I'll go with the idea of the wizarding world in England not knowing about WWII, although, honestly, daily bombings and blackout rules and stuff seem rather difficult to ignore.
However, I won't go with the idea of a wizard being involved and them not paying any attention. If there had actually been a wizard on the side of the Nazis, either a) they would have won the war in two weeks, or b) English wizards fought back, in which case they'd know about it.
The unfortunate result in Tolkien's case is that 1/3 of the book is spent waiting for something to happen, and a further third is spent doing random stuff that doesn't further a plot (back off, Tom Bombadillophiles).
Incidentally, this was also a problem in Order of the Phoenix. I think the editors became afraid of her or something, because at least 1/4th of that book could and should have gone away.
The first two books were, indeed, children's books. No one dies in the first one, someone dies 'offscreen' years ago in the second, everyone is happy at the end.
The next three books are about, well, teenage life, and enjoyable for adults to read too. People start dying in book 3, people we know and like in book 4, a close friend of Harry's in 5, and we get more backstory on Harry's parents death. Voldemort comes back, making the world a very very dangerous place for Harry.
At the end of the book five, the Order of the Phoenix (A group that knows Voldemort is back and trying to stop him) actually start treating him like an adult, despite (dangerously) keeping him out of the loop during the rest of the book. And the rest of the world discovers Voldemort is back.
In book six, things go from bad to worse as Harry's, in essense, treated as an adult, and starts actively fighting Voldemort, and ends up failing pretty horribly, with several really bad things happening. (Trying not to spoil too much.) In book seven, Harry, Ron, and Herminone are operating entirely on their own with no support system at all, trying a last ditch attempt to stop Voldemort while remaining under the radar.
Given that this article (currently) has about 500+ comments, it would seem that you're in the minority in this matter, and have made that fatal mistake of assuming that YOU are the average/. reader.
That, I think, is the dealbreaker.
It might be worthwhile to complain something doesn't belong on slashdot if it gets no discussion. Or if people are mostly complaining about it.
This is neither. It's been up about 17 hours as I write this, which included an overnight period for the US and Europe, so it's more like 9 hours actually. It's gotten 800 comments. Something like 10 of them are complaining about it being posted here, and maybe 50 are people who don't like the series.
The rest of the comments appear to be people actually discussing the series. (Plus random slashdot noise with trolls and spammers.)
Q.E.D.
No one needs to try to figure about how it fits in the site's premise or point out that the editors are in charge or that no one needs to read stories they don't want to...HP is immensely popular among posters. You don't need to justify something that has almost twice the comments of any article posted in the last three days, despite being up for a fraction of the time.
Yeah, there's something really odd going on there, but I'm not entirely sure it's what people might think, that Grindelwald was involved with the Nazis in some way.
Why? Because there was the explicit point made that most British wizards didn't know about his 'take over the world attempt'. Now, there's a rather large disconnect between the wizarding and muggle world, but to have British wizards unaware of WWII is rather absurd, especially if WWII was secretly being run by a wizard! I mean, if a wizard was doing the invading, wizards would have had to fight it off, or he could have walked into England and owned it two weeks later with a few well placed unforgivable curses.
I suspect that, instead, Grindelwald took advantage of the chaos of WWII to attempt a takeover of the wizarding parts of places that Germany conquered. I mean, think about...in Vichy France, who was in charge of magic? I bet Grindelwald was. Germany wasn't working for him, and he wasn't really involved in the war per se, he was just walking into the wizarding areas that the war effort was effecting and saying 'I'm in charge now' and there was no effective force to stop him.
Even in places that hadn't lost to the Germans might have been in enough disorder to take over, which raises the interesting question: Did Dumbledore attack Grindelwald to stop him in general, or did Grindelwald finally attack England and Dumbledore only acted to defend it. (Implying he was okay with the rest of Europe being conquered, but had a change of heart when England was attacked.)
OTOH, Krum's reaction to the Deathly Hallow's symbol was certainly intended to parallel a Nazi symbol. Although note that what Krum described happened at Durmstang, not Germany in general, so it's possibly it's only the school where that is incorrectly interpreted as his symbol. (Technically, do we even know that Durmstang is in Germany?)
Um, if you think the books don't talk about racism you're an idiot. There are frickin pogroms in the last book against muggle-born wizards, with the inane claim they 'stole' their magic.
