Look, I generally agree with you. I didn't actually take offense at your notion. I accused you of insulting other people, which, frankly, if you look at the text you wrote, you did.
Seems to me the only people who would be insulted would be people who self-identify as 'art snobs.'
Or performance artists, I guess.
Waaaaaah. Cry me a river. Let me get a bucket and washcloth, so you can rinse the sand out of your vagina.
You're more than welcome to your opinion. And if you engaged with the explanation of this, and you still think it's crap or nonsense, that's fine. But I think it's a more useful discussion to say why you think it's crap or nonsense, rather than just insult people and be dismissive.
Did you actually read my post, or were you too busy getting all in a huff? I point out my rationale in the very first sentence:
Namely because, to me, it represents that self-serving form of 'performance art,' that has absolutely no artistic value but rather is an expression of the "artists" narcissistic desire to be the center of attention
I stand by that opinion.
I was trying to offer some context and perhaps some perspective for people who may not have thought about such things before.
Then maybe you should have just done that, instead of posting 16 paragraphs that amount to, "well, you just don't understand what music really is."
Which, FYI some people might find offensive as well, but apparently you're too busy being offended by my words, and pointing out that feeling, to notice the offense that your own statements could be causing.
In summation - I really don't give a rat's arse if my words offend people - "Fuck em if they can't take a joke," as my oldest friend likes to say.
I'm definitely not younger than 30, so I'm going to guess that you have to be over 50 to be familiar with that one unless you've gone out of your way to hear their stuff.
Maybe the Ed Sullivan performance (I've always been a big fan of his, so I dig), but not the track in general - Paint It Black seems to be pretty popular in pop culture, appearing in numerous movies and TV shows over the decades, with Full Metal Jacket being one of the more notable instances.
You are indeed entitled to it. However, it is clearly not shared.
YOU might not share it, but if you read all the posts, some people do.
The piece, while obviously not performed often, has been a historical way-point for much discussion about the nature of composing, performing, and listening to music. In that sense, I think it is a success, and not a way for Cage "purely to stroke his own ego." Which is my opinion, and I'm entitled to it.
Indeed you are - it's our differences that make us unique, and our ability to have them without resorting to screaming matches that makes us reasonable people.
but Iran, North Korea, Syria and a few others are completely banned from any trade, with exceptions only for humanitarian purposes, which I don't think would cover Coca Cola.
Depending on how much they know about soda, it might be considered an act of war.
I can understand your dislike of self-absorbed narcissistic artists, but I don't think it's fair to put John Cage in that category. After all, 4'33" was not the only thing he wrote. He was completely serious about composing, and was quite prolific and innovative.
Sure; Picasso painted a lot of cool stuff before he went off his nut and mailed his own ear to his girlfriend.
And, to be fair, I never said anything about Cage's body of work as a whole, other than positing my belief that this particular piece exists purely to stroke his own ego. Which is my opinion, and I'm entitled to it.
Then you didn't get it. That's fine. You can be ignorant if you accept it.
FYI, this is exactly the sort of response I would expect from a pretentious art snob: "Oh, you just don't get it, you Plebe, because you're obviouslyfar less cultured than I am."
No, dude, I get it. I just think it's stupid, self serving nonsense. I'm entitled to my opinion, same as you. The difference is, I don't go around criticizing others or accusing them of "not getting it" just because their opinion doesn't march in lock-step with my own.
Okay, you don't like something. That's fine. But you might bother to learn something about it before insulting other people.
Hey, I read the Wikipedia article. FWIW, if you find my characterization of "art snobs" insulting, perhaps it's time for some introspection - whether or not a person finds offense in a statement is on them, not the speaker. For example, I could take offense to your art-snobbish notion that I don't know anything about music, or environmental noise, or this Cage piece in particular; but I don't, for several reasons, namely because I know that my knowledge of music (and sound in general) is far more complete than an art snob would give me credit for, thanks to years working in the sound-and-stage industry. Also, I tend not to base my own self-worth on the opinions of other people.
But hey, it's a beautiful day out there (at least, it is around here), so let's not bicker about what amounts to subjective nonsense, and enjoy.
To be fair, the '80s had its share of good stuff too. The Police, Phil Collins both Genesis and solo, David Bowie, Huey Lewis, Michael Jackson before he got too weird, and a load of one-hit-wonders.
Those two sentences seem contradictory.
