There is a price of entry for geocaching that weeds out most of the casual types that would abuse the sport. Specifically, you have to shell out several hundred bucks for a good GPS receiver. Rowdy high school punks aren't likely to go trash caches on a whim just because they read about it on-line if the price to play is $200.
perhaps for geocaching, yes...but I don't have to participate in your sport to get the locations of the caches. In fact, I think I'll start locating geocaches with good old non-battery powered tech, and leaving notes to that effect.
This cache found by someone using a friggin' lodestone on a string and a pencil. Glad you spent >=$200 to accomplish the same task. Pansies.
That looks like a good one. (although I wouldn't really go quite as far back for my tech as the lodestone, just a normal compass, a known starting point, and paper and pencil:)
The other 70% will pull false statistics out of their ass and use them in their sig
86% of all statistics are made up on the spot, usually to support an argument. Remember, the key to making up believable statistics is never use round numbers, and if you're really creative, cite an equally made up margin of error.
How exactly would one post anonumously? Man, someone should put in a preview button, so simple typos didn't make it into posts. To your 'question' now: Some people prefer not to post anonymously. That's why there are accounts and such. Although considering that posting anonymously *is* an option, and "anonymously" is one of the words right on the post comment page, I'd expect you to be able to spell it, logged in or not. (it's right under the line telling you about the preview button, which you seem to have missed as well.)
A) Absolutely anybody, including Gore, would have found SOMEBODY to invade after 9/11. If you think he wouldn't have you're living in a fantasy world. He'd have been shot.
oh, i see. so anyone would have invaded *someone*, is that it? No matter who the President of the U.S. is, you assert, they would have invaded "somebody" after 9/11. I don't think that's a valid assertion. Al Gore does not have the stones to oversee a military operation of this scope. If you think he does, *you're* living in a fantasy world.
B) Exactly what in your evidence shows that his views on the internal combustion engine are incompatible with kicking the crap out of terrorists? Isn't it possible to do both?
Sure. Let's just have our troops swim across the ocean. Or better yet, let's challenge the terrorists to a game of 'rock paper scissors' or something because there aren't any troop transports, planes, ships, motorcycles, generators, ambulances, or anything else gas-powered. Of course it isn't possible to do both, unless you have a working production model of some sort of replacement that is both as powerful and versatile as the internal combusion engine. This replacement would have to be able to be produced in astonishing quantities in miniscule amounts of time. Since there isn't even a replacement (note that I did not say alternative, there are alternatives but none are as flexible and robust as the IC engine) yet, much less one that can be rolled out in sufficient quantity, it stands to reason that no, you can not do both. Please note, the campaign against terror is happening NOW, not within the next 25 years as Gore's plan called for.
What I said was that his diplomacy is juvenile. I stand by that statement.
No, what you said was, "Bush is a swaggering, shoot first, ask questions later, cowboy, manure licking simpleton in the world arena. His idea of diplomacy is "We're still mad at you Russia, but at least you're not as bad as France". Perhaps you *meant* to type "Bush's diplomacy is juvenile" but you did not. That's a lot of typos, if indeed that's what you meant to type. My problem was not with the revised statement, "Bush's diplomacy is juvenile," but with the original, which was an obvious attack with no backup for your accusations. One we can debate, the other is simply vitriol.
Media darling? What world do you live in? In my world, he was scandalized before he even became president, and hounded into an impeachment trial that will definitely go down in history as unjustified, partisan, and possibly treasonous.
He committed many crimes, evidence of which was suppressed by the same media you're accusing of hounding him. He was impeached because he committed perjury before a grand jury. He admitted this himself. However, even though he was guilty of admitted perjury, he was not removed from office, nor covicted on the charge. I fail to see how an admitted perjurer who was not vilified by the press, nor removed from office qualifies as a media darling. He received coverage for JOGGING INSTEAD OF EATING AT MCDONALDS. That was apparently major news. He was featured on MTV more than once, and was certainly not hounded then. He was a guest on late night tv, where he regaled the audience with sax playing. All the media reports I saw glossed over his perjury and waxed eloquent about how we should leave the guy alone because he shouldn't be expected to have more self-control than doing an intern in his office. Newspeople were justifying his inability to keep his marriage vows by saying 'oh anyone would lie about that.' I don't think our president should be an admitted perjurer and adulterer, but even throughout all of the (valid) scandals, the news people were not screaming for his head. I can *guarantee* you that if Bush came out and admitted to perjury, he would be universally vilified by all media outlets, excepting perhaps fox news. Clinton got *positive* press during his whole time in office. Yes, all those scandals you mentioned were *covere
If you think our oil dollars don't fund terrorism, you're living in a dream.
I see. All legitimately purchased oil is from terrorists. BTW, exactly how is it that I'm responsible for what someone does with the money I've given them in legal trade? Are you saying that *we* should give up our lifestyle, so that people who aren't doing the right thing can keep not doing the right thing? Isn't there another solution to 'oil money funds terrorists' than to stop using oil? Or should we not even examine other ways, like say eliminating major terrorist groups to keep them from being able to get funding of any kind?
Secondly, you seem to ignore the "twenty five years" part of Gore's statement.
Not at all. I simply said that the two things can not be done *at the same time*, and also that removing terrorists should be more of a priority, unless and until a viable replacement for the IC engine is ready to go. I would hope that within 25 years, we won't have to worry about major, state-funded terrorist operations. Then we can worry about other matters. Terrorists are not getting all, or most of their funding from oil. It's not like *they* are selling the oil. They are getting their money from individuals and governments that donate it to them. I refuse to change my lifestyle because SOMEONE ELSE is giving money that I once owned to terrorists. I would not stop buying groceries if the grocery store owner was spending the money from my groceries on hookers, even though I'm not a big fan of hookers in general. Just because someone else chooses to do something bad, with money they received legally, does NOT mean that I am responsible, even if that money was at one time in my possession. I'm not responsible for what others do once that money becomes theirs. If we stopped buying oil, even if this entire country stopped buying any mideast oil, terrorists would still be funded. If you think they'd magically go away just because we stopped buying oil, please tell me what color the sky is in your world, cause it certainly isn't the real one. Yes, oil is a "finite" resource. However, while we're using it up, people are working on replacements. It's highly doubtful that we'll actually use up even a signifigant portion of the world's total oil resources. Even if we did, they'd be back in a few million years. True, Al Gore did not suggest that we walk to work, he suggested that we bike to work. However, some of us don't want to. Why should we have to, to please other people? If I lived close enough, I'd prefer to walk to work. However, 25 miles is a long walk, a long bike ride, a long bus ride as well. The best way for me to get to work is to drive my IC car. If you don't like that, I'm sorry. Yes, there are hybrid cars. They are (in my opinion) extremely ugly, they are tiny, they are (again in my opinion) very very slow, and thus are completely unsuitable for my needs. As I said before, give me a real replacement, not a less functional alternative, and I'll be fine with getting rid of my IC car. I think that stomping out the terrorists and getting better cooperation to find out how they're getting (directly) funded would be more beneficial to the cause than not driving. Kick the crap out of them, and *then* we can worry about IC. It should be, as you say, a long process, and I don't see any benefits to be derived from removing the IC engine before there is a replacement. As I've said from the beginning, it's not the move to replace the ICE that bugs me, it's the people who want to replace it before there actually *is* a replacement. Like Al Gore. Sure, he said 25 years, but he also said we should start making it more expensive to buy oil, gas, and electricity in the U.S. to force people to cut their usage. Yes, Al Gore wrote about that in his book. It's also why he was so big on Kyoto. He supported a 50% hike in electricity costs in the U.S. That would be tragic for many poor families, but Al Gore doesn't seem to care. He jus
If Bush really cared about fighting terrorism, he'd reduce our dependence on oil from our stated, sworn enemies.
