Do not blame lawyers. In my experience most lawyers tend to be more sympathetic to the views of people like us who are unhappy with these stupid laws and stupid lawsuits than they are to the views of organisations like the MPAA.
Objection, opinion. IMO, most lawyers I've known or had experience with are blatantly mercenary, not that there's an issue with that but as soon as money enters the equation the concept of equal justice under law vanishes, by definition.
Most lawyers I know think that the DMCA and its international equivalents are idiotic and outrageously biased, for example.
If this is the prevailing opinion, then where are the public statements to that effect by the various Bar Associations?
But lawyers are part of an adversarial system, and their duty is to represent the interests of those who retain them to the best of their abilities.
For a fee. A bigger bankroll generally means a better argument.
So instead of attacking lawyers, why not pony up some cash for your beliefs and help the EFF or someone like that get their own kick ass legal team.
The term pro bono mean anything to you?
I am so sick of people who bitch about the corporations owning everything but ignore the fact that the corporations only have as much power as you, the consumer, gives them.
I gave them nothing. They bought the laws they wanted, I was never asked to vote on them.
And I am SO SICK of people bashing lawyers, who tend to be progressive, intelligent, and politically and socially engaged individuals (real lawyers, not ambulance chasers).
The reason laywers are bashed are the images they give us. Who are our good guy lawyers? All I see are big money defense slimeballs, corporate weasels who mask simple statements in paragraphs of legalese, and now-politicains who are too often found to be corrupt and unworthy of respect.
(Funny that all this is due to a reference to Shakespeare, a man who never would have known any fame except for the fact that his works were 'pirated' and spread around. He was right tho.)
My g/f's laptop makes some bizarre screeching noise every now and then for no appearant reason, and it isnt drive failure or other hardware stuff. What's worse is it happens under every OS that's put on it!
..in a train station that was a waypoint for moving the dead in the American Civil War, as well as being the site of a new bride's suicide. At night. Graveyard shift. Still creeps me out.
According to Christians. According to Satanists, it's another story.
Yup, the same bloody reason I get furious with xians using the term pagan. (give me back my holidays darnit) But the common defintion being promoted as the correct one is the problem.
My sarcasm detector didnt go off. And as far as cultural refs to Satanism go, I've got too much muddled up background into LeVay and all the other BS and all sorts of "religions" and "cults".
I'm looking forward to reading this 2 book set by Tony Malone called "The Bible for People Who Hate the Bible". Old and new testaments with "God" taken out of the equation.
I'll admit that "satanism" is pehaps the most poorly and vaguely defined thing, with everyone from LeVay (ugh) on down grabbing the label for themselves, or having it forced upon them. pretty much every definition is correct, tho it frankly doesn't exist (at least in any worthwhile numbers), as you've said, but there are many for whom it does exist, some christian factions for example. It is the definition that is generally attributed to it by the onlooker that is important in this case, since your argument was based on SatanicPuppy's name and nothing else, it is at least reasonable to assume that you could be one of those who have used the common mis-definition used by the likes of the aforementioned groups.
Most Satanists, in fact, deny the existence of both God and Satan, which is why my original comment (snide as it was) is applicable.
No, then they are not truely Satanists (sounds alot like hedonists, frankly, Wiki isn't correct on eveything you know). What you are refering to is most commonly called atheism (there is no god/satan/blah blah blah) or perhaps agnosticism (i could give a rats ass if there's a god/satan/etc, a more powerful standpoint in my opinion).
And I felt the need for the "dummy"'s because you based your arguement on someone's name, which is just patently stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
...its not a sport, and you're not an athelete.
Just saying.
I call it saturday night.....
Everything has a way to defeat it. Several common tools already detect and kill CWS in its many varied forms.
Only works if your classrooms are a few hundred yards apart.
Meh, I kill this stuff for a living, nothing has beaten me yet.
Besides, we aren't talking about CWS we're talking about ads in windows.
And then the stone passed....
More like Ad-Supported Windows + Hosts file entry = Ad-Less Windows!
And its also the uniform for Blockbuster.
The term "whaletail" mean anything to you?
Do not blame lawyers. In my experience most lawyers tend to be more sympathetic to the views of people like us who are unhappy with these stupid laws and stupid lawsuits than they are to the views of organisations like the MPAA.