Ba-dum psht.
All kidding aside, although I'm not a fan of most of the groups you mentioned (with the exception of MJ, as he was quite awesome before the Pepsi commercial incident got him hooked on opiates), I'm not questioning whether or not the music was "good" - I'm saying that certain groups, such as the Zep, transcend generations, which is why those teenagers in OP's anecdote knew that he was listening to Dazed and Confused.
As for 90's music, They've been playing Nirvana and Soundgarden on the "classic rock" stations for a number of years now, and pretty much everyone knows who Kurt Cobain was, so I'd classify them in the 'transcending' category. I'd throw techno groups like the Crystal Method and Chemical Brothers in there, too, but honestly I don't talk to a lot of people younger than 30, so I couldn't tell you if their music is still popular with electronica fans.
Oh, and I think you forgot to mention The Rolling Stones, man.
Oh, I didn't forget... I just let my bias show through there a bit.
Outside Paint It Black, I could take or leave the Stones.
wouldn't there be any other way the victims would be able to convict the photographer? Couldn't they claim that amounted to harassment or something? Or... well... anything?
Catch the perv in the act, you might be able to convict them in the court of public opinion with some good ol' fashioned shaming.
Because the DOW doesn't determine if people are driving to work, unemployment does. One follows the other. The economy isn't a unified thing, and the rich can be making loads of money while the rest of don't.
Interestingly, the last time we had a "jobless recovery" of significant size was around 1935, during the Great Depression... which was caused by a bunch of bankers... including Goldman... Sachs...
You should read the actual law not somebody on the internet's interpretation of it. Below is the relevant section of the actual law.
No person by engaging in a pattern of conduct shall knowingly cause another person to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to the other person or cause mental distress to the other person.
If you read carefully you will see that the person must knowingly cause mental distress which is defined here.
"Mental distress" means any of the following:
(a) Any mental illness or condition that involves some temporary substantial incapacity;
(b) Any mental illness or condition that would normally require psychiatric treatment, psychological treatment, or other mental health services, whether or not any person requested or received psychiatric treatment, psychological treatment, or other mental health services.
That means the prosecutor must prove that you were following a person with the intent to intimidate or cause mental harm. I am intimately familiar with this law as I live in Ohio and have a crazy neighbor (back yard) that would drive by my house and dump trash in my yard, walk by my house dump trash and put tree branches behind my car, dump soda on my car, which I caught on camera. The prosecutor said that they could only get him for littering because he didn't cause mental distress or threaten me.
Maybe the prosecutor doesn't like you. My mother-in-law is dealing with a similar issue, only the perpetrator in her case is a city cop, whose illegal activities are being covered for by the local mayor.
FWIW, if you were a young woman, I bet they'd have been a bit more keen to take your story seriously.
Namely because, to me, it represents that self-serving form of 'performance art,' that has absolutely no artistic value but rather is an expression of the "artists" narcissistic desire to be the center of attention by doing something remarkably weird and/or stupid, and subsequently pontificating on the topic as if they're the first person in history to ever do anything weird and/or stupid. You know, the kind of garbage that art snobs devour.
FWIW, I despise most of Andy Warhol's work for pretty much the same reasons.
It was an afternoon on the way home from work not long ago. I was warm and I had the windows down on the car, and I was blaring Dazed and Confused, the 30 min live version from TSRTS album. It was during the extender part of Jimmy Page bowing his guitar, just a lot of noise really, and unless you knew this piece on a live recording...you'd not know what this noise was, especially considering the age of the piece.
Well, I pulled up, rolled up the windows, turned the music down and the car off and got out to walk into the store.
Just outside the store, a young stock boy, like in his upper teens, was sitting outside smoking a cig on break I guess. As I walked by, he spoke to me and said "Oh man, I love Zeppelin...dazed and confused!!"
I smiled and said yeah, good stuff or something like that.
As I walked in the store, I thought more about it and thought, goodness...HTF did he know that song?
To be fair, the Zep represents that rare breed of musician whose art transcends generations. Just so happens the 1960's and 70's were chock-full of that kind of artist: Led Zeppelin, The Doors, Pink Floyd, the Beatles...
Well, OK, maybe just those four. Now that I think about it, I don't know anyone under the age of 25 or 26 who can name even one Jefferson Starship or Bread song.
The code could very well be based in a project without so many stupid trade restrictions. For example, let's pretend Linus still lives in Finland, and that he is hosting the git repo in Finland.