The prejudice against non-'pureblood' wizards (Whatever that means, because wizards are human in the first place and they all know it, and almost all of them have muggle relatives somewhere in their known ancestory.) has been there from the start, but only became official government policy once Voldemort [re]started running things.
That doesn't make a lot of sense, actually. That implies Voldemort's been wandering around without a soul for a decade and a half.
OTOH, maybe it does make sense. It's always seemed kind lame that after Voldemort did all this magic to live forever, he get hit with our rebounding killing curse and he's a half-dead lump for a decade and a half, reduced to trying to find the Philosopher's stone to live again. Yeah, he technically survived that, but seriously, it seems like a lot of work for almost nothing.
But what if that happened because he accidentally transfered all, or almost all, of his soul to horcruxes? And then, because he was unaware of it, didn't know how to fix it. (We know that he had assumed that he would feel the destruction of the horcruxes and couldn't, maybe that's caused by the same problem.)
Now, perhaps it might make sense to bash RH for their decision not to promise to maintain ABI compatiblity. But saying they're doing it because they're trying to 'steal' credit is just idiotic. Red Hat uses tons of stuff written by all sorts of people and it's never tried to assert any of it is theirs except the stuff that actually is. Even the stuff that is their work, like Gnome, they don't run around trying to make people call it 'Red Hat Gnome' or something.
RH not calling it Xen is entirely up to the Xen team. I think Xen's logic is somewhat faulty about ABIs, but they have the right to do what they're doing if they want, and they have, and they're presumably happy with the result.
And, of course, the real problem is that Stevens managed to keep those funds from being redirected to New Orleans, a city that got hit with a natural disaster and was trusting the US government to operate levees that actually functioned and didn't break.
I thought that was a requirement, but that's almost a moot point. If the publisher contests the takedown, than the only option left is a lawsuit, and the same thing applies.
Second, however, is that if they win they they too are painted as a victim in the whole affair, rather than as the primary transgressor. They committed crimes on a national scale, but if they can somehow show that it was really the fault of the company that wrote the nasty rootkit for them and they were just innocents duped by said company, then they get to launch a PR campaign about how awesome they are.
Painted by whom? The original problem landed Sony in the national news with all sorts of nasty stuff quite rightly written about them. 95% of the people who heard the story probably had no idea what was going on except that Sony had done something so bad with some of its CDs that it was being investigated and had to issue a recall of them. We hope they heard and remember something vaguely related to copy-protection, because every little bit of distaste helps, but maybe 10% of the people heard that.
Do you think this suit will make anywhere near the national news that did? Do you think anyone outside of the anti-DRM community will hear about it?
And the people who actually know about DRM aren't going to cut Sony any slack.
What they need to do is the equivalent of small claims court, a court designed to not need lawyers, simply for disputing ownership of someone who filed a DMCA takedown notice. I.e., it doesn't deal with damages or anything, it's just a court where you can walk in and say 'They said they own this content...I'd like them to prove it via the copyright registration they legally had to file before they filed the takedown notice.'.
If they can't prove they have some copyright registration that could vaguely apply to said case, they have to pay a set amount of damages and sign a consent decree that says they will not attempt to claim ownership of that property again, and the lawyer who signed off on the takedown notice would be sanctioned by the court.
The DMCA is entirely fair...to people with lawyers.
What we need is some pro-bono templates provided by the EFF or something that is a legal response to DMCA takedown notice, because people don't seem to realize, under the law, there is a 'put back up' notice that can be sent to safe harbors saying the senders are full of crap.
What else the EFF should put up are instructions on how to file a suit against the sender of the original notice without a lawyer.
No one needs a damn 'complete' worldview in the first place. They need a reasonable worldview that is consistent with the facts, but they don't need to know about quantum mechanics or the causes of gravity or how airflow around a wing generates lift or anything like that.
Part of the worldview they must have, however, and one that schools seem loathe to teach, is knowledge of the scientific method and how it works, so they don't believe in crap like Uri Geller and his spoon bending. They don't even need to know why his claims are impossible (Hell, I don't even know if they are impossible according the laws of physics as we understand them.), but they need to know why there is a very good reason to disbelieve them unless they are tested in specific ways, which he refuses to do.
Um, no, the subject was the fact that he's basically admitted to visiting a prostitute at the exact same time he was ranting and raving about how gay marriage would destroy straight marriage.
When did i ever say anything about how stupid women are? In fact, when did i ever say anything about women at all? I was deliberate in making my initial comment gender-neutral. The insinuation that i must be talking about woman-hating is, frankly, sexist itself.
