I gues I'd better be careful which perfectly legitimate and lawful political causes I lend my support to - by your logic, I probably already belong in the gulag/reeducation camp/labor camp/death camp.
Then again, I'm getting a lot of hate here -and I haven't even made one personally-directed comment yet.
So if I ever support a (non-majority held) political view, I deserve to be vilified, houded, harried and harassed? Wow, I thought the old Soviet Union was bad!
What if I do? The logical conclusion from your statement is that anybody who votes in the minority on any issue is in some way worthy or deserving of punishment. Sounds like North Korea to me.
Let me guess - by not agreeing with you to vilify a fellow US citizen for exercising his rights, I'm also guilty by association, right?
Where does it end? I suppose we could just do away with elections and voting, eh? After all, some number of people will not be as wise or enlightened as you, why should they be allowed to vote, or to express any opinions at all?
No, he's right. This is free speech working - and in order to keep it working, we (those of us who disagree with their speech or their tactics) have an obligation to make an answer, to exercise our free speech.
Yes, I see I was mistaken. Too little research and too much speed on the keyboard.
Let us identify those responsible and subject them to their own tactics. Those tactics are legal and even acceptable here in the US. Distasteful, but there is a certain aspect of "poetic justice" here.
Whoever used their rights and abilities to enforce their agenda on Mr. Eich, the Mozilla Foundation and (by extension) all of us should be identified and made to answer for their actions. The right to do a thing does not equate to the right to do so without regard for the consequences. We can all use the same rights and methods against those responsible. I wonder if anybody at "OK Cupid" is listening?
No, not a shill. He opened with "I". Not "Users" or "Real Users" or any such generalization, "I".
He's relaying his personal experience. Feel free to report your differing experience (mine differs greatly from his), but he's not a shill as far as I can tell.
I feel that Mr.Eich was compelled to resign not by his employer, but by the GLBT community. They exerted political pressure which would have impacted the Mozilla organization, and Mr. Eich made a personal decision to shield the organization from that political pressure.
GLBT organizations have a perfect right to express their opinions, and even to use political and economic pressure to achieve their desired ends. The Mozilla foundation acted correctly in not bowing directly to this pressure. Mr. Eich acted both correctly and even (some might say) with noble altruism in resigning.
Understand the causes of actions - if you insist on placing blame, place it where it belongs. Mr. Eich was forced out by the GLBT community over his support for a bill which directly contradicted their political agenda. Their actions were within what is considered to be acceptable, and resulted in Mr. Eich sustaining a personal loss for his open support of a bill he obviously believes in. I don't think anybody here behaved badly or did anything wrong; but I believe that all involved should now be judged by their actions and their roles in this drama.
Really? I heard it was forty - or more if your instructor doesn't feel like your ready for your check ride yet.
I don't know how firmly FAA enforces rules about ten hours training before operating in mountainous areas. Or ten hours before going out over an ocean. Or ten hours to qualify for instrument flight - but I'm pretty sure the guy renting the Cessna will insist on all of those things if they're appropriate to your flight plan.
By the time yon pilot owns his own aircraft, I'm going to guess there's a lot of flight experience to go with it (not a rule, just an assumption - but I think, a reasonable one).
Slashdot Mirror
THAT is modded "insighful"? Wow. Just wow.
I gues I'd better be careful which perfectly legitimate and lawful political causes I lend my support to - by your logic, I probably already belong in the gulag/reeducation camp/labor camp/death camp.
Then again, I'm getting a lot of hate here -and I haven't even made one personally-directed comment yet.
So if I ever support a (non-majority held) political view, I deserve to be vilified, houded, harried and harassed? Wow, I thought the old Soviet Union was bad!
Boycott "OK Cupid".
What if I do? The logical conclusion from your statement is that anybody who votes in the minority on any issue is in some way worthy or deserving of punishment. Sounds like North Korea to me.
Where does it end? I suppose we could just do away with elections and voting, eh? After all, some number of people will not be as wise or enlightened as you, why should they be allowed to vote, or to express any opinions at all?
We're waiting.
Apparently, when Mr. Eichs reached the head of the line, he was either told "links" or "rechts".
Your continued support of a viewpoint which vilifies a man for nothing more than a legal, morally and ethically acceptable act expressing his opinion.
Yes, your comment is.
"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll die defending your right to say it."
What a fascinating, near-perfect being you must be!
That's what I'd call "prejudice". Just sayin'.
No, he's right. This is free speech working - and in order to keep it working, we (those of us who disagree with their speech or their tactics) have an obligation to make an answer, to exercise our free speech.
Let us identify those responsible and subject them to their own tactics. Those tactics are legal and even acceptable here in the US. Distasteful, but there is a certain aspect of "poetic justice" here.
Whoever used their rights and abilities to enforce their agenda on Mr. Eich, the Mozilla Foundation and (by extension) all of us should be identified and made to answer for their actions. The right to do a thing does not equate to the right to do so without regard for the consequences. We can all use the same rights and methods against those responsible. I wonder if anybody at "OK Cupid" is listening?
True. Permissible (even encouraged) under the current US political/governmental system.
There's an old saying . . . "Four boxes to use in defense of freedom. Soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order."
He's relaying his personal experience. Feel free to report your differing experience (mine differs greatly from his), but he's not a shill as far as I can tell.
I don't know if that needs to be upmodded "Brilliant" or "Hilarious". Oh well - fire twinklers and light balls!
It's a trap!
isn't that the textbook definition of "vaporware"?
GLBT organizations have a perfect right to express their opinions, and even to use political and economic pressure to achieve their desired ends. The Mozilla foundation acted correctly in not bowing directly to this pressure. Mr. Eich acted both correctly and even (some might say) with noble altruism in resigning.
Understand the causes of actions - if you insist on placing blame, place it where it belongs. Mr. Eich was forced out by the GLBT community over his support for a bill which directly contradicted their political agenda. Their actions were within what is considered to be acceptable, and resulted in Mr. Eich sustaining a personal loss for his open support of a bill he obviously believes in. I don't think anybody here behaved badly or did anything wrong; but I believe that all involved should now be judged by their actions and their roles in this drama.
I don't know how firmly FAA enforces rules about ten hours training before operating in mountainous areas. Or ten hours before going out over an ocean. Or ten hours to qualify for instrument flight - but I'm pretty sure the guy renting the Cessna will insist on all of those things if they're appropriate to your flight plan.
By the time yon pilot owns his own aircraft, I'm going to guess there's a lot of flight experience to go with it (not a rule, just an assumption - but I think, a reasonable one).
That is all.
UID's went up. IQ's went down. Simple math.