EFF Pioneer Awards: Chelsea Manning, Annie Game… And Me
from the neat dept
So here’s a bit of nice news. Yesterday EFF announced this year’s Pioneer Award winners, and they included Chelsea Manning, Annie Game… and me. I’m humbled to win the award — but especially to be included with Chelsea and Annie, both of whom have gone to amazing lengths, and often sacrificed tremendous amounts, to do what they believe in to help make the world a better place. I just write about stuff. If you read Techdirt, you probably know about Chelsea Manning already — we’ve certainly written about her, what she’s done for this country, and the travesty of the charges and punishment she faced. Frankly, it’s a joke to put me in a list with Chelsea Manning. We don’t belong in the same conversation, let alone getting the same award. As for Annie Game — you might not know the name, but she’s a force to be reckoned with as well. She runs IFEX, which is on the front lines around the globe — especially in repressive authoritarian-led countries — fighting to protect a press that has few legal protections and standing up for free expression and access to information in very real and tangible ways (and sometimes in dangerous environments). I aspire to do work that will someday put me on a level with the things both Chelsea and Annie have done — but in the meantime, I’m happy to share this award with them.
If you have not been, the Pioneer Awards event is always a blast, so if you’re in the area on September 14th, please consider coming out to the ceremony. Tickets help support EFF, and I think we all know just how much amazing work EFF has done over the years.
Filed Under: annie game, chelsea manning, eff, pioneer awards
Comments on “EFF Pioneer Awards: Chelsea Manning, Annie Game… And Me”
Congrats
I think I can safely say that those of us that work with you couldn’t be prouder.
Re: Congrats
Don’t worry Cushing, if you keep shilling for them for a few more years, maybe they’ll publicly pat you on the head too.
Congratulations!
Nice to be recognized for the good you do supporting education and push for freedoms in this country!!
Congatulations!!
E
Congrats!
Glad for you, Mike! Congratulations!
Re: On jumping into the gears of the machine
When I consider how my light is spent
Ere half my days in this dark world and wide,
And that one talent which is death to hide
Lodg’d with me useless, though my soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present
My true account, lest he returning chide;
“Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?”
I fondly ask. But Patience to prevent
That murmur, soon replies: “God doth not need
Either man’s work or his own gifts; who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state
Is kingly. Thousands at his bidding speed
And post o’er land and ocean without rest:
They also serve who only stand and wait.”
‘When I Consider How My Light is Spent’ by John Milton
Groovy.
Since being staff disqualifies you from getting ‘Most Insightful of the Year’ when Dec 31 rolls around, it’s nice that you could get yourself a little something to make up for it.
Congratulations!
You may not be in the league of Chelsea Manning, but you are doing very good work! Hip-hip-hooray for all three of you!
Have fun at the ceremony 🙂
Congratulation Mike
Upward and onward.
you are not the sharpest tool in the shed, mr masnick. you know that, right?
Re: Re:
Copyrights best and brightest on display right here boys and girls. ROLL UP ROLL UP and everyone laugh at the freak.
Re: Re:
Sometimes you don’t need to be the sharpest: You can be as sharp or as blunt as you need to be to get your point across.
No matter how much the trash that blows in tries to attack you for hallucinatory defamation, there’s comfort to be taken in the fact that the rest of the world recognizes the good work you do, however insignificant your humbleness makes you believe your achievements are.
That sound you hear is average_joe, MyNameHere, out_of_the_blue, Hamilton and the other trolls angrily grinding their teeth in righteous outrage.
Congratulations, Mike.
Re: Heh, heh! BEST BIT of subtle satire here in a long time!
@ “That sound you hear is average_joe, MyNameHere, out_of_the_blue, Hamilton and the other trolls angrily grinding their teeth in righteous outrage.”
Unless of course one of the fanboys witlessly misused “righteous”: adj. 1. acting in a just, upright manner; doing what is right; virtuous [a righteous man] 2. morally right; fair and just [a righteous act] 3. morally justifiable [full of righteous anger] 4. [Slang] good, excellent, satisfying, pleasant, authentic, etc.: a generalized term of approval ÄSYN moral
Not sure on that, but do see only TEN comments in TWO hours? And Masnick PAYS one of them to fawn.
I congratulate Masnick on his modesty for publishing this “news” I’d never see if didn’t read Techdirt.
But I bet none of those persons more than roll their eyes as I did. Doesn’t surprise any critic that Google-funded EFF gives Google-boy Masnick free artificial publicity in the “best defamation” category.
Re: Re: Heh, heh! BEST BIT of subtle satire here in a long time!
Speak of the Devil…
Re: Re: Heh, heh! BEST BIT of subtle satire here in a long time!
How is this comment not flagged and censored after two hours?
Re: Re: Re: Heh, heh! BEST BIT of subtle satire here in a long time!
Good to know that everyone is watching the censoring now. I’ve been watching it for months. It’s really interesting, don’t you think? Comes in waves, as the actual censors wake up and do their censoring job. The UK censors usually come first, then the Canadian censors, sometimes they collide, that’s funny to watch. I was playing censor tag one time with Wendy Cockcroft, and she censored another censor, thought it was me. Funny, no? I set up the whole thing and documented it. Watch exactly when comments are hidden, it’s very informative about who Techdirt really is. Supremacists always censor others, because they have nothing noteworthy to say, and they know it, so they spend a lot of time silencing dissent. They’re all like that, KKK and Techdirt both. Their ideas are so weak they can’t stand others calling them out for what they are.
Re: Re: Re:2 Heh, heh! BEST BIT of subtle satire here in a long time!
Your respected leader Donald Trump respects the KKK.
I’ll let the mangled junk heap you call a brain slowly overheat to a crisp golden brown while it tries to work that out.
Congrats to use and Chelsea
Hey Mike, great to see that you found a new lady. And I think she fits you, you are both cut from the same cloth. You are both dedicated to breaking American law based on your individual ideology of supremacy, that your opinion should rule the day and to hell with American law and American values. I’ll bet you look cute together too. I was wondering if you could find a lady that would accept you, given your obvious shortcomings, and now you have! Great! Going to marry her (I hear you’re single)?
Re: Congrats to use and Chelsea
You are very sad.
