You have gotten the premise of two major points materially wrong in your representation and you are calling me poorly informed.
Your responses to 'materially wrong assertions' were remarks like: "I haven't heard of that...", "Maybe something else happened!", "You're making shit up!", and "you're gay." Yeah, you really thrive in the material plane.
You weren't even aware of the basic points of the story, that's why I'm calling you poorly informed.
Regardless, as it stands, I must repeat, you seem to be pretty adept at identifying which posts are mine, and which are not. This is further evidenced by your statement, "I've often run into circumstances where they post multiple times posing as more than one person". So you run into these circumstances often, do you? It seems you have no problem identifying who you are talking to.
This is easy enough to test. If you are correct that posting as anything but AC serves no functional purpose, then you shouldn't be able to find posts on Slashdot with phrases like "I'm not the same AC". There also shouldn't be a higher level of AC shitposts than normal logged-in accounts. I invite you to look into that, it'll help you answer your question.
Well, hiding behind a pseudonym is certainly one way to do that, which, if I recall correctly, is all I pointed out in the first place. Now that you are in full agreement with me...
Not so fast. I really shouldn't have to explain this, but I guess I do since this is actually a debate instead of a discussion. Okay, fine, we can make these posts unnecessarily longer. I am interested in keeping the conversation clear, for example I'm one of those jerks that doesn't think you should start writing your post in the subject line. For that reason I wish for my appearance to be unique from others on this site. It's one of the reasons I have my sig. The risk* I take is that with the pseudonym comes a reputation. That reputation is a factor in my credibility. My credibility affects the tone people interpret from my posts. You may or may not find value in this, but it doesn't really matter, because it is clearly of value to lots of other people around here. It also matters because people can come in in the middle of a conversation because they only wish to discuss a tiny subset under the scope of the topic. For example: Someone might wander into a discussion about the virtues of anonymous posting and be completely unaware that it was originally a discussion about hypocrisy, but the only way for everyone else involved to be sure is to get clarification on who said what.
As for anonymity, I don't want you to know my real name. I don't want you to know where I live. I don't want you to know where I work. I also don't want my employer to fire me because of a remark I made here. I wish to remain anonymous. I am just as anonymous to you as I would be as AC. The only difference is you have a clearer idea of which posts are mine, by choice that I have made. There is no contradiction, here.
* This whole conversation is actually about logging in being riskier than not. Since I do not know if you're the same person in each AC post here, you get to waste time reading this clarification because you're either the really dumb AC that I zinged and you're hoping to 'win' somewhere else, or you're an entirely new person who came in in the middle of the conversation who doesn't realize that the context still matters.
Just curious - as a counterpoint to your statement "The accumulation of everything I've said over the years can be used against me", how is that useless?
Are you under the impression that I think I am unable to post anonymously or register another account?
Unless tons of stealth games suddenly start referring to themselves as "Metal Gear Solids", and Konami does nothing about it, they're in no danger whatsoever of the brand name becoming genericized (ala Kleenex).
Yeah... yes. It's not about being genericized, it's about trademark law requiring it. They forfeit their rights to the trademark if they don't enforce it.
No, I didn't twist your argument, I just assumed, wrongly, that you didn't mean something as useless in this discussion as 'you can post as AC too.' I apologize for giving you too much credit.
An insightful comment is an insightful comment, regardless of who posted it.
You know what's funny about debating with ACs? I've often run into circumstances where they post multiple times posing as more than one person. I've also spotted occasions where ACs take over the debate for someone else and burn up their credibility.
Anyway, getting back on topic, why didn't you use your real name for your Slashdot ID? Why are you hiding behind a pseudonym?
Because, like you, I'd like to remain anonymous. I also like it to be clear who is talking to who and I don't want anybody speaking for me.
Unless those previous comments were part of this discussion thread, then they have absolutely nothing to do with anything.
People have dug up comments I've made before and used them as part of the discussion. Often they remember me because of my 'lick butts' sig. On a side note: the detail they usually remember is that I use an iPhone. I'm starting to wonder if those to things have a more casual relationship than I had previously thought.
I'm not going to look up your posting history to get an idea of who you are. Why would I give a fuck about you?
The main thing is that you'd know for sure that it was the same person that responded to a post. It's also worth mentioning that, no, you wouldn't need to run around reading anybody's posting history. You really didn't think that one through before you hit 'reply'... which is a trait AC's often have because they don't want to risk their reputation. You get to know people you see posting around here.