While that does appear a legitimate work-around, I feel compelled to point out that OP specified US-based software. Pretty sure something that's hosted out of a non-US repo wouldn't count.
Ask yourself this - how could someone in Syria contribute to code they've never seen before?
The same way that Western goods make their way to any country under export control, through intermediaries.
Coke can't sell to North Korea. Coke however can be sold (or made) in China and then gets shipped across the line to North Korea.
Is it really hard to imagine that Syria or Iran might be able to download from an intermediary country that might have a mirror of the distribution? Or had someone travel to such a country to download it? Or just went through a VPN or proxy? Or...
Is Coca-Cola restricted by ITAR?
Something tells me the rules for cryptography exports are a bit more stringent than the ones for sugar water.
Well perhaps you could show me ONE "local, legal definition" that says you can't ONLY follow someone on public property.
Well, I'm not going to honor your new goalpost location of "ONLY... on public property," since that was never a criteria, but here's an excerpt from Ohio's anti-stalking law:
A person commits the crime of "menacing by stalking" by engaging in a pattern of conduct that the stalker knows will cause another person mental distress or cause that person to believe that the stalker will cause physical harm to her or him. R.C. 2903.211
What types of behavior are examples of “menacing by stalking"?
Ohio’s menacing by stalking statute does not define what types of conduct may constitute "menacing by stalking."
In effect, any actions that the stalker takes to frighten or cause mental distress to his victim—as long as there are two or more actions or incidents reasonably close together in time—will fall within the legal definition of menacing by stalking. Examples of stalking-type conduct include:
Following the victim.
Repeatedly driving by her home.
Making harassing phone calls; sending threatening or harassing letters.
Hurting the victim’s pets.
Vandalizing the victim’s property.
Trespassing or burglarizing the victim’s home or business.
Leaving threatening notes or objects for the victim.
Orally threatening the victim.
There are no doubt many other types of conduct that could be used by a stalker to frighten or cause mental distress to his victim.
Note the emphasized statements; also note that they do not specify whether the stalking behavior occurs on public or private property. Basically, if I catch you following me twice "within a reasonable amount of time," and I feel like the action of you following me is threatening, I can have you arrested for stalking.
As another poster pointed out, private investigators would be filling up our jails under these supposed statutes.
In some cases, they are. But most states require private investigators to be licensed, putting them in a different class than regular, non-licensed persons. It's basically the difference between practicing medicine with or without a license - one is legal, the other is a serious infraction with consequences to match.
EVERY stalking law has some phrase saying that the stalker has to terrorize the stalkee.
Well pardon me for calling that hyperbole, since I'm pretty sure you haven't read every single stalking law put on the books in 30 years overnight.
Regardless, how is "terrorize" defined? Because if a state designates "following someone around with the intent to track their movements" as terrorizing, well, you're on the wrong side of the law.
Walking around on public property is not terrorizing. Even if you're watching one person all the time.
Public property is... wait for it... open to the public.
Yea, you've thrown that non sequitur out several times.
We're not talking about "walking around," we're talking about following someone. And if "following someone" falls into the local, legal definition of stalking and/or harassment, you're going to find yourself on the wrong side of the law. It's not black-and-white like you're trying to make it out to be, but if you disagree, here's an experiment - go to the nearest high school, wait until school lets out, pick a target of the opposite sex, and proceed to follow them around, photographing them and keeping track of their locations. After all, it's perfectly legal, right?
Owner of an object in a photo has zero copyright claims, regardless of how many nastygrams they fire off or how many lawyers they threaten to sic on you. The creator of the photograph-- the creative work-- is the one who owns the copyright.
You also generally do not have to get permission to photograph things visible in public, though people like to fight over that as well.
So... if I take a picture of the Mona Lisa, it's perfectly legal for me to sell prints?
Somehow I doubt that, although I admittedly have never tried.
Well, pardon me for not feeling that Eric Holder is the most trustworthy person when it comes to respecting the rule of law; his track record to that end kinda sucks.
So, Facebook will start harassing people who sell guns... and people will just go somewhere else to buy and sell guns.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if a numberof sites cropped up for just that purpose - the legal transfer of a firearm from one private citizen to another.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, I generally agree with you. I didn't actually take offense at your notion. I accused you of insulting other people, which, frankly, if you look at the text you wrote, you did.