Yeah, sure. And people that buy mexican brickweed support terrorism, too. If environmentalists really cared about fighting terrorism, they'd relax restrictions on where we can drill for oil in our own country. Oh but wait, I forgot, you can't make simple what is extremely complex. Do you really think that eliminating the internal combustion engine is a good idea? I mean, honestly? Would you not only be willing to give up, but also to force everyone who is NOT willing to give up, things like driving to work, flying overseas, shipping cargo from place to place, having police patrolling the cities....think for a minute. Al Gore did not have a magic replacement for the internal combustion engine, and neither do you. Until you do, 'infernal combustion' engines are too important to the world to be eliminated. I was contrasting the positions of the two men, although I'm not surprised you didn't catch it. Mr. Bush has been very vocal in his desire to rid the world of terrorists. Gore has been very vocal in his desire to rid the world of internal combustion engine. I was contrasting the focal point of those two people, and stating my preference. I understand that Gore is about more than just that one issue. I also understand that I can focus on just one thing if I want to, to make a point. So are you. The difference is that mine was valid.
That's a pretty popular view, Mr unconventional thinker.
Uh, not on slashdot. not on any board I post on. I've seen more Bush bashing than I have any other President.
You sure you didn't arrive at that idea from something you heard on tv, or a "half-remembered conversation"? You must be basing this judgement on his record in the Congress. Right? Oh, and he invented the internet too, didn't he? Face it, you are a media-spewing idealogue, just like the rest of us.
Uh, I arrived at the idea from reading his fucking book, you fucking idiot. He said right in there that he wanted to get rid of the internal combustion engine entirely. He also had a lot of other wacky ideas that I most definitely did not support. Also add to that his support of the Kyoto bullshit, and that sealed the deal for me. He reads like a loony, to me. I wouldn't use him as my example for brain, were I you. I am not a media-spewing anything. If you've read my other posts you know I'm critical of the media, as well as most of our government and also most of the rest of the world. If you haven't, shut the fuck up about what I do or don't do. I haven't read any of your other posts, and thus I don't comment on what you do or don't spew. However, your reactionary reply to me does force me to label you jackass. Plus, I never brought up the al gore + internet thing. Thanks for attributing a fallacy to me that I didn't commit. You're a stand-up guy.
And while I hate Saddam just as much as the next guy, and even supported the war to the dismay of my liberal friends, Bush is a swaggering, shoot first, ask questions later, cowboy, manure licking simpleton in the world arena. His idea of diplomacy is "We're still mad at you Russia, but at least you're not as bad as France". In answer to your question, I would take brain (Gore) over brawn (GW) as foreign policy chief any old day of the week.
Yeah, who's spouting now? Do you know Mr. Bush so personally well as to be able to back up the fucking reactionary sludge you just vomited? I make no claim on what kind of man Mr. Bush is. I only say that his publicly espoused views on terrorism more closely mirror mine, that is, that terrorists and terrorist states should be eliminated, rather than Gore's more pacific approach. Perhaps you consider running away from bullies to be brainy, but I can tell you from experience that they don't leave you alone until you kick the crap out of them. Perhaps Mr. Bush isn't the smartest person on the face of the earth. Of course, anyone's chances of being the smartest person on the planet aren't very large. However, he is President of the United States. Who are you, again? What have you done that's so wonderful? If you equate diplomacy with placating tyrants like saddam and human rights abusers like china, iran, libya, syria, most of africa, n. korea, et al then you, sir, are a spineless fuck. In case you forgot, we tried diplomacy for over 10 years. How long should it take? Media darling and Rhodes Scholar William Clinton sure didn't work any miracles with Iraq, and I thought he was supposed to be all diplomatic and shit. Al Gore's record in Congress is not really of interest to me, as I am not one of his constituents. The votes I've cared about, he's voted opposite me. Well, except for a 1984 vote where he voted for legislation that would have defined life as beginning at conception. However, once he got seriously into politics, he changed him mind on that issue and began to vote the party line. Al Gore is not a bad person, he is just not the person I want as my President. That's why I didn't vote for him. Mr. Bush wasn't my first choice, either, which is why I didn't vote for him either. My candidate did not win, however, and so since my first choice had no chance, I have to be satisfied with second best, and I feel he's done no worse than most presidents and better than a few. So now that we know you can call people names, perhaps we can move on to discuss why you felt you had to 'prove' that I don't truly have reaso
Well, since I have no way to know your intentions, I gotta call 'em like I see 'em. It's pretty easy to go back and cry typo later, too. Not saying you did, mind you, cause I doubt anyone would just to avoid a bad pun.:) I'm only saying there's not any way for the rest of us to tell, excluding the psychics.:)
Bennett is a director of Empower America, together with former vice presidential nominee Jack Kemp, former U.N. Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, former U.S. Rep. Vin Weber of Minnesota and former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen. . . . Empower America opposes the proliferation of casino gambling, and its co-chair, Kemp, recently lambasted lawmakers who "pollute our society with a slot machine on every corner." ~ Gaming Foe Characterized as High Roller, Journal Review
umm..you're not saying that bennet is responsible for all the beliefs of everyone in his organization, are you? There are only 2 references to gambling that I found on empoweramerica, and both were *passing* references by Jack Kemp to opposing the *state-financed* expansion of gambling. Uh...that seems to be Mr. Kemp's opinion, and accusing bennet of hypocrisy because of what someone else said...that's just weak, dude. Seriously. That's like saying you're a hypocrite if you do something that someone you work with doesn't approve of. It's not kosher, man. If you want him to be a hypocrite, post a quote from bennet himself that attacks gambling. Keep bringing me stuff Jack Kemp said in an editorial piece or your personal opinions about empoweramerica and you'll keep failing to make your point. You kept saying that if 'the organization he's the chairman of' supports a position, he does too. I agree with that. However, that organization has no position on gambling. *Jack Kemp* holds the position that states should not subsidize the expansion of gambling, which I see as a fiscal position, as gambling rarely pays off for the state government in any official way. For reference, the casinos in Illinois may be self-limiting profits in order to avoid having to pay a 70% tax on profit that the state governor wants to impose. This will actually LOWER revenue to the state. Oops. Casino gambling is, was, and always will be for suckers, rich people, and cheaters. (none of which are mutually exclusive, btw) Also, this opinion does not make me a hypocrite if I go gamble in vegas, either, just makes me either rich, a sucker, a cheater, or some combination thereof.