That is very brave of you to openly admit! I humbly retract my assertion that you are a chicken and, also, I accept your apology. Thank you and have a good week!
Anonymity on the internet is immeasurably valuable in terms of free speech and this is one of the last somewhat meanigful places on the internet you can still have it.
AC posting on Slashdot is no more anonymous than posting with an account. It just uniquifies your identity in the discussion.
As long as competitor content isn't slowed down to make your content more attractive, it seams reasonable to me to put caps on out of network usage, but no caps on usage from servers which are wholly owned by the ISP.
Putting caps on competing services is slowing it down.
For fucks sake, you cannot even get what was said correct and you will not link to anything that backs your claim up. You are just making shit up.
Heh. Nah, I didn't make anything up. You're a tragic combination of being poorly informed on a topic and you have an extreme opinion on it. If we were debating 9-11, I could mention the plane that crashed in a field in Pennsylvania and your response would be: "What?! I don't remember that! You're just making shit up! It's your fault I don't know about it because you won't link me to it! I get it, you're a pilot, but that doesn't mean you get to slander ter'rists!" Heh. It's really more humorous than frustrating.
Anyway, I won't count this as Round 5 since it's merely an amusing distraction. I hope you're having a good weekend.
I personally like the theory that there's a small group of people who have super-human post-on-a-discussion-forum skills. "Capable of dethroning CEOs without even hitting the preview button!" Heh.
First, how do you know he saw the ads that happened before he donated?
Because I researched it. It's easy, you just type stuff into Google.
For all you know, he simply donated to something because a friend asked him to and really didn't care about it at all.
Haha! Yeah, I wonder what that discussion was like...
"Hey Brandan, buddy, couldja donate to a campaign?"
"What's this about?"
"Oh just some typical California Proposition."
"Oh yeah, they're always doing that. So how much you thinking?"
"A thousand..."
"Oh, is that all? No prob."
"Oh, hey, they may ask you to list your employer."
"Oh I'm sure it's fine!"
Heh, again, very desparate.
He has made no statements about it at all that I am aware of.
He famously did.
There certainly is nothing of record other than a donation that you imagine so much hate from.
The ad campaign.
You are simply wrong and if you had any evidence to back it up, you would have posted links by now. It's that simple.
Your basis for my 'being wrong' is that you haven't looked into it past "Brandon Eich must be the underdog!" It's immaterial anyway, the assertion was that he was 'fired merely for his views'. We've just gone through Round 4 and not only have we disproved it again, but you've also got some reading to do before you can carry on this debate. The ads, the timeline, the statement he made, you're very under-informed considering the extrememiness of the opinion you have.
There is no "I assume you're gay", you advertise it in your sig and have said as much in other posts.
Hahaha! Okay, a couple of things: 1. I have never posted, explicitly or implicitly, that I am gay. 2. You did not read my sig in its entirety. 3. Hahahaha that was impressively desperate.
Yes, you assumed.
No, his donation went to a group outside his control who was supposed to be backing prop 8. Here is the thing with donations though, once to give the money to someone else, you lose almost all control on how it is spent.
He made the donation after the ad campaign started. He has also made no statement expressing any sort of regret that his money was mis-spent. He clearly wanted those ads. He destroyed the confidence he had from what became his employees. That's how 'people like me', whatever that means, heard about it in the first place.
I hope you are seeing a shrink (most gay people have mental issues at some point in their life) and I hope you can ask them to explain the difference from reality and what you want it to be.
Heh. Everywhere you look you see gay people and lynch-mobs. You'll pardon me for questioning your ability to assess my mental health.
And that marks the end of Round 3, and we're still not talking about his views.
Campaign laws require you to list your employer's name when making donations over a certain amount. The reason is to catch employers who make illegal donations through their employees.This in no way whatsoever at all means he "representing Mozilla on views that they weren't interested in supporting".
There's an old executive saying: Don't write anything you can't erase. At the end of the day he willingly made a donation to the campaign and put his company name on it. He knew what he was doing.
Bullshit. Not redefining marriage is not hostile in the least.
That's not what we're talking about.
His donation went towards the production of a bunch of anti-gay ads that spent most of their time talking about how shocking homosexuality is to kids and very little talking about marriage. Yes, that was hostile, it's also the core of the annoyance with him.
