against someone who is not currently running for president. It also had nothing to do with our conversation. You NEEDED to get that in there though didn't you. Truly sad.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    117. Re:What's next? by raddan · · Score: 1

      You know, it's funny-- my parents moved us up to Maine around the time that show came out, and it really just connected with my family. I'm sure that Alaska and Maine are different in many important ways, but the weird-o small-town portrayal in Northern Exposure was totally spot-on where we lived. Ha ha. I have that on DVD somewhere... I should dig it up...

    118. Re:What's next? by NemoinSpace · · Score: 1

      yeah? wait till he wins...

    119. Re:What's next? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Exactly this.

      When my parents retired, they bought a pre-fab home to put on their retirement property (formerly the cottage). It came in two halves, is constructed with standard 2x4, sits on a slab, and is better insulated than almost any home I have seen. If they wanted, they could have put in a basement.

      It most definitely is NOT a mobile home or a trailer. It just happens to be built indoors and trucked to your location and then has final assembly done on site. It has a full on peaked roof with shingles and all the fixins.

      The two are very different things.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    120. Re:What's next? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Can't speak to the ones in Florida, but the ones up here in Canada are made of the exact same wood as a regular house.

      Full on 16 inch centered studs, wooden roof trusses and floor beams, gyproc walls and ceilings, proper fiberglass insulation, the whole kit. As far as I could tell, there's not a lick of aluminum in the whole damned thing.

      Different animals entirely.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    121. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really can't fathom how she came up with that phrase.

      Hint: She didn't. Her writers did (and they presumably chose their words with quite some care).

      I read a comment yesterday (somewhere): "You ever notice how Palin suddenly became a English scholar when she started posting on Facebook and Twitter?"

    122. Re:What's next? by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

      COMING UP NEXT: A SyFy special starring Sarah Palin.

      The Forever War: To Alaska and Back

    123. Re:What's next? by Erikderzweite · · Score: 2

      Just out of curiosity: if these homes are mobile so they can move away, say, in case of hurricane, why didn't they? Not enough time since the warning, traffic jams because everyone was leaving, the hope that it won't strike hard this time or a combination of the above?

    124. Re:What's next? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      I am sorry but the name calling and profanity is not useful in polite discussion. It weakens anything you say. Sure you are free to say it but I am also free to discount anything you say.

      And yes, when the consequences of a misunderstanding could lead to someone's death everyone should watch what they say.

      Actually it has everything to do with the conversation. The second post in this thread a mention of another gaff by Ms Palin. She ran for VP last time and has not said she would not run again. Even if she was running for VP she could become President if the President died or could not perform his duties for some reason. I want to be sure Ms. Palin does not get that chance. By the way, I am Canadian but Ms. Palin scares me.

    125. Re:What's next? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      According to the Jewish Rabbi I heard on the radio, the use was incredibly offensive and he couldn't understand why she would say such a ridiculous thing. I guess it depended if they interviewed a Republican or Democrat rabbi.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    126. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny part is with the drop in property values here, why a frickin trailer??
      Condos can be had for $25K in some places

    127. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish to sue the Florida man who has caused the above article to be written as reading the article has caused me considerable
      distress and hurt brought about by my falling of my chair which was caused but the sudden bout of laughter triggered by the
      reading of aforementioend article.

    128. Re:What's next? by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I must have missed recent news concerning LBJ or Goldwater. It sounds like something from ages ago, but feel free to point me towards the news I missed.

    129. Re:What's next? by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware that Palin's speeches were intended as fiction. I thought she was supposed to be a serious politician. My mistake, I guess.

    130. Re:What's next? by silentbrad · · Score: 1

      As someone who's built pre-fabs, and spent some time in trailers (granted, not ones on blocks like BitZtram mentioned down there), you're absolutely right. Different animals.

      However, I trust neither. The company I worked for didn't make homes, but the camps for Fort Mac - pretty much dorm rooms. I'm sure the manufactured homes are better than what they had us doing (at least my journeyman when building the walls made sure we chose good lumber for studs), but I would not want to stay in one of those things. I've seen the shoddy work that goes into them because the company emphasizes quantity over quality.

    131. Re:What's next? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      There are trailers and then there are trailers. The ones in pejorative "trailer parks" are trucked in on big rigs, semi-permanent, and lived in (as a primary residence) solely because they're cheap. Steinbeck, on the other hand, is talking about going camping in an RV, where the trailer -- something like an Airstream rather than a double-wide -- is moved about frequently by its owner and used for recreation or vacationing.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    132. Re:What's next? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Did he explain why it was offensive?

      In the segment I saw, they explained the origin and what it meant. I had never heard of the reference before. The Rabbi then offered his own definition which closely matched that of what was previously offered. Nothing I heard could possibly be considered offensive, given the context, unless one was specifically looking to find offense out of the general public's ignorance. But then again, I'm not looking for an excuse to be offended. As such, I'm more apt to believe this is a bunch of bullshit created out of nothing such that the media can buzz about something. Sadly, buzzing about Palin is news these days. Argh...

    133. Re:What's next? by Dishevel · · Score: 1
      I also have not said I will not run for President. I do not really care what you say. You come from a country that puts Olympic committee wishes above the freedoms of its own people. A country that has no true concept of freedom of speech. Other than that I like Canada. Vancouver is a lovely city. I would NEVER want to live there though.

      As I said though. Once you go to a place where you can start laying blame for what you KNOW to be nothing you are doing nothing short of Lying. If you can not even be honest with yourself there can be no real discussion.

      And Idiot was a perfect description of a person who would make the argument you did.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    134. Re:What's next? by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      Apparently you didn't see some of the pics posted above. Trust me, they're perfectly in line with my thoughts.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    135. Re:What's next? by fredrated · · Score: 1

      Shameful political opportunism? OMG! Are you sure? I thought we had banished that after Cheney called Democrats that didn't want to go to war against Iraq 'traitors'. We didn't?

    136. Re:What's next? by bstender · · Score: 1

      People were saying that her continual use of gun references might lead someone to think that using a gun is an appropriate way to respond to political differences. Her copywriters carefully crafted her (deeply blasphemous) response, calling such a complaint a "blood libel". This term was obviously used to change the subject, to create a strawman out of what is a perfectly reasonable complaint.

      and i say 'her' arguement was "deeply blasphemous" overall because it hinged upon the claim that we are not all connected, that our words and deeds have no consequences and thus, this world is purely nihilistic. Just because some lunatic takes her words too far, doesnt change the fact that if leaders called for reasonable debate to settle political differences, that meme would gain power and diminish the legitimacy of violence.

      --
      look sig is kool
    137. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are not generally mobile once you have packed 20 tons of belongings into them. Maybe a commercial trucker would know for sure, but I think the limit for most bridges is 60,000 lbs., and then there are height issues - you need to go under bridges, etc..

      Moving a mobile home is not a small thing - you need to plan the route.

    138. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I really can't fathom how she came up with that phrase.

      That is because you haven't heard blood libel in any context before yesterday.

    139. Re:What's next? by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      Thank you for posting this. A cat 4-5 hurricane will tear the hell out of all the cost saving crap, from stapled on roofing to this thinking that homes are like Lincoln Logs or something.