No, you'll eventually find the name of the shell corp her accountant/lawyer set up, which may be a wholly owned subsidiary of X other shell corps, but eventually, if you are dedicated, persistent or wealthy enough to pay someone else to do it, you would find her name. Just because someone uses money to try and circumvent law (hey if you don't like the laws in this country, you're not only *free* to work around them, you're *encouraged* to do so by the large number of exploitable holes in them) doesn't mean they'll succeed in what they want to do. If she really wanted privacy, she should have just shut the fuck up, and no one would have cared by now. Sometimes money just isn't a substitute for brains.
Well, how about her right to privacy? Those documents (with her name on them) are NOT public, probably because she wanted it that way?
So that raises a question: If the documents are not public, a) How did the photographer get that information, b) Why did he release it on his website, and c) Did he release everybody's information, or just hers?
Property ownership records are public. So are corporate ownership records. So she wanted them secret, but she could never have made them private. There is a difference.
A) He didn't get the information. The caption was posted by a visitor to the site. B) Anyone is allowed to caption any picture on his site. That's his option, it's his site. C) Everyone had equal opportunity to post captions to any picture. Other people's homes were identified. Barbie is AFAIK the only one seriously bitching, although as I understand it he has rec'd other complaints.
My personal opinion is that the concept of celebrity is tedious and deeply unfair. Why should a singer or actor earn more in a year than a scientist (who improves our standard of living) or a doctor (who improves our standard of life) can earn in a lifetime?
I couldn't agree more. Well said.
However we may dislike it, society is structured around the "famous" and the "public" (everybody else), and the famous do draw unnecessarily invasive and prurient interest, especially from mentally unbalanced people. Do you think, for example, that it is acceptable to publish the home addresses of doctors who practise abortion?
I have to take issue here: If you don't want to have obsessed fans, don't become famous. Period. I know we all want to have everything for free and do anything without consequences. Too bad it doesn't work like that. What you do affects what happens to you. If you become famous, certain things will happen. Some will be good, some will be bad. Same thing can be said for any choice you make. Point is, you have to take the bad with the good. It's too bad that sayings like that have lost their meaning, because people don't seem to remember that life isn't fair, things are how they are regardless of your opinion, and actions have consequences. No one deserves more or less protection from or under the law than anyone else. Congress seems to have forgotten this, too. Now, on to the acceptable thing: I believe that it is *legal* to publish the names and addresses of abortion doctors, whether it is acceptable or not. Property ownership is public information. Anyone who uses that information to break the law can be convicted and jailed for their breaking of that law. However, that is their personal choice. It is not (and has been proved in many cases not to be) the fault of the provider of information if someone uses that information illegally. The Nuremburg Files were removed because the site ownders advocated illegal use of the information they disseminated. Now, I personally find it abhorrent that people would kill in the name of God, when it's in the New Testament not to. However, that's my opinion and it has no bearing on the actual law. As I see it, anyone is free to post anyone's name and address anywhere, as long as it is a matter of public record. If you have to break the law to obtain the information, then no, it should not be posted. Otherwise, it's legal, but I don't think it should be done maliciously.
I'm not banging a drum for her - I can neither understand why she is loved or hated. But if I lived in a society where gun ownership is not only permitted but positively encouraged, I would be uncomfortable if my location and security arrangements were made public knowledge.
I have to ask, why? We don't encourage *illegal* gun ownership here, which is what you should really be worried about. It's doubtful that someone would use a gun registered to themselves to commit a crime against you. That's why gun control laws will never work. Criminals don't follow them. Also, her location was already public knowledge, and her security arrangements, if they can be deduced from a single aerial photo, are so lame as to be criminally negligent.
You can pass 20 million gun control laws, but a murderer with an unregistered gun could still kill you just as dead. You could melt every gun and bullet in existence, and someone could just knife you. Gun violence is a symptom of much larger problems, and if you took the guns away it would just be baseball bat violence or switchblade violence or vehicular homicide. I'd rather we worked on the underlying problems, but those are nebulous, difficult to agree on, and resistant to solution, so politicians seeking good face time and feel-good legislative 'victories' will never take the time and risk to even attempt to correctly identify them, much less solve them. But remember, my fellow Americans, your government 'cares' about you.
The scariest thing here about this story is that both of these dim bulbs have law degrees. Are they giving degrees away when you get enough box tops!?
No, they're sellingthemfortonsofcash, like they have for a long time. And please, don't tell me about people failing out. That only happens to the 'not fabulously wealthy.'
note: law school links just chosen at pseudorandom. Just making a point, not accusing any one school of being any worse than any other.
So you're have a right to privacy if you're a "normal" person, but if you somehow become a celebrity, all of a sudden you're a different class of person to whom a different set of rights apply ?
ummm...no. You have it backwards. Celeberities want to have not just privacy but anonymity. However, when you give up anonymity, it's gone. You can't get it back unless you lose your career, and even then you'll be doing 1800-scam-call commercials in a few years. Basically, both of these women are asking for special consideration that would NOT be given to us normal people. We're not saying that different rules apply to them, they are the ones saying that. I would have legal recourse against neither someone writing about factual episodes involving myself that occur in public places, nor someone photographing my house and its surroundings. Why should Barbie and what'shername??
well said. In addition, if you're in your undies in your own bed at 2:00 am, there's probably not that many good places to run to. Plus, you can always use the standard cop's excuse: 'I know it's a small stuffed bear *now*, but in the heat of the moment it looked like an AK-47!'
