Go on, advance from libel/slander to conspiracy to rob a bank.
1) Conspiracy normally requires the active cooperation of two or more people (usually 2 or more, but not always). If I'm acting on my own, there' s no "conspiracy".
2) Don't like it? Then sue me. See how far you get.:)
When will people understand that only law-abiding people pay any attention to laws? And that is precisely why having "Speed Limit 30" in residential areas is a total waste of money.
Your solution would be to post the speed limit signs, but with no police there to enforce the speed limit.
And if everyone one of them had been secretly packing a pistol, I don't think anything would have changed.
You're right, everyone would just sit there and yell, "Me! Me! Make ME your victim! Shoot me first!"
I've carried daily for 35+ years without incident. If I'd been there I would have at least tried to stop him, and there's a damn good chance I would have succeeded or at least altered the outcome.
News Flash: Not all of us are sheep and are wiling to let some homicidal nutjob run wild. Some of us are willing to run towards the danger, not away from it.
Perhaps it means that the law says "no guns allowed, unless you're a criminal and don't care about the law".
That is exactly what it means. I wish I had mod points, they'd be yours.
When will people understand that only law-abiding people pay any attention to laws? When will they grasp the concept that labeling something a "gun-free zone" doesn't magically do ANYTHING?
Criminals will still have guns and they'll still bring them into a "gun-free zone" no matter how many signs are posted.
So if I don't register for the site, then only positive comments about me get posted but if I register the negative ones get posted too? What's the incentive to register? Why not just stay unregistered and tout that 100% positive rating on Peeple?
Sounds like an innovative and forward-thinking way to make sure I never, ever register!
And god help them if they allow someone to falsely register as me, because if that happens my lawyers will be feasting on their entrails.
Hearsay "I have it on good authority" means that they can compel your source in court, when suing you for liable or slander.
No problem, god spoke to me in a dream and told me it was true.
You aren't going to fuck around with my religious liberty AND my right to free speech, now are you? Because that would be bad. Almost as bad as creating a website or application that encourages free-flowing libel.
(And finally, for the sake of all the wannabe lawyers, I never actually made that review, I only said that it would be my first review. It's like saying "I'd like to rob that bank over there and someday I'll do it." As far as I know those aren't actionable statements.)
"Peeple co-founder Julia Cordray is a greedy bitch who sees noting wrong with a platform that allows reliable, anonymous character assassination. I have it on good authority that she also has sex with dogs while smoking crack and watching kiddie porn."
I found simple, direct threats to be a very effective technique.
No fancy food parings, no cajoling, no tricky psychological stuff, just "Eat that broccoli or else", with the "else" left unsaid, but being any number of possible things.
"...or else no iPod." "...or else no TV." "...or else no computer." "...or else no oxygen."
they asked the same questions after silently listening to the answers without letting me know they didn't understand them
THIS...this this THIS times a billion. It's cultural.
They will NEVER say they don't understand, and the answer to ANY question is either "yes" or whatever it is they think you want to hear.
They are culturally and pathologically incapable of saying "no" or "I don't understand". They will nod their heads and smile and agree with whatever words come out of your mouth regardless of what you just said.
I had a coworker who once, in the middle of a conversation about a function call, told one of the Indian programmers "I am the pen that holds the conductor's cap in Buffalo", and the Indian dev nodded and said "Yes, yes, right, yes".
My buddy looked at me, I looked at him, and at that moment we both knew the project was DOOMED. Utterly fucking doomed.
I've no idea what skill set that particular dev was hired for, but whatever it is, there are no Americans that have it, none anywhere in the entire country.
Agreed...and this brings me to another point, namely that every single libertarian I've ever spoken with has a very different definition of what "libertarianism" is.
The same isn't true with capitalism. Capitalism is fairly well defined, and most people can agree on what it means even if the finer points get a little fuzzy. But in terms of libertarianism the definitions are all over the map, most of them are wildly divergent with very little in common.