    140. Re:What's next? by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      It is a fact that Palin put out a map with crosshairs over Gifford's district. It is a fact that Giffords spoke publicly about where that could lead.

      Palin brought gunsights to the fight. Now she's facing criticism. If she can't take it, she shouldn't start it.

      I hate to have to defend such an odious fool as Sarah Palin, but it must be said that the shooter in this case is a dangerously deranged man, seemingly suffering from a case of schizophrenia. Your insinuation that the political rhetoric was responsible for this shooting is no different than when all of the clowns marched out to blame the Columbine shooting on Marilyn Manson and Doom, except your argument is even worse, as there is no evidence to suggest that the shooter had any affiliation with right wing politics whatsoever. The man is seriously mentally ill, that is all there is to it.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    141. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will be hard for anything else to beat this for the dumbest thing I've seen on the internet today.

      u r absolutely right

    142. Re:What's next? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      I never heard of the phrase before either, but once explained it seems clear to me. The scope of the two actions is not even comparable.

      Blood libel was used as an excuse to persecute Jews for centuries, it simply minimizes the effect of this for Palin to compare it to herself.

      It would be like comparing the hardship of carrying a bag of groceries home from the store to the struggle of Christ having to carry his own cross up to get crucified.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    143. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they're afraid of her, people haven't seen a leader this ignorant and hate filled, yet charismatic as they come get so close to power in an important country since Hitler and Stalin. Her rhetoric is akin to that of a 1930s Hitler gaining popularity through hate mongering, and her charisma is one of the few key traits that dictators thrive upon.

      There's very good reason for the left to be scared- there's reason for everyone to be scared. If this woman gets power she's perfectly capable of triggering a new world war she's so gaff prone, so aggressive, and so oblivious to how international politics should be done.

      Make no mistake, Palin is no less repulsive in her ideology than Hitler was in the 1930s, yet here she is, a likely presidential candidate. Those who fall for her charismatic nationalistic views are no less gullable than those who fell for Hitler's nationalistic cries. Remember that power corrupts- Palin is cruel enough now in her mindset, given power there's absolutely no reason to think that she wont reach the level of some of the worst leaders in history.

    144. Re:What's next? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Just FYI, its actually documented Jesus did NOT carry his own cross. That's a combination of Hollywood and theatrical church lore. A man named Simon carried Jesus' cross. When its said Jesus bore his own cross, they mean metaphorically - as in his fate to come; which was later expanded to include the sins of man. Wait - should I be upset about your reference? ;)

      Blood libel was used as an excuse to persecute Jews for centuries, it simply minimizes the effect of this for Palin to compare it to herself.

      Except most people don't even know what the reference means. So its fairly safe to say, its metaphorical hyperbole which accurately reflects her statement. Simply stating his historical reference doesn't suddenly make it inflammatory given her context was not inflammatory. To be upset about her reference means citing history is inflammatory - which its not. The simple fact is, many, many, coined phrases which people commonly use in the vernacular have somewhat distasteful origins and you don't hear people getting upset about those. As I originally state, this is people manufacturing crap to either have "news" or they're living a rather pitiful excuse of a life.

    145. Re:What's next? by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      It would be like comparing the hardship of carrying a bag of groceries home from the store to the struggle of Christ having to carry his own cross up to get crucified.

      That's priceless, because speaking as someone who was raised as a Christian, we often speak of our troubles, minor and major, as being "our cross to bear". It's not offensive. It's common usage.

    146. Re:What's next? by internettoughguy · · Score: 1

      whoosh

    147. Re:What's next? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Just FYI, its actually documented Jesus did NOT carry his own cross.

      That's ok. It's also fully documented that Jesus didn't write the bible nor did anything in the manger story actually ever happen. The man existed but those stories are made up to give the Catholics power. But that's neither here nor there, my point remains the same that people who know and understand the reference are upset by it because it minimizes what the reference is about.

      As I originally state, this is people manufacturing crap to either have "news" or they're living a rather pitiful excuse of a life.

      If you replace 'people' with 'Sarah Palin' I completely agree with you. She took a news tragedy and twisted it to get herself on the news. Pathetic.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    148. Re:What's next? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      That's priceless, because speaking as someone who was raised as a Christian, we often speak of our troubles, minor and major, as being "our cross to bear". It's not offensive. It's common usage.

      Then you don't really understand what the phrase really means.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  2. Suing the wrong person by gman003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wouldn't it make more sense to sue the government for doing those things, instead of suing Wikileaks for talking about them?

    1. Re:Suing the wrong person by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

      no. "shoot the messenger" is a time honored tradition in society. why stop now?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    2. Re:Suing the wrong person by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      No, because before h was operating on the "what I don't know can't hurt me" principle, which, as we all know, really works...

    3. Re:Suing the wrong person by Saishuuheiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He should be suing Fox. I'm sure it was Fox News that inspired this fear of Wikileaks within him. Plus, they did all this after they convince him that if he steps outside of his trailer animals are going to attack him from all directions.

    4. Re:Suing the wrong person by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      He should be suing his parents for coddling him and not raising him as a flesh eating abomination who kills and devours without any fear or remorse.

    5. Re:Suing the wrong person by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      Yes. Unfortunately this particular Floridan trailer park resident appears to be rather short on the whole, "sense," thing.

    6. Re:Suing the wrong person by yakumo.unr · · Score: 1

      It's all very well saying he's suing the middle man, and should be going after the government as wikileaks only revealed what they had done.

      but you're STILL going after the middle man then,

      sue the doctors who gave names to "hypertension," "depression", "heart attack" and stroke" so that you may be in fear of them, they're clearly the real monsters here.

    7. Re:Suing the wrong person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that principle worked, then snipers wouldn't exist.

    8. Re:Suing the wrong person by gman003 · · Score: 1

      Nope. Should sue the FCC for allowing Fox to continue telling him about websites that can then terrify him.

      I believe that would be the first case of "shooting the messenger's messenger's messenger".

    9. Re:Suing the wrong person by morcego · · Score: 1

      Suing a media company ? Yeah, that sure will work nicely.
      Even if you could find a judge that would accept a case like this, Fox would have him retired in less than 24 hours (unless Fox decided they could use the case to make money somehow).

      --
      morcego
    10. Re:Suing the wrong person by jd · · Score: 1

      Well, only since the advent of guns. Before that, messengers were either burned at the stake or hung, drawn and quartered.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    11. Re:Suing the wrong person by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      It's easy to make fun of Cletus The Slack-Jawed Yokel filing this kind of suit ... but it's less funny when you realize that his rhetoric is no more overheated than what the US government is saying about Wikileaks.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  3. Predictable by paiute · · Score: 5, Funny

    I knew this would happen when I heard that Walmart was putting in self-serve legal departments.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the best posts I've seen on /. in a while!

  4. I'm scared of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm scared of the things google does every day. Therefor I'm going to sue /. for telling me about it.

  5. Nuclear war by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 4, Funny

    Luckily, nuclear war is a cure for depression, hypertension, heart attack and stroke.

    --
    My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
    1. Re:Nuclear war by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Probably not if you live in a Florida trailer park: Nuclear weapons and delivery systems are too pricey to waste on low value targets....

