That WASN'T my response to THAT. Please keep that in mind.
That was my response to the entirety of his unnecessarily drawn-out, unnecessarily aggressive and offensive, tirade about something that was already explained to him.
You're just digging yourself a deeper hole here. I see no need to further participate in your one-sided "discussion".
"It's true that one of those organizations screwed up and released a private key that let everyone see all the documents but that was clearly not Manning's fault. No one defends that mistake. No one thinks it was right for all the documents to be released to the public. "
Thank you for reminding us all of this. I am ashamed to admit that I had forgotten.
"You're astonishingly thin-skinned for someone who calls other people assholes at the drop of a hat. "
Thank you for your opinion.
"You've either got Alzheimer's and/or a raging persecution complex."
No, sorry. It's one thing for a person to say "I am done here." It's another thing for someone to day "You're done." He could have meant it the way you say, I admit.
"... your secret mind" is a personal comment, not a description of my own argument. I had explained to him exactly what I meant. There was nothing secret about it. His statement implies that he knew what I meant better than I did. And that was after I had already explained that yes, my comment was badly written and I did not mean what it seemed to say.
"Either way, you're just a bully trying to blame your victim."
Bullshit. I admitted that I was wrong, more than once. That should have been the end of it. Yet he went on, and on, and on, about what he thought I was saying. When even the rest of the context of what I wrote contradicted his assertion, AND he was told in no uncertain terms that he misunderstood. He insisted that no, he DID understand. Apparently because he thinks he can read my mind.
And you seem to think that is reasonable, and not unwarrantedly aggressive or annoying. Well, that's your opinion. I disagree.
While it doesn't prove anything, I will point out that I have excellent karma here on Slashdot, and generally get along fine with others in discussions. But I have no problem counter-attacking when provoked. And I shall not apologize for that: I was provoked.
Barring further comments, this will be my last post on this subject: he also engaged in another practice that is generally viewed as insulting, and vastly annoying: insistence that he knew what I really meant when I wrote something that was badly worded. In other words, he was insisting (as the above comments support) that he could read my mind, and knew what I was thinking when I wrote it. And he went on and on about it, despite my protests that he (perhaps not entirely unreasonably) had misunderstood me.
To say that this behavior is vastly irritating -- and perhaps even intended to irritate -- as well as logical nonsense, is an understatement.
"Your conclusion is shockingly wrong [link to blogspot.com]."
The "conclusion" he referred to was not my actual conclusion. My story agreed with the situation he cited. Then he went on:
"You need to stop spouting egregiously wrong bullshit on Slashdot before someone files a complaint with your state's disciplinary officials. They won't care that YANAL; they will care that you're practicing law very badly [google.com] without a license."
And other things like:
"Since nobody can rely upon what you've written to reflect your secret mind, all discussion with you becomes pointless. You're done."
"To reflect [my] secret mind"? Put that together with other personal comments, like "that's how you roll", etc. Those are only examples. But they are personal comments, and had nothing to do with the arguments I was making. So yes, he was very much insulting. Personal disparagements are personal disparagements. They have no place in a civil discussion, which it ceased to be after that. And a statement like "You're done," can reasonably be interpreted as threatening.
I did not insult him until he had already insulted me. Further, his attitude was arrogant and generally offensive. While that is an intangible, it was still pretty difficult to ignore.
"THE LAW OF THE LAND declares that some people are only 3/5ths of a person. And women need not apply... Its a shitty document in places. We've done our best to patch it up in places, but it could really use more amending. However that's a long and time consuming process. In the event that time is of the essence, and following it would violate your own moral code to follow the law, you violate the law."
While I don't disagree with you absolutely, I think you are taking THIS out of context.
The "3/5 of a person" bit was only a bow to the reality of their time. If the founders had tried to abolish slavery via the Constitution, it would never have been ratified. It might never even have gotten off the floor.
On the other hand, they deserve credit for wording the rest of it such that it did, in fact, support equality across the board. This left open ground for equality when society grew up a little bit.
Keep in mind that even Jefferson, who owned slaves (he inherited them), strongly disliked and spoke against the institution of slavery, but felt that it would be economic disaster to try to abolish the already-existing slavery all at once. He supported a law to ban the importation of any more slaves, and he did attempt to outlaw slavery in all the new Western territories (i.e., everything West of the existing 13 States). He authored that bill. But it was voted down by one vote. Jefferson said:
"Thus we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on the tongue of one man, and Heaven was silent in that awful moment!"
and
"We must await with patience the workings of an overruling Providence, and hope that He is preparing the deliverance of these, our suffering brethren. When the measure of their tears shall be full, when their groans shall have involved heaven itself in darkness, doubtless a God of justice will awaken to their distress..."