Many libertarians has vague definitions of what they think it means, but a lot of those notions break down as soon as you start to ask questions, like "who enforces what", and what central authority or base authority would be used to settle disputes. At that point it all goes pear-shaped and the "solutions" I get frequently devolve into some form of feudalism or "whoever has the most power". Or whoever got their first. Or whoever can claim "ownership", another term that seems to be lacking a common definition.
For example, say you "own" a piece of property (whatever that means)...who or what gives you ownership of that property, and who or what enforces your supposed rights to that property? The answers I get to this question alone range from simplistic to unworkable to downright daffy.
As I said, there has never been a functioning society, country, or government based on libertarian ideals or concepts, because it all falls apart when it comes face-to-face with real people in the real world.
Seriously- I've looked at and read about libertarianism for 35+ years, and in all that time I've never seen even a hint of a practical way to implement it. It's just not a realistic structure for a society to base itself on.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, STOP trying to make everybody a programmer. It's not going to happen, and it shouldn't happen.
Why not make everyone a plumber or a mechanic or an insurance agent? BECAUSE IT'S STUPID, just like trying to make everyone a programmer.
Go on, advance from libel/slander to conspiracy to rob a bank.
1) Conspiracy normally requires the active cooperation of two or more people (usually 2 or more, but not always). If I'm acting on my own, there' s no "conspiracy".
2) Don't like it? Then sue me. See how far you get. :)
When will people understand that only law-abiding people pay any attention to laws? And that is precisely why having "Speed Limit 30" in residential areas is a total waste of money.
Your solution would be to post the speed limit signs, but with no police there to enforce the speed limit.
It's meant to avoid spontaneous unplanned shootings.
And look at how effective it was! No one was able to spontaneously defend themselves, obviously a clear win for the "Gun Free" zone idea.
And if everyone one of them had been secretly packing a pistol, I don't think anything would have changed.
You're right, everyone would just sit there and yell, "Me! Me! Make ME your victim! Shoot me first!"
I've carried daily for 35+ years without incident. If I'd been there I would have at least tried to stop him, and there's a damn good chance I would have succeeded or at least altered the outcome.
News Flash: Not all of us are sheep and are wiling to let some homicidal nutjob run wild. Some of us are willing to run towards the danger, not away from it.
"Gun free" is not intended to be a message to criminals.
Obviously not, since they ignore the message and bring guns in anyway.
Schools may be public but they are allowed to make restrictions on who or what can enter.
Yes, and look at how magnificently those restrictions worked! That's why there has never been a shooting in a "Gun free" zone.
You're right. But by the tone of his post, I took it to mean that he would consider that post Insightful, or perhaps Interesting.
You are correct, and thank you for pointing this out. "Insightful" or "Informative" would have been my choice.
Annnd this is exactly what mod points are NOT for. They are not "I agree with you" tokens.
"That's just like, your opinion, man."
Seriously, I'll use my mod points however the fuck I like, Mr Mod Point Policeman.
Seems like it means "opposition-free zone"
I like to think of it as a target-rich "victim zone".
I guess it means they were trying not to get shot, trying to establish a safe place, and rejecting the primacy of the gun.
Yeah, and look how well that's been working out for them.
Perhaps it means that the law says "no guns allowed, unless you're a criminal and don't care about the law".
That is exactly what it means. I wish I had mod points, they'd be yours.
When will people understand that only law-abiding people pay any attention to laws? When will they grasp the concept that labeling something a "gun-free zone" doesn't magically do ANYTHING?
Criminals will still have guns and they'll still bring them into a "gun-free zone" no matter how many signs are posted.
Step 1: Create a private Youtube channel and post your videos there.
I rated Bennet Hasselton 5 stars in Professional "delivered crack to children in a professional and timely manner"
"I give Bennet Hasselton 5 stars because he took full responsibility for molesting my 8-year old son, and apologized profusely for having done it."
Anonymous Coward is forthright and trustworthy, truly a prince amongst men.
Except for that time when he raped my dog, ate all my ice cream, and left the toilet seat up. That bastard.
Fairly sure it was cats. She's obsessed with cats, and rarely bathes.
Yes, that's what peeple say....
So if I don't register for the site, then only positive comments about me get posted but if I register the negative ones get posted too? What's the incentive to register? Why not just stay unregistered and tout that 100% positive rating on Peeple?