      It's one of the perks of living in a high-density area with a lot of strategic stuff nearby. Should the shit hit the fan, I'll go from "sipping a nice gin and tonic" to "gas and/or plasma phase" with such rapidity that my neural net will be destroyed faster than impulses can travel along the nerves. I will, quite literally, be dead before I know it.

      Out in the sticks, people will have to contend with violently expelling their gastrointestinal systems from both ends and fighting off the roving bands of supermutants.

    2. Re:Nuclear war by NetNed · · Score: 1

      He is in a trailer park, so a tornado could accomplish that just as easily with out all the collateral damage.

    3. Re:Nuclear war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, a global thermonuclear war can really ruin your day.

    4. Re:Nuclear war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, I just about fell out of my chair laughing at work... this is hysterical.

    5. Re:Nuclear war by BranMan · · Score: 1

      Maybe not - while visiting Disney World many years ago I had the disquieting thought, in the midst of all of it, that the Soviets( I did say it was many years ago), at least, have a nuclear warhead aimed here. For symbolism if nothing else. Talk about a buzz-kill....

  6. Citizen by DarkArctic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't you have to be a citizen in order to be charged with treason?

    1. Re:Citizen by gstrickler · · Score: 0

      He might want to read the US Constitution (Article 3, Section 3), it gives a very specific and much narrower definition of treason than the common definition.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    2. Re:Citizen by SlippyToad · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, living in a trailer park in bumfuck FL he probably doesn't realize who Assange actually is, or where he is, or what he actually does.

      It sounds to me like someone put Pitchford up to this. And has the court thrown this complaint out with gales of derisive laughter yet? If not, may I volunteer to provide the laughter?

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    3. Re:Citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Don't you have to be a citizen in order to be charged with treason?

      Not according to the American concept of Manifest Destiny, with its emphasis on American Exceptionalism, Nationalism, and "divine destiny" to help promote the virtues of Freedom and Democracy as interpreted by the leaders of the Republic.

    4. Re:Citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, US citizenship can be given to him :D

    5. Re:Citizen by natehoy · · Score: 2

      It's a free country. You certainly may.

      In fact, I think a flash mob would be most appropriate in this situation. Have a bunch of people show up at the courthouse entrance. No anger, no signs, no threats, no speeches, no derision. At a pre-determined time, everyone simultaneously points at Pitchford, puts on a big red clown nose, and spends 20 seconds having a good belly laugh. At the end of 20 seconds, everyone walks off nonchalantly. Then go home and try desperately to forget that idiots like this exist and validate their idiocy with undue attention.

      I'd go for stocks and shunning, but that's become unpopular in this new mollycoddling age. So a flash mob and ignoring him is about the best we can do any more.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    6. Re:Citizen by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

      Don't you have to be a citizen in order to be charged with treason?

      No, not in a Florida trailer park.

      --

      I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    7. Re:Citizen by igaborf · · Score: 1

      Don't you have to be a citizen in order to be charged with treason?

      That's such pre-9/11 thinking.

    8. Re:Citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This involves the lawsuits and the US government. What does the Constitution have to do with any of this?

    9. Re:Citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably not, you'll just be a illegal citizen and detained on some island instead.

    10. Re:Citizen by BForrester · · Score: 1

      You must be new here (America).

    11. Re:Citizen by chefmonkey · · Score: 1

      You know, the funny thing is that I found myself thinking (just the other day) that Assange is the greatest US patriot the world has seen since Woodward and Bernstein (or Ellsburg, depending on what you think is more important). But then I realized that he's Australian, and can't really be a US patriot. His service is really more to everyone the planet, which apparently has fallen under US influence (especially the spineless "leaders" of the UK and Australia).

      Would that make him an Earth patriot?

  7. Summary fail... by Westley · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the summary: "in fear of being on the brink of another nuclear [sic] WAR."'

    From the article: "in fear of being on the brink of another nucliar [sic] WAR".

    It would help if posters didn't correct spelling for words which are followed by [sic].

    1. Re:Summary fail... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the title says he sues wikileaks, and the summary says he sues Assange. What a piece of shit.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Summary fail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The apparent shock was that he spelled 'nuclear' correctly.

    3. Re:Summary fail... by shurikt · · Score: 1

      I had assumed that the sic tag was used because of the word "another." I can't remember any of the previous nuclear wars, although I may not have been paying attention at the time.

    4. Re:Summary fail... by NitroWolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I had assumed that the sic tag was used because of the word "another." I can't remember any of the previous nuclear wars, although I may not have been paying attention at the time.

      You may have missed WWII or the Cold War... both were nuclear. One used a couple of atomic bombs, the other used the threat of them.

    5. Re:Summary fail... by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Everybody knows it's nucular, our last president said so. And he was white so he must have gone to school.

      (this is a joke, don't take offense)

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    6. Re:Summary fail... by raddan · · Score: 1

      Oh, I just thought it was correcting for the inevitable mispronunciation that we're going to do in our heads.

    7. Re:Summary fail... by FrootLoops · · Score: 2

      I've never seen "sic" used for logical fallacies, just spelling and some grammar. It's just a flag for writers to say, "I can spell but the person I'm quoting can't. Don't blame me."

    8. Re:Summary fail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Floriduh [sic]

    9. Re:Summary fail... by eko3 · · Score: 1
      http://www.dailywritingtips.com/what-does-sic-mean/

      “What does [sic] mean?” Sic in square brackets is an editing term used with quotations or excerpts. It means “that’s really how it appears in the original.” It is used to point out a grammatical error, misspelling, misstatement of fact, or, as above, the unconventional spelling of a name.

      I'm not going to lie... I had to go look up what [sic] meant because it was used so many times above:

    10. Re:Summary fail... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Oh phew, I was worried that "nuclear" had finally been officially replaced with "nucular."

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    11. Re:Summary fail... by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      From the summary: "in fear of being on the brink of another nuclear [sic] WAR."'

      From the article: "in fear of being on the brink of another nucliar [sic] WAR".

      It would help if posters didn't correct spelling for words which are followed by [sic].

      THANK YOU!!! I was totally and utterly perplexed why that "[sic]" was there...

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    12. Re:Summary fail... by jc42 · · Score: 0

      I had assumed that the sic tag was used because of the word "another." I can't remember any of the previous nuclear wars, although I may not have been paying attention at the time.

      You may have missed WWII or the Cold War... both were nuclear. One used a couple of atomic bombs, the other used the threat of them.

      Something I've found fun is to challenge people to name the country that has used nuclear weapons in war. Sometimes I include the hint that it was done twice. It's funny how many people give me a blank (or non-believing) look. Maybe it's because they're mostly Americans (which is who I'm surrounded with most of the time), and have the typical American understanding of history and geography.

      I think I have a bit of a reputation among my acquaintances for joking about history. But claiming that some country has actually used nuclear weapons is so far out that many people are just puzzled about why I would make up such a story, since there's no visible humor in it.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    13. Re:Summary fail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Otherwise, I couldn't quote the summary like this: "in fear of being on the brink of another nuclear [sic][sic] WAR."

    14. Re:Summary fail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In what way, precisely, would that help?

    15. Re:Summary fail... by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Actually the definition of nuclear war is a bit fuzzy. In some definitions both sides have to use nuclear weapons so even WW2 would not be a nuclear war. In all definitions at least one side must use a nuclear weapon, "going nuclear", so The Cold War would not be a nuclear war.

