Otherwise, if I say "my arm itches" and it didn't, it would be a felony.
So, the camera argument, unless they're looking for a camera that was used to bludgeon someone, how is lying about "you're being filmed" a felony, unless you're being investigated for some weird crime that involves not filming people.
To paraphrase out_of_the_blue himself: "your problem is that you refuse to generalize."
Blue actually believes that generalizing gives us the right answer. Nuance is non-existent. You can't try things on a case by case basis. Rich people are bad because being rich makes them bad. Anyone who says "some rich people are bad" is an idiot for even considering the possibility of the existence of a non-bad rich person.
It's the same for everything. He probably doesn't like food, or likes all food. Because "some food is bad" wouldn't be generalizing, and blue won't accept anything except blanket statements and generalizing.
I say we start the official World Please Don't Eat Any Nut-based Chocolate Spread Today Or You'll Get Sued Day. We can put it in any arbitrary date, let's say, February 5th.
"Will this file note that the two boys "pointed pencils at each other and made shooting noises?" Or will it state something to the effect that the boys broke the school's policy on violence and threatening behavior? My guess is the latter, which will allow anyone perusing the record to imagine the worst."
That's not an ad-hom, that's just an accurate description.
Ad-hom: out_of_the_blue is a (f.ex) vegan, and vegans know nothing about copyright!
Not ad-hom: out_of_the_blue's comments are completely idiotic and deluded, and show that he's a troll or insane, and demonstrate that he knows nothing about copyright.
Re: Re: Re:
That would be lying about an actual inquiry.
Otherwise, if I say "my arm itches" and it didn't, it would be a felony.
So, the camera argument, unless they're looking for a camera that was used to bludgeon someone, how is lying about "you're being filmed" a felony, unless you're being investigated for some weird crime that involves not filming people.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Read for comprehension!
Oh, I know what you mean.
Words is hard!
I guess more normal people can read "parsed words" just fine.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: whatever
Actually, with RIAA math, you have to recoup 5000 hours, so it took you zero minutes to come up with it.
Re: If the system could be changed, do away with trolling entirely!
TL;DR: "MIKE, Y U NO GENERALIZE!"
Re: Re: Re: Window dressing to conceal shift from payoffs to coercion.
To paraphrase out_of_the_blue himself: "your problem is that you refuse to generalize."
Blue actually believes that generalizing gives us the right answer. Nuance is non-existent. You can't try things on a case by case basis. Rich people are bad because being rich makes them bad. Anyone who says "some rich people are bad" is an idiot for even considering the possibility of the existence of a non-bad rich person.
It's the same for everything. He probably doesn't like food, or likes all food. Because "some food is bad" wouldn't be generalizing, and blue won't accept anything except blanket statements and generalizing.
(untitled comment)
I was about to complain about drones being too low but then I took a drone to the knee.
(untitled comment)
I say we start the official World Please Don't Eat Any Nut-based Chocolate Spread Today Or You'll Get Sued Day. We can put it in any arbitrary date, let's say, February 5th.
(untitled comment)
"Retired Lt. Col.: Violent Media Has Bred A Generation Of Killers"
Really? I thought the military did that.
*BURN*
Re: Re: Re: How droll
You're posting anonymously because you're scared. Got it.
Re: Re: Maybe it's because found other ways:
You're right, his brain melted out of his ears long ago.
Re: STOP IT!!
I was going to record a let's play but my camera's shut got stucked.
Re: Template hit! Anomaly, lawsuit, won't ever affect anyone else.
Oh lawks, that was covered here yesterday.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/15583223111/congress-grandstanding-over-goog le-glass-privacy-concerns-next-up-privacy-concerns-over-your-eyes.shtml
As usual, out_of_the_blue is out_of_the_loop.
Re: Re: Quick to Judge and WRONG
Must be fresh out of The Hole.
Re: OOTB
omg teh editior
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, so every heteroSEXUAL couple is in a loveless relationship just for the sex? Who'd have known!
Re: Re: Re: Re: How is it different?
Just wanted to add, this may not go well, what with having contracts with the actors and the cable companies and so on.
Re: Re: Re: How is it different?
You mean that if not enough people pay, a new episode of Game of Thrones won't be made?
Well, if they really need the "kickstart" YouTube money, sure, why wouldn't it work?
They'd have to cancel the show on TV and Cable and everywhere else too, however, if they don't reach the KickstarTube funding goal.
Re: libertarian deception
Haha. Racist spam.
Go back to Stormfront, bot.
Re: Re: Re:
From the article:
"Will this file note that the two boys "pointed pencils at each other and made shooting noises?" Or will it state something to the effect that the boys broke the school's policy on violence and threatening behavior? My guess is the latter, which will allow anyone perusing the record to imagine the worst."
Re: Re: Nothing to disagree with here! -- Because nothing here.
That's not an ad-hom, that's just an accurate description.
Ad-hom: out_of_the_blue is a (f.ex) vegan, and vegans know nothing about copyright!
Not ad-hom: out_of_the_blue's comments are completely idiotic and deluded, and show that he's a troll or insane, and demonstrate that he knows nothing about copyright.