Sounds like an innovative and forward-thinking way to make sure I never, ever register!
And god help them if they allow someone to falsely register as me, because if that happens my lawyers will be feasting on their entrails.
Thus if you never register, you're invulnerable to bad reviews.
What an innovative way to make sure I never register!
However...what's to stop other people from registering as you? How can they be sure it's really me registering?
If they don't / won't / can't verify it's really me, that certainly sounds like a lawsuit just waiting to happen.
Sounds good. Perhaps everybody on slashdot should start with a review of Bennet Hasselton.
Is it true that Bennet Hasselton smokes crack and molests children?
I'm not saying it's true, I'm just asking questions.
Hearsay "I have it on good authority" means that they can compel your source in court, when suing you for liable or slander.
No problem, god spoke to me in a dream and told me it was true.
You aren't going to fuck around with my religious liberty AND my right to free speech, now are you? Because that would be bad. Almost as bad as creating a website or application that encourages free-flowing libel.
(And finally, for the sake of all the wannabe lawyers, I never actually made that review, I only said that it would be my first review. It's like saying "I'd like to rob that bank over there and someday I'll do it." As far as I know those aren't actionable statements.)
He never said it was consensual.
That's right. Since a dog cannot give consent, it must have been rape.
I only hope the dog wasn't underage as well. Tsk, tsk.
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh, nothing, absolutely nothing could possibly go wrong with this.
My first review of Julia Cordray on Peeple:
"Peeple co-founder Julia Cordray is a greedy bitch who sees noting wrong with a platform that allows reliable, anonymous character assassination. I have it on good authority that she also has sex with dogs while smoking crack and watching kiddie porn."
I found simple, direct threats to be a very effective technique.
No fancy food parings, no cajoling, no tricky psychological stuff, just "Eat that broccoli or else", with the "else" left unsaid, but being any number of possible things.
"...or else no iPod."
"...or else no TV."
"...or else no computer."
"...or else no oxygen."
they asked the same questions after silently listening to the answers without letting me know they didn't understand them
THIS...this this THIS times a billion. It's cultural.
They will NEVER say they don't understand, and the answer to ANY question is either "yes" or whatever it is they think you want to hear.
They are culturally and pathologically incapable of saying "no" or "I don't understand". They will nod their heads and smile and agree with whatever words come out of your mouth regardless of what you just said.
I had a coworker who once, in the middle of a conversation about a function call, told one of the Indian programmers "I am the pen that holds the conductor's cap in Buffalo", and the Indian dev nodded and said "Yes, yes, right, yes".
My buddy looked at me, I looked at him, and at that moment we both knew the project was DOOMED. Utterly fucking doomed.
I've no idea what skill set that particular dev was hired for, but whatever it is, there are no Americans that have it, none anywhere in the entire country.
No political ideology will work in its pure form
Agreed...and this brings me to another point, namely that every single libertarian I've ever spoken with has a very different definition of what "libertarianism" is.
The same isn't true with capitalism. Capitalism is fairly well defined, and most people can agree on what it means even if the finer points get a little fuzzy. But in terms of libertarianism the definitions are all over the map, most of them are wildly divergent with very little in common.
Many libertarians has vague definitions of what they think it means, but a lot of those notions break down as soon as you start to ask questions, like "who enforces what", and what central authority or base authority would be used to settle disputes. At that point it all goes pear-shaped and the "solutions" I get frequently devolve into some form of feudalism or "whoever has the most power". Or whoever got their first. Or whoever can claim "ownership", another term that seems to be lacking a common definition.
For example, say you "own" a piece of property (whatever that means)...who or what gives you ownership of that property, and who or what enforces your supposed rights to that property? The answers I get to this question alone range from simplistic to unworkable to downright daffy.
As I said, there has never been a functioning society, country, or government based on libertarian ideals or concepts, because it all falls apart when it comes face-to-face with real people in the real world.
Seriously- I've looked at and read about libertarianism for 35+ years, and in all that time I've never seen even a hint of a practical way to implement it. It's just not a realistic structure for a society to base itself on.