I can see why a politician in Roman times had to be corrupt.
You might either want to define what you mean by "Roman times" or read "The Rise of the Roman Empire" by Polybius. It was written towards the end of what we generally consider to be the Roman Republic. In it, the author compares and contrasts Rome, Sparta and Carthage. One of the major differences he found between Carthage and Rome was that Carthaginian officials were more or less entirely corrupt to the point where the various bribe amounts required were practically posted on the walls. The Roman officials were put to death for accepting bribes, so there was far less corruption in Rome and the economy was much stronger.
Of course, only the upper class could run or vote, so there was less need to be corrupt, since what might be considered corruption in a more populist society was just good government policy.
Everyone likes to remember the Roman Empire, but the Roman Republic lasted well over 400 years and constituted the major period of growth of the "empire".
Even more off topic, it's interesting how he compared the economies. In Sparta, no man could own more than another and if he somehow ended up with a lot of stuff it was taken away and redistributed. Polybius's assessment was that there was no way Sparta would ever be more than a local power since no real major trading was going to happen. (Communism, basically)
In Carthage there was pretty much nothing that was considered immoral provided that it made money. (America today, basically)
In Rome, making money was just fine, but there were just some things one didn't do for fear of being ostracized or executed. ( The ideal out of the three).
Conservatives accuse liberals of "throwing money" at problems all the time, yet that's what they do when they try to compensate for their general disdain for the poor by writing a check.
Except that even then, they're largely writing the checks to their churches which are much more political organizations than religious at this point in time.
You are not even cynical enough. It's a way to get a tax break for essentially funding the Republican party without having much, if any, of their money used for anything as depraved and disgusting as helping people.
San Fransisco is (was???) such a beautiful city, one I would love to visit, except for all the sicko people that live there.
Now here is a classic example of why this country was *explicitly* founded as a secular nation and why hate mongering religious wackos like this douchebag were disallowed from shoving their disgustingly diseased religious delusions on the good people of this nation.
It's why, now that they've managed to worm their way into government that our country is now so polarized and filled with hatred and contempt for its founding principles.
Congratulations Archangel Michael, you've managed to do one useful thing with your life: serve as a bad example and a warning as to why seperation of church and state was the most important thing that set America apart back when we were great.
Seriously, you're a delusional lying piece of shit and a disgrace to your nation and your species.
You see, it was all well and good that we practice all the gardening, cooking, and sodomy that we wanted until we decided to call it a marriage.... because ultimately that resulted in the downfall of Senator Stevens.
God damn, Dude, that's the funniest post I've read in a while.
The irony of the Republican mantra of self-reliance is that it is primarily the rural, Republican areas that receive financial support from the rich, urban, Democratic areas. If you want to look at the biggest Federal welfare recipients, look at the rural areas in the US.
And that deeply dysfunctional hypocrisy is at the core of Republican "values". They're the biggest supporters of socialism as long as it's on somebody else's dime, but a lot of them actually do believe that they like capitalism. Until they can start to actually think sanely our country will continue to be flat out fucked and they'll continue repeating the idiotic lies that are their mantra with no connection to reality.
Integrated circuit (IC) masks are also covered by copyright. Why does this not, in your view, invalidate the patenting of inventions implemented with ICs?
Hmmm... good question. I'd say my view doesn't really cover that;-)
An alternative perspective, expressed most notably in revolutionary France, holds that the right to ownership of the creations of one's mind is a fundamental property right.
I personally find that perspective to be deeply flawed both practically and rationally. Rationally, the idea that an idea even can be property makes no sense. Practically, it can only stifle creativity and innovation. Also from the practical perspective, it is entirely unenforceable without a worldwide police state.
Which one do you favour withdrawing in the case of ICs? Should they be only copyrightable or only patentable?
I'd say it doesn't really matter to me which is chosen. Just that asking me to give up that much for so little benefit is ridiculous and disgusting.
Mind you, I'm open to the suggestion that software and ICs are more accurately described as industrial property, rather than artistic/literary property, and thus ought to be protected by something other than copyright, e.g. something along the lines of patent laws, which expire after 20 years. This is not a view I hold per se, but I can see merit in it.
I'd agree with that, except for the deeply flawed nature of the US patent office, and the rapid change of technology, and the blatantly obvious things which are patented which lead to a massive stifling of innovation and progress which is the intent of ever increasing intellectual "property" privileges.