Objection, opinion. IMO, most lawyers I've known or had experience with are blatantly mercenary, not that there's an issue with that but as soon as money enters the equation the concept of equal justice under law vanishes, by definition.
Most lawyers I know think that the DMCA and its international equivalents are idiotic and outrageously biased, for example.
If this is the prevailing opinion, then where are the public statements to that effect by the various Bar Associations?
But lawyers are part of an adversarial system, and their duty is to represent the interests of those who retain them to the best of their abilities.
For a fee. A bigger bankroll generally means a better argument.
So instead of attacking lawyers, why not pony up some cash for your beliefs and help the EFF or someone like that get their own kick ass legal team.
The term pro bono mean anything to you?
I am so sick of people who bitch about the corporations owning everything but ignore the fact that the corporations only have as much power as you, the consumer, gives them.
I gave them nothing. They bought the laws they wanted, I was never asked to vote on them.
And I am SO SICK of people bashing lawyers, who tend to be progressive, intelligent, and politically and socially engaged individuals (real lawyers, not ambulance chasers).
The reason laywers are bashed are the images they give us. Who are our good guy lawyers? All I see are big money defense slimeballs, corporate weasels who mask simple statements in paragraphs of legalese, and now-politicains who are too often found to be corrupt and unworthy of respect.
(Funny that all this is due to a reference to Shakespeare, a man who never would have known any fame except for the fact that his works were 'pirated' and spread around. He was right tho.)
My g/f's laptop makes some bizarre screeching noise every now and then for no appearant reason, and it isnt drive failure or other hardware stuff. What's worse is it happens under every OS that's put on it!
Oh, and it was also part of an escape route from a slave auction house a few hundred yards away. Tunnels in the sub-basement you see.
No, no one's doing it because we'd then have a big debate over whether they evolved or were intelligently designed.
..in a train station that was a waypoint for moving the dead in the American Civil War, as well as being the site of a new bride's suicide. At night. Graveyard shift. Still creeps me out.
You know you can turn that "Clippy" guy off right?
Which in an odd way is the crux of the ID/evolution debate, who invented what first.
Pastafarianism is looking good. RAmen!
I never met a Raelian, or a Janeist either, but they appeantly exist, or did.
Many are LABELED satanists by various people who in fact arent, but meet the finger-pointers definition.
Point taken.
Lets just agree that there are better things to argue about, "religion" and "politics" are losing games.
According to Christians. According to Satanists, it's another story.
Yup, the same bloody reason I get furious with xians using the term pagan. (give me back my holidays darnit) But the common defintion being promoted as the correct one is the problem.
Lets argue about "hacker" next, lol.
The Satanic Bible was in my high school library, believe it or not.
And as I've said, its 50 years old. Whats the date on the Bible?
ZiNG!
My sarcasm detector didnt go off. And as far as cultural refs to Satanism go, I've got too much muddled up background into LeVay and all the other BS and all sorts of "religions" and "cults".
I'm looking forward to reading this 2 book set by Tony Malone called "The Bible for People Who Hate the Bible". Old and new testaments with "God" taken out of the equation.
LOL, cool, I still think basing an argument off a name is dumb tho.
The term "satanist" predates LeVay, whose satanism is what 50 yeas old?
I'll admit that "satanism" is pehaps the most poorly and vaguely defined thing, with everyone from LeVay (ugh) on down grabbing the label for themselves, or having it forced upon them. pretty much every definition is correct, tho it frankly doesn't exist (at least in any worthwhile numbers), as you've said, but there are many for whom it does exist, some christian factions for example. It is the definition that is generally attributed to it by the onlooker that is important in this case, since your argument was based on SatanicPuppy's name and nothing else, it is at least reasonable to assume that you could be one of those who have used the common mis-definition used by the likes of the aforementioned groups.
Why would you argue based on a name anyway?
Most Satanists, in fact, deny the existence of both God and Satan, which is why my original comment (snide as it was) is applicable.
No, then they are not truely Satanists (sounds alot like hedonists, frankly, Wiki isn't correct on eveything you know). What you are refering to is most commonly called atheism (there is no god/satan/blah blah blah) or perhaps agnosticism (i could give a rats ass if there's a god/satan/etc, a more powerful standpoint in my opinion).
And I felt the need for the "dummy"'s because you based your arguement on someone's name, which is just patently stupid.