Seems to me the only people who would be insulted would be people who self-identify as 'art snobs.'
Or performance artists, I guess.
Waaaaaah. Cry me a river. Let me get a bucket and washcloth, so you can rinse the sand out of your vagina.
You're more than welcome to your opinion. And if you engaged with the explanation of this, and you still think it's crap or nonsense, that's fine. But I think it's a more useful discussion to say why you think it's crap or nonsense, rather than just insult people and be dismissive.
Did you actually read my post, or were you too busy getting all in a huff? I point out my rationale in the very first sentence:
I stand by that opinion.
I was trying to offer some context and perhaps some perspective for people who may not have thought about such things before.
Then maybe you should have just done that, instead of posting 16 paragraphs that amount to, "well, you just don't understand what music really is."
Which, FYI some people might find offensive as well, but apparently you're too busy being offended by my words, and pointing out that feeling, to notice the offense that your own statements could be causing.
In summation - I really don't give a rat's arse if my words offend people - "Fuck em if they can't take a joke," as my oldest friend likes to say.
YOU might not share it, but if you read all the posts, some people do.
Agreed. I should have qualified that it is not shared by all. Peace.
Back atcha, Broseph.
I'm definitely not younger than 30, so I'm going to guess that you have to be over 50 to be familiar with that one unless you've gone out of your way to hear their stuff.
Maybe the Ed Sullivan performance (I've always been a big fan of his, so I dig), but not the track in general - Paint It Black seems to be pretty popular in pop culture, appearing in numerous movies and TV shows over the decades, with Full Metal Jacket being one of the more notable instances.
You are indeed entitled to it. However, it is clearly not shared.
YOU might not share it, but if you read all the posts, some people do.
The piece, while obviously not performed often, has been a historical way-point for much discussion about the nature of composing, performing, and listening to music. In that sense, I think it is a success, and not a way for Cage "purely to stroke his own ego." Which is my opinion, and I'm entitled to it.
Indeed you are - it's our differences that make us unique, and our ability to have them without resorting to screaming matches that makes us reasonable people.
but Iran, North Korea, Syria and a few others are completely banned from any trade, with exceptions only for humanitarian purposes, which I don't think would cover Coca Cola.
Depending on how much they know about soda, it might be considered an act of war.
I can understand your dislike of self-absorbed narcissistic artists, but I don't think it's fair to put John Cage in that category. After all, 4'33" was not the only thing he wrote. He was completely serious about composing, and was quite prolific and innovative.
Sure; Picasso painted a lot of cool stuff before he went off his nut and mailed his own ear to his girlfriend.
And, to be fair, I never said anything about Cage's body of work as a whole, other than positing my belief that this particular piece exists purely to stroke his own ego. Which is my opinion, and I'm entitled to it.
Then you didn't get it. That's fine. You can be ignorant if you accept it.
FYI, this is exactly the sort of response I would expect from a pretentious art snob: "Oh, you just don't get it, you Plebe, because you're obviously far less cultured than I am."
No, dude, I get it. I just think it's stupid, self serving nonsense. I'm entitled to my opinion, same as you. The difference is, I don't go around criticizing others or accusing them of "not getting it" just because their opinion doesn't march in lock-step with my own.
Okay, you don't like something. That's fine. But you might bother to learn something about it before insulting other people.
Hey, I read the Wikipedia article. FWIW, if you find my characterization of "art snobs" insulting, perhaps it's time for some introspection - whether or not a person finds offense in a statement is on them, not the speaker. For example, I could take offense to your art-snobbish notion that I don't know anything about music, or environmental noise, or this Cage piece in particular; but I don't, for several reasons, namely because I know that my knowledge of music (and sound in general) is far more complete than an art snob would give me credit for, thanks to years working in the sound-and-stage industry. Also, I tend not to base my own self-worth on the opinions of other people.
But hey, it's a beautiful day out there (at least, it is around here), so let's not bicker about what amounts to subjective nonsense, and enjoy.
To be fair, the '80s had its share of good stuff too. The Police, Phil Collins both Genesis and solo, David Bowie, Huey Lewis, Michael Jackson before he got too weird, and a load of one-hit-wonders.
Those two sentences seem contradictory.
Ba-dum psht.