In the Declaration of Independence, he also lambasted King George for supporting the slave trade. So there were attempts to change things, even then. I think blaming the founders for trying to do the best they could, given the realities of their time, is a bit unrealistic.
Which is why I say: no, it's not a 'shitty' document. It has lasted longer than any other Constitution in anything approaching modern history. It may have some flaws, but it's a damned good document.
"I believe you may be suggesting a false dichotomy."
I wasn't suggesting a dichotomy, necessarily, but I was certainly suggesting a conflict.
"It is also worth considering whether he only alienated people who might have otherwise agreed with his aims -- and thus weakened his ultimate impact -- by not taking a legal AND morally strong approach."
The problem with that argument, as I see it, is that I have yet to see anybody present a "legal" way to do it. I might agree if I knew of one, and thought it was reasonably possible for him to do.
"Your question is only valid if you honestly believe that Manning read and determined ALL of the 250,000+ documents he released to be proof of a Constitutional violation of some sort."
Well, you have a point, but I will nitpick a bit. It is not reasonable to expect him to do that, for the simple reason that it probably wasn't possible. I may or may not agree with the law, but it has to be reasonable.
On the other hand, it might have been reasonable for him to only release those things which he had reviewed, and suspected to be in violation of the Constitution. I am basically agreeing with you, but there is a subtle difference. And maybe that's what you meant.
"The fact is that he actively mined the data..."
Did he? I could be wrong, but I understood that the data was easily and readily available due to the nature of his job. That may be wrong, but that was what I read in the news.
"For the apparently numerous people here who bear a grudge against the USA of one kind or another and think that this is great due to the embarrassment to the military and Government in general, give it a rest I'm sure we'll still bail your ass out again sometime in the future without expecting any thanks from you."
I think it's a great and wonderful embarrassment to the government, too. And I'm a citizen of the United States.
Many of the documents made it very clear that our government was working covertly in ways that were not necessarily in the actual interest of The People of the United States. I applaud those revelations.
Remember that real treason is disloyalty to your country and your people, not disobedience toward your government. That was the fundamental error made by the people who brought the Nazis to power.
"Yeah, I noticed him call you an arrogant abusive insulting asshole who should fucking well know better.
Or, wait... maybe I have that backwards?"
You are (conveniently?) leaving out the things he said first! Sorry, you can't have that both ways.
Look, this is really simple: he could have written, in a civil manner: "Hey... wait a minute! That's wrong! Did you mean what this seems to mean?" And then I could have responded, in a manner equally civilly: "Hey! You're right! I wrote that hastily and the choice of words was unfortunate. I agree with you about the legal issue. Let me amend my badly-worded comment."
But no. He jumped in aggressively with both feet, insulted me, disparaged my character, and even tried to intimidate me with comments about "practicing without a license". Then, when I tried to explain, he didn't listen.
And you expect me to respond politely to that? Really? Wait a minute here... who is being unreasonable?
(P.S. I suspect sock puppetry here, but I'm not going to accuse anybody. It's just an opinion.)
"As an ex-military member who held a security clearance, I'm glad he'll likely get prison time. Yes the system is corrupt. Yes he had other avenues that may not have been productive at stopping the corruption. But when you agree to join the military and have a security clearance you make promises to protect that information. With your life, if necessary. He not only went against that promise, he blatantly gave away that information!"
But this ignores the larger question: which "promise" is paramount? His promise to protect that information, or his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States?
What is the point of convicting him of "espionage", if he wasn't "aiding the enemy"? I understand that those laws may cover different acts, but isn't that against the whole spirit of those laws in the first place?
"This word you're using: "polite." I do not think it means what you think it means."
Repeat: I did start with trying to respond politely. He quickly made polite conversation pretty darned difficult his attitude and insults. No, I did not then continue to be polite; why should I?
"Since nobody can rely upon what you've written to reflect your secret mind, all discussion with you becomes pointless. You're done."
And I will make this other point: there is nothing "secret" about my mind. I simply worded a couple of comments badly, which I have explained to you twice now.