"get an alarm".. great idea moron. I'm sure she hasn't thought of that one. The difference between you and a female celebrity is that you're not stalked by psychotics. Sure.. somebody could break into your house or gun you down as you leave your house tomorrow, but are you going to go to the trouble to alter your daily routine because you fear somebody is watching? If you are at risk for that sort of thing, which I am sure many famous people are.. you have to take extra measures to minimize the risk, like trying not to draw attention to your house and keep it as hidden as possible.
First of all, what kind of 'hidden' entrances can be PHOTOGRAPHED?!? How is that HIDDEN? If someone is as big a freaking psycho as all you idiots keep implying, wouldn't they maybe think of...i dunno...looking around the house first? Maybe renting a boat/helicopter? Using some binoculars? Duh. If a friggin *aerial photo* could show it, it wasn't frigging secret to start with. Second, give me her money and influence, along with her stalkers. She can administrate this box in complete safety, and need never fear stalkers again. You think she'd make that trade? If she doesn't like people knowing where she lives, how about not buying a frigging beachside mansion? I doubt anyone's taking pictures of a 5-floor walkup on the lower east side. It's like Biggie said, mo' money mo' problems. If you don't want mo' problems, don't get yourself mo' money.
anyway, back to the point at hand, it begs the question. does a celebrity have the right to enjoy the ability to some privacy or seclusion that the rest of us "nobodies" do?
Well, they certainly get to enjoy the relatively easy work and extremely high compensation. They also get to enjoy the ego-stroking and mass adulation. Why should they get the good of being famous without the 'bad?'
Is there anyone in this country who has *not* heard of the 'dangers of stardom?'
heheheh. isle 4. i guess no man is an aisle. *duck*
Gotta love homonyms.
---
Main Entry: aisle Pronunciation: 'I(&)l Function: noun
1 : the side of a church nave separated by piers from the nave proper 2 a : a passage (as in a theater or railroad passenger car) separating sections of seats b : a passage (as in a store or warehouse) for inside traffic
Main Entry: isle Pronunciation: 'I(&)l Function: noun ISLAND; especially : ISLET
You rather missed the point, although this doesn't surprise me.
What *you* wish to reveal is up to you - that's part and parcel of freedom. However, you don't have any business whatsoever telling me what I *have* to reveal. I can and will hide whatever I please, for whatever reasons I desire, without any need or requirement to explain myself to you.
In the end, unless you can get the government to back you by force of arms, the slogan "information wishes to be free" is exactly what I said it is: the battle cry of perverts and voyeurs.
Max
Yes, you certainly can hide whatever you wish. Also, someone who does not break the law to find what you've hidden can then reveal it. Information can't wish to be free, as it isn't sentient. However, there are plenty of people who are willing to free it themselves, for a variety of reasons. Now, I don't support people telling me what I *have* to reveal, either, but I also know that whether I *have* to reveal something or not, if someone really wants to know, they can find out. My main gripe though, is that I really don't see how people who support free information by opposing copyrights and trademarks and the like qualify as 'perverts and voyeurs.' Now mind you, I'm not taking either side in the info debate, because whether 'information wants to be free' or not, there will always be some people who hide things, and some people who un-hide them. I don't really care whether it 'should' be free info or not, as long as when I need to know something, I can find it out. However, the *idea* that information should be free can be applied to more than voyeurs and perverts, and you run roughshod over those others by generalizing. Of course, asking some people not to make ignorant blanket statements is like asking career criminals not to break the law.
Brits still have the courage and the right to criticize their PM for being a liar about WMD but Americans can hardly be bothered.
Well, I suppose it *is* admirable that Brits can criticize their leaders erroneously. I mean, why bother to find out *why* Blair and Bush said what they did; since you didn't like it, they must obviously be lying. I have a question for you, pigfucker. (may I call you pigfucker?) Pigfucker, why aren't you calling out the UN on this too? In case you blind UN backers didn't notice, THE FREAKING UN HAS BEEN SAYNG IRAQ HAS WMD FOR YEARS. Why do you think they passed so many resolutions? Just for fun? When Clinton comes out talking about Iraq's WMD, everyone cheers him. When the UN talks about Iraq's WMD, everyone is gung ho (until it becomes clear that saddam does not care about diplomacy and is not going to change his ways). When the UN took itself out of the picture by failing to back its own resolutions, it stopped talking about Iraq's WMD. That left Blair and Bush saying the SAME thing the UN did, from the SAME sources, and they're suddenly big liars. I love how something can be both the truth *and* a lie, depending on what political bias the person saying it has, or what country they're from. What a shining example you set for knee-jerk morons everywhere. Link, for what it's worth.
Yes, you can kick someone out as you please. But no judge should be able to enforce that, since judges are part of the government.
Uhhh...I hope you're just kidding here. Obviously the judge would not be ruling in any way about the speech of someone you kicked out, only about whether you are legally able to kick them out for any reason you want. (Which you are.) You have the right to refuse service (or hospitality) to anyone not named on the lease or anyone not named on your deed if you own the house. Not only would you almost never have to appear before a judge for kicking somoene out of your house, but even were you called before a judge in this matter, it would go like this:
Plaintiff: Judge, the defendant kicked me out of his house and I don't think it's fair!
Judge Matthis: (to defendant) Did you, in fact, eject the plaintiff from your house?
Defendant: Yes, I did.
Judge Matthis: Why did you do something like that?
Defendant: He cursed in my house, and I said before he entered that I did not allow cursing in my house.
Judge Matthis: I see. (to plaintiff) Your case is dismissed, sir, have a nice day.
What makes the life of an actor or actress any more valuable than my life or yours.
An excellent (although improperly punctuated) point. I've often wondered about this. Why is it that stars expect the money, recognition, glamour and all the good that comes along with their chosen career, but they want to be free from all the bad or inconvenient? I mean, seriously...these people are getting paid more per movie than a lot of people will see in a lifetime, and yet they want to be just like everyone else? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. When you become a public figure, you *choose* to accept the good and the bad. You may suddenly be parodied on SNL. You can be talked about by the press. You can be photo'd by insensitive jerks who just want to make a small fraction of your net worth. You can't date without the world knowing about it. Your life is picked apart by people who don't know you. That is part of what it means to be a celeberity. If you don't want to deal with that, don't sign the contract. Stop telling me about all the horrors of stardom. Stop telling me how tough it is being famous. I don't want to ever hear again what a burden it is being fabulously wealthy and loved by millions. As my grandfather might have said, if you can't take the heat, stop taking the enormous checks. Barbie's fans paid for that house, shouldn't they be able to look at it?
Slashdot Mirror
There is a price of entry for geocaching that weeds out most of the casual types that would abuse the sport. Specifically, you have to shell out several hundred bucks for a good GPS receiver. Rowdy high school punks aren't likely to go trash caches on a whim just because they read about it on-line if the price to play is $200.
