I did check the forum. I read it the day all of this went down. I know exactly what happened.
But posting pictures of someone and making fun of him and his girlfriend does not mean they're being vigilantes - it means they're being assholes.
And, let's face it, a little assholism was warranted - at least for the guy. The girl should have been off limits and I didn't like that when I read it either.
This wasn't vigilantism. Other than blocking the car in, they did not engage the guy directly, nor did they try for mob justice. They blocked him in so he couldn't get away, and then they called the cops and waited for them to show up.
I see nothing at all wrong with this. The cops can then determine if a crime was committed, and guess what? If not, they can arrest the "vigilantes" for filing a false report.
(Now if they d actually tried to hold the person *himself* then I'd have a problem with that. That's when you get into the realm of false imprisonment and civil rights violations.
Is that people are actually watching and know it's going on.
This kind of thing has happened for as long as there has been political bodies and people who want to manipulate them. The only difference now is that we have a well enough entrenched journalistic system (no thanks to the big media corpos who are doing their best to squash it) to bring it to light.
Not the actual "attack" itself, of course. But immediately, someone mentioned "anonymous" and everyone knew who they were, that they had a beef with scientology, and that scientology was possibly behind it to discredit them.
This shows that scientology is losing the PR war. They are completely out of their league when they can't actually identify and personally harass their detractors.
Trolling those with a disease? Your genes aren't much better. Go crawl back into the primordial muck.
Oh, hey! Looks like they changed the commenting to work inline. That's cool. So at least your comment had some redeeming value, in spite of your best efforts.
How much do you want to bet that the fundies will try their hardest to outlaw this research because in their view HIV is God's punishment for homosexual behavior?
If you don't like something that is on Wikipedia, then don't connect to it. Trying to get it removed so that no one else can look at it either is stupid and against Western values. So are these Muslims, though.
I say we put up a huge statute of Mohammed with his middle finger raised and point it towards Mecca.
Also, on anopther token, are Christians any better? Look at the whole situation with evolution, etc. How about Scientologists? OK, bad example, they're just fucking jerks. Jews? Try posting pictures of the holocaust or pro-Palestine ideas (not anti-Semite, btw, just pro-Palestine, it is indeed possible to be for something while not being prejudiced against its opposite).
The fundamental problem here consists of two elements - a general idea that spans all political sides of the spectrum that one is entitled to not being offended, and a general idea that religion is Inherently Good and thus must be given lots of leeway.
Fuck these Muslims. Not all Muslims, but these Muslims. (And a rather hot one I had my eye on a while ago, but that's a different story;)) I don't care if you're offended, grow up and get over it, you whiny crybabies.
Sorry, it just really bugs me when someone has a publically available forum on which they expect some standards, and then completely violates them when they feel like it.
The writing style was what I would expect out a 9 year old writing a book report, just not as many "very"s.
On topic, I couldn't give a flying fuck about that movie.
And so that this isn't considered a troll, a little constructive criticism - Rob, would you have accepted a review from anyone else - book, movie, anything - that was written as poorly as that?
I think I'll start my own standards war. I went to the restroom today and streamed about a pint at a distance of two feet. Who wants to work on higher capacity and lower distance?
Slashdot Mirror
I did check the forum. I read it the day all of this went down. I know exactly what happened.
But posting pictures of someone and making fun of him and his girlfriend does not mean they're being vigilantes - it means they're being assholes.
And, let's face it, a little assholism was warranted - at least for the guy. The girl should have been off limits and I didn't like that when I read it either.
But jerk != vigilante.
And, just to get my quota of smartassism in for the day, here is another nice smartass comment...
I prefer to put my pr0n on a DD drive. Just seems more fitting somehow.
Hmm, a D: drive. Try putting in the CDROM.
This wasn't vigilantism. Other than blocking the car in, they did not engage the guy directly, nor did they try for mob justice. They blocked him in so he couldn't get away, and then they called the cops and waited for them to show up.
I see nothing at all wrong with this. The cops can then determine if a crime was committed, and guess what? If not, they can arrest the "vigilantes" for filing a false report.