On the other hand, I tried to explain it to you politely, which you then made pretty much impossible with your arrogant, abusive, and baldly insulting manner. The only reason I might be "done" is because I am loathe to voluntarily have conversations with assholes.
You really seem to have comprehension issues. I already explained this to you.
"If there is not mutual understanding, there is no binding contract."
As I already told you, this was a reference to the general principle of "a meeting of the minds", without which the very concept of "contract" is meaningless.
"If they didn't read my amendment, then they didn't agree and there is no contract."
And I already told you that this was a badly-worded reference to the point that they can't expect others to be bound by a contract they didn't read, then turn around and expect themselves to not be bound as well.
And I admitted to you that it was badly worded, and that I should not have stated it in such a confusing way.
"Unless this statement doesn't mean what it seems to imply, and you did mean it... because that's how you roll."
And I already told you, specifically that I did not mean what it seems to imply. I used those very words!
And now, you're saying that my explanation was "TL;DR", but yet you're arguing about the things I explained to you at length anyway. Which illustrates another thing I wrote before: you seem to have difficulty with the concept of logical argument.
So let's take it again, short and sweet:
Yes, as I already admitted to you, those comments are confusing and badly written. However, the interpretation you gave them -- while probably reasonable if those words are taken alone -- makes absolutely no sense in the context of the whole discussion. How many times do you need this to be repeated?
Let me give you MY interpretation of this: (A) you are angry with me for daring to argue with you, and (B) you're desperately hunting for some way to prove me wrong, in order to soothe your ego.
Once again, since you seem to have such problems with English:
"Yes that is absolutely denied. It. Does. Not. Happen."
This is an absolute statement. In fact, it is about as absolute as they get. Yet you wrote it about (I'm not going to count) 2 sentences after you denied that you were making an absolute statement.
Certainly there are "extra words" there, and they might mean something, and you might have written them "in reference" to something, but that is 100% irrelevant to the point I made, which was that you have contradicted yourself, and which seems to have sailed straight over your head.
And I should also point this out, though it is specific to the U.S.:
"No state shall... pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility." -- U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 10.
I will repeat what I stated elsewhere: I don't know about other states, but this is explicitly spelled out in my state's laws. I am not mistaken, and it is very clear. It is easily found in the listing of laws on my state's website.
To be clear, though: I am not saying that is true under all circumstances. There may be exceptions. But I do know about assignment of debt to collection agencies. In this state.
"And I think they can. If you agree to pay Mary, and Mary sells her shop to Bob, then your contract can be assigned to Bob (though that may be a separate argument that your agreement was with the shop, with Mary as the representative, not with Mary personally). Contracts can be sold and traded, though I have no idea if the "default" is yes (unless otherwise stated no) or no (unless otherwise stated yes). You seem to be implying the default is no, but I've seen nothing that would have me lean towards either in particular."
The law in my state very explicitly says otherwise. I am very familiar with that particular part of the law here. I could show you exactly where it says that in the laws that are published on the state website. But I don't put location-specific information out on Slashdot.
My point about assignability may be specific to my state; I do not know for sure. But I am very familiar with that part of my state law, and it may be the same or similar in other states.
So in any case: at least in my state one angle that can work is to challenge the assignment of the debt to the collection agency. If you have not agreed with the original party to the contract that a debt may be assignable, you have no legal obligation to a collection agency. That doesn't stop them from trying to collect the debt if they want, but you are not obligated to pay them and their sometimes exorbitant fees. You can simply tell them that you prefer to deal with the original party.
If a collection agency takes you to court (seldom worth their while unless it's a pretty big debt), again in this state the court will assume assignability unless it's challenged within a certain period of time. So it should always be challenged. If you did not originally give permission to assign the debt, they have no case.
I should qualify this statement, lest somebody take it the wrong way. I stated:
"Which means, technically, you are no longer legally "liable" for that debt to anybody. They can't refuse your money and then complain that you didn't pay. "
I did not mean to say that "you are not legally liable". That may be the case; I don't know. But in practice, how are you going to pay it, when the other party refuses to take it?
I would be interested to find out about what the actual legal status is.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's fascinating how psychological projection is invisible to the projector."
Yes, isn't it?
That WASN'T my response to THAT. Please keep that in mind.
That was my response to the entirety of his unnecessarily drawn-out, unnecessarily aggressive and offensive, tirade about something that was already explained to him.