You are totally smart, cool, awesome and good looking.
I am a retard who didn't have the common courtesy to keep my retardedness to myself. I misunderstood you, and as opposed to figuring out what you actually meant I was an asshole which compounded my retardedness.
For all of that I humbly apologize.
I took your use of "kosher" to be just the expression as in referring to sugared coke as the "real" version as opposed to what you did (clearly) mean.
Why not just move on to the logical conclusion? Let's put everyone into a bubble as soon as they're born, and then never let them out until the day they die.
Why not? Well because there is no large bubble lobby in the US. As soon as there is, expect us to start moving more in that direction;-)
At what point (i.e. when what % of the population is clinically obese) do we accept that some people just cannot think for themselves and take action to prevent over-consumption of fructose?
At no point. Let natural selection take its course.
Of course, you could just eliminate the idiotic government policies that helped cause the problem in the first place. That would go against our unstated policy of "there is no failed government policy that can't be fixed by more idiotic government interference" though.
You don't get people with enormous pulsating brains like Ed Witten devoting his career to crackpottery.
Isaac Newton was into numerology and astrology. I'm not saying String Theory is crackpottery, just that genius doesn't immunize one against crackpottery.
What is the logical basis for the boundary between patentable and non-patentable inventions being hardware versus software?
Because software is already covered by copyright. Copyright and patents are both useful but extremely dangerous privileges that are afforded to creators to encourage the creation/invention etc of new things for the express purpose of benefiting society.
Either one is a tremendous *privilege* granted to people.
Granting both types of rights for the same thing adds zero benefit and can potentially cause great damage (as can either alone, but we as a society have decided that it's worth the risk *for a limited time*.
Basically it's double dipping, provides nothing positive and has no real justification.
That's the problem with Slashdotters: they're more interested in attacking corporations than defeating bad ideas. Disney's not the problem: the law is.
Disney bribed Congress to alter the law multiple times, so Disney *is* the problem. The law is *also* the problem, but Disney is a large part of the cause of the bad law.
I just noticed his username after my last response. He's actually my own personalized stalker troll. It's just so adorable. Like the retarded brother I never had;-)
I would argue that "The election of Reagan was the final nail in the coffin of the old Republican party" is actually a fact. When that "opinion" is supported by *every* fact and there are *no* facts that support the contrary position then it is no longer an opinion but a fact. Just like Copernicus's "opinion" that the sun was the center of the solar system. It's been a fact for billions of years, regardless of the fact that it wasn't widely known.
I didn't "miss" anything, you posted a statement that never appeared in your "facts" anywhere previously. I stated that. You'll notice I never said it wasn't RELEVANT, only that you never stated it before. Guess that makes YOU the stupid one huh? Reading comprehension is your friend.
Go farther up the thread and you'll see that I did, in fact, *start* with that statement. That was almost the first statement I made in the first post I made in this thread.
Your inability to follow a thread is, like most of what you do I'm sure, your failure.
Deal with your own inadequacies on your own, Clarence.
As to when you displayed it, how fucking stupid are you? I posted YOUR QUOTE. Is someone ghostwriting your stuff? You should fire them because they're making you look like a bigoted ignoramus.
Settle down, Clarence.
That was my statement, but you haven't shown how it has anything to do with bigotry. It's a simple statement of fact. The fact that you don't like hearing true statements is your own failure as a person and has nothing to do with me.
You see, bigotry is like prejudice. What I did is an example of (if there were such a word) postjudice.
"Now, these people that you have chosen to ally yourself with have a long track record of being thieves, liars, mass murderers, anti-American religious extremists, and generally demonstrating no redeeming characteristics whatsoever."
WHY YES YOU DID!!!
I did? Where?
Is that not an accurate description of the current Republican party? If not, how not? I mean really, just because you don't like the way things are does not make me a bigot simply because I'm aware of the facts.
By the way, YOU NEVER SAID THAT IN YOUR PREVIOUS POSTS.
The post I initially replied to was asking when the old Republican party died. That was the primary content of my post.
Look, if you're that dumb... and you clearly are... as to miss what was the subject of the freaking post, then you're obviously just a rabid frothing troll.
Uh, Right, Bucko! I looked it up. Granted, there were sources that go either way, but I noticed that those that went to AlGore were all suffering from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).