:)
perhaps for geocaching, yes...but I don't have to participate in your sport to get the locations of the caches. In fact, I think I'll start locating geocaches with good old non-battery powered tech, and leaving notes to that effect.
This cache found by someone using a friggin' lodestone on a string and a pencil. Glad you spent >=$200 to accomplish the same task. Pansies.
That looks like a good one. (although I wouldn't really go quite as far back for my tech as the lodestone, just a normal compass, a known starting point, and paper and pencil
The other 70% will pull false statistics out of their ass and use them in their sig
86% of all statistics are made up on the spot, usually to support an argument.
Remember, the key to making up believable statistics is never use round numbers, and if you're really creative, cite an equally made up margin of error.
How exactly would one post anonumously?
Man, someone should put in a preview button, so simple typos didn't make it into posts.
To your 'question' now:
Some people prefer not to post anonymously. That's why there are accounts and such.
Although considering that posting anonymously *is* an option, and "anonymously" is one of the words right on the post comment page, I'd expect you to be able to spell it, logged in or not.
(it's right under the line telling you about the preview button, which you seem to have missed as well.)
Look at the size of that boy's heed!
A) Absolutely anybody, including Gore, would have found SOMEBODY to invade after 9/11. If you think he wouldn't have you're living in a fantasy world. He'd have been shot.
oh, i see. so anyone would have invaded *someone*, is that it? No matter who the President of the U.S. is, you assert, they would have invaded "somebody" after 9/11. I don't think that's a valid assertion. Al Gore does not have the stones to oversee a military operation of this scope. If you think he does, *you're* living in a fantasy world.
B) Exactly what in your evidence shows that his views on the internal combustion engine are incompatible with kicking the crap out of terrorists? Isn't it possible to do both?
Sure. Let's just have our troops swim across the ocean. Or better yet, let's challenge the terrorists to a game of 'rock paper scissors' or something because there aren't any troop transports, planes, ships, motorcycles, generators, ambulances, or anything else gas-powered. Of course it isn't possible to do both, unless you have a working production model of some sort of replacement that is both as powerful and versatile as the internal combusion engine.
This replacement would have to be able to be produced in astonishing quantities in miniscule amounts of time. Since there isn't even a replacement (note that I did not say alternative, there are alternatives but none are as flexible and robust as the IC engine) yet, much less one that can be rolled out in sufficient quantity, it stands to reason that no, you can not do both. Please note, the campaign against terror is happening NOW, not within the next 25 years as Gore's plan called for.
What I said was that his diplomacy is juvenile. I stand by that statement.
No, what you said was, "Bush is a swaggering, shoot first, ask questions later, cowboy, manure licking simpleton in the world arena. His idea of diplomacy is "We're still mad at you Russia, but at least you're not as bad as France".
Perhaps you *meant* to type "Bush's diplomacy is juvenile" but you did not. That's a lot of typos, if indeed that's what you meant to type. My problem was not with the revised statement, "Bush's diplomacy is juvenile," but with the original, which was an obvious attack with no backup for your accusations. One we can debate, the other is simply vitriol.
Media darling? What world do you live in? In my world, he was scandalized before he even became president, and hounded into an impeachment trial that will definitely go down in history as unjustified, partisan, and possibly treasonous.
He committed many crimes, evidence of which was suppressed by the same media you're accusing of hounding him. He was impeached because he committed perjury before a grand jury. He admitted this himself. However, even though he was guilty of admitted perjury, he was not removed from office, nor covicted on the charge. I fail to see how an admitted perjurer who was not vilified by the press, nor removed from office qualifies as a media darling. He received coverage for JOGGING INSTEAD OF EATING AT MCDONALDS. That was apparently major news. He was featured on MTV more than once, and was certainly not hounded then. He was a guest on late night tv, where he regaled the audience with sax playing. All the media reports I saw glossed over his perjury and waxed eloquent about how we should leave the guy alone because he shouldn't be expected to have more self-control than doing an intern in his office. Newspeople were justifying his inability to keep his marriage vows by saying 'oh anyone would lie about that.' I don't think our president should be an admitted perjurer and adulterer, but even throughout all of the (valid) scandals, the news people were not screaming for his head. I can *guarantee* you that if Bush came out and admitted to perjury, he would be universally vilified by all media outlets, excepting perhaps fox news. Clinton got *positive* press during his whole time in office. Yes, all those scandals you mentioned were *covere
I barely know where to start
I know how you feel.
If you think our oil dollars don't fund terrorism, you're living in a dream.
I see. All legitimately purchased oil is from terrorists. BTW, exactly how is it that I'm responsible for what someone does with the money I've given them in legal trade? Are you saying that *we* should give up our lifestyle, so that people who aren't doing the right thing can keep not doing the right thing? Isn't there another solution to 'oil money funds terrorists' than to stop using oil? Or should we not even examine other ways, like say eliminating major terrorist groups to keep them from being able to get funding of any kind?
Secondly, you seem to ignore the "twenty five years" part of Gore's statement.
Not at all. I simply said that the two things can not be done *at the same time*, and also that removing terrorists should be more of a priority, unless and until a viable replacement for the IC engine is ready to go. I would hope that within 25 years, we won't have to worry about major, state-funded terrorist operations. Then we can worry about other matters. Terrorists are not getting all, or most of their funding from oil. It's not like *they* are selling the oil. They are getting their money from individuals and governments that donate it to them. I refuse to change my lifestyle because SOMEONE ELSE is giving money that I once owned to terrorists. I would not stop buying groceries if the grocery store owner was spending the money from my groceries on hookers, even though I'm not a big fan of hookers in general. Just because someone else chooses to do something bad, with money they received legally, does NOT mean that I am responsible, even if that money was at one time in my possession. I'm not responsible for what others do once that money becomes theirs. If we stopped buying oil, even if this entire country stopped buying any mideast oil, terrorists would still be funded. If you think they'd magically go away just because we stopped buying oil, please tell me what color the sky is in your world, cause it certainly isn't the real one.
Yes, oil is a "finite" resource. However, while we're using it up, people are working on replacements. It's highly doubtful that we'll actually use up even a signifigant portion of the world's total oil resources. Even if we did, they'd be back in a few million years.