What the hell are you gibber-gabbering about? I didn't say anything about you saying anything about women. I'm sick of people like you leaping in and pretending that you get to hijack the damn conversation by completely ignoring things I've said and instead making up stuff. Here is the actual conversation, play-by-play:
I said that if someone tells a dirty, but non-sexist joke, calling it 'sexist' or 'sexual harassment' is stupid, because it's really the opposite of that, not realizing that women, and in fact many men, would not want to hear such jokes.
You lept in and said that, while telling a dirty joke might not be sexist, some of the jokes are. This comment actually had a semi-valid point to make.
So I then carefully explained that dirty jokes are not jokes about gender, but jokes about sex. They can bash a gender, or not, just like clean jokes can actually be very sexist.
You then asked how I dared define what kind of jokes you were talking about.
I pointed out that we were, in fact, talking about my kinds of dirty jokes by the virtue of the fact that I brought them up and carefully defined what I meant by them. You can argue with me referring to them as 'dirty jokes', by arguing people are talking about something different when they use that term, but arguing I don't know what I'm referring to is pretty stupid. Regardless of it being a waste of my time, I carefully defined things again.
Whereas you tried to claim that I am myself sexist because I, again, tried to clarify what I said, or, rather, what I didn't say. Which you, for some reason unknown to everyone but you and Buddha, decided to interpret as me claiming you said exactly.
That is the record of this stupid-ass conversation so far. You constantly ignoring things I actually say and making up all sorts of crap.
If I say I can move a truck, and you leap in and say 'There's no way you can carry that truck.' and I clarify that I meant I could drive it to the side and that I didn't say I was Superman...I did not, in fact, say that you thought I said I was Superman, or that you said that I thought that I was Superman, or any combination thereof. That was merely an example something I didn't mean to convey.
Likewise, what I said an example of things I didn't say. I said 'dirty jokes', I did not say 'jokes about how stupid women are' or 'jokes about how sex-crazed men are' or 'jokes about how stupid the Polish are' or 'jokes about dinosaurs' or 'stories about Santa'. Those are all things that I not say, and I was simply repeating that 'jokes about how stupid women are'!='dirty jokes'. Dirty jokes are jokes about sex, period. (Well, and scatological ones.)
If there was any possible confusion as to the fact I might be unaware there are men-bashing jokes out there, and think sexism only goes one way, I clarified that in the next paragraph.
If you truly thought that I had thought that you thought that the only sexist jokes out there bashed women, which is a possible, but fairly dumb, interpetation of my words, you were free to mention that you knew that in your post, which would have been the non-moronic thing to do, as opposed to randomly calling me sexist, which was the opposite of that. Here's an example:
Me: And I specifically said 'jokes about sex' not 'jokes about how stupid women are'.
Your response: Oh, like you said below, I know a lot of the sexist jokes out there are bashing men, which is why I said 'Making comments about people based on their sex is by definition discriminatory'. There a lot of sexist jokes and talk that slips through the cracks because they're not 'dirty' and/or they're bashing m
You can assert that all you want, but you have absolutely no evidence of that. None, zero, zilch. All you are doing is repeating what the Administration has told us.
The truth of the matter is we have no idea who was wiretapped, how often, and under what circumstances. This entire program could solely be a tap on John Kerry's phone, with no 'terrorist' connection at all. With any court interaction, and without any documentation given to the legislative branch, we are completely and utterly in the dark as to what is actually happening.
I've getting a little pissed at people sitting there and repeating what the administration says about this program, when that administration lied about the existence of this program for three fucking year. Anyone who trusts them, well, shouldn't be allowed to participate in this Republic anymore, because those people are mentally incompetent. They probably should be locked up because they are a danger to themselves and others.
Now, what the administration says it is doing may be what it is actually doing. Why it would do this illegally instead of using FISA, we do not know, but it could be. But anyone sitting there repeating their claims is a fool.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll go with the idea of the wizarding world in England not knowing about WWII, although, honestly, daily bombings and blackout rules and stuff seem rather difficult to ignore.
However, I won't go with the idea of a wizard being involved and them not paying any attention. If there had actually been a wizard on the side of the Nazis, either a) they would have won the war in two weeks, or b) English wizards fought back, in which case they'd know about it.
The unfortunate result in Tolkien's case is that 1/3 of the book is spent waiting for something to happen, and a further third is spent doing random stuff that doesn't further a plot (back off, Tom Bombadillophiles).