Re: Re: Congrats to use and Chelsea
Well, you’ve got to admit, it’s a pretty dubious honor to be paired with Chelsea Manning publicly, right? I mean, most Americans hate him/her and believe he/she belongs in prison, right?
Re: Re: Re: Congrats to use and Chelsea
You can just say her, you know.
Re: Re: Re: Congrats to use and Chelsea
Your anti-trans bigotry has no place here.
Re: Re: Re:2 Congrats to use and Chelsea
Thank you, Stephen T. Stone for your obvious falsity. I clearly said (and believe) anything to do with sex is the choice of the individual, and I pass no judgement, in fact, I’m occasional wild and crazy sexual thoughts myself. Really, not that I want to go into here, but sure, I have crazy thoughts all the time. Everybody should, they’re fun. Treason is not crazy thought, it is something else altogether. I think treason is wrong, and your idiot characterization of bigotry shows you for what you are – a left wing supremacist, ready to call me a bigot, racist, whatever to defend someone who belongs in jail. Coward. You don’t have a non racist/bigot argument to call upon, idiot.
Re: Re: Re:3 LOLwut
Every “joke” you make about Chelsea Manning’s gender identity and genitalia is a judgment about her. Every time you talk about her that way, you judge her as being less of a person than you or I—if you even think of her as a person at all.
If Techdirt actually banned people from commenting here, those “jokes” should put you next in line for the banhammer.
Re: Re: Re:4 LOLwut
No, I don’t, you racist supremacist idiot. I make no judgement of her sexual orientation, and you saying I do only makes you a liar as well as a moron. Jokes are jokes, Moron, this is America. MAGA
Re: Re: Re:5 LOLwut
Sexual orientation ≠ gender identity
Take your anti-trans rhetoric elsewhere.
Re: Re: Re:6 LOLwut
Go ahead, suppress some more speech, you supremacist cowards. It will all come out in court. You get that, right? Techdirt’s character will soon be a public issue in open court, and the censorship policy is central to that character. Hide it all, go ahead, please. Speaks volumes, more than I could ever say. Go ahead and proudly promote your supremacist agenda by hiding any speech contradictory to your supremacist point of view. I love it, really, I could go on and on and on, and obvious enjoy doing so. But what’s my favorite? My hidden posts, these little seeds, buried in the dirt of this supremacist site, which will soon see the warm friendly light of the judge and the jury, where they can grow into the flowers of liberty, free speech, and fair play (like a big judgement for Shiva) Grow you little seedlings, and bye for now, you’re about to get buried! – Your day will come, my buried little seedlings of free speech! MAGA
Re: Re: Re:7 LOLwut
Techdirt’s stance on public comments does not matter even if Shiva can make the case that Techdirt actually defamed him. And besides, to clear that hurdle, he will have to disprove the facts that say “Shiva Ayyadurai did not invent email”—something he has never done before and will never be able to do.
Re: Re: Re:8 LOLwut
Are you very very sure about that, Stephen T. Stone? This site, which takes money on the basis of “I Support Journalism” and raises a quarter million dollars to promote “Free Speech”? The censorship policy doesn’t matter? Doesn’t matter to who? It will matter to the jury, I guarantee it. And when they see my gravestone rubbing Indian arrowhead finding famous family stories about Massachusetts history, culture and lore (remember Tajar?) how do you think they will feel about free speech on this site? Come Stephen, do you really think it won’t matter at all? Can’t say that I agree with you. I think it will. But hey, to each his own. That’s what we say here in Massachusetts instead of “fuck off asshole”. We say “to each his own”. Really, we’re like that.
Re: Re: Re:9 LOLwut
Supporting protection of the right to free speech and expression does not require Techdirt to give up all control over the comments sections. The right to free speech does not guarantee you the right to use someone else’s platform however you wish.
And again, none of that matters because Shiva’s lawsuit is about whether Techdirt defamed him by reporting actual facts and sharing legally-protected opinions. He has yet to disprove the facts or offer any reason why those opinions rise to the level of defamation when presented alongside the facts about who invented email.
Piss off, you vulgar troll.
Re: Re: Re:10 LOLwut
Stephen, in your small electronic world with your small screen and your small keyboard you forget one thing – people will decide this, not little dots on the screen. People, not your friends, not Techdirt friends, just common people with common sense (like me). They don’t give a rat’s ass about your interpretation of legal technicalities, they want justice done. That means they have to assign a hero and a villain, right? Who’s the hero in Massachusetts, you or Mike or PaulT? Kidding, right? How about Senator Shiva (on Fox News), look like a hero to you, or does the California Media Supremacist (literally shaking in his boots) looks like a hero? Come on, be honest, oh I forgot, you’re a supremacist, and have no interest in anyone’s opinion but your own. Oh well, to each his own.
Re: Re: Re:11 LOLwut
This entire comment offers nothing but a string of irrelevant nonsense designed to distract me and anyone else who reads this drivel from the fact that you have never addressed the factual arguments raised in my comments.
You did not address whether Shiva can disprove the truth about the development of email, a feat that would make his lawsuit against Techdirt far easier to win. You did not address how the opinions on Ayyadurai offered by Techdirt writers are not protected by the First Amendment. And you certainly did not address how the comments sections here on Techdirt—not to mention all the name-calling you decry yet hypocritically take part in with ridiculous phrases such as “media supremacist”—has any relevance to whether Shiva can prove Techdirt defamed him by saying “Shiva Ayyadurai did not invent email”.
I award you no points, and may God have mercy upon your soul.
Re: Re: Re:12 LOLwut
Not everyone agrees with you, Stephen, for example, I don’t. Right? That means it’s possible there is at least one more person like me, and (in fairness) one more person like you, though unlikely, that’s fair, right? And this is just a civil jury trial, right, simple majority rules, right? So, what do you think? I was raised in Massachusetts, I know a lot of people here, and have a family history that goes back before the US was founded. I’m a proud member of the Sons and Daughers of the Mayflower, the Sons and daughters of the Revolution, and have been inundated with local culture, lore and Massachusetts history most of my life. All I need is one more person to agree with me than you, and Shiva wins. What are the odds? Jury trial in Massachusetts, who knows them better, me or you?
Re: Re: Re:13 LOLwut
No matter where they are, a jury must still weigh the facts of a given case before making a decision. Shiva Ayyadurai has never disproven the facts that say he did not invent email. He will have to do just that if he hopes to prove his claim of defamation.