True, Al Gore did not suggest that we walk to work, he suggested that we bike to work. However, some of us don't want to. Why should we have to, to please other people? If I lived close enough, I'd prefer to walk to work. However, 25 miles is a long walk, a long bike ride, a long bus ride as well. The best way for me to get to work is to drive my IC car. If you don't like that, I'm sorry. Yes, there are hybrid cars. They are (in my opinion) extremely ugly, they are tiny, they are (again in my opinion) very very slow, and thus are completely unsuitable for my needs. As I said before, give me a real replacement, not a less functional alternative, and I'll be fine with getting rid of my IC car. I think that stomping out the terrorists and getting better cooperation to find out how they're getting (directly) funded would be more beneficial to the cause than not driving. Kick the crap out of them, and *then* we can worry about IC. It should be, as you say, a long process, and I don't see any benefits to be derived from removing the IC engine before there is a replacement. As I've said from the beginning, it's not the move to replace the ICE that bugs me, it's the people who want to replace it before there actually *is* a replacement. Like Al Gore. Sure, he said 25 years, but he also said we should start making it more expensive to buy oil, gas, and electricity in the U.S. to force people to cut their usage. Yes, Al Gore wrote about that in his book. It's also why he was so big on Kyoto. He supported a 50% hike in electricity costs in the U.S. That would be tragic for many poor families, but Al Gore doesn't seem to care. He jus
If Bush really cared about fighting terrorism, he'd reduce our dependence on oil from our stated, sworn enemies.
Yeah, sure. And people that buy mexican brickweed support terrorism, too. If environmentalists really cared about fighting terrorism, they'd relax restrictions on where we can drill for oil in our own country. Oh but wait, I forgot, you can't make simple what is extremely complex. Do you really think that eliminating the internal combustion engine is a good idea? I mean, honestly? Would you not only be willing to give up, but also to force everyone who is NOT willing to give up, things like driving to work, flying overseas, shipping cargo from place to place, having police patrolling the cities....think for a minute. Al Gore did not have a magic replacement for the internal combustion engine, and neither do you. Until you do, 'infernal combustion' engines are too important to the world to be eliminated. I was contrasting the positions of the two men, although I'm not surprised you didn't catch it. Mr. Bush has been very vocal in his desire to rid the world of terrorists. Gore has been very vocal in his desire to rid the world of internal combustion engine. I was contrasting the focal point of those two people, and stating my preference. I understand that Gore is about more than just that one issue. I also understand that I can focus on just one thing if I want to, to make a point. So are you. The difference is that mine was valid.
That's a pretty popular view, Mr unconventional thinker.
Uh, not on slashdot. not on any board I post on.
I've seen more Bush bashing than I have any other President.
You sure you didn't arrive at that idea from something you heard on tv, or a "half-remembered conversation"? You must be basing this judgement on his record in the Congress. Right? Oh, and he invented the internet too, didn't he? Face it, you are a media-spewing idealogue, just like the rest of us.
Uh, I arrived at the idea from reading his fucking book, you fucking idiot. He said right in there that he wanted to get rid of the internal combustion engine entirely. He also had a lot of other wacky ideas that I most definitely did not support. Also add to that his support of the Kyoto bullshit, and that sealed the deal for me.
He reads like a loony, to me. I wouldn't use him as my example for brain, were I you. I am not a media-spewing anything. If you've read my other posts you know I'm critical of the media, as well as most of our government and also most of the rest of the world. If you haven't, shut the fuck up about what I do or don't do. I haven't read any of your other posts, and thus I don't comment on what you do or don't spew. However, your reactionary reply to me does force me to label you jackass. Plus, I never brought up the al gore + internet thing. Thanks for attributing a fallacy to me that I didn't commit. You're a stand-up guy.
And while I hate Saddam just as much as the next guy, and even supported the war to the dismay of my liberal friends, Bush is a swaggering, shoot first, ask questions later, cowboy, manure licking simpleton in the world arena. His idea of diplomacy is "We're still mad at you Russia, but at least you're not as bad as France". In answer to your question, I would take brain (Gore) over brawn (GW) as foreign policy chief any old day of the week.
Yeah, who's spouting now? Do you know Mr. Bush so personally well as to be able to back up the fucking reactionary sludge you just vomited? I make no claim on what kind of man Mr. Bush is. I only say that his publicly espoused views on terrorism more closely mirror mine, that is, that terrorists and terrorist states should be eliminated, rather than Gore's more pacific approach. Perhaps you consider running away from bullies to be brainy, but I can tell you from experience that they don't leave you alone until you kick the crap out of them. Perhaps Mr. Bush isn't the smartest person on the face of the earth. Of course, anyone's chances of being the smartest person on the planet aren't very large. However, he is President of the United States. Who are you, again? What have you done that's so wonderful? If you equate diplomacy with placating tyrants like saddam and human rights abusers like china, iran, libya, syria, most of africa, n. korea, et al then you, sir, are a spineless fuck. In case you forgot, we tried diplomacy for over 10 years. How long should it take? Media darling and Rhodes Scholar William Clinton sure didn't work any miracles with Iraq, and I thought he was supposed to be all diplomatic and shit. Al Gore's record in Congress is not really of interest to me, as I am not one of his constituents. The votes I've cared about, he's voted opposite me. Well, except for a 1984 vote where he voted for legislation that would have defined life as beginning at conception. However, once he got seriously into politics, he changed him mind on that issue and began to vote the party line. Al Gore is not a bad person, he is just not the person I want as my President. That's why I didn't vote for him. Mr. Bush wasn't my first choice, either, which is why I didn't vote for him either. My candidate did not win, however, and so since my first choice had no chance, I have to be satisfied with second best, and I feel he's done no worse than most presidents and better than a few. So now that we know you can call people names, perhaps we can move on to discuss why you felt you had to 'prove' that I don't truly have reaso
Well, since I have no way to know your intentions, I gotta call 'em like I see 'em. It's pretty easy to go back and cry typo later, too. Not saying you did, mind you, cause I doubt anyone would just to avoid a bad pun. :) I'm only saying there's not any way for the rest of us to tell, excluding the psychics. :)
Bennett is a director of Empower America, together with former vice presidential nominee Jack Kemp, former U.N. Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, former U.S. Rep. Vin Weber of Minnesota and former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen. . . . Empower America opposes the proliferation of casino gambling, and its co-chair, Kemp, recently lambasted lawmakers who "pollute our society with a slot machine on every corner." ~ Gaming Foe Characterized as High Roller, Journal Review
umm..you're not saying that bennet is responsible for all the beliefs of everyone in his organization, are you? There are only 2 references to gambling that I found on empoweramerica, and both were *passing* references by Jack Kemp to opposing the *state-financed* expansion of gambling. Uh...that seems to be Mr. Kemp's opinion, and accusing bennet of hypocrisy because of what someone else said...that's just weak, dude. Seriously. That's like saying you're a hypocrite if you do something that someone you work with doesn't approve of. It's not kosher, man. If you want him to be a hypocrite, post a quote from bennet himself that attacks gambling. Keep bringing me stuff Jack Kemp said in an editorial piece or your personal opinions about empoweramerica and you'll keep failing to make your point. You kept saying that if 'the organization he's the chairman of' supports a position, he does too. I agree with that. However, that organization has no position on gambling. *Jack Kemp* holds the position that states should not subsidize the expansion of gambling, which I see as a fiscal position, as gambling rarely pays off for the state government in any official way. For reference, the casinos in Illinois may be self-limiting profits in order to avoid having to pay a 70% tax on profit that the state governor wants to impose. This will actually LOWER revenue to the state. Oops. Casino gambling is, was, and always will be for suckers, rich people, and cheaters. (none of which are mutually exclusive, btw) Also, this opinion does not make me a hypocrite if I go gamble in vegas, either, just makes me either rich, a sucker, a cheater, or some combination thereof.