Incidentally, this was also a problem in Order of the Phoenix. I think the editors became afraid of her or something, because at least 1/4th of that book could and should have gone away.
Did you only read the first book? Or first two?
The first two books were, indeed, children's books. No one dies in the first one, someone dies 'offscreen' years ago in the second, everyone is happy at the end.
The next three books are about, well, teenage life, and enjoyable for adults to read too. People start dying in book 3, people we know and like in book 4, a close friend of Harry's in 5, and we get more backstory on Harry's parents death. Voldemort comes back, making the world a very very dangerous place for Harry.
At the end of the book five, the Order of the Phoenix (A group that knows Voldemort is back and trying to stop him) actually start treating him like an adult, despite (dangerously) keeping him out of the loop during the rest of the book. And the rest of the world discovers Voldemort is back.
In book six, things go from bad to worse as Harry's, in essense, treated as an adult, and starts actively fighting Voldemort, and ends up failing pretty horribly, with several really bad things happening. (Trying not to spoil too much.) In book seven, Harry, Ron, and Herminone are operating entirely on their own with no support system at all, trying a last ditch attempt to stop Voldemort while remaining under the radar.
Instead of 'elitist', how about I call you 'fucking moron'? Books do not get ruined by more people reading them.
An, incidentally, if you don't like popularity, why were you the 463,344th person to join this site?
Given that this article (currently) has about 500+ comments, it would seem that you're in the minority in this matter, and have made that fatal mistake of assuming that YOU are the average /. reader.
That, I think, is the dealbreaker.
It might be worthwhile to complain something doesn't belong on slashdot if it gets no discussion. Or if people are mostly complaining about it.
This is neither. It's been up about 17 hours as I write this, which included an overnight period for the US and Europe, so it's more like 9 hours actually. It's gotten 800 comments. Something like 10 of them are complaining about it being posted here, and maybe 50 are people who don't like the series.
The rest of the comments appear to be people actually discussing the series. (Plus random slashdot noise with trolls and spammers.)
Q.E.D.
No one needs to try to figure about how it fits in the site's premise or point out that the editors are in charge or that no one needs to read stories they don't want to...HP is immensely popular among posters. You don't need to justify something that has almost twice the comments of any article posted in the last three days, despite being up for a fraction of the time.
What do you mean, if Transformers can be called sci-fi?
What the fuck do you call it? A Western?
Yeah, there's something really odd going on there, but I'm not entirely sure it's what people might think, that Grindelwald was involved with the Nazis in some way.
Why? Because there was the explicit point made that most British wizards didn't know about his 'take over the world attempt'. Now, there's a rather large disconnect between the wizarding and muggle world, but to have British wizards unaware of WWII is rather absurd, especially if WWII was secretly being run by a wizard! I mean, if a wizard was doing the invading, wizards would have had to fight it off, or he could have walked into England and owned it two weeks later with a few well placed unforgivable curses.
I suspect that, instead, Grindelwald took advantage of the chaos of WWII to attempt a takeover of the wizarding parts of places that Germany conquered. I mean, think about...in Vichy France, who was in charge of magic? I bet Grindelwald was. Germany wasn't working for him, and he wasn't really involved in the war per se, he was just walking into the wizarding areas that the war effort was effecting and saying 'I'm in charge now' and there was no effective force to stop him.
Even in places that hadn't lost to the Germans might have been in enough disorder to take over, which raises the interesting question: Did Dumbledore attack Grindelwald to stop him in general, or did Grindelwald finally attack England and Dumbledore only acted to defend it. (Implying he was okay with the rest of Europe being conquered, but had a change of heart when England was attacked.)
OTOH, Krum's reaction to the Deathly Hallow's symbol was certainly intended to parallel a Nazi symbol. Although note that what Krum described happened at Durmstang, not Germany in general, so it's possibly it's only the school where that is incorrectly interpreted as his symbol. (Technically, do we even know that Durmstang is in Germany?)
Um, if you think the books don't talk about racism you're an idiot. There are frickin pogroms in the last book against muggle-born wizards, with the inane claim they 'stole' their magic.
The prejudice against non-'pureblood' wizards (Whatever that means, because wizards are human in the first place and they all know it, and almost all of them have muggle relatives somewhere in their known ancestory.) has been there from the start, but only became official government policy once Voldemort [re]started running things.