Which simply means they disagree with your delusions and hence must be discounted.
The problem in Iraq is that they (Al Qaeda) smell victory?
Right, al queda again. Keep drinking the kool aid. There are plenty of people who hate us being in their land murdering their people. Your complete failure to understand that Iraqis are people and act accordingly is symptomatic of sociopathic tendencies.
Bush didn't convince me. The following did:
Ummmmm "suspected or inspired"? That's a big stretch. The marketing of the al queda brand started after the original WTC bombings when the terrorists were being prosecuted. Since there was no big organization responsible for it, the prosecutors were unable to file the charges they wanted to against the terrorists so they spun al queda into a bigger thing than they were. Since then, "al queda" has essentially taken the role of "boogie man" and is given as the cause of just about anything involving muslim terrorists.
You'll probably know 1984 from that Macintosh commercial where the jogging lady threw a hammer through a large screen brainwashing the bald populace. The author's name is George Orwell. He puts it better than I could anyway. It's dated, but just as accurate today as it was then:
It's so amusing that you try to pretend that you're knowledgeable and I'm not yet below this you quoted my mention of Goldstein. Truly a pathetic attempt at a troll.
So according to Orwell, you are helping those that perpetrated 9-11, since we are now fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. Doesn't that make you fell all warm and fuzzy!
Wow, what an amazingly poor attempt at an argument. First, I'm not a pacifist. Second, I'm doing nothing to help those who perpetrated 9/11. We are not "fighting al queda in Iraq". Perhaps there are a few al queda fighters we brought there to b;low the fuck out of the Iraqis we're supposedly there to help, but you're still way overblowing the whole boogie man thing. Thirdly, given the deeply dishonest approach to this "war" and the complete ineptitude shown at every single step, with the exception of the initial invasion, this hare brained world domination scheme has done nothing to lessen the threat of terrorism. It has in fact not only increased it, but given great justification for it exactly as predicted in advance of starting the whole fiasco.
And you want to return it an even greater vacuum? That SUX!
No return necessary. They still have the power vacuum we created for the purpose of profit.
Sounds like another conspiracy theory to me. I don't recall a hard selling of the war. I remember quite the opposite, actually.
So you can only find a few fringe "media" outlets giving honest assessments and then use that fact to conclude that the *major media players* weren't selling the war? Seriously now, that was pretty far fetched even for you. That's just so sad and pathetic
Uh... that's what groupthink is.
You are engaging in groupthink with the few remaining loonies who are too dumb to realize they've been scammed. Just because you choose to take that groupthink here and make yourself look like a fool doesn't change the fact that you're engaged in groupthink. It's just that this group has a lower percentage of people naive enough to buy into such a transparent scam
I said "hate" not mean. Reading is clearyl not your strong suit.
Engaging in a hate filled screed would be a mean thing to do. That's not what I did, but you're claiming I am so you were whining about me being mean.
As to the "facts", had you posted some instead of a hate filled rant maybe I'd have refuted them.
No, you wouldn't because I did and you didn't. It really is that simple. Fact: The election of Reagan was the final nail in the coffin of the old Republican party. Fact: If you agree with the statement: "I like cutting of taxes, but, it has to go with smaller govt. spending too!! I want a candidate that is for that, that fiscally conservative, slightly liberal socially....and most of all, respects and honors the Constitution.", then the Libertarian Party is the only one that agrees with you.
There are several more facts there which you are unable to refute. Hint that's why they're *facts*.
You have nothing to back up whatever delusional positions you hold and so do nothing but whine about how people are being mean merely because they speak the truth. Begone troll. Back under your bridge.
Slashdot Mirror
I can see why a politician in Roman times had to be corrupt.
You might either want to define what you mean by "Roman times" or read "The Rise of the Roman Empire" by Polybius. It was written towards the end of what we generally consider to be the Roman Republic. In it, the author compares and contrasts Rome, Sparta and Carthage. One of the major differences he found between Carthage and Rome was that Carthaginian officials were more or less entirely corrupt to the point where the various bribe amounts required were practically posted on the walls. The Roman officials were put to death for accepting bribes, so there was far less corruption in Rome and the economy was much stronger.
Of course, only the upper class could run or vote, so there was less need to be corrupt, since what might be considered corruption in a more populist society was just good government policy.