      The Cold War is might not even met the criteria to be a war as no official armed conflict occurred and no war was declared. Sure there were a lot of weapons pointed, many "incident" where people were killed and more than a few proxy wars but no overt military conflict where people were killed, land taken or treaties ending the "war" signed by the Western or Soviet powers when it ended. To me the Cold war is the label for a period of political tension not military conflict. If the Cold War was a war wouldn't the US, by those standards, be at war with Iran? I don't think so.

  8. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  9. why does where he lives matter? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    "David Pitchford, a Florida trailer park resident..."

    this really gets me mad. why does living in Florida matter? why does living in a trailer park matter? that's wrong with people, this sort of prejudice...

    come to think of it, yeah, carry on. this is a good prejudice

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:why does where he lives matter? by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 2

      Because people that live in the Panhandle of Florida (which has some of the poorest areas) are notorious for insurance/government program fraud. I used to live there and can tell you all sorts of stories about how the locals have been trying to screw people over for money. There's a documentary of a town about a half hour away from where I used to live where people were maiming themselves (cutting off limbs and such) to collect insurance on such a wide scale that insurance investigations into fraud were conducted on just about everyone in the town.

      The stereotype implied isn't just him living in Florida, or being a trailer park resident, but a combination of the two as there is an existing stereotype for that group.

      Doesn't make the stereotype right, but it does exist.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    2. Re:why does where he lives matter? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Funny

      Prejudice is just the drunk, mean, cousin of pattern recognition, which is just the folksy-handyman version of the scientific method....

    3. Re:why does where he lives matter? by udoschuermann · · Score: 2

      I'm not in the least surprised that this fine example of human rational superiority lives in Florida. I read Fark, after all, and have seen no shortage of this kind of mind-boggling idiocy. More to the point, I think the this guy's anxiety is more likely caused by the fact that trailer parks attract tornadoes.

      --
      --Udo.
    4. Re:why does where he lives matter? by raddan · · Score: 1

      There are patterns within patterns, however, and one of those meta-patterns is the recognition that not all patterns are valid. That's why we have the scientific method in the first place.

    5. Re:why does where he lives matter? by pla · · Score: 1

      this really gets me mad. why does living in Florida matter? why does living in a trailer park matter? that's wrong with people, this sort of prejudice...

      You might want to avoid Fark for the foreseeable future...

    6. Re:why does where he lives matter? by Geminii · · Score: 1

      "We call him Bubba."

  10. Sue the trailer park while you're at it... by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    ...because we all know that trailer parks are liable to cause depression, anxiety, and feelings of desperate isolation.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  11. Ditto by Suki+I · · Score: 1

    It will be hard for anything else to beat this for the dumbest thing I've seen on the internet today.

    This one will be hard to beat. I am no Assange fan, but this is just stupid.

  12. I'm suing Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For posting worthless stories and becoming yet another crappy politics site.

    1. Re:I'm suing Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the 100th time, this was posted in idle.

    2. Re:I'm suing Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the millionth time, stop exaggerating.

  13. Obviously a scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously this guy decided that he might be able to make a buck by inventing this crap.

    1. Re:Obviously a scam by madfilipino · · Score: 1

      Its possible that he's working for the US government to get Assange to the US where he (Assange) can be promptly arrested and per^H^H^Hprosecuted for some crime that hasn't been committed.

    2. Re:Obviously a scam by delinear · · Score: 2

      Oh the crime has been committed, don't you worry about that. They've just not invented a name for the crime and the requisite paperwork to go along with it yet, but most certainly the crime was committed.

    3. Re:Obviously a scam by anyGould · · Score: 1

      Its possible that he's working for the US government to get Assange to the US where he (Assange) can be promptly arrested and per^H^H^Hprosecuted for some crime that hasn't been committed.

      Not going to judge, but if this guy is the best the government can come up with, y'all are in a lot more trouble than I thought - I'm going to bet that the judge dismisses the whole thing at the first hearing (for lack of jurisdiction, if nothing else). Pretty positive that WikiLeaks will politely ignore the whole thing.

      (Although come to think of it, the best "Republican female" apparently is Sarah Palin, so you never know...)

      (Seriously - Sarah Palin is the best the Republicans can come up with as an answer to Clinton? Does this not scare people?)

    4. Re:Obviously a scam by blind+monkey+3 · · Score: 1

      Now that you mentioned her name, this guy sounds suspiciously like Sarah Palin's cousin - he could well be the next seketry (sic) of state y'all....

      --
      BM3
  14. Is the end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can anyone tell me how people can be so stupid?

    1. Re:Is the end by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      This is what happens when you grow up among Fox News watcher-types. Not hard to understand.

      There are far more baffling depths of un-education:

      I once saw a woman from a poor South American country try to patch a leaking aerosol can (it had fallen and sprung a leak, with aerosol spraying out at high pressure) with tin foil and masking tape.

      I saw another woman from the same country, at well over 180lbs (as a conservative guess), attempt to stand on the very flimsiest of plastic garden chairs.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  15. Just in case he reads slashdot by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Just in case he reads slashdot:


    **** BOOH ****


    There's another court case for you.

  16. While you're there... by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

    And while he's at the courthouse, David can change his name to David Pitchfork and complete the trailer-trash facade.

  17. An obvious kook... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But this guy is merely a risibly hyperbolic instance of a much broader, more common, and (in alarmingly many circles) respected position: Namely, that the person who reveals wrongdoing is somehow guiltier of that wrongdoing than the person who commits it.

    I can't figure out if this view is a cancerous outgrowth of the morally monstrous "My country right or wrong" brigade(who are certainly louder and more numerous than there more honorable "May my country always be right and, when wrong, be set right" counterparts) or if it is a symptom of an even deeper flavor of cognitive limitation and/or ethical infantalism.

    Below a certain age, and in some lower animals, "object permanence" is not well established. If they see an object enter a bag, they still lose track of it once it leaves their vision, and do not conclude that it must be residing in the bag, and can be found there. Above a certain age, and in smarter animals, this conclusion sticks. One is inclined to wonder if there is some moral variant of this, where some people, for who knows what reason, cannot apply "ethical action permanence" and conclude that, if Wikileaks took it out of the bag, and the government is the one who puts stuff in the bag, even though Wikileaks is holding the unethical object, it is merely the entity that took the object out of the bag where it had earlier been placed, not the entity that created the object.

    In a way, I actually find the straight-up belligerent "USA! USA! Nuke ALL RAGHEADS!!!!" crowd to be more respectable. They are atavistic, barbarous scum, but they are refreshingly honest and straightforward about their bloodlust. The mealy-mouthed "respectable" apologists, on the other hand, are ethically no better; but spend their time dripping honeyed words and "nuance" to cover for the policies that they don't have the guts to endorse public-ally. It's like Fred Phelps: He is an awful human being, and merely by existing makes one wish there were a hell for him to inhabit; but he is all honesty. No equivocation, no focusing only on soft targets(anybody can picket an abortion clinic without much in the way of controversy, hitting military funerals takes serious guts...), no "Oh, we just stand for commonsense family values" circumlocution.