You're just digging yourself a deeper hole here. I see no need to further participate in your one-sided "discussion".
"It's true that one of those organizations screwed up and released a private key that let everyone see all the documents but that was clearly not Manning's fault. No one defends that mistake. No one thinks it was right for all the documents to be released to the public. "
Thank you for reminding us all of this. I am ashamed to admit that I had forgotten.
"All bullies think their victims provoked them."
Gee, I think maybe you should shut up and stop spouting bullshit before somebody complains that you are practicing psychiatry without a license.
"All bullies think their victims provoked them."
Again: bullshit. I am not impressed by your armchair psychology. Apparently you, too, seem to think you can read my mind.
"You're astonishingly thin-skinned for someone who calls other people assholes at the drop of a hat. "
Thank you for your opinion.
"You've either got Alzheimer's and/or a raging persecution complex."
No, sorry. It's one thing for a person to say "I am done here." It's another thing for someone to day "You're done." He could have meant it the way you say, I admit.
"... your secret mind" is a personal comment, not a description of my own argument. I had explained to him exactly what I meant. There was nothing secret about it. His statement implies that he knew what I meant better than I did. And that was after I had already explained that yes, my comment was badly written and I did not mean what it seemed to say.
"Either way, you're just a bully trying to blame your victim."
Bullshit. I admitted that I was wrong, more than once. That should have been the end of it. Yet he went on, and on, and on, about what he thought I was saying. When even the rest of the context of what I wrote contradicted his assertion, AND he was told in no uncertain terms that he misunderstood. He insisted that no, he DID understand. Apparently because he thinks he can read my mind.
And you seem to think that is reasonable, and not unwarrantedly aggressive or annoying. Well, that's your opinion. I disagree.
While it doesn't prove anything, I will point out that I have excellent karma here on Slashdot, and generally get along fine with others in discussions. But I have no problem counter-attacking when provoked. And I shall not apologize for that: I was provoked.
Barring further comments, this will be my last post on this subject: he also engaged in another practice that is generally viewed as insulting, and vastly annoying: insistence that he knew what I really meant when I wrote something that was badly worded. In other words, he was insisting (as the above comments support) that he could read my mind, and knew what I was thinking when I wrote it. And he went on and on about it, despite my protests that he (perhaps not entirely unreasonably) had misunderstood me.
To say that this behavior is vastly irritating -- and perhaps even intended to irritate -- as well as logical nonsense, is an understatement.
I quote:
"Your conclusion is shockingly wrong [link to blogspot.com]."
The "conclusion" he referred to was not my actual conclusion. My story agreed with the situation he cited. Then he went on:
"You need to stop spouting egregiously wrong bullshit on Slashdot before someone files a complaint with your state's disciplinary officials. They won't care that YANAL; they will care that you're practicing law very badly [google.com] without a license."
And other things like:
"Since nobody can rely upon what you've written to reflect your secret mind, all discussion with you becomes pointless. You're done."
"To reflect [my] secret mind"? Put that together with other personal comments, like "that's how you roll", etc. Those are only examples. But they are personal comments, and had nothing to do with the arguments I was making. So yes, he was very much insulting. Personal disparagements are personal disparagements. They have no place in a civil discussion, which it ceased to be after that. And a statement like "You're done," can reasonably be interpreted as threatening.
I did not insult him until he had already insulted me. Further, his attitude was arrogant and generally offensive. While that is an intangible, it was still pretty difficult to ignore.
"THE LAW OF THE LAND declares that some people are only 3/5ths of a person. And women need not apply... Its a shitty document in places. We've done our best to patch it up in places, but it could really use more amending. However that's a long and time consuming process. In the event that time is of the essence, and following it would violate your own moral code to follow the law, you violate the law."
While I don't disagree with you absolutely, I think you are taking THIS out of context.
The "3/5 of a person" bit was only a bow to the reality of their time. If the founders had tried to abolish slavery via the Constitution, it would never have been ratified. It might never even have gotten off the floor.
On the other hand, they deserve credit for wording the rest of it such that it did, in fact, support equality across the board. This left open ground for equality when society grew up a little bit.