No one, I repeat, absolutely no one has ever demonstrate...
False. Even if you don't see the ads as hostile (which I expect anyway since you've dug your heels in....) he used money to buy votes to keep marriage rights away from homosexuals in California. Then they put this guy in charge of employees affected by his actions. They were the first to speak up about it. Whether or not you agree that they had a right to be concerned, you cannot seriously think they didn't at least have cause to go "Ummm... this is what he has already done, what will he do now?"
I get it, you are gay. That much is obvious. But that doesn't give you the right to go around slandering someone's name because at one point in time they disagreed with you.
Basically what you just said here was: "I assume(*) you're a victim of the actions of this man and you should keep quiet about it." Apparently he has more right to freedom of speech than any of us that happen to be on a differing side from you.
(*) Emphasis on the word 'assume' since you're taking a 50/50 gamble in the hopes that you're right so you can question my credibility. You'd think one that's so righteous wouldn't need to stoop to such dirty debate tactics.
That was round 2 of a heated name-calling debate and we're still not even talking about his beliefs. He destroyed his qualification to be a CEO at Mozilla through his actions, not his words. Actually this is really the point I'm making. I'm really not interested in changing your mind on gay marriage, so don't expect much of a response from me on the next go around.
He willfully made a donation that required him to list his employer. The reason for that rule is transparency. As for hostility, his donation went towards an ad-campaign that was anti-gay in nature. At the time he made his donation the campaign had already started, he knew what he was putting his money towards. As for how he'd behave as CEO, he had already demonstrated where he was and how far he was willing to go. Oh and he had already caused harm to his employees before taking the role. DURING his time at Mozilla.
Oh, and getting back on topic, notice we're not talking about his beliefs here. Oops, I was right, sorry.
Slashdot Mirror
You have gotten the premise of two major points materially wrong in your representation and you are calling me poorly informed.
Your responses to 'materially wrong assertions' were remarks like: "I haven't heard of that...", "Maybe something else happened!", "You're making shit up!", and "you're gay." Yeah, you really thrive in the material plane.
You weren't even aware of the basic points of the story, that's why I'm calling you poorly informed.
PROTIP: That is a myth.
Wrong. "They let this other entity use it!" ... is a valid legal defense.
Regardless, as it stands, I must repeat, you seem to be pretty adept at identifying which posts are mine, and which are not. This is further evidenced by your statement, "I've often run into circumstances where they post multiple times posing as more than one person". So you run into these circumstances often, do you? It seems you have no problem identifying who you are talking to.
This is easy enough to test. If you are correct that posting as anything but AC serves no functional purpose, then you shouldn't be able to find posts on Slashdot with phrases like "I'm not the same AC". There also shouldn't be a higher level of AC shitposts than normal logged-in accounts. I invite you to look into that, it'll help you answer your question.
Well, hiding behind a pseudonym is certainly one way to do that, which, if I recall correctly, is all I pointed out in the first place. Now that you are in full agreement with me...
Not so fast. I really shouldn't have to explain this, but I guess I do since this is actually a debate instead of a discussion. Okay, fine, we can make these posts unnecessarily longer. I am interested in keeping the conversation clear, for example I'm one of those jerks that doesn't think you should start writing your post in the subject line. For that reason I wish for my appearance to be unique from others on this site. It's one of the reasons I have my sig. The risk* I take is that with the pseudonym comes a reputation. That reputation is a factor in my credibility. My credibility affects the tone people interpret from my posts. You may or may not find value in this, but it doesn't really matter, because it is clearly of value to lots of other people around here. It also matters because people can come in in the middle of a conversation because they only wish to discuss a tiny subset under the scope of the topic. For example: Someone might wander into a discussion about the virtues of anonymous posting and be completely unaware that it was originally a discussion about hypocrisy, but the only way for everyone else involved to be sure is to get clarification on who said what.
As for anonymity, I don't want you to know my real name. I don't want you to know where I live. I don't want you to know where I work. I also don't want my employer to fire me because of a remark I made here. I wish to remain anonymous. I am just as anonymous to you as I would be as AC. The only difference is you have a clearer idea of which posts are mine, by choice that I have made. There is no contradiction, here.
* This whole conversation is actually about logging in being riskier than not. Since I do not know if you're the same person in each AC post here, you get to waste time reading this clarification because you're either the really dumb AC that I zinged and you're hoping to 'win' somewhere else, or you're an entirely new person who came in in the middle of the conversation who doesn't realize that the context still matters.