    1. Re:An obvious kook... by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1

      But this guy is merely a risibly hyperbolic instance of a much broader, more common, and (in alarmingly many circles) respected position: Namely, that the person who reveals wrongdoing is somehow guiltier of that wrongdoing than the person who commits it.

      Yup. This is the bit that confuses me...

      Granted, some of that stuff probably shouldn't have been leaked. And I'm sure various people broke various laws by leaking it. And there may very well be court cases and punishments and whatever else...

      But the scary stuff that this guy is stressing about? Wikileaks didn't do that stuff. The US Government did that stuff. Wikileaks just let you know about the scary stuff.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    2. Re:An obvious kook... by multiplexo · · Score: 1

      That's a really brilliant idea, ethical actional permanence. I'm going to pimp that all over the web because it's a perfect explanation for the behavior of many of the commentators on this case and for a lot of conservatives.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    3. Re:An obvious kook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're trying to inject too much logic into this.

      The guy is either:
      1. A nutcase in the same vein as Jared Loughner and should probably undergo a professional psychiatric evaluation.

      2. Someone looking to cash-in on the situation. In other words, just another bum looking for free money.

    4. Re:An obvious kook... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      I think it's extreme tribalism. Some folks need to ascribe a purity to the tribe they identify with. It keeps their world stable and helps them sleep at night to know that their country stands for Truth and Justice. It's something good they can be sure of.

      So when someone comes along and disrupts that feeling of security, the disruptor is blamed. People aren't so much pissed off that their country does questionable things (to put it lightly), as they are angry at being forced to confront and acknowledge it. It makes things complicated and unsure. The fantasy is more comfortable than reality.

      Things were so much easier when we could just assume the USA was right and the other guy was wrong. Why'd that Assange guy have to come along and screw it all up?

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    5. Re:An obvious kook... by equex · · Score: 1

      Me too, grandparent comment is truly insightful. No mod points to give though.

      --
      Can I light a sig ?
    6. Re:An obvious kook... by Geminii · · Score: 1

      It'd be most refreshing if chanting "U-S-A!" caused people to explode.

    7. Re:An obvious kook... by Securityemo · · Score: 1

      Or, these people honestly do not want to care, but are forced to if someone dangles the situation in front of their faces. "Why couldn't he just mind his own business so I could have peace of mind?"

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
  18. If this works... by Primitive+Pete · · Score: 2

    ...I'm suing Fox, NY Times, Washington Post, etc. They've got REAL money.

    1. Re:If this works... by socz · · Score: 1

      count me in! Can we say class action? Oh yeah!

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    2. Re:If this works... by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      count me in! Can we say class action? Oh yeah!

      The centers of Class Action suits are: Cleveland, OH, Beaumont,TX, and Orlando, FL.

      When he gets there he should look for the law firm of Uriah Ketchum and Isaac Cheatham, who have been defending gatored communities for years.

    3. Re:If this works... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It must be Isaac's brother who is one of the principle partners of Dewey, Cheatham and Howe.

  19. Editors: Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Finally! It's about time the editors [sic] started fixing (or at least acknowledging [sic]) all the stupid typos and grammatical [sic] errors that emanate [sic] from this site.

  20. I'm a bit confused about the treason part.... by tinkerghost · · Score: 5, Interesting

    how exactly does one commit treason against a country you have no affiliation with? Given that Assange is Australian, it'd be a pretty bizarre contortion of the law to conclude that he's committed treason against the US government. Espionage perhaps, but by definition: only Australia can charge him with treason.

    1. Re:I'm a bit confused about the treason part.... by Bergs007 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they plan on forcing citizenship upon him?

    2. Re:I'm a bit confused about the treason part.... by ShooterNeo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Apparently they can. How else would they extradite him? If Federal prosecutors can convince a grand jury to indict Assange (not hard to do...the grand jury system is rigged heavily in favor of prosecutors) they can ask whichever country he is in to arrest and extradite him. Even if Assange has never stepped foot on U.S. soil.

      They just have to show he committed a crime against the U.S. over the internet...such as 'conspiracy to commit espionage'. After giving Manning 'protective solitary confinment' (aka coercive torture) for enough time, they'll get Manning to claim that Assange and him worked together to get those government documents. Manning will be offered a deal for a limited amount of prison time if he serves as a 'government witness' against Assange. Given the last 7 months have been hell on earth for Manning, turning such an offer down would be incredibly difficult. Even if there is no actual communication logs showing this, the mere testimony of Manning (under duress) is a "witness statement" that a grand jury can use.

      Once they get Assange dragged into U.S. custody, they can lock him up in jail for years while federal prosecutors file motions for extensions and things. Then, finally, they can give him a show trial where the jury is stacked with people who hate sex criminals. (even though Assange would not be accused of such crime, the jurors would think of him as a rapist).

      Even if he were acquitted (the case as I outlined it is very weak) he would be out hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal defense fees and years off his natural lifespan. The Federal government cannot be sued to reclaim either of these things unless Assange were able to show that the government KNEW he was innocent. (which if they have a coerced statement from Manning, above, the government doesn't have to pay)

      So in a nutshell : they can punish Assange severely for his actions even if they are never able to convict him of a crime. And imagine the mental anguish : Assange won't know for months or years during this process if he is going to be convicted and made to rot in prison for decades.

      This kind of thing happens day in and day out in the U.S. We make more people rot in confinement than the worst despotic regimes in history. And there are many effective ways to get around the protections offered by your 'rights', making them nearly meaningless in practice.

    3. Re:I'm a bit confused about the treason part.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, if I follow his logic (or lack thereof) in the court filing

      "6. That Defendants claim to operate a journalism entity protected by the free speech clause of the first amendment of the United States Constitution; Thus claiming citezship of the United States of America."

      Being a journalist who desires free speech automatically entitles you to become a US citizen. News to me!

    4. Re:I'm a bit confused about the treason part.... by tp_xyzzy · · Score: 1

      and do this before he did the evil acts of terror? (they could have secretly granted him citizenship in 1985?)

    5. Re:I'm a bit confused about the treason part.... by asylumx · · Score: 1

      All your ranting is a bit misplaced, since even if this lawsuit were tried, it is merely a CIVIL suit, not criminal.

    6. Re:I'm a bit confused about the treason part.... by Yosho · · Score: 1

      We make more people rot in confinement than the worst despotic regimes in history.

      In all fairness, most of history's despotic regimes just killed dissenters rather than imprisoning them for vaguely-defined crimes.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    7. Re:I'm a bit confused about the treason part.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've no doubt that this happens day and and day out in the US, but don't for a second think that this is going to happen in Australia.

      What Assange has managed to achieve in Australia is to make himself known to every single person whom previously didn't have a clue who he was, or what he did. Australian politicians are scared whitless of the popular impact of Assange's media flurry and the related backing of the Australian mass media. Australian mass media would chew the political system to pieces if Assange was hung out to dry by the American government. He's managed to align himself as something of a national hero and akin to the leaders of mass media of this country, and while Australia's political leadership is so absolutely just-hanging-on.. there's no way any politician or party is going to walk away from allowing Assange's extradition to the US.

      This series of events just isn't going to happen unless (or until) everyone forgets who Julian Assange is. And given that he's got the support of Australian press, more embarrassing US political cables and will soon be releasing a book, that's going to occur sometime between a long time from now and never.