Keep in mind that even Jefferson, who owned slaves (he inherited them), strongly disliked and spoke against the institution of slavery, but felt that it would be economic disaster to try to abolish the already-existing slavery all at once. He supported a law to ban the importation of any more slaves, and he did attempt to outlaw slavery in all the new Western territories (i.e., everything West of the existing 13 States). He authored that bill. But it was voted down by one vote. Jefferson said:
"Thus we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on the tongue of one man, and Heaven was silent in that awful moment!"
and
"We must await with patience the workings of an overruling Providence, and hope that He is preparing the deliverance of these, our suffering brethren. When the measure of their tears shall be full, when their groans shall have involved heaven itself in darkness, doubtless a God of justice will awaken to their distress..."
In the Declaration of Independence, he also lambasted King George for supporting the slave trade. So there were attempts to change things, even then. I think blaming the founders for trying to do the best they could, given the realities of their time, is a bit unrealistic.
Which is why I say: no, it's not a 'shitty' document. It has lasted longer than any other Constitution in anything approaching modern history. It may have some flaws, but it's a damned good document.
"Its like asking if Decimal or Hex is a better numbering system for all uses. Depends on context."
Well, sure. But I meant it in this context. Which was the proper thing for Manning to do, if he felt those two things were in conflict?
"I believe you may be suggesting a false dichotomy."
I wasn't suggesting a dichotomy, necessarily, but I was certainly suggesting a conflict.
"It is also worth considering whether he only alienated people who might have otherwise agreed with his aims -- and thus weakened his ultimate impact -- by not taking a legal AND morally strong approach."
The problem with that argument, as I see it, is that I have yet to see anybody present a "legal" way to do it. I might agree if I knew of one, and thought it was reasonably possible for him to do.
"Your question is only valid if you honestly believe that Manning read and determined ALL of the 250,000+ documents he released to be proof of a Constitutional violation of some sort."
Well, you have a point, but I will nitpick a bit. It is not reasonable to expect him to do that, for the simple reason that it probably wasn't possible. I may or may not agree with the law, but it has to be reasonable.
On the other hand, it might have been reasonable for him to only release those things which he had reviewed, and suspected to be in violation of the Constitution. I am basically agreeing with you, but there is a subtle difference. And maybe that's what you meant.
"The fact is that he actively mined the data..."
Did he? I could be wrong, but I understood that the data was easily and readily available due to the nature of his job. That may be wrong, but that was what I read in the news.
"For the apparently numerous people here who bear a grudge against the USA of one kind or another and think that this is great due to the embarrassment to the military and Government in general, give it a rest I'm sure we'll still bail your ass out again sometime in the future without expecting any thanks from you."
I think it's a great and wonderful embarrassment to the government, too. And I'm a citizen of the United States.
Many of the documents made it very clear that our government was working covertly in ways that were not necessarily in the actual interest of The People of the United States. I applaud those revelations.
Remember that real treason is disloyalty to your country and your people, not disobedience toward your government. That was the fundamental error made by the people who brought the Nazis to power.
"Yeah, I noticed him call you an arrogant abusive insulting asshole who should fucking well know better.
Or, wait... maybe I have that backwards?"
You are (conveniently?) leaving out the things he said first! Sorry, you can't have that both ways.
Look, this is really simple: he could have written, in a civil manner: "Hey... wait a minute! That's wrong! Did you mean what this seems to mean?" And then I could have responded, in a manner equally civilly: "Hey! You're right! I wrote that hastily and the choice of words was unfortunate. I agree with you about the legal issue. Let me amend my badly-worded comment."
But no. He jumped in aggressively with both feet, insulted me, disparaged my character, and even tried to intimidate me with comments about "practicing without a license". Then, when I tried to explain, he didn't listen.
And you expect me to respond politely to that? Really? Wait a minute here... who is being unreasonable?
(P.S. I suspect sock puppetry here, but I'm not going to accuse anybody. It's just an opinion.)
"As an ex-military member who held a security clearance, I'm glad he'll likely get prison time. Yes the system is corrupt. Yes he had other avenues that may not have been productive at stopping the corruption. But when you agree to join the military and have a security clearance you make promises to protect that information. With your life, if necessary. He not only went against that promise, he blatantly gave away that information!"
But this ignores the larger question: which "promise" is paramount? His promise to protect that information, or his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States?
What is the point of convicting him of "espionage", if he wasn't "aiding the enemy"? I understand that those laws may cover different acts, but isn't that against the whole spirit of those laws in the first place?
Just asking.
"This word you're using: "polite." I do not think it means what you think it means."