That doesn't make a lot of sense, actually. That implies Voldemort's been wandering around without a soul for a decade and a half.
OTOH, maybe it does make sense. It's always seemed kind lame that after Voldemort did all this magic to live forever, he get hit with our rebounding killing curse and he's a half-dead lump for a decade and a half, reduced to trying to find the Philosopher's stone to live again. Yeah, he technically survived that, but seriously, it seems like a lot of work for almost nothing.
But what if that happened because he accidentally transfered all, or almost all, of his soul to horcruxes? And then, because he was unaware of it, didn't know how to fix it. (We know that he had assumed that he would feel the destruction of the horcruxes and couldn't, maybe that's caused by the same problem.)
What is it that the RIAA is looking for if we had a legal way to download music?
Um...money?
Maybe I'm not understanding the question.
Yup.
Now, perhaps it might make sense to bash RH for their decision not to promise to maintain ABI compatiblity. But saying they're doing it because they're trying to 'steal' credit is just idiotic. Red Hat uses tons of stuff written by all sorts of people and it's never tried to assert any of it is theirs except the stuff that actually is. Even the stuff that is their work, like Gnome, they don't run around trying to make people call it 'Red Hat Gnome' or something.
RH not calling it Xen is entirely up to the Xen team. I think Xen's logic is somewhat faulty about ABIs, but they have the right to do what they're doing if they want, and they have, and they're presumably happy with the result.
Um, dumbass, read the article. Xen is trademarked and there are strict terms to using the trademark, which Redhat doesn't want to follow.
And, of course, the real problem is that Stevens managed to keep those funds from being redirected to New Orleans, a city that got hit with a natural disaster and was trusting the US government to operate levees that actually functioned and didn't break.
I thought that was a requirement, but that's almost a moot point. If the publisher contests the takedown, than the only option left is a lawsuit, and the same thing applies.
Second, however, is that if they win they they too are painted as a victim in the whole affair, rather than as the primary transgressor. They committed crimes on a national scale, but if they can somehow show that it was really the fault of the company that wrote the nasty rootkit for them and they were just innocents duped by said company, then they get to launch a PR campaign about how awesome they are.
Painted by whom? The original problem landed Sony in the national news with all sorts of nasty stuff quite rightly written about them. 95% of the people who heard the story probably had no idea what was going on except that Sony had done something so bad with some of its CDs that it was being investigated and had to issue a recall of them. We hope they heard and remember something vaguely related to copy-protection, because every little bit of distaste helps, but maybe 10% of the people heard that.
Do you think this suit will make anywhere near the national news that did? Do you think anyone outside of the anti-DRM community will hear about it?
And the people who actually know about DRM aren't going to cut Sony any slack.
Why would you need to show them the GPL? Is the business planning on distributing copies of the software?
Um, copyright doesn't have to be registered to be protected.
But it DOES have to be registered before any lawsuit is filed based on it or before a DMCA takedown notice is filed.
What they need to do is the equivalent of small claims court, a court designed to not need lawyers, simply for disputing ownership of someone who filed a DMCA takedown notice. I.e., it doesn't deal with damages or anything, it's just a court where you can walk in and say 'They said they own this content...I'd like them to prove it via the copyright registration they legally had to file before they filed the takedown notice.'.
If they can't prove they have some copyright registration that could vaguely apply to said case, they have to pay a set amount of damages and sign a consent decree that says they will not attempt to claim ownership of that property again, and the lawyer who signed off on the takedown notice would be sanctioned by the court.
Does the Pokemon use real psychic powers or pretend ones?
If it has real powers, I don't see what he's basing his lawsuit on, it's nothing like him.
Screw 'judgements'.
I want them in prison for perjury.
The DMCA is entirely fair...to people with lawyers.
What we need is some pro-bono templates provided by the EFF or something that is a legal response to DMCA takedown notice, because people don't seem to realize, under the law, there is a 'put back up' notice that can be sent to safe harbors saying the senders are full of crap.
What else the EFF should put up are instructions on how to file a suit against the sender of the original notice without a lawyer.
No one needs a damn 'complete' worldview in the first place. They need a reasonable worldview that is consistent with the facts, but they don't need to know about quantum mechanics or the causes of gravity or how airflow around a wing generates lift or anything like that.
Part of the worldview they must have, however, and one that schools seem loathe to teach, is knowledge of the scientific method and how it works, so they don't believe in crap like Uri Geller and his spoon bending. They don't even need to know why his claims are impossible (Hell, I don't even know if they are impossible according the laws of physics as we understand them.), but they need to know why there is a very good reason to disbelieve them unless they are tested in specific ways, which he refuses to do.