Just curious - as a counterpoint to your statement "The accumulation of everything I've said over the years can be used against me", how is that useless?
Are you under the impression that I think I am unable to post anonymously or register another account?
Yeah... no.
Unless tons of stealth games suddenly start referring to themselves as "Metal Gear Solids", and Konami does nothing about it, they're in no danger whatsoever of the brand name becoming genericized (ala Kleenex).
Yeah... yes. It's not about being genericized, it's about trademark law requiring it. They forfeit their rights to the trademark if they don't enforce it.
And replaces them with mind-numbing jobs that can be done by people in third-world countries for 15% of what you're making.
Well done, capitalism.
FTFY.
No, I didn't twist your argument, I just assumed, wrongly, that you didn't mean something as useless in this discussion as 'you can post as AC too.' I apologize for giving you too much credit.
It's a hundred D-batteries. Duh!
An insightful comment is an insightful comment, regardless of who posted it.
You know what's funny about debating with ACs? I've often run into circumstances where they post multiple times posing as more than one person. I've also spotted occasions where ACs take over the debate for someone else and burn up their credibility.
Anyway, getting back on topic, why didn't you use your real name for your Slashdot ID? Why are you hiding behind a pseudonym?
Because, like you, I'd like to remain anonymous. I also like it to be clear who is talking to who and I don't want anybody speaking for me.
No, I cannot retroactively make my posts anonymous. Not sure where you got that idea.
Unless those previous comments were part of this discussion thread, then they have absolutely nothing to do with anything.
People have dug up comments I've made before and used them as part of the discussion. Often they remember me because of my 'lick butts' sig. On a side note: the detail they usually remember is that I use an iPhone. I'm starting to wonder if those to things have a more casual relationship than I had previously thought.
I'm not going to look up your posting history to get an idea of who you are. Why would I give a fuck about you?
The main thing is that you'd know for sure that it was the same person that responded to a post. It's also worth mentioning that, no, you wouldn't need to run around reading anybody's posting history. You really didn't think that one through before you hit 'reply'... which is a trait AC's often have because they don't want to risk their reputation. You get to know people you see posting around here.
Also, I like to smell farts.
That is very brave of you to openly admit! I humbly retract my assertion that you are a chicken and, also, I accept your apology. Thank you and have a good week!
The accumulation of everything I've said over the years can be used against me, chicken.
Anonymity on the internet is immeasurably valuable in terms of free speech and this is one of the last somewhat meanigful places on the internet you can still have it.
AC posting on Slashdot is no more anonymous than posting with an account. It just uniquifies your identity in the discussion.
I'm pretty sure there's a difference between not offering anymore service, vs. slowing service down.
No, there isn't. Preference of one service over another is the opposite of neutral.
As long as competitor content isn't slowed down to make your content more attractive, it seams reasonable to me to put caps on out of network usage, but no caps on usage from servers which are wholly owned by the ISP.
Putting caps on competing services is slowing it down.
Heh. I like how this guy telling him to be risk taker drew the line at logging in to make his remark.
For fucks sake, you cannot even get what was said correct and you will not link to anything that backs your claim up. You are just making shit up.
Heh. Nah, I didn't make anything up. You're a tragic combination of being poorly informed on a topic and you have an extreme opinion on it. If we were debating 9-11, I could mention the plane that crashed in a field in Pennsylvania and your response would be: "What?! I don't remember that! You're just making shit up! It's your fault I don't know about it because you won't link me to it! I get it, you're a pilot, but that doesn't mean you get to slander ter'rists!" Heh. It's really more humorous than frustrating.
Anyway, I won't count this as Round 5 since it's merely an amusing distraction. I hope you're having a good weekend.
I personally like the theory that there's a small group of people who have super-human post-on-a-discussion-forum skills. "Capable of dethroning CEOs without even hitting the preview button!" Heh.
First, how do you know he saw the ads that happened before he donated?
Because I researched it. It's easy, you just type stuff into Google.
For all you know, he simply donated to something because a friend asked him to and really didn't care about it at all.
Haha! Yeah, I wonder what that discussion was like...
"Hey Brandan, buddy, couldja donate to a campaign?"
"What's this about?"
"Oh just some typical California Proposition."
"Oh yeah, they're always doing that. So how much you thinking?"
"A thousand..."