Re: Re: Re:14 LOLwut
But even you, Stephen, you addmitted he did invent Email. At a minimum, he invented and copyrighted a program named Email, and can prove it. So when he say he invented Email, even you have to play word games to try to assert that he did not. You change the time reference, you change the meaning of Email, and you say THERE, SEE? That’s crap, Stephen, a 10 year old can play that game. You recklessly besmirched the reputation of a future senator, and Mike is going to pay for your recklessness (probably).
Re: Re: Re:15 Let's demolish this once and for all.
And therein lies the problem: Shiva does not claim simply to have invented a program called “EMAIL”. He claims to have invented the first email program—and, by extension, email as we know it today.
For his claim to hold up, two facts must be proven true:
Only the first fact can be proven true—and that is primarily because he copyrighted his program. The second, however, must be considered untrue for the fact that ARPANET beat him to the punch.
“But he says he invented the first email program, not the first electronic messaging program!” Yes, he does. On his “Inventor of Email” website, Ayyadurai claims that his program was the first to offer functions that are both present in modern email and mimicked physical inter-office mail systems. But this still means nothing because RFC 733—published at least several months before he began work on his program—proposed a specific set of standards for the ARPANET messaging system. Those standards, and the three major protocols developed around them, would eventually become standards for email as we know it today. None of those standards or protocols were influenced by the work of Shiva Ayyadurai.
The facts are clear: Both the ARPANET messaging system and the standard-setting RFCs are the most direct and important influences on the development of what would become email as we know it today—and Shiva Ayyadurai had nothing to do with either of those. If he wants to win his lawsuit against Techdirt, he will have to prove that Techdirt knowingly defamed him by reciting those facts as the truth; he can only do that if he can prove those facts are not the truth.
Since he has never been able to do so, I wish him the best of luck in court. He is going to need all the luck he can get, given how his case has no legal foundation beyond “the mean man hurt my fee-fees”.
Re: Re: Re:16 Let's demolish this once and for all.
I’m sorry, did you say “by extension”? When someone says something “by extension”, does that mean “by my own personal private interpretation of what I think they meant”? Are you interpreting his words, or reporting his words? You can interpret his words to mean anything you want, obviously. So can he. What were his Actual words that you mock? “I invented Email”? Is that them? “By extension” indeed.
Re: Re: Re:17 Let's demolish this once and for all.
No, I do not. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the phrase “by extension” is defined as “taking the same line of argument further”. When I used the phrase in this sentence…
…it meant that I was extending the line of argument to encompass not just Ayyadurai’s claim that he invented “the first email program”, but his claim that he “email as we know it today”.
Yes.
I do not interpret his words to mean “anything [I] want”. I interpret his words based on their dictionary-defined meanings. He is the one who continually tries to re-define the meanings of words to his own benefit.
And you? You are deliberately trying to misuse and misinterpret words to deflect and distract from the fact that neither you nor the man you are defending has a factual, evidence-based argument to prove that Shiva Ayyadurai did not invent email.
Re: Re: Re:18 Let's demolish this once and for all.
Sorry, slight correction:
Re: Re: Re:18 Let's demolish this once and for all.
Naa, I’m just screwing with ya. You are too much fun. One thing I have to say about you left-wing supremacist jerks, you are committed to your cause. Look at Mike, his whole life is on the line, and he’s hooking up with a traitor, that’s commitment, no? And you, you’re great, you can go on and on and on, maybe more than me, that’s truly amazing. Commitment, no doubt. Doesn’t make you right, doesn’t make those damn democrats in congress right, but you are committed, that’s for sure. I guess skin-heads are committed too, David Duke is probably equally committed, those Muslim terrorists are really committed. Fanatics always are, right? Oh well, to each his own.
Re: Re: Re:19 Let's demolish this once and for all.
You seem awfully fanatical about defending Shiva Ayyadurai, but less so about defending him with facts that contradict the historical evidence which disproves his claims. I have to wonder why it is that you will defend him with such vigor and vitriol, but shy away when asked to offer a factual argument that backs up your defenses.
…oh, wait, now I remember: You don‘t have a factual argument to stand on. You have only obtuse, trollish behavior.
So piss off, you vulgar troll.
Re: Re: Congrats to use and Chelsea
SPOLILER ALERT
No, when that they shoot ol yeller is sad.
That is pathetic.
Congratulations.
No, you haven’t sacrificed as much as Chelsea Manning has, but you’ve still done good work, and you deserve recognition for it. We appreciate what you do.
Re: Re:
Wow, that’s true, isn’t it. There are sacrifices and there are sacrifices, certainly some I would never make, like my male member. That’s here to stay, for sure. What about you, Mike, thinking about switching teams? Would you do that for your cause? I always said you had balls, but that might be in question in the future, right? One piece of advice – if you do marry Chelsea, don’t bring her to court, I think a lot of people may recognize him/her and punish you for what he/she did. Just saying.
Congrats on the award. I do think it’s an odd year to give it to you, considering how much more Chelsea / Bradley put on the line in their lives. But I guess 3 is better than 1, right?
I also think it closes the circle. You have spent years as an effective recruiter for EFF, and now they reward you for it. The circle is complete.
Congrats, keep up the good work (and please, ask Karl to change topics from time to time, his droning on is getting dull!)
Re: Re:
You know, Tucker Carlson saw this and had a question about it – Mike, would you be willing to go on his show with Chelsea and have a debate about American law and American values with Shiva? Watters already did a segment with Shiva, and Tucker is ready to follow up if you can deliver. Come on, Mike/Chelsea! It’ll be great! I didn’t talk to Shiva yet (don’t know him actually) but I would bet money he’ll be fine with it. Come on, that would be entertainment, right?
Re: Re: Re:
Wow, those are some terrible idols you have.
Wow, Mike!
This is well deserved!
ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
OMFG! ANOTHER ZOMBIE FROM SIX YEARS AGO!
dickeyrat: 3 comments TOTAL in TEN years! Aug 17th, 2017, Jun 23rd, 2011, and Jul 10th, 2010!!! https://www.techdirt.com/user/dickeyrat
** OKAY, FANBOYS! EXPLAIN THIRD ZOMBIE POPPING UP AFTER SIX YEARS AND TWO MONTHS.**
YOU CAN’T, CUBED. — I fully expected my hooting to make it stop, but clearly whoever runs this site is BRAZEN.
Here are the prior two again:
27 June: https://www.techdirt.com/user/andrewlduane — On May 1st, 2017 pops up after about SIX years and five months before on Nov 23rd, 2010.
28 June: https://www.techdirt.com/user/slowgreenturtle Dec 15th, 2016, again SIX year and five month gap to Jul 13th, 2009.
NO ONE would recall name and password after SIX years, nor lurk that long with account handy.
Here’s another too ODD to be true: yankinwaoz: 100 (a nice even 10 comments per year), with 18 and 40 month gaps! (Also changed screen name around then.) From 27 Feb 2007 https://www.techdirt.com/user/yankinwaoz
** THREE MAKES CERTAINTY. If you don’t now suspect that many of the comments here are zombie sock-puppets, you ARE one!**
Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
Odd.. Are you SURE that it’s George Romero posting here? The alarms on the grave didn’t go off…
Oh, shit, you don’t think…
Zombie Groupies?
Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
I have accounts that are over a decade old.
Also:
His comment in 2010 was about Disney.
His comment in 2011 was about Disney.
His comment in 2017 is about Disney.
Your conspiracy is just getting dumber and dumber. Like a zombie.
Re: Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
Wow you guys are clever, what a comeback! This fake news site is just about to slip under the waves, and you argument against the obvious fakery of posters is your 10 year memory for passwords. Who believes that, any hands? Faker than Chelsea’s sexual organs, Techdirt could not be transformed into a legitimate news site any more than Chelsea and Mike could combine to conceive a legitimate idea, let alone children.
Re: Re: Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
How do you fit commenting on Techdirt into your busy schedule of commenting on YouTube videos and Breitbart articles?
Re: Re: Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
Also, you may have heard of email addresses, where you can have forgotten passwords reset.
Re: Re: Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
Also, you may have heard of email addresses, where you can have forgotten passwords reset.
Re: Re: Re:2 ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
Well, once again you do have to admire Mike for this, it does take balls, after all, to do what he’s doing. It took both of GI-Jerk’s balls, and may well cost Mike one or two of his own. I can’t really imagine what he’s thinking, I mean, demographic-wise. Who in an actual jury pool in Massachusetts is going to side with GI-Jerk and the California Media Supremacist against a young Indian John Kennedy (Shiva). I don’t think it’s going to work at all, but hey, who am I, no one special, just Mr. John Q. Public. Treason hater, fake news hater, how many people like me can there be in Massachusetts? Wait, I think I have that answer around here somewhere.. Let’s see. Everybody? Actually, everybody hates treason, and everybody hates fake news supported by fake posters. Nobody really cares about the transgender thing, that’s a personal choice, as long as you leave my children and their toilets out of it. What a world we live in, fake news aligning with fake ladies to throw stones at John Kennedy (Indian version), what’s next, really.
Re: Re: Re:3 ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
Take your anti-trans rhetoric elsewhere. It will win you no good will here.
Re: Re: Re:3 ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
What’s your actual jury pool in Massachusetts comprise of? Fairies and tigers? I think Masnick is safe.
Re: Re: Re:4 ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
Actually, they are composed of people pretty much like me, and I know you find that hard to believe. Here’s the difference about what is going to happen in court – people are going to hear two sides of an issue, and then are going to decide. We all know what Techdirt does not allow that to happen here – there is no “side” to their issue that can withstand any scrutiny. Their simplist arguments (a copyright is not patent) are just stupid, and in open court, in front of a jury, everyone will see that they are stupid. Another stupid argument: everyone agrees that at the time Shiva filed his copyright, if he said “I invented Email”, he would be uttering a truth. But now they say the same statement is not true, and he is a liar and a fraud. Hmm.. When exactly did he transition from a legitimate inventor, at the time of copyright, into a liar and a fraud, can you define just when that happened? Truth sayer when he first filed copyright, but liar and fraud now. Gee, that’s unusual, can you explain exactly how the same statement makes this transition? Or are you jerks just reckless in your self-excited paid mockery of upstanding and well educated citizens who are your betters? Are you reckless jerks? Of course you are, read Techdirt. Reckless with American law, American values, the American President and American history. Reckless jerks, all of you. Now you can pay for your reckless, and Mike will die (financially) for your sins. (Hmm.. doesn’t really paint Mike the way I intended, but maybe I’ll let it stand)
Re: Re: Re:5 Toilets are less full of shit than you, sir.
Is there anything in this comment that even remotely resembles some sort of argument as to why Shiva is going to win? Because name-calling and baseless claims are all I see here, and frankly, that is not enough to convince me that saying “Shiva Ayyadurai did not invent email” rises to the level of defamation.
Re: Re: Re:6 Toilets are less full of shit than you, sir.
Stephen simple question. When Shiva says “I (Shiva) invented Email”, he is a liar and a fraud, right? But if he said those SAME WORDS when he filed his copyright, he was not a liar or a fraud. Explain how that happened. Let me help you. You can’t, that’s pretty obvious, I’ve asked several times. You can’t answer when it’s true and when it’s false. Because you are reckless. Reckless. Reckless.
Re: Re: Re:7 Toilets are less full of shit than you, sir.
Ah, yes, some fun with linguistics. Oh, how I adore picking apart the usage of language like this.
We can agree that Shiva’s basic claim is “I invented email”. The only usage in which this is true is the one where he means, “I invented a program called ‘EMAIL’.” This is provably true thanks to the copyright on his program.
But the usage he wants everyone to believe is the one where he means, “I invented email as everyone today knows and uses it.” That particular usage is demonstrably false. The ARPANET messaging system is the proven direct progenitor of modern email, specifically because the ARPANET system was developed across “public” networks through the work of several developers. Ayyadurai’s program was created in, existed in, and died in isolation; it influenced nothing and was important to nobody but him.
Every time Ayyadurai makes his claim and expects people to believe the provably false interpretation of said claim, he is a liar at worst and a delusional fool at best. Any time he tries to make money off of his claim, he defrauds anyone who believes he invented modern email.
Shiva Ayyadurai did not invent modern email. He invented a program called “email”, in isolation from the real work being done on what would become modern email, and did not influence that work in any way. And if I ever have the chance, I will call him a liar to his face.
Re: Re: Re:8 Toilets are less full of shit than you, sir.
Thank you for that, goes to your reckless character. Very nice addition at the end, very useful. 🙂
Re: Re: Re:9 "Sue me for what?"
If Shiva Ayyadurai wants to sue me personally for calling him a liar based on documented facts that contradict his factually and knowingly false claim of having invented modern email as we know it, let him.
Re: Re: Re:5 ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
A copyright is not patent. They’re both under intellectual property law, but to muddle and equate the two together is the sort of any rational IP lawyer would not make.
Which would explain where you’re getting your legal advice.
Re: Re: Re:6 ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
Thank you, of course you are right, a copyright is not a patent. However, both are connected to proof of authorship and proof of invention.
Re: Re: Re:7 ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
I think it was Stephen T. Stone that previously said that since Shiva didn’t patent Email, he didn’t invent it. When I pointed out that many (most) things that are invented are never patented, even he agreed to stop that argument. It was a stupid argument to begin with, just like the others, and even Stephen (hard to convince) got over that one. The other ones are just stupid, too. You guys hurt a good man for no reason other than your own enjoyment and commitment to a globalist un-American cause. You should not have hurt him, he really is a nice man. Ask Noam Chomsky (I did).
Re: Re: Re:8 Proof of invention
Even if Shiva never got a patent on his program, that fact does not prove his claim that his work became the foundation of modern email and ARPANET’s did not.
Re: Re: Re:9 Proof of invention
It only does not prove it to you, Stephen. It does not prove it to you because you are a Techdirt Supremacist, nobody could you prove anything to you, you are a reckless unreasonable jerk. Try to argue with that. 🙂
Re: Re: Re:10 Proof of invention
Jerk, maybe, but at least I do not lie about having invented modern email as we know it.
Re: Re: Re:11 Proof of invention
You’re OK in my book, Stephen, and I do have a book really. Hand written, daily diary, no big blanks spaces, numbered, just like judges like. And you’re in it, and you’re OK! Mike not so much, probably not going to bode well for him, but that’s not the issue, is it. You’re OK in my book, Stephen.
Re: Re: Re:12 Oh look, a wannabe Kira.
Son, if I have learned anything in my life, it is that people who keep lists of names in notebooks do so for three purposes: accounting, employee tracking, and figuring out who should get the first bullet.
Which number am I on your hit list, sir?
Re: Re: Re:13 Oh look, a wannabe Kira.
No hit list, my supremacist friend (I do kind of like you, actually), it’s a technique to establish the legitimacy of evidence in court, judges really like it. I told you this before, maybe you forgot. Hand written diaries are really effective in court, trust me on this, lots of experience. If you want to make money and then keep it (somebody always tries to take it), you have to learn how to keep records that work in front of a judge, everybody rich knows that, my supremacist friend.
Re: Re: Re:14 Oh look, a wannabe Kira.
Son, if you think any of my comments are going to be relevant in any court of law, I‘ll remind you that I have consistently and repeatedly ask you to disprove the claim “Shiva Ayyadurai did not invent email as we know it today” and you have not once ever tried to do that. So hey, record and report me all you want.
It makes no damn bit of difference to me, seeing as how Shiva is the liar. I’m not the one going around and claiming to have invented email in spite of the documented evidence saying otherwise.
Re: Re: Re:7 ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
Copyright only proves that somebody wrote something, and has nothing to do with proving invention, as it is quite legal to write a description of somebody else invention.
Re: Re: Re:8 ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
But then you invented the description, didn’t you? It’s your original description, you invented your description, and you own your description, and if you filed a federal copyright, you can prove it, right?
Re: Re: Re:9 Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
I could write a detailed description of email, submit it to the US Copyright Office, and receive a copyright on that description.
Having that copyright does not mean that I invented email.
Re: Re: Re:10 Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
Yes, you are quite right, if you did that now, using a description of Email that you studied and understood and was authored by someone else. But what if you did it then, before there was Email, and without studying someone else’s invention? What if no one else even called it Email, but you did and could prove it? A little trickier, right? No one is saying Shiva is absolutely right, and no one is saying he is absolutely wrong. What is being said is he is arguably right, and calling him a liar and a fraud is just reckless, nasty, bad manners, ill advised, unwarranted, unfair, immature, and generally cost him a lot of money and grief, which you will soon have to refund him, that’s all.
Re: Re: Re:11 Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
That depends on whether I was trying to backdate and shoehorn my work into the history books. You know, just like Shiva Ayyadurai is trying to do when he claims that he invented email despite the factual, historical evidence that says otherwise.
His invention was created in, lived in, and died in isolation. ARPANET’s work on networked messaging predates the creation of his work, making it the proven direct progenitor of modern email. Neither you nor he can disprove the evidence which backs up those two statements.
Re: Re: Re:12 Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
OK, my friend, thank you again. “His invention” indeed, that’s progress, right? He did invent something, even you would agree with that, right? Did it have a name? Oh wait, I think it did, and I think he wrote it down, and I think he recorded it in the library of congress. Shiva invented something, you are on board with that, give me the name, please. What did Shiva invent? Come on buddy, you can do it! Spit it out! (Why do I get the feeling you’re actually working for me? Did you switch sides?)
Re: Re: Re:13 Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
He invented a program called “EMAIL” in isolation from the work being done on the actual direct progenitor of modern email. He also was not the first person to use or think of the phrase “electronic mail” or the subsequent “email” portmanteau. Why, it is almost as if he has to misrepresent historically documented evidence to prove his claims. Imagine that.
Re: Re: Re:13 Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
As often as not the inventions made in isolation turn out to be a re-invention of something that already exists, and as such does not give the inventor rights to claim he invented the fruits of other peoples labor.
Re: Re: Re:13 Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
“What did Shiva invent?”
A program he called “email”, based on pre-existing concepts. If I write a spreadsheet program and copyright it with the name “spreadsheet”, that doesn’t mean I can put my name in the history books as inventing the spreadsheet.
Even you’re not as stupid as you pretend to be. Neither is that liar and fraud Shiva who you try to so valiantly defend – he knows he’s a con man.
Re: Re: Re:14 Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
Hey, here’s a free legal lesson for you guys: The more words you need for your argument, the weaker it is. Shiva invented Email, and has the copyright to prove it. 10 words. Refute it, citing evidence (as he does) in 10 words or less. Go.
Re: Re: Re:15 Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
Every concept in email existed before his work did.
Re: Re: Re:16 Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
9 words, very good. But it actually means nothing, right? Just because concepts exist does not mean they have been combined into an invention. Try again.
Re: Re: Re:17 Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
Shiva’s claim to be the inventor of modern email hinges, in part, on the notion that he combined those concepts into a single program before anyone else ever did, in part or in whole.
He did not. At all.
Re: Re: Re:18 Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
Did I count 34 words? Loser! (Not you, your argument)
Re: Re: Re:19 Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
I have an argument. Where is yours?
Re: Re: Re:20 Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
Filed copyright. Truthful statements. 4 words.
Re: Re: Re:21 Nope.
His copyright means only that he wrote his program when he did. He still has to answer for every other false or misleading claim that can be demolished by documented historical facts.
Re: Re: Re:22 Nope.
And the name of his program was ….? “His copyright means only that he wrote Email when he did”. That’s fair, right, the name of his program was “Email”, so this is a fair substitution, right? And wrote can be substituted with “Invented”, right, since he didn’t copy it from anybody.
“His copyright means only that he invented Email when he did”.
That’s actually factually accurate, right?
Re: Re: Re:23 Nope.
Technically, yes, his program was called “email”. But he was not the first person to use that particular portmanteau.
Re: Re: Re:24 Nope.
But he didn’t just use it, he invented it. Real code, filed in the library of congress, Email. Wow, he’s pretty amazing, huh? Good looking, too, and well spoken. Kind of easy to make him a hero, isn’t it? You have any heroes, Stephen?
Re: Re: Re:25 Nope.
No, he did not. He can possibly lay claim to parallel first usage of the word with CompuServe. But the phrase “electronic mail”, from which “email” is derived”, had been in use well before Shiva ever wrote a line of code. And simply coming up with the word would still not make him the word’s “inventor”, as he would have to prove that he was the first person ever to think of that specific portmanteau, and that is something which he cannot do.
And even if—if!—he could do such a thing, it would still not prove his claim that he is the inventor of modern email as we know it.
Re: Re: Re:23 Nope.
“And the name of his program was ….?”
So, if I write a program that I call “electricity” and I get that name copyrighted, you think that means I can claim to have invented electricity?
Re: Re: Re:24 Nope.
Straw man, not even clever. Stupid, actually, like you usually are. Nothing to say again? Better to stay quiet.
Re: Re: Re:25 Nope.
So, we can add “straw man” to the list of concepts you don’t understand.
Re: Re: Re:21 Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
Copyright irrelevant. 2
Re: Re: Re:11 Copyrighted descriptions mean nothing.
“But what if you did it then, before there was Email, and without studying someone else’s invention?”
There is such a thing as multiple discovery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery
But, it doesn’t mean that one of the inventors can honestly claim to be the only originator, as that liar and fraud Shiva is trying to do.
“What is being said is he is arguably right, and calling him a liar and a fraud is just reckless”
No, it’s true. In the early 80s, one might be tempted to give him the benefits of a doubt. 30 years later and trying to build a career solely on something he knows is untrue? Sorry, he’s a fraud and liar and you know it.
“generally cost him a lot of money and grief”
Good. People who are attempting to extract money and power through fraud and lies deserve every cost they acquire.
Re: Re: Re:6 ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
“rational”
You have identified the thing missing from this AC poster. Wow.
Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
Out of all of your wacko conspiracy theories, this one really make me laugh, Blue.
It doesn’t even dawn on you that other people might maintain a Techdirt login to retain their viewing preferences and are only occasional commenters.
I know I personally prefer to be logged into Techdirt when reading the articles because I prefer the page width set to "variable" which fills up my HD monitor, instead of a small column in the middle of the screen. I am always logged in when reading Techdirt, even when I don’t plan on commenting.
Re: Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
Shit I need to make an account now, I actually didn’t know that making an account would allow you to set the column width.
Re: Re: Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
Actually it can save the settings on any old device – it’s under ‘Preferences’.
Re: Re: ZOMBIE ATTACK WARNING!
I thought I had an account for longer than this, but I guess not. I eventually got tired of commenting as an AC.
Another account perk: There’s now an unused “turn off Techdirt ads” button in my account settings.
Despite the US government having been usurped by a slew of globalmongers she still put 320,000,000 Americans at potential risk by openly spilling the beans on what those globalmongers were up to.
Re: Re:
Prove it.
Re: Re: Re:
Well, Stephen, my supremacist friend, how this this for proof: You remember OJ Simpson? Got off on a murder beef, right, but then what happened? Civil suit, another trivial criminal beef, and what happened? Bang, he lost all his money and his freedom with a really unreasonable jail term. Why? Because of people’s feelings. People felt he got away with something, and they didn’t like it. He was an unpunished villain, and people dished out some pretty severe justice. Now, put the picture of Mike on stage with GI-Jerk accepting an award in court, and what is the jury going to see? An unpunished villain, right, and his/her buddy? Obama let that convicted criminal out of jail, and no one likes it, that’s the truth. So now put Mike next to GI-Jerk, and what’s going to happen? Duh, people are going to punish Mike for the traitor that he shamelessly promotes as.a hero. People, Stephen, people, that’s what you’ve got to think about, that’s why it’s so unprofitable to be a supremacist. You can’t relate to people when you’re a supremacist, whether it be a media supremacist like Mike or a racist supremacist like you. People, in the end, will dish it out to you when they think you deserve it. Not me, of course, I like you (Mike not so much) but juries are gangs, never forget that. They’re little gangs that speak only to each other and reinforce both their best and worst qualities. And they don’t like traitors, or traitor aiders. Traderaider, I think I invented a word, how about that! You’re a traitoraider, Mike, you California Media Supremacist, you and your ilk.
Re: Re: Re: Xavier, Renegade Angel, would be proud.
Can we vote this specific sentence in as Funniest Comment of the Week? This sentence is so absurd that it is practically a work of art. If @dril saw this, he would get jealous that he did not think of it first.
Re: Re: Re:2 Xavier, Renegade Angel, would be proud.
I knew I would win you over eventually. 🙂
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Bang, he lost all his money and his freedom with a really unreasonable jail term. Why? Because of people’s feelings”
Well, that and the actual crimes he committed. But, why would you let facts get in the way of a good story, that’s not your style!
“Obama let that convicted criminal out of jail, and no one likes it, that’s the truth”
I’m not sure which is dumber, the fact that you think Obama was personally involved, the fact that you apparently think that he was president in July 2017 when Simpson was released or the fact that you think that a president should be demanding people spend longer than their sentenced term in jail.
“I think I invented a word”
Well, you invent your own reality and definition of sanity, so words must be easy.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“July 2017 when Simpson was released”
Ah, correction: that was when he was granted parole. He’s not actually out of jail until October 1st.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Obama let GI- Jerk out of jail, and Nobody American liked it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
On the contrary: Plenty of Americans celebrated the commutation of Chelsea Manning’s sentence.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Name one American who liked it that is not a Techdirt Supremacist.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Chelsea’s family.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Weak, but strictly fair, I guess. Maybe you have to win this round. Wait a minute, any evidence to back that up?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I think the “convicted criminal” being referred to was Chelsea Manning, not OJ Simpson. IIRC, Manning received a pardon (in some form) from Obama.
The “and no one likes it” is demonstrably false, though.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
A commutation, not a pardon. A pardon expunges the conviction; a commutation doesn’t.
A question for all you non-white Supremacists
Here’s what I’ve been wondering: see if you are with me on this.. Ink America, in the past, only white men voted. As a group, because they were so fiercely committed to their American ideals, they worked (potentially) against their own interests – they voted to let other groups vote. They voted to let black people vote, they voted to let women vote, those white men voted to open their society and really include others in the most important way, because they felt in their heart and with the wisdom that God gives us all that it was the right thing to do. Now, I hear a LOT of media coverage of the idea that white men should be DENIED the vote. What does that say about white men, and what does that say about everyone else?
Re: What
What
Re: A question for all you non-white Supremacists
“What does that say about white men, and what does that say about everyone else?”
Well, to me it says nothing about either. It says a lot about the you and the echo chamber the you to appear to have isolated yourself in.
A white non-supremacist.
Am I the only one chuckling because a post about an EFF award (for free speech) includes about 25% of the posts being flagged and as a result censored from the normal view?
The cognitive dissonance runs deep around here!
Re: Re:
Well, you would be the one stupid enough to think there’s any kind of hypocrisy so you are probably the only one chuckling.
The drooling idiocy of your friends is still visible to anyone who wishes to click on the comments. They’re really just not worth the time.
Re: Re: Re:
They’re obvious worth enough time to censor. There are like little badges of honor. Getting you supremacists to condemn something automagically makes it “worth the time”. Why else would you supremacists care?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“They’re obvious worth enough time to censor.”
Are you still under the delusion that there is a person doing this rather than a software algorithm? I seem to remember asking for evidence to the contrary that mysteriously never appears. Perhaps because it doesn’t exist?
Plus, no matter how much you mental midgets whine about it, nothing is being censored. This is just the community warning each other that some comments aren’t worth the time to read.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Paul, the posts that are hidden are hidden because enough “account holders” push the flag button, and not much else.
If your post is held for moderation, it never makes it here and never gets marked as flagged. It’s two different things.
I know, two things. Hard for you to imagine, right?
” This is just the community warning each other that some comments aren’t worth the time to read.”
No, it’s a very small part of the overall readership deciding what the rest of the people should read. That’s the basis of censorship, when the few tell the majority what to read.
I actually think at this point that the threshold is so low that it takes only a handful of “flags” to get thing shut down. As a result, one or two people likely have enough sock puppet accounts to log on and flag anything they like into hidden status. Ad one or two people like you (who clearly flags everything he disagrees with) and boom, thing get hidden.
It’s not the same as the dreaded “held for moderation”. You never get to flag those, because you never see them.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
"If your post is held for moderation, it never makes it here and never gets marked as flagged."
Funny, I’ve made posts as an AC (before signing up), using TOR even, that were "held for moderation." A couple hours later, my posts went through, and never got flagged after they appeared.
Gee, it’s almost like only spam and other detritus gets blocked, not legitimate comments.
"No, it’s a very small part of the overall readership deciding what the rest of the people should read. That’s the basis of censorship, when the few tell the majority what to read."
Except flag-throwing users have zero control over what others can read, since the flagged trolling/abuse remains in-place and readable, should one choose to do so. The only comments I’ve ever seen removed are bots posting malicious/scam links (and sometimes not even then).
Even if Techdirt were to start kicking you vermin to the curb, it still wouldn’t be censorship or violating your free speech, just the opposite. Techdirt has the first-amendment right to free association. They’re 100% in their rights if they choose to no longer have their speech platform associated with perpetual liars.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
You are correct – posts held for moderation and posts flagged have nothing to do with each other.
“Except flag-throwing users have zero control over what others can read, since the flagged trolling/abuse remains in-place and readable, should one choose to do so. “
Not completely true. Flagged comments are (a) not presented at the same time as others, and (b) are not indexed by Google, and (c) are as a result not searchable on Google. In essence, the comments are not given the same standing or exposure.
“Even if Techdirt were to start kicking you vermin to the curb, it still wouldn’t be censorship or violating your free speech, just the opposite. Techdirt has the first-amendment right to free association. They’re 100% in their rights if they choose to no longer have their speech platform associated with perpetual liars.”
You are correct again, but you are managing to completely miss the point. Techdirt often points out and mocks sites that turn off comments or otherwise disable comment son their sites, mocking their lack of “free speech”. In my books, if Techdirt wants to be a bastion of free speech, then that should start at home.
The use of comment flagging because you don’t agree with the opinion expressed isn’t free speech. It’s working to eliminate speech you don’t like. That’s the first step in hate.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I only flag comments that look like trollish bullshit or contain disingenuous arguments made for the sake of taking a potshot at this site and those who regularly comment here. If that tends to overlap with a good chunk of your comments, well, you have to solve that problem yourself.
Techdirt can be a “bastion of free speech” and still hide comments behind the community flagging system. Discretion is “we are not going to say this”. Censorship is “you are not going to say this”. Techdirt’s discretion—automated or manual—does not prevent the people with flagged comments from making those exact same comments anywhere else.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
You are correct again, but you are managing to completely miss the point. Techdirt often points out and mocks sites that turn off comments or otherwise disable comment son their sites, mocking their lack of "free speech". In my books, if Techdirt wants to be a bastion of free speech, then that should start at home.
Not so, when TD points out sites disabling comments they are very good about pointing out that the sites are absolutely within their rights to do so, that if they don’t want to deal with comments they don’t have to and don’t ‘owe’ it to people. What they call them out on is the blatant lies about how disabling comments is a show of respect or support for the ones making them, ‘mocking’ them for the laughably wrong assertions that disabling comments is somehow encouraging visitor interactions.
That, not ‘sites disabling comments is bad’ is the focus of those stories, and there is nothing inconsistent between defending free speech in general and allowing the community to report those that that they feel are making a mess of the forum provided for discussion, being disruptive or in general being a pest.
The use of comment flagging because you don’t agree with the opinion expressed isn’t free speech. It’s working to eliminate speech you don’t like. That’s the first step in hate.
So long as you continue beating up this strawman it makes it impossible to take you seriously. It’s possible that people are flagging comments because they ‘don’t agree with them’, but I’m fairly sure that’s the minority, with most being aimed quite rightly at spam/trollish/abusive comments.
If for example you can’t understand why the comments made by the individual you originally defended are being flagged, and think that it’s simply because ‘people don’t agree with their opinions’ then I can only assume that you’ve got vastly different standards for acceptable behavior and what exactly counts as ‘trollish/abusive’.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
In the game of Troll Bingo, "You’re just calling me a troll because I disagree with you!" is the free square.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Who uses Google to search for comments on a website? Do you sincerely, honestly believe that people search for comments that you or others make en masse, on a website that you claim is insignificant because its Alexa rankings are dropping?
(And apparently if this happens to sites that are reported for piracy, regardless of whether they actually contribute to piracy or provide pirated material, you’re somehow fine with this. But your comment being hidden is suddenly a First Amendment travesty. Copyright fans gotta have double standards, I guess.)
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“(b) are not indexed by Google, and (c) are as a result not searchable on Google”
Why would you be searching Google for the content of the comments?
“Techdirt often points out and mocks sites that turn off comments or otherwise disable comment son their sites, mocking their lack of “free speech”.”
Which is why they don’t do those things. However, the community also demands some control, and we’re given the largest amount possible without removing other rights to anonymity, etc.
“The use of comment flagging because you don’t agree with the opinion expressed isn’t free speech.”
Yes, it is – it’s the people commenting telling you something. That you’re too stupid or self-centred to understand the message does not make it not free speech. Again, free speech does not shield you from consequences or criticism, and the community telling you that you’re an insufferable dick that’s not worth reading is their exercise of speech.
That’s one of the reasons so many find you insufferable – you not only demand a free platform to spew your deflections and lies unchallenged but demand that nobody has the opportunity to enjoy the conversation unfettered by you.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“If your post is held for moderation, it never makes it here and never gets marked as flagged”
Lies. I’ve recently had comments held for moderation and they always appear.
“Hard for you to imagine, right?”
Perhaps start dealing with verifiable facts rather than what you can personally imagine, then? It’s a little easier.
“As a result, one or two people likely have enough sock puppet accounts to log on and flag anything they like into hidden status”
Or, regular people thinking “oh ffs really” and clicking report instead of reply when they read the next round of utter bollocks spewing from your keyboard?
Again, just because you have invented a reality where you’re the poor innocent victim, that may not be true.
“It’s not the same as the dreaded “held for moderation”. You never get to flag those, because you never see them.”
Yes we do, because judging by the number of times you and your AC inbred sympathisers bitch about comments being held that are completely visible, we read, reply and flag them all the time.
Re: Re:
You may be the only one, but this is because you suffer under the mistaken belief that a person fighting for and respecting the right of free speech and expression must also be forced into giving up control of a platform they own to anyone who asks for it.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, he is mistaking what you Supremacists do with what Americans do. In America, we give people platforms for free speech, without censoring them. This blog is just not American, as you can see by their heroes.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the United States, people who own platforms for expression offer access to those platforms. Unless the platform is government-owned, access to that platform can be revoked at any time by the platform’s owner for any reason—including no reason at all. Even your right to use public spaces can be rescinded based on a limited set of factors. The right to free speech does not give you the right to force someone else into hosting that speech.
Re: Re:
Considering all the love letters you wrote to Hamilton, I’m not surprised you find such a soft spot for him.
Re: Re: Re:
Well, that’s not very fair to my supremacist friend Stephen, is it? He always disagrees with me, and never writes me love letters. In fact,I’m not sure he has written anyone a love letter, ever. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? See, I’m right, by Stephen’s own logic.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Evidence? Here. You can read My_Name_Here’s declarations of love to you; they are plentiful. After all, you click through garbage hidden behind grey text.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170602/12424237507/erasing-history-trump-administration-returning-cia-torture-report-to-be-destroyed.shtml
I’m guessing most of it is undying love, because I’m not reading through all that lovesick fanfiction you like to peddle so much.
Re: Yeah, it's just you
Because you apparently need to be reminded, take it away XKCD.
Re: Re:
Just be happy that TD has attracted somebody far crazier than you.
Congratulations, Mike! Techdirt is my favorite blog. The award is well deserved.
Congratulations Mike!
I’ve said already but it’s worth repeating: congratulations!
I disagree that you “just write” and “aren’t on the same level”. There’s no weapon as powerful as the pen (or the keyboard for modern times heh) and that’s why authoritarian people and countries try so hard to suppress speech.
Your contribution is not to be underestimated and the fact that you have been recognized multiple times through different channels (with mentions to your work) is evidence of the importance. Heck, the trolling in this very article is definitive evidence you are doing it awesomely right.
I’d like to congratulate the rest of TD writers. It’s obvious that Mike doesn’t do it alone and you have all earned the award along with him. Congratulations!
Re: Re:
Actually, I would say they were doing something awfully left.
Here's a thought experiment you might enjoy
Consider the censorship above, and consider how specific it is. Does anyone really believe that this comes from “the community”? How does any community become so completely one sided, never censoring commentary from the left and always censoring commentary from the right? Answer: Of course it does not. There is no Techdirt Community. There is only the Grand Poobah of Supremacist Censorship (Mike) enforcing his ideology and lying about it. That’s the simplest, most obvious, and plain truth about Techdirt. Enjoy your date with Chelsea, you deserve each other.