No, you'll eventually find the name of the shell corp her accountant/lawyer set up, which may be a wholly owned subsidiary of X other shell corps, but eventually, if you are dedicated, persistent or wealthy enough to pay someone else to do it, you would find her name. Just because someone uses money to try and circumvent law (hey if you don't like the laws in this country, you're not only *free* to work around them, you're *encouraged* to do so by the large number of exploitable holes in them) doesn't mean they'll succeed in what they want to do. If she really wanted privacy, she should have just shut the fuck up, and no one would have cared by now. Sometimes money just isn't a substitute for brains.
Well, how about her right to privacy? Those documents (with her name on them) are NOT public, probably because she wanted it that way?
So that raises a question: If the documents are not public, a) How did the photographer get that information, b) Why did he release it on his website, and c) Did he release everybody's information, or just hers?
Property ownership records are public. So are corporate ownership records. So she wanted them secret, but she could never have made them private. There is a difference.
A) He didn't get the information. The caption was posted by a visitor to the site.
B) Anyone is allowed to caption any picture on his site. That's his option, it's his site.
C) Everyone had equal opportunity to post captions to any picture. Other people's homes were identified. Barbie is AFAIK the only one seriously bitching, although as I understand it he has rec'd other complaints.
My personal opinion is that the concept of celebrity is tedious and deeply unfair. Why should a singer or actor earn more in a year than a scientist (who improves our standard of living) or a doctor (who improves our standard of life) can earn in a lifetime?
I couldn't agree more. Well said.
However we may dislike it, society is structured around the "famous" and the "public" (everybody else), and the famous do draw unnecessarily invasive and prurient interest, especially from mentally unbalanced people. Do you think, for example, that it is acceptable to publish the home addresses of doctors who practise abortion?
I have to take issue here: If you don't want to have obsessed fans, don't become famous. Period. I know we all want to have everything for free and do anything without consequences. Too bad it doesn't work like that. What you do affects what happens to you. If you become famous, certain things will happen. Some will be good, some will be bad. Same thing can be said for any choice you make. Point is, you have to take the bad with the good. It's too bad that sayings like that have lost their meaning, because people don't seem to remember that life isn't fair, things are how they are regardless of your opinion, and actions have consequences. No one deserves more or less protection from or under the law than anyone else. Congress seems to have forgotten this, too.
Now, on to the acceptable thing:
I believe that it is *legal* to publish the names and addresses of abortion doctors, whether it is acceptable or not. Property ownership is public information. Anyone who uses that information to break the law can be convicted and jailed for their breaking of that law. However, that is their personal choice. It is not (and has been proved in many cases not to be) the fault of the provider of information if someone uses that information illegally. The Nuremburg Files were removed because the site ownders advocated illegal use of the information they disseminated. Now, I personally find it abhorrent that people would kill in the name of God, when it's in the New Testament not to. However, that's my opinion and it has no bearing on the actual law.
As I see it, anyone is free to post anyone's name and address anywhere, as long as it is a matter of public record. If you have to break the law to obtain the information, then no, it should not be posted. Otherwise, it's legal, but I don't think it should be done maliciously.
I'm not banging a drum for her - I can neither understand why she is loved or hated. But if I lived in a society where gun ownership is not only permitted but positively encouraged, I would be uncomfortable if my location and security arrangements were made public knowledge.
I have to ask, why? We don't encourage *illegal* gun ownership here, which is what you should really be worried about. It's doubtful that someone would use a gun registered to themselves to commit a crime against you. That's why gun control laws will never work. Criminals don't follow them. Also, her location was already public knowledge, and her security arrangements, if they can be deduced from a single aerial photo, are so lame as to be criminally negligent.
You can pass 20 million gun control laws, but a murderer with an unregistered gun could still kill you just as dead.
You could melt every gun and bullet in existence, and someone could just knife you. Gun violence is a symptom of much larger problems, and if you took the guns away it would just be baseball bat violence or switchblade violence or vehicular homicide. I'd rather we worked on the underlying problems, but those are nebulous, difficult to agree on, and resistant to solution, so politicians seeking good face time and feel-good legislative 'victories' will never take the time and risk to even attempt to correctly identify them, much less solve them. But remember, my fellow Americans, your government 'cares' about you.
The scariest thing here about this story is that both of these dim bulbs have law degrees. Are they giving degrees away when you get enough box tops!?
No, they're selling them for tons of cash, like they have for a long time. And please, don't tell me about people failing out. That only happens to the 'not fabulously wealthy.'
note: law school links just chosen at pseudorandom. Just making a point, not accusing any one school of being any worse than any other.
So that's it, is it ? All or nothing ?
So you're have a right to privacy if you're a "normal" person, but if you somehow become a celebrity, all of a sudden you're a different class of person to whom a different set of rights apply ?
ummm...no. You have it backwards. Celeberities want to have not just privacy but anonymity. However, when you give up anonymity, it's gone. You can't get it back unless you lose your career, and even then you'll be doing 1800-scam-call commercials in a few years. Basically, both of these women are asking for special consideration that would NOT be given to us normal people. We're not saying that different rules apply to them, they are the ones saying that. I would have legal recourse against neither someone writing about factual episodes involving myself that occur in public places, nor someone photographing my house and its surroundings. Why should Barbie and what'shername??
well said. In addition, if you're in your undies in your own bed at 2:00 am, there's probably not that many good places to run to. Plus, you can always use the standard cop's excuse: 'I know it's a small stuffed bear *now*, but in the heat of the moment it looked like an AK-47!'