All kidding aside, although I'm not a fan of most of the groups you mentioned (with the exception of MJ, as he was quite awesome before the Pepsi commercial incident got him hooked on opiates), I'm not questioning whether or not the music was "good" - I'm saying that certain groups, such as the Zep, transcend generations, which is why those teenagers in OP's anecdote knew that he was listening to Dazed and Confused.
As for 90's music, They've been playing Nirvana and Soundgarden on the "classic rock" stations for a number of years now, and pretty much everyone knows who Kurt Cobain was, so I'd classify them in the 'transcending' category. I'd throw techno groups like the Crystal Method and Chemical Brothers in there, too, but honestly I don't talk to a lot of people younger than 30, so I couldn't tell you if their music is still popular with electronica fans.
Oh, and I think you forgot to mention The Rolling Stones, man.
Oh, I didn't forget... I just let my bias show through there a bit.
Outside Paint It Black, I could take or leave the Stones.
wouldn't there be any other way the victims would be able to convict the photographer? Couldn't they claim that amounted to harassment or something? Or... well... anything?
Catch the perv in the act, you might be able to convict them in the court of public opinion with some good ol' fashioned shaming.
So why did congestion decline in 2011 and 2012?
Because the DOW doesn't determine if people are driving to work, unemployment does. One follows the other. The economy isn't a unified thing, and the rich can be making loads of money while the rest of don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
Interestingly, the last time we had a "jobless recovery" of significant size was around 1935, during the Great Depression... which was caused by a bunch of bankers... including Goldman... Sachs...
Hey, am I the only one seeing a pattern here?
You should read the actual law not somebody on the internet's interpretation of it. Below is the relevant section of the actual law.
No person by engaging in a pattern of conduct shall knowingly cause another person to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to the other person or cause mental distress to the other person.
If you read carefully you will see that the person must knowingly cause mental distress which is defined here.
"Mental distress" means any of the following:
(a) Any mental illness or condition that involves some temporary substantial incapacity;
(b) Any mental illness or condition that would normally require psychiatric treatment, psychological treatment, or other mental health services, whether or not any person requested or received psychiatric treatment, psychological treatment, or other mental health services.
That means the prosecutor must prove that you were following a person with the intent to intimidate or cause mental harm. I am intimately familiar with this law as I live in Ohio and have a crazy neighbor (back yard) that would drive by my house and dump trash in my yard, walk by my house dump trash and put tree branches behind my car, dump soda on my car, which I caught on camera. The prosecutor said that they could only get him for littering because he didn't cause mental distress or threaten me.
Maybe the prosecutor doesn't like you. My mother-in-law is dealing with a similar issue, only the perpetrator in her case is a city cop, whose illegal activities are being covered for by the local mayor.
FWIW, if you were a young woman, I bet they'd have been a bit more keen to take your story seriously.
They must really hate this.
I do.
Namely because, to me, it represents that self-serving form of 'performance art,' that has absolutely no artistic value but rather is an expression of the "artists" narcissistic desire to be the center of attention by doing something remarkably weird and/or stupid, and subsequently pontificating on the topic as if they're the first person in history to ever do anything weird and/or stupid. You know, the kind of garbage that art snobs devour.
FWIW, I despise most of Andy Warhol's work for pretty much the same reasons.
It was an afternoon on the way home from work not long ago. I was warm and I had the windows down on the car, and I was blaring Dazed and Confused, the 30 min live version from TSRTS album. It was during the extender part of Jimmy Page bowing his guitar, just a lot of noise really, and unless you knew this piece on a live recording...you'd not know what this noise was, especially considering the age of the piece.
Well, I pulled up, rolled up the windows, turned the music down and the car off and got out to walk into the store.
Just outside the store, a young stock boy, like in his upper teens, was sitting outside smoking a cig on break I guess. As I walked by, he spoke to me and said "Oh man, I love Zeppelin...dazed and confused!!"
I smiled and said yeah, good stuff or something like that.
As I walked in the store, I thought more about it and thought, goodness...HTF did he know that song?
To be fair, the Zep represents that rare breed of musician whose art transcends generations. Just so happens the 1960's and 70's were chock-full of that kind of artist: Led Zeppelin, The Doors, Pink Floyd, the Beatles...
Well, OK, maybe just those four. Now that I think about it, I don't know anyone under the age of 25 or 26 who can name even one Jefferson Starship or Bread song.
Goal post moving?
Holy fuck dude. I said this yesterday:
Following someone around on public property is now stalking?