(Now if they d actually tried to hold the person *himself* then I'd have a problem with that. That's when you get into the realm of false imprisonment and civil rights violations.
Oh come on. I can see my comment being moderated as "offtopic", but whatever moderator moderated *this* as offtopic must be smoking farking CRACK.
Do we have a moderator with too many mod points and not enough brain cells on the loose?
To have that quashed. It'll turn all purple and stuff, and it'll hurt to pee...
Oh? What's that? SubPEONA?
Nevermind.
Some would say watching porn is evil.
:-)
I say it depends on the kind of porn.
This is what happens when academics go head to head with corporations.
The corporations will win every time. As smart as academics are, they just aren't prepared for this kind of thing.
Is that people are actually watching and know it's going on.
This kind of thing has happened for as long as there has been political bodies and people who want to manipulate them. The only difference now is that we have a well enough entrenched journalistic system (no thanks to the big media corpos who are doing their best to squash it) to bring it to light.
That's not out of their league, that's just karma. Something they're getting quite the crash course on right now.
Not the actual "attack" itself, of course. But immediately, someone mentioned "anonymous" and everyone knew who they were, that they had a beef with scientology, and that scientology was possibly behind it to discredit them.
This shows that scientology is losing the PR war. They are completely out of their league when they can't actually identify and personally harass their detractors.
Trolling those with a disease? Your genes aren't much better. Go crawl back into the primordial muck.
Oh, hey! Looks like they changed the commenting to work inline. That's cool. So at least your comment had some redeeming value, in spite of your best efforts.
Won't stop 'em from trying.
Look at what they've done to the border, at least partly because of US interference.
How much do you want to bet that the fundies will try their hardest to outlaw this research because in their view HIV is God's punishment for homosexual behavior?
I bet no one will take that bet. Oo, a metabet.
You're describing what happens when salespeople and politicians try to do a geek's job.
If you don't like something that is on Wikipedia, then don't connect to it. Trying to get it removed so that no one else can look at it either is stupid and against Western values. So are these Muslims, though.
;)) I don't care if you're offended, grow up and get over it, you whiny crybabies.
I say we put up a huge statute of Mohammed with his middle finger raised and point it towards Mecca.
Also, on anopther token, are Christians any better? Look at the whole situation with evolution, etc. How about Scientologists? OK, bad example, they're just fucking jerks. Jews? Try posting pictures of the holocaust or pro-Palestine ideas (not anti-Semite, btw, just pro-Palestine, it is indeed possible to be for something while not being prejudiced against its opposite).
The fundamental problem here consists of two elements - a general idea that spans all political sides of the spectrum that one is entitled to not being offended, and a general idea that religion is Inherently Good and thus must be given lots of leeway.
Fuck these Muslims. Not all Muslims, but these Muslims. (And a rather hot one I had my eye on a while ago, but that's a different story
Considering the number of dupes and the ongoing quality problems, I guess you have a point.
But I am absolutely not jealous. Why should I be?
Yes, I can. Good question.
Sorry, it just really bugs me when someone has a publically available forum on which they expect some standards, and then completely violates them when they feel like it.
The writing style was what I would expect out a 9 year old writing a book report, just not as many "very"s.
On topic, I couldn't give a flying fuck about that movie.
And so that this isn't considered a troll, a little constructive criticism - Rob, would you have accepted a review from anyone else - book, movie, anything - that was written as poorly as that?
Not that there's anything wrong with being gay, I think I'd prefer to be the zoophile.
At least a sheep won't want to cuddle afterwards.
I was going to make a comment about men in Montana being light years ahead of this research, but you beat me to it.
At least this way the sheep aren't nervous.
Yeah... if you do that, urine big trouble.
Very good point. It's a different hardware interface, so it needs different drivers...
Oh I bet you can get two feet if you bear down.
Maybe that's equivalent to a higher voltage standard.
I think I'll start my own standards war. I went to the restroom today and streamed about a pint at a distance of two feet. Who wants to work on higher capacity and lower distance?
It's Wireless USPee.