"Oh, is that all? No prob."
"Oh, hey, they may ask you to list your employer."
"Oh I'm sure it's fine!"
Heh, again, very desparate.
He has made no statements about it at all that I am aware of.
He famously did.
There certainly is nothing of record other than a donation that you imagine so much hate from.
The ad campaign.
You are simply wrong and if you had any evidence to back it up, you would have posted links by now. It's that simple.
Your basis for my 'being wrong' is that you haven't looked into it past "Brandon Eich must be the underdog!" It's immaterial anyway, the assertion was that he was 'fired merely for his views'. We've just gone through Round 4 and not only have we disproved it again, but you've also got some reading to do before you can carry on this debate. The ads, the timeline, the statement he made, you're very under-informed considering the extrememiness of the opinion you have.
Gee, they sure were quiet when their buddy Eich needed their help.
There is no "I assume you're gay", you advertise it in your sig and have said as much in other posts.
Hahaha! Okay, a couple of things: 1. I have never posted, explicitly or implicitly, that I am gay. 2. You did not read my sig in its entirety. 3. Hahahaha that was impressively desperate.
Yes, you assumed.
No, his donation went to a group outside his control who was supposed to be backing prop 8. Here is the thing with donations though, once to give the money to someone else, you lose almost all control on how it is spent.
He made the donation after the ad campaign started. He has also made no statement expressing any sort of regret that his money was mis-spent. He clearly wanted those ads. He destroyed the confidence he had from what became his employees. That's how 'people like me', whatever that means, heard about it in the first place.
I hope you are seeing a shrink (most gay people have mental issues at some point in their life) and I hope you can ask them to explain the difference from reality and what you want it to be.
Heh. Everywhere you look you see gay people and lynch-mobs. You'll pardon me for questioning your ability to assess my mental health.
And that marks the end of Round 3, and we're still not talking about his views.
Heh. Obviously it wasn't that widely shared. You should read more.
You are a complete idiot.
...
Grow up for fucks sake.
Heh.
Campaign laws require you to list your employer's name when making donations over a certain amount. The reason is to catch employers who make illegal donations through their employees.This in no way whatsoever at all means he "representing Mozilla on views that they weren't interested in supporting".
There's an old executive saying: Don't write anything you can't erase. At the end of the day he willingly made a donation to the campaign and put his company name on it. He knew what he was doing.
Bullshit. Not redefining marriage is not hostile in the least.
That's not what we're talking about.
His donation went towards the production of a bunch of anti-gay ads that spent most of their time talking about how shocking homosexuality is to kids and very little talking about marriage. Yes, that was hostile, it's also the core of the annoyance with him.
No one, I repeat, absolutely no one has ever demonstrate...
False. Even if you don't see the ads as hostile (which I expect anyway since you've dug your heels in....) he used money to buy votes to keep marriage rights away from homosexuals in California. Then they put this guy in charge of employees affected by his actions. They were the first to speak up about it. Whether or not you agree that they had a right to be concerned, you cannot seriously think they didn't at least have cause to go "Ummm... this is what he has already done, what will he do now?"
I get it, you are gay. That much is obvious. But that doesn't give you the right to go around slandering someone's name because at one point in time they disagreed with you.
Basically what you just said here was: "I assume(*) you're a victim of the actions of this man and you should keep quiet about it." Apparently he has more right to freedom of speech than any of us that happen to be on a differing side from you.
(*) Emphasis on the word 'assume' since you're taking a 50/50 gamble in the hopes that you're right so you can question my credibility. You'd think one that's so righteous wouldn't need to stoop to such dirty debate tactics.
That was round 2 of a heated name-calling debate and we're still not even talking about his beliefs. He destroyed his qualification to be a CEO at Mozilla through his actions, not his words. Actually this is really the point I'm making. I'm really not interested in changing your mind on gay marriage, so don't expect much of a response from me on the next go around.
He willfully made a donation that required him to list his employer. The reason for that rule is transparency. As for hostility, his donation went towards an ad-campaign that was anti-gay in nature. At the time he made his donation the campaign had already started, he knew what he was putting his money towards. As for how he'd behave as CEO, he had already demonstrated where he was and how far he was willing to go. Oh and he had already caused harm to his employees before taking the role. DURING his time at Mozilla.
Oh, and getting back on topic, notice we're not talking about his beliefs here. Oops, I was right, sorry.