That statement by no means indicates exclusivity. Regardless, I answered your question.
And you found a statute that DOESN'T define stalker actions as an example of stalker actions? What the actual fuck dude.
And "filling up our jails" = 1 guy got arrested?
Just drop it, crazy person.
Look, you asked for "ONE "local, legal definition" that says you can't... follow someone on public property."
I gave you what you asked for, and now you call me a crazy person, because the reality of the situation doesn't match the worldview you want to have?
Hate to break it to ya, bro, but the crazy one in this conversation? It ain't me.
The code could very well be based in a project without so many stupid trade restrictions. For example, let's pretend Linus still lives in Finland, and that he is hosting the git repo in Finland.
While that does appear a legitimate work-around, I feel compelled to point out that OP specified US-based software. Pretty sure something that's hosted out of a non-US repo wouldn't count.
The same way that Western goods make their way to any country under export control, through intermediaries.
Coke can't sell to North Korea. Coke however can be sold (or made) in China and then gets shipped across the line to North Korea.
Is it really hard to imagine that Syria or Iran might be able to download from an intermediary country that might have a mirror of the distribution? Or had someone travel to such a country to download it? Or just went through a VPN or proxy? Or...
Is Coca-Cola restricted by ITAR?
Something tells me the rules for cryptography exports are a bit more stringent than the ones for sugar water.
Well perhaps you could show me ONE "local, legal definition" that says you can't ONLY follow someone on public property.
Well, I'm not going to honor your new goalpost location of "ONLY... on public property," since that was never a criteria, but here's an excerpt from Ohio's anti-stalking law:
Further down the page, "menacing by stalking" is given a few definitions:
Note the emphasized statements; also note that they do not specify whether the stalking behavior occurs on public or private property. Basically, if I catch you following me twice "within a reasonable amount of time," and I feel like the action of you following me is threatening, I can have you arrested for stalking.
As another poster pointed out, private investigators would be filling up our jails under these supposed statutes.
In some cases, they are. But most states require private investigators to be licensed, putting them in a different class than regular, non-licensed persons. It's basically the difference between practicing medicine with or without a license - one is legal, the other is a serious infraction with consequences to match.
If someone in Syria submits a contribution to US based software, how does that infringe an export ban?
Ask yourself this - how could someone in Syria contribute to code they've never seen before?
EVERY stalking law has some phrase saying that the stalker has to terrorize the stalkee.
Well pardon me for calling that hyperbole, since I'm pretty sure you haven't read every single stalking law put on the books in 30 years overnight.
Regardless, how is "terrorize" defined? Because if a state designates "following someone around with the intent to track their movements" as terrorizing, well, you're on the wrong side of the law.
Walking around on public property is not terrorizing. Even if you're watching one person all the time.
Public property is ... wait for it ... open to the public.
Yea, you've thrown that non sequitur out several times.
We're not talking about "walking around," we're talking about following someone. And if "following someone" falls into the local, legal definition of stalking and/or harassment, you're going to find yourself on the wrong side of the law. It's not black-and-white like you're trying to make it out to be, but if you disagree, here's an experiment - go to the nearest high school, wait until school lets out, pick a target of the opposite sex, and proceed to follow them around, photographing them and keeping track of their locations. After all, it's perfectly legal, right?
Explain the many newspaper photos of the public.
And, now that you mention it, the fact that the TMZ crew doesn't live in prison.
Owner of an object in a photo has zero copyright claims, regardless of how many nastygrams they fire off or how many lawyers they threaten to sic on you. The creator of the photograph-- the creative work-- is the one who owns the copyright.
You also generally do not have to get permission to photograph things visible in public, though people like to fight over that as well.
So... if I take a picture of the Mona Lisa, it's perfectly legal for me to sell prints?
Somehow I doubt that, although I admittedly have never tried.
Like Gunbroker.com?
I didn't include Gunbroker as it's an auction site, and not a social one.
Plus, as far as I'm aware anything you buy on Gunbroker is required to be shipped to an FFL and the buyer must be given a background check.
Well, pardon me for not feeling that Eric Holder is the most trustworthy person when it comes to respecting the rule of law; his track record to that end kinda sucks.
So, Facebook will start harassing people who sell guns... and people will just go somewhere else to buy and sell guns.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if a number of sites cropped up for just that purpose - the legal transfer of a firearm from one private citizen to another.
You can't stop the signal.