Everyone likes to remember the Roman Empire, but the Roman Republic lasted well over 400 years and constituted the major period of growth of the "empire".
Even more off topic, it's interesting how he compared the economies. In Sparta, no man could own more than another and if he somehow ended up with a lot of stuff it was taken away and redistributed. Polybius's assessment was that there was no way Sparta would ever be more than a local power since no real major trading was going to happen. (Communism, basically)
In Carthage there was pretty much nothing that was considered immoral provided that it made money. (America today, basically)
In Rome, making money was just fine, but there were just some things one didn't do for fear of being ostracized or executed. ( The ideal out of the three).
Conservatives accuse liberals of "throwing money" at problems all the time, yet that's what they do when they try to compensate for their general disdain for the poor by writing a check.
Except that even then, they're largely writing the checks to their churches which are much more political organizations than religious at this point in time.
You are not even cynical enough. It's a way to get a tax break for essentially funding the Republican party without having much, if any, of their money used for anything as depraved and disgusting as helping people.
San Fransisco is (was???) such a beautiful city, one I would love to visit, except for all the sicko people that live there.
Now here is a classic example of why this country was *explicitly* founded as a secular nation and why hate mongering religious wackos like this douchebag were disallowed from shoving their disgustingly diseased religious delusions on the good people of this nation.
It's why, now that they've managed to worm their way into government that our country is now so polarized and filled with hatred and contempt for its founding principles.
Congratulations Archangel Michael, you've managed to do one useful thing with your life: serve as a bad example and a warning as to why seperation of church and state was the most important thing that set America apart back when we were great.
Seriously, you're a delusional lying piece of shit and a disgrace to your nation and your species.
Kindly go die in a fire.
You see, it was all well and good that we practice all the gardening, cooking, and sodomy that we wanted until we decided to call it a marriage.... because ultimately that resulted in the downfall of Senator Stevens.
God damn, Dude, that's the funniest post I've read in a while.
Wait, you were kidding, right?
The irony of the Republican mantra of self-reliance is that it is primarily the rural, Republican areas that receive financial support from the rich, urban, Democratic areas. If you want to look at the biggest Federal welfare recipients, look at the rural areas in the US.
And that deeply dysfunctional hypocrisy is at the core of Republican "values". They're the biggest supporters of socialism as long as it's on somebody else's dime, but a lot of them actually do believe that they like capitalism. Until they can start to actually think sanely our country will continue to be flat out fucked and they'll continue repeating the idiotic lies that are their mantra with no connection to reality.
Integrated circuit (IC) masks are also covered by copyright. Why does this not, in your view, invalidate the patenting of inventions implemented with ICs?
;-)
Hmmm... good question. I'd say my view doesn't really cover that
An alternative perspective, expressed most notably in revolutionary France, holds that the right to ownership of the creations of one's mind is a fundamental property right.
I personally find that perspective to be deeply flawed both practically and rationally. Rationally, the idea that an idea even can be property makes no sense. Practically, it can only stifle creativity and innovation. Also from the practical perspective, it is entirely unenforceable without a worldwide police state.
Which one do you favour withdrawing in the case of ICs? Should they be only copyrightable or only patentable?
I'd say it doesn't really matter to me which is chosen. Just that asking me to give up that much for so little benefit is ridiculous and disgusting.
Mind you, I'm open to the suggestion that software and ICs are more accurately described as industrial property, rather than artistic/literary property, and thus ought to be protected by something other than copyright, e.g. something along the lines of patent laws, which expire after 20 years. This is not a view I hold per se, but I can see merit in it.
I'd agree with that, except for the deeply flawed nature of the US patent office, and the rapid change of technology, and the blatantly obvious things which are patented which lead to a massive stifling of innovation and progress which is the intent of ever increasing intellectual "property" privileges.
Kosher Coca Cola uses sugar, not HFCS.
You are totally smart, cool, awesome and good looking.
I am a retard who didn't have the common courtesy to keep my retardedness to myself. I misunderstood you, and as opposed to figuring out what you actually meant I was an asshole which compounded my retardedness.
For all of that I humbly apologize.
I took your use of "kosher" to be just the expression as in referring to sugared coke as the "real" version as opposed to what you did (clearly) mean.
Domestic sugar farmers don't mind the artificially high prices...