"get an alarm".. great idea moron. I'm sure she hasn't thought of that one. The difference between you and a female celebrity is that you're not stalked by psychotics. Sure.. somebody could break into your house or gun you down as you leave your house tomorrow, but are you going to go to the trouble to alter your daily routine because you fear somebody is watching? If you are at risk for that sort of thing, which I am sure many famous people are.. you have to take extra measures to minimize the risk, like trying not to draw attention to your house and keep it as hidden as possible.
First of all, what kind of 'hidden' entrances can be PHOTOGRAPHED?!? How is that HIDDEN? If someone is as big a freaking psycho as all you idiots keep implying, wouldn't they maybe think of...i dunno...looking around the house first? Maybe renting a boat/helicopter? Using some binoculars?
Duh. If a friggin *aerial photo* could show it, it wasn't frigging secret to start with.
Second, give me her money and influence, along with her stalkers. She can administrate this box in complete safety, and need never fear stalkers again. You think she'd make that trade? If she doesn't like people knowing where she lives, how about not buying a frigging beachside mansion? I doubt anyone's taking pictures of a 5-floor walkup on the lower east side.
It's like Biggie said, mo' money mo' problems. If you don't want mo' problems, don't get yourself mo' money.
anyway, back to the point at hand, it begs the question. does a celebrity have the right to enjoy the ability to some privacy or seclusion that the rest of us "nobodies" do? Well, they certainly get to enjoy the relatively easy work and extremely high compensation. They also get to enjoy the ego-stroking and mass adulation. Why should they get the good of being famous without the 'bad?' Is there anyone in this country who has *not* heard of the 'dangers of stardom?'
heheheh. isle 4.
i guess no man is an aisle.
*duck*
Gotta love homonyms.
---
Main Entry: aisle
Pronunciation: 'I(&)l
Function: noun
1 : the side of a church nave separated by piers from the nave proper
2 a : a passage (as in a theater or railroad passenger car) separating sections of seats b : a passage (as in a store or warehouse) for inside traffic
Main Entry: isle
Pronunciation: 'I(&)l
Function: noun
ISLAND; especially : ISLET
In fact, if you're listening to NPR right now, and you haven't donated, you are a thief.
http://www.rockstargames.com/vicecity/
You rather missed the point, although this doesn't surprise me.
What *you* wish to reveal is up to you - that's part and parcel of freedom. However, you don't have any business whatsoever telling me what I *have* to reveal. I can and will hide whatever I please, for whatever reasons I desire, without any need or requirement to explain myself to you.
In the end, unless you can get the government to back you by force of arms, the slogan "information wishes to be free" is exactly what I said it is: the battle cry of perverts and voyeurs.
Max
Yes, you certainly can hide whatever you wish. Also, someone who does not break the law to find what you've hidden can then reveal it. Information can't wish to be free, as it isn't sentient. However, there are plenty of people who are willing to free it themselves, for a variety of reasons. Now, I don't support people telling me what I *have* to reveal, either, but I also know that whether I *have* to reveal something or not, if someone really wants to know, they can find out.
My main gripe though, is that I really don't see how people who support free information by opposing copyrights and trademarks and the like qualify as 'perverts and voyeurs.' Now mind you, I'm not taking either side in the info debate, because whether 'information wants to be free' or not, there will always be some people who hide things, and some people who un-hide them. I don't really care whether it 'should' be free info or not, as long as when I need to know something, I can find it out. However, the *idea* that information should be free can be applied to more than voyeurs and perverts, and you run roughshod over those others by generalizing. Of course, asking some people not to make ignorant blanket statements is like asking career criminals not to break the law.
Brits still have the courage and the right to criticize their PM for being a liar about WMD but Americans can hardly be bothered.
Well, I suppose it *is* admirable that Brits can criticize their leaders erroneously. I mean, why bother to find out *why* Blair and Bush said what they did; since you didn't like it, they must obviously be lying.
I have a question for you, pigfucker. (may I call you pigfucker?)
Pigfucker, why aren't you calling out the UN on this too? In case you blind UN backers didn't notice, THE FREAKING UN HAS BEEN SAYNG IRAQ HAS WMD FOR YEARS. Why do you think they passed so many resolutions? Just for fun? When Clinton comes out talking about Iraq's WMD, everyone cheers him. When the UN talks about Iraq's WMD, everyone is gung ho (until it becomes clear that saddam does not care about diplomacy and is not going to change his ways). When the UN took itself out of the picture by failing to back its own resolutions, it stopped talking about Iraq's WMD. That left Blair and Bush saying the SAME thing the UN did, from the SAME sources, and they're suddenly big liars. I love how something can be both the truth *and* a lie, depending on what political bias the person saying it has, or what country they're from.
What a shining example you set for knee-jerk morons everywhere.
Link, for what it's worth.
Yes, you can kick someone out as you please. But no judge should be able to enforce that, since judges are part of the government.
Uhhh...I hope you're just kidding here. Obviously the judge would not be ruling in any way about the speech of someone you kicked out, only about whether you are legally able to kick them out for any reason you want. (Which you are.)
You have the right to refuse service (or hospitality) to anyone not named on the lease or anyone not named on your deed if you own the house. Not only would you almost never have to appear before a judge for kicking somoene out of your house, but even were you called before a judge in this matter, it would go like this:
Plaintiff: Judge, the defendant kicked me out of his house and I don't think it's fair!
Judge Matthis: (to defendant) Did you, in fact, eject the plaintiff from your house?
Defendant: Yes, I did.
Judge Matthis: Why did you do something like that?
Defendant: He cursed in my house, and I said before he entered that I did not allow cursing in my house.
Judge Matthis: I see. (to plaintiff) Your case is dismissed, sir, have a nice day.
Alawys feed trolls, lest they become endangered.
What makes the life of an actor or actress any more valuable than my life or yours.
An excellent (although improperly punctuated) point. I've often wondered about this. Why is it that stars expect the money, recognition, glamour and all the good that comes along with their chosen career, but they want to be free from all the bad or inconvenient?
I mean, seriously...these people are getting paid more per movie than a lot of people will see in a lifetime, and yet they want to be just like everyone else? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. When you become a public figure, you *choose* to accept the good and the bad. You may suddenly be parodied on SNL. You can be talked about by the press. You can be photo'd by insensitive jerks who just want to make a small fraction of your net worth. You can't date without the world knowing about it. Your life is picked apart by people who don't know you. That is part of what it means to be a celeberity. If you don't want to deal with that, don't sign the contract.
Stop telling me about all the horrors of stardom. Stop telling me how tough it is being famous. I don't want to ever hear again what a burden it is being fabulously wealthy and loved by millions. As my grandfather might have said, if you can't take the heat, stop taking the enormous checks. Barbie's fans paid for that house, shouldn't they be able to look at it?