Repeat: I did start with trying to respond politely. He quickly made polite conversation pretty darned difficult his attitude and insults. No, I did not then continue to be polite; why should I?
"Since nobody can rely upon what you've written to reflect your secret mind, all discussion with you becomes pointless. You're done."
And I will make this other point: there is nothing "secret" about my mind. I simply worded a couple of comments badly, which I have explained to you twice now.
On the other hand, I tried to explain it to you politely, which you then made pretty much impossible with your arrogant, abusive, and baldly insulting manner. The only reason I might be "done" is because I am loathe to voluntarily have conversations with assholes.
"If there is not mutual understanding, there is no binding contract."
As I already told you, this was a reference to the general principle of "a meeting of the minds", without which the very concept of "contract" is meaningless.
"If they didn't read my amendment, then they didn't agree and there is no contract."
And I already told you that this was a badly-worded reference to the point that they can't expect others to be bound by a contract they didn't read, then turn around and expect themselves to not be bound as well.
And I admitted to you that it was badly worded, and that I should not have stated it in such a confusing way.
"Unless this statement doesn't mean what it seems to imply, and you did mean it... because that's how you roll."
And I already told you, specifically that I did not mean what it seems to imply. I used those very words!
And now, you're saying that my explanation was "TL;DR", but yet you're arguing about the things I explained to you at length anyway. Which illustrates another thing I wrote before: you seem to have difficulty with the concept of logical argument.
So let's take it again, short and sweet:
Yes, as I already admitted to you, those comments are confusing and badly written. However, the interpretation you gave them -- while probably reasonable if those words are taken alone -- makes absolutely no sense in the context of the whole discussion. How many times do you need this to be repeated?
Let me give you MY interpretation of this: (A) you are angry with me for daring to argue with you, and (B) you're desperately hunting for some way to prove me wrong, in order to soothe your ego.
"Yes that is absolutely denied. It. Does. Not. Happen."
This is an absolute statement. In fact, it is about as absolute as they get. Yet you wrote it about (I'm not going to count) 2 sentences after you denied that you were making an absolute statement.
Certainly there are "extra words" there, and they might mean something, and you might have written them "in reference" to something, but that is 100% irrelevant to the point I made, which was that you have contradicted yourself, and which seems to have sailed straight over your head.
And I should also point this out, though it is specific to the U.S.:
... pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility." -- U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 10.
"No state shall
I will repeat what I stated elsewhere: I don't know about other states, but this is explicitly spelled out in my state's laws. I am not mistaken, and it is very clear. It is easily found in the listing of laws on my state's website.
To be clear, though: I am not saying that is true under all circumstances. There may be exceptions. But I do know about assignment of debt to collection agencies. In this state.
"And I think they can. If you agree to pay Mary, and Mary sells her shop to Bob, then your contract can be assigned to Bob (though that may be a separate argument that your agreement was with the shop, with Mary as the representative, not with Mary personally). Contracts can be sold and traded, though I have no idea if the "default" is yes (unless otherwise stated no) or no (unless otherwise stated yes). You seem to be implying the default is no, but I've seen nothing that would have me lean towards either in particular."
The law in my state very explicitly says otherwise. I am very familiar with that particular part of the law here. I could show you exactly where it says that in the laws that are published on the state website. But I don't put location-specific information out on Slashdot.
This appears to be good advice.
My point about assignability may be specific to my state; I do not know for sure. But I am very familiar with that part of my state law, and it may be the same or similar in other states.
So in any case: at least in my state one angle that can work is to challenge the assignment of the debt to the collection agency. If you have not agreed with the original party to the contract that a debt may be assignable, you have no legal obligation to a collection agency. That doesn't stop them from trying to collect the debt if they want, but you are not obligated to pay them and their sometimes exorbitant fees. You can simply tell them that you prefer to deal with the original party.
If a collection agency takes you to court (seldom worth their while unless it's a pretty big debt), again in this state the court will assume assignability unless it's challenged within a certain period of time. So it should always be challenged. If you did not originally give permission to assign the debt, they have no case.
"Which means, technically, you are no longer legally "liable" for that debt to anybody. They can't refuse your money and then complain that you didn't pay. "
I did not mean to say that "you are not legally liable". That may be the case; I don't know. But in practice, how are you going to pay it, when the other party refuses to take it?
I would be interested to find out about what the actual legal status is.