      Yes, the US can simply ignore Australia's problems and chew Assange up through a corrupt legal process. But this will cause the sort of fallout that just can't currently be afforded by a broke country with few friends.

    8. Re:I'm a bit confused about the treason part.... by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Your answer is how they can charge him with lawbreaking. Treason is a very specific type of crime; committing an act that betrays your country. The Constitution has some very strict requirements as to who it can apply to.

    9. Re:I'm a bit confused about the treason part.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +5 insightful. Well done!

      I got modded Troll for saying the exact same thing in the story the other day

      I kind of find it odd that the days I post to 'controversial' stories such as this, that post and my last 9 posts made all over slashdot in the prior 2 weeks get troll mods at the same time :/

    10. Re:I'm a bit confused about the treason part.... by BluBrick · · Score: 1

      Maybe Mr. Pitchford doesn't know the difference between treason and trauma.

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
    11. Re:I'm a bit confused about the treason part.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once you meet some Australians it will all become clear: they consider themselves to be honorary American citizens, and their country is actually the United States of Australia. Seriously, everything about Aussie society and culture is consciously imitating that of the U.S.A. - which is pretty sad, I'm sure you'll agree.

    12. Re:I'm a bit confused about the treason part.... by vortexau · · Score: 1

      Once you meet some Australians it will all become clear: they consider themselves to be honorary American citizens, and their country is actually the United States of Australia. Seriously, everything about Aussie society and culture is consciously imitating that of the U.S.A. - which is pretty sad, I'm sure you'll agree.

      Either you are just trying to be funny, or you have obtained your "facts" from some strange source.

      I'm an Australian, and I have NEVER thought of myself in the way you mention; honorary or otherwise.
      The official title for our nation is the Commonwealth of Australia.
      Mainstream sports include Cricket, Australian Rules Football, Rugby League, and Rugby Union.
      Australian traffic has always driven on the Left.
      Our navy is named the Royal Australian Navy, and our air force is named the Royal Australian Air Force.
      We have a Governor General and individual state Governors as representatives of of the Australian monarch (currently Queen Elizabeth II).

      "Canada, Australia and New Zealand are clearly not controlled by the United Kingdom. The monarch of these countries (Elizabeth II) is in law Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia, Queen of New Zealand and only acts on the advice of the ministers in each country and is in no way influenced by the British government."

      Oh yes! That state of affairs is so clearly 'imitating that of the U.S.A'.

      --
      (David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
  21. @Walmart putting in self-serve legal departments by MindKata · · Score: 2

    Thankfully nature finds its balance, as now millions of people can sue David Pitchford for choking whilst laughing and coffee all over their keyboards.

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
  22. Can i sue this guy for being a right wing nutjob ? by unity100 · · Score: 0

    actually i can. and it shows the measure of stupidity of legal system. moreover, if i have enough cash, i can even win too ! further indicators to the stupidity of legal system.

  23. In Soviet Russia by Diesel+Dave · · Score: 0

    The truth sues YOU!

  24. yes yes !! by unity100 · · Score: 1

    i had just come home, and i had noticed people jumping with joy in the streets, running naked, flapping their arms like wings in ecstasy. i wasnt able to make anything out of it. but now i have come and read this article, and discovered that the editors in slashdot finally started paying attention to grammar, the biggest problem that society faces, i am able to understand why those people were running about in joy in the streets.

  25. Re:No one cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    /b/ might. They care about these sorts of people enough to soothingly troll them.

  26. Class Action by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

    Well I think he should start a Class Action lawsuit against his government because Assange only posted facts. It was his government that scared him.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  27. Nuclear [sic] ? by karlandtanya · · Score: 3

    As opposed to what? The correct spelling, which is nukular?

    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
    1. Re:Nuclear [sic] ? by flimflammer · · Score: 3, Informative

      The submitter doesn't know how to properly use [sic]. The article spells it "nucliar". Submitter corrected it for some reason and added [sic] anyway.

    2. Re:Nuclear [sic] ? by LambdaWolf · · Score: 1

      I think the "sic" referred to the phrase "another nuclear" war, as no first nuclear war has ever occurred. (Unless you want to count World War II, but I generally understand the phrase as referring to a war in which both sides use nukes, and as the main means of combat.)

      --
      "This algorithm runs in constant time. Come on, 2,147,483,648 is a constant..."
    3. Re:Nuclear [sic] ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to be a pedantic ass, but it is spelled "nucular", just ask GWB.

    4. Re:Nuclear [sic] ? by kbolino · · Score: 1

      In WW2, 100% of the actors possessing nuclear weapons used them during the course of the war, and 100% of the operational nuclear arsenal of the world was detonated before the end of the war. I would say that qualifies as a "nuclear war."

  28. By this logic I can sue Pitchford. by seeker_1us · · Score: 1

    After all, Pitchford's negligence has caused me "hypertension," "depression" and "living in fear of being stricken by another heart attack and/or stroke" as a result of living "in fear of being exposed to extreme stupidity."

  29. As a Florida resident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am, yet again, embarrassed.

  30. Loser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is yet another great reason why the US should have a loser pays legal system when it comes to law suits.

  31. His lawyer, if any, should be disbarred by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any lawyer who took up this guy's case should be immediately disbarred, and possibly be committed in a mental institution. If he's acting as his own lawyer, the latter goes doubly so.

  32. Nobody sees what this really is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A way to get him into the United States so they can grab him and shut him up?

  33. Who's the bigger idiot? by Mr.Fork · · Score: 1

    What is even more scary was some dipsheit professional lawyer actually took the case on for this moron. Talk about who's the biggest idiot - the lawyer or the trailer park resident?

    --
    Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things. - Peter F. Drucker
    1. Re:Who's the bigger idiot? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      What is even more scary was some dipsheit professional lawyer actually took the case on for this moron. Talk about who's the biggest idiot - the lawyer or the trailer park resident?

      Not necessarily - he could have filed the papers all by himself. It makes for a funny headline on a slow news day, but won't see the light of day in court.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. Re:Who's the bigger idiot? by riskeetee · · Score: 1

      His attorney is Jack Thompson.

      Thanks again, Florida!

    3. Re:Who's the bigger idiot? by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      The client.

      The lawyer's going to get paid either way.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    4. Re:Who's the bigger idiot? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      My guess is it's a smart if sleazy personal injury lawyer who set legworkers on uneducated folks until he found one who could be convinced being traumatized was his own idea, and now intends to milk it into a settlement, of which he'll take half.

      If it doesn't get thrown out of court, expect to see a further spate of similar lawsuits.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    5. Re:Who's the bigger idiot? by augustw · · Score: 1

      He did file the papers himself - it says so on them; that's what the "Pro Se" below his signature means, No lawyers involved - after three years at law school, most JDs can at least spell.

  34. Oprah by NetNed · · Score: 0

    Can I sue oprah for unleashing irritating people like Dr. Phil with his questionable advise and Dr. Oz with his fecal fetish. Both of them cause me pain anytime I have to suffer through a broadcast someone else is watching.

    "Oh the humanity!" [sic]

    1. Re:Oprah by jackpot777 · · Score: 1

      Winston Smith and his viewscreen without an Off switch, is that you?!?