In exactly the same way leeches don't mind sucking your blood while providing no benefit to you.
Only in America.jpeg
;-)
Ha!. That's my old gym. I usually took the stairs though
The funny thing is it's in San Diego, California which is regularly voted the fittest city in America.
Why not just move on to the logical conclusion? Let's put everyone into a bubble as soon as they're born, and then never let them out until the day they die.
;-)
Why not? Well because there is no large bubble lobby in the US. As soon as there is, expect us to start moving more in that direction
At what point (i.e. when what % of the population is clinically obese) do we accept that some people just cannot think for themselves and take action to prevent over-consumption of fructose?
At no point. Let natural selection take its course.
Of course, you could just eliminate the idiotic government policies that helped cause the problem in the first place. That would go against our unstated policy of "there is no failed government policy that can't be fixed by more idiotic government interference" though.
I agree about the taste. I loath coke cola with corn syrup.
When I can get it I will buy the kosher version in the US. It still is the real thing. And marvelous stuff.
Direct contradiction.
I avoid HFCS period. I won't touch the crap anymore.
And again.
Seriously, were you trying to make sense and failed, or were you just making fun of yourself?
You don't get people with enormous pulsating brains like Ed Witten devoting his career to crackpottery.
Isaac Newton was into numerology and astrology.
I'm not saying String Theory is crackpottery, just that genius doesn't immunize one against crackpottery.
But since the majority here will neither understand it when I post in German, nor when I post in French, English will have to do.
;-)
Try Latin:
"Deutschers eunt domes"
( It says "Germans go home"
What is the logical basis for the boundary between patentable and non-patentable inventions being hardware versus software?
Because software is already covered by copyright. Copyright and patents are both useful but extremely dangerous privileges that are afforded to creators to encourage the creation/invention etc of new things for the express purpose of benefiting society.
Either one is a tremendous *privilege* granted to people.
Granting both types of rights for the same thing adds zero benefit and can potentially cause great damage (as can either alone, but we as a society have decided that it's worth the risk *for a limited time*.
Basically it's double dipping, provides nothing positive and has no real justification.
That's the problem with Slashdotters: they're more interested in attacking corporations than defeating bad ideas. Disney's not the problem: the law is.
Disney bribed Congress to alter the law multiple times, so Disney *is* the problem. The law is *also* the problem, but Disney is a large part of the cause of the bad law.
Stop arguing with the retarded kid, please.
;-)
I just noticed his username after my last response. He's actually my own personalized stalker troll.
It's just so adorable. Like the retarded brother I never had
I would argue that "The election of Reagan was the final nail in the coffin of the old Republican party" is actually a fact. When that "opinion" is supported by *every* fact and there are *no* facts that support the contrary position then it is no longer an opinion but a fact.
Just like Copernicus's "opinion" that the sun was the center of the solar system. It's been a fact for billions of years, regardless of the fact that it wasn't widely known.
Is that in any way inaccurate?
I didn't "miss" anything, you posted a statement that never appeared in your "facts" anywhere previously. I stated that. You'll notice I never said it wasn't RELEVANT, only that you never stated it before. Guess that makes YOU the stupid one huh? Reading comprehension is your friend.
Go farther up the thread and you'll see that I did, in fact, *start* with that statement. That was almost the first statement I made in the first post I made in this thread.
Your inability to follow a thread is, like most of what you do I'm sure, your failure.
Deal with your own inadequacies on your own, Clarence.
As to when you displayed it, how fucking stupid are you? I posted YOUR QUOTE. Is someone ghostwriting your stuff? You should fire them because they're making you look like a bigoted ignoramus.
Settle down, Clarence.
That was my statement, but you haven't shown how it has anything to do with bigotry. It's a simple statement of fact. The fact that you don't like hearing true statements is your own failure as a person and has nothing to do with me.
You see, bigotry is like prejudice. What I did is an example of (if there were such a word) postjudice.
Big fucking difference.
Perhaps you didn't live through Watergate which eventually led to Nixon's impeachment.
Wow, that's news to me.
When was Nixon impeached exactly?
Maybe I'm day-dreaming.
;-)
You are, but enjoy it while you can
So let's see, did you do that?
"Now, these people that you have chosen to ally yourself with have a long track record of being thieves, liars, mass murderers, anti-American religious extremists, and generally demonstrating no redeeming characteristics whatsoever."