Um, no, the subject was the fact that he's basically admitted to visiting a prostitute at the exact same time he was ranting and raving about how gay marriage would destroy straight marriage.
When did i ever say anything about how stupid women are? In fact, when did i ever say anything about women at all? I was deliberate in making my initial comment gender-neutral. The insinuation that i must be talking about woman-hating is, frankly, sexist itself.
What the hell are you gibber-gabbering about? I didn't say anything about you saying anything about women. I'm sick of people like you leaping in and pretending that you get to hijack the damn conversation by completely ignoring things I've said and instead making up stuff. Here is the actual conversation, play-by-play:
I said that if someone tells a dirty, but non-sexist joke, calling it 'sexist' or 'sexual harassment' is stupid, because it's really the opposite of that, not realizing that women, and in fact many men, would not want to hear such jokes.
You lept in and said that, while telling a dirty joke might not be sexist, some of the jokes are. This comment actually had a semi-valid point to make.
So I then carefully explained that dirty jokes are not jokes about gender, but jokes about sex. They can bash a gender, or not, just like clean jokes can actually be very sexist.
You then asked how I dared define what kind of jokes you were talking about.
I pointed out that we were, in fact, talking about my kinds of dirty jokes by the virtue of the fact that I brought them up and carefully defined what I meant by them. You can argue with me referring to them as 'dirty jokes', by arguing people are talking about something different when they use that term, but arguing I don't know what I'm referring to is pretty stupid. Regardless of it being a waste of my time, I carefully defined things again.
Whereas you tried to claim that I am myself sexist because I, again, tried to clarify what I said, or, rather, what I didn't say. Which you, for some reason unknown to everyone but you and Buddha, decided to interpret as me claiming you said exactly.
That is the record of this stupid-ass conversation so far. You constantly ignoring things I actually say and making up all sorts of crap.
If I say I can move a truck, and you leap in and say 'There's no way you can carry that truck.' and I clarify that I meant I could drive it to the side and that I didn't say I was Superman...I did not, in fact, say that you thought I said I was Superman, or that you said that I thought that I was Superman, or any combination thereof. That was merely an example something I didn't mean to convey.
Likewise, what I said an example of things I didn't say. I said 'dirty jokes', I did not say 'jokes about how stupid women are' or 'jokes about how sex-crazed men are' or 'jokes about how stupid the Polish are' or 'jokes about dinosaurs' or 'stories about Santa'. Those are all things that I not say, and I was simply repeating that 'jokes about how stupid women are'!='dirty jokes'. Dirty jokes are jokes about sex, period. (Well, and scatological ones.)
If there was any possible confusion as to the fact I might be unaware there are men-bashing jokes out there, and think sexism only goes one way, I clarified that in the next paragraph.
If you truly thought that I had thought that you thought that the only sexist jokes out there bashed women, which is a possible, but fairly dumb, interpetation of my words, you were free to mention that you knew that in your post, which would have been the non-moronic thing to do, as opposed to randomly calling me sexist, which was the opposite of that. Here's an example:
Me: And I specifically said 'jokes about sex' not 'jokes about how stupid women are'.
Your response: Oh, like you said below, I know a lot of the sexist jokes out there are bashing men, which is why I said 'Making comments about people based on their sex is by definition discriminatory'. There a lot of sexist jokes and talk that slips through the cracks because they're not 'dirty' and/or they're bashing m
You can assert that all you want, but you have absolutely no evidence of that. None, zero, zilch. All you are doing is repeating what the Administration has told us.
The truth of the matter is we have no idea who was wiretapped, how often, and under what circumstances. This entire program could solely be a tap on John Kerry's phone, with no 'terrorist' connection at all. With any court interaction, and without any documentation given to the legislative branch, we are completely and utterly in the dark as to what is actually happening.
I've getting a little pissed at people sitting there and repeating what the administration says about this program, when that administration lied about the existence of this program for three fucking year. Anyone who trusts them, well, shouldn't be allowed to participate in this Republic anymore, because those people are mentally incompetent. They probably should be locked up because they are a danger to themselves and others.
Now, what the administration says it is doing may be what it is actually doing. Why it would do this illegally instead of using FISA, we do not know, but it could be. But anyone sitting there repeating their claims is a fool.