      --
      Shiny. Let's be bad guys...
    2. Re:Oprah by NetNed · · Score: 1

      WOW. Bash Oprah and it gets a zero on slashdot? WTF has happened to the slashdot community?

  35. Can I sue this guy for causing me discomfort? by phonewebcam · · Score: 1

    His antics made me laugh so much my stomach hurt. So cough up, sunshine.

  36. An explanation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um ....

    ...a Florida trailer park resident...

    Doesn't that explain things? He'll probably sue for damages because of lack of companionship with his dog, the demand that "Free Bird" become the new national anthem, and the Confederate Flag become the new flag of the Yee-Ew niiiighted staaates of Amerikah!

    Jeff Foxworthy for Prezidant!

    My captcha is "porches" I guess I have to mention that the dog lives under the porch...

    Don't blame me! Slashdot made me do it!

  37. A startling truth is revealed by Itesh · · Score: 1

    Some people just can't handle the truth about what their government is really up to. I am sure there are many people that want to continue living with their head buried in the sand so they don't have to deal with the stark realities of what our government really does. The sad part is that there are many more people like him that want to go on living like sheep as long as you don't take away their television and alcohol.

  38. someone should lock up the florida guy in prison by Dan667 · · Score: 1

    then he would be perfectly safe and would not even have to think for himself, they would tell him when and what he could do.

  39. Can I sue... by mariox19 · · Score: 1

    ...for the distress idiots like this cause me to suffer?

    --

    quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

  40. I personally nominate this guy for... by DrPeper · · Score: 1

    The biggest DOUCHEBAG in the Universe award.

  41. Re:Can i sue this guy for being a right wing nutjo by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

    A micus curiae brief would be fun.

    --
    XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  42. So what do we accuse spies of? by thefixer(tm) · · Score: 1

    When a foreign national uncovers secrets and we catch them, what are they accused of? What's the equivalent of treason when done by someone from another country?

    1. Re:So what do we accuse spies of? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Espionage?

      But does that apply to 3rd parties that just pass on the information?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  43. florida man need to grow UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Me thinks florida man has just dreamed up a way to make a bit of wonga and needs to get out of Pre school and into the real world ANY court that does not thorw this straight out on it dick needs closing down because they are just pandering to the money nothing legal at all

    a right old load of cobblers pure and simple send florida man here I scare the living CRAP outta him for good jerkoff dickhead

  44. Nuts with guns, nuts with lawyers by HangingChad · · Score: 1

    Nuts with lawyers are better. At least he's only hurting his own financial future and wasting the court's time.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  45. Oh shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I guess I should sue the government itself for causing me distress because of the way it has been handling all of this, as well as terrorism in general?

  46. One good turn... by randomaxe · · Score: 1

    This idiot's frivolous lawsuit has brought me to the realization that there are just too many stupid people in the world with access to both lawyers and the internet.

    This new information scares me.

    Can I sue this guy for scaring me with his suing over being scared?

    1. Re:One good turn... by augustw · · Score: 1

      No lawyers were involved in this frivolous suit; it was filed pro se (ie: by the plaintiff, on his own behalf).

  47. Will the real trailer trash please stand up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody cares about your stupid irrational fears. For the last time.. Asange is NOT a US citizen...he CANNOT be charged with treason so get over it.

    You make trailer trash look bad and as such I am filing a lawsuit against you for defaming my social-economic condition.

    Being trailer trash does not render one unable to experience walmart in style.

  48. No better way to describe this man: by xedd · · Score: 1

    What a worthless pussy.

  49. This guy scares me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This Guy really scares me.....

    Wait that gives me an idea!

  50. I R frum uh traialer pork.. by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    An U B scarin me, I wont muny fer mah hort utacks!

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  51. Feels familiar by burnetd · · Score: 1

    That's the way I felt when Bush was voted President, can I sue the USA for voting him in ?

  52. In other related news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other related news, 2173 sheep have declared themselves 'finally free' of a man, who would come after them, dressed up to look like a sheep, but clearly a man. He would attempt repeatedly to defile the sheep. Due to persistent sheep vigilance, his advances were soundly rebuffed. The man, having given up on his attempt to sire a man-sheep, decided instead that he was scared of nuclear war, and attempted to sue Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, for damages or something. When asked to comment, the sheep were heard to baaa "We here in the herd have sympathy for Mr. Assange, but would not trade our current circumstances (being rid the the man and his advances) again. Some of our group have had difficulty sitting/laying down, and become extremely irritated if anything bumps them from behind. "

  53. Sometimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suicide is the answer.

  54. Shocking.. by Gunkerty+Jeb · · Score: 0

    Only in Florida.

  55. The right wing is more prone to fear. by jackpot777 · · Score: 1

    Conservatives, scientifically, are more scared of loud noises and scary pictures, were described as being frightened and easily offended as three year olds, and have a larger 'fear' center and smaller 'anticipation and decision-making' center

    This isn't spin, it's established science. So seeing fear, anti-government sentiment, and a parroting of the Glenn Beckesque rhetoric that's unfortunately a large part of the news here in the US right now doesn't surprise me one bit.

    --
    Shiny. Let's be bad guys...
    1. Re:The right wing is more prone to fear. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Conservatives, scientifically, are more scared of loud noises and scary pictures, were described as being frightened and easily offended as three year olds, and have a larger 'fear' center and smaller 'anticipation and decision-making' center

      This isn't spin, it's established science. So seeing fear, anti-government sentiment, and a parroting of the Glenn Beckesque rhetoric that's unfortunately a large part of the news here in the US right now doesn't surprise me one bit.

      Conclusion: In the age of three years, we were all conservatives.
      So where's the conservative campaign to allow three-year olds to vote? :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  56. Perception and Reality by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    So let me get this straight.
    The problem is not that bad shit is happening,
    but that we now know it's happening.

    May I suggest a set of horse's blinkers and noise-cancelling headphones,
    to ensure blissful living.

    Of course, then, you'd have to sue your own imagination.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  57. Ha ha ha! by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

    Greedy loser.

  58. Oh America... by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

    This country never fails to remind me I'm living in the stupidest nation on earth... ...also what is the [SIC] on nuclear about? You DO know that's actually how it's spelled right? It's not nucular or anything? You get that?

    I really hope so.

    --
    If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    1. Re:Oh America... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      it was spelled "nucliar [sic]" in the original article.

  59. Pele24 by Pele24 · · Score: 1

    Brilliant, now I can sue Hollywood for making scary movies. Combine that with my lawsuite against KFC for their "Low-Carb" diet making me fat and I'll be set for life.

  60. RE: "Money for Nothing" by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

    When I was a kid, I always thought the line was, "Money for nothing, and checks for free."

    I wanted to get an account as his bank so badly.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  61. Dear Citizen... by WWWWolf · · Score: 1

    Dear citizen of [Insert country here]. Your politicians in [Insert the building name/address/location, as commonly referred to, of the parliament or equivalent body here] are probably doing things just right most of the time, but sometimes, they do incredibly boneheaded things. Wikileaks revealed [Insert new-found nastiness], but if you had been awake, you would have remembered [Insert recent Slashdot headline involving IT legislation banality] which already exposed how rotten things are on general level, didn't it? So don't act surprised - every country has problems that need fixin'. Sincerely, [Insert semi-anonymous pundit pen-name here]

  62. Juan? Is that you? by wrencherd · · Score: 1

    So, I'm guessing Juan Williams took that big Fox signing bonus and finally got that "trailer" on South Beach that he always wanted.

  63. Trial Baloon by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    If this works, then Dick Cheney owes me big.

  64. Is this a hoax? by Relayman · · Score: 1

    This story is from the United Kingdom (THINQ.co.uk). A search on Google News didn't produce any hits except the one article. Find me someone in Florida who's written something about this and I'll write a comment.

    --
    If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
  65. Uh euro question ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much longer for the second American civil war?

    1. Re:Uh euro question ... by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Bread and circuses (read: reality TV shows) ensure that there won't be one.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  66. Treason? by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

    Can someone who isn't an American Citizen and has no ties to the USA be guilty of Treason?

    Also: While we are rightfully mocking this uneducated, lower class wage slave's outrage that someone might dare point out flaws in his perfect government fantasy, lets not forget that several Republicans have openly called for Assange's assassination, unlawful imprisonment, and at this time there appears to be a conspiracy to ruin his life under trumped up false charges of having sex without a condom (which the US media is calling rape) which is a well known FUD tactic by the US Government.

    While this trailer park plaintiff is obvious a whackjob, his only true crime is he's vocalizing what the GOP is fantasizing about right now.

  67. Therapy Needed by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

    Sounds like instead of needing to file a lawsuit, the plaintiff needs to make a therapy appointment with Doctor Ermey.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  68. Good Idea by Starfleet+Command · · Score: 1

    I think I may try the same thing. This time of year especially I am afraid of the IRS. Wonder how much I can sue them for?

    1. Re:Good Idea by tp_xyzzy · · Score: 1

      IRS might have enough money, so it's probably very good target for lawsuits...

  69. Give me a break by kimvette · · Score: 1

    Assange is as guilty of espionage as Deep Throat was in the watergate scandal.
    Assange is as guilty of treason as Napoleon Bonaparte was (hint: neither are US citizens therefore neither can be guilty of treason against the US, by definition)
    Assange is as much of a terrorist as Rupert Murdoch. Okay, not quite as much as Rupert Murdoch.

    Does the idiot in question sue the NYT, Faux News, or CNN any time they report bad news, because bad news is distressing?

    I have a hint: if you bury your head in the sand, or live in a cave, stay off the internet and don't listen to the radio or watch TV, and don't read newspapers or magazines, you won't be exposed to bad news and thus can then live in blissful ignorance.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  70. Not surprised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You may or may not be surprised to learn just how often cranks in trailer parks try to sue dead people, celebrities, or religious figures, for controlling their brains. Many court clerks will tell them that they can't file the lawsuit against God unless they find an address to serve Him.

  71. The most merciful thing in the world, I think... by RevWaldo · · Score: 0

    The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.

    .

  72. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Again when did the USA turn into a country of sheep?

    ()()

  73. Re:The most merciful thing in the world, I think.. by JockTroll · · Score: 1

    Are we supposed to be impressed because you're quoting HP Lovecraft, loserboy! Iä! Iä!

    --
    Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
  74. Parasitic Floridian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its fairly obvious that Assange can not go to America to appear in court and I have no doubt that the judge will get a call insisting that he demand Assange's appearance in court at least once.

    (Its not unusual for a judge to request the appearance of a defendant and then allow the defendant's lawyer to make all sole appearances after up until the final decision)

    This could end up as a default judgment against Assange due to failure to appear.

    Typically this would be laughed out of any courtroom but with Assange being public enemy no. 1 at this time and the heavily politicized nature of America's reaction to Wikileaks, this could be seen as an opportunity by some to capture Assange if he were foolish enough to attend.

    They are going to spam this on Fox and Friends about how Assange is "hiding from the law" and how "a court has found him guilty of terrorism, treason, etc."

    I wonder if someone put this plaintiff up to it or if he just saw an opportunity to try and make a quick profit in his own warped mind.

    captcha:massacre

  75. Re:The most merciful thing in the world, I think.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, we are impressed by your ability to use Google. Hard to master that.

    "loserboy" - you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  76. JFOC by jschmitz · · Score: 1

    That is some funny s__t what a moron - He probably also is a republican that thinks frivolous lawsuits shouldn't be allowed -

  77. The original filing by riskeetee · · Score: 1

    http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flsdce/1:2011cv20047/371507/1/
    The original filing is quite entertaining. He paid $350 to file it. That's a lot of PBR!

  78. Nuclear Nucular? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do they think "nuclear war" is a spelling mistake?

    [sic] misused ? If they can't spell themselves, then maybe they should not worry about correcting anybody else

  79. I guess idiocy makes things more scarier.... by Wild_dog! · · Score: 1

    sometimes the herd just needs to be culled.

  80. Back peddling by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    Her back peddling is also very telling.

    Wow, she's now openly peddling her back? My view of American politics was pretty dim, but that's taking things in an interesting direction.

    On a more serious grammar-Nazi note, I think you mean pedaling, what you do on a bicycle, rather than peddling, which is small-scale sales like the peddlers of old.

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  81. boy, US gov't being desperate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    short of assassinating him, i'm surprise they're now using ordinary citizens. how desperate...

  82. Oblig. Futurama by mr100percent · · Score: 1

    Leela: We may have to shock him!
    Bender (to a comatose Prof. Farnsworth): YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK IS LATE! STUFF COSTS MORE THAN IT USED TO! YOUNG PEOPLE USE CURSE WORDS!!

    Unfortunately I seem to have hit the filter which gave me an error about not using so many caps in my post.

  83. anonymous protest tomorrow! :) by Weezul · · Score: 1

    There will be anonymous protests like everywhere tomorrow.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  84. two recent cablegate stories by Weezul · · Score: 1
    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  85. I need a lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can I sue Pitchford? I didn't know about any of this until he made these claims. I've always dreamed of a trailer in Florida. I assume that's his sole asset. There's obviously no intellectual property.

  86. Most probably he was paid to do it. by master_p · · Score: 1

    I don't believe this man woke up this morning and decided that WL is the worst thing on the planet.

    I am sure he was approached and got paid to do this.

    Now there is a legal reason to prosecute Assange in the USA, as well as to request extradiction.

  87. grim(m) by bug_reporter · · Score: 1

    I should sue the Grimm Brothers, because of the scary things they wrote: child abuse through over-feeding, wolf's dissection without a trial and the list of accusation goes on. Bring a torch and some wood too ...

  88. lol by kikito · · Score: 1

    Someone forgot to take his medication.

  89. Re:The most merciful thing in the world, I think.. by JockTroll · · Score: 1

    Loserboy nerd, all jocks know Lovecraft. We practice avidly the highly competitive sport of Book Reading so Lovecraft and his works have no secrets for us. Don't make me turn the refrigerating engine off and cause you to rot into nothingness, or send Brown Jenking to eat your shriveled heart.

    --
    Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
  90. Julian we are with you :) by Pechkin000 · · Score: 1

    I just cant resist: http://i.imgur.com/wGxlm.jpg

  91. Al gore is the real enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If wiki leaks can be charged with espionage just by posting information others stole, shouldn't al gore be charged for inventing the transportation medium over which the information travels?