WHY YES YOU DID!!!
I did? Where?
Is that not an accurate description of the current Republican party? If not, how not?
I mean really, just because you don't like the way things are does not make me a bigot simply because I'm aware of the facts.
By the way, YOU NEVER SAID THAT IN YOUR PREVIOUS POSTS.
The post I initially replied to was asking when the old Republican party died. That was the primary content of my post.
Look, if you're that dumb... and you clearly are... as to miss what was the subject of the freaking post, then you're obviously just a rabid frothing troll.
Get back under your bridge.
Uh, Right, Bucko! I looked it up. Granted, there were sources that go either way, but I noticed that those that went to AlGore were all suffering from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).
Which simply means they disagree with your delusions and hence must be discounted.
The problem in Iraq is that they (Al Qaeda) smell victory?
Right, al queda again. Keep drinking the kool aid. There are plenty of people who hate us being in their land murdering their people. Your complete failure to understand that Iraqis are people and act accordingly is symptomatic of sociopathic tendencies.
Bush didn't convince me. The following did:
Ummmmm "suspected or inspired"? That's a big stretch. The marketing of the al queda brand started after the original WTC bombings when the terrorists were being prosecuted. Since there was no big organization responsible for it, the prosecutors were unable to file the charges they wanted to against the terrorists so they spun al queda into a bigger thing than they were. Since then, "al queda" has essentially taken the role of "boogie man" and is given as the cause of just about anything involving muslim terrorists.
You'll probably know 1984 from that Macintosh commercial where the jogging lady threw a hammer through a large screen brainwashing the bald populace. The author's name is George Orwell. He puts it better than I could anyway. It's dated, but just as accurate today as it was then:
It's so amusing that you try to pretend that you're knowledgeable and I'm not yet below this you quoted my mention of Goldstein. Truly a pathetic attempt at a troll.
So according to Orwell, you are helping those that perpetrated 9-11, since we are now fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. Doesn't that make you fell all warm and fuzzy!
Wow, what an amazingly poor attempt at an argument.
First, I'm not a pacifist. Second, I'm doing nothing to help those who perpetrated 9/11. We are not "fighting al queda in Iraq". Perhaps there are a few al queda fighters we brought there to b;low the fuck out of the Iraqis we're supposedly there to help, but you're still way overblowing the whole boogie man thing.
Thirdly, given the deeply dishonest approach to this "war" and the complete ineptitude shown at every single step, with the exception of the initial invasion, this hare brained world domination scheme has done nothing to lessen the threat of terrorism. It has in fact not only increased it, but given great justification for it exactly as predicted in advance of starting the whole fiasco.
And you want to return it an even greater vacuum? That SUX!
No return necessary. They still have the power vacuum we created for the purpose of profit.
Sounds like another conspiracy theory to me. I don't recall a hard selling of the war. I remember quite the opposite, actually.
So you can only find a few fringe "media" outlets giving honest assessments and then use that fact to conclude that the *major media players* weren't selling the war? Seriously now, that was pretty far fetched even for you. That's just so sad and pathetic
Uh... that's what groupthink is.
You are engaging in groupthink with the few remaining loonies who are too dumb to realize they've been scammed. Just because you choose to take that groupthink here and make yourself look like a fool doesn't change the fact that you're engaged in groupthink. It's just that this group has a lower percentage of people naive enough to buy into such a transparent scam
I said "hate" not mean. Reading is clearyl not your strong suit.
Engaging in a hate filled screed would be a mean thing to do. That's not what I did, but you're claiming I am so you were whining about me being mean.
As to the "facts", had you posted some instead of a hate filled rant maybe I'd have refuted them.
No, you wouldn't because I did and you didn't.
It really is that simple.
Fact: The election of Reagan was the final nail in the coffin of the old Republican party.
Fact: If you agree with the statement: "I like cutting of taxes, but, it has to go with smaller govt. spending too!! I want a candidate that is for that, that fiscally conservative, slightly liberal socially....and most of all, respects and honors the Constitution.", then the Libertarian Party is the only one that agrees with you.
There are several more facts there which you are unable to refute. Hint that's why they're *facts*.
You have nothing to back up whatever delusional positions you hold and so do nothing but whine about how people are being mean merely because they speak the truth. Begone troll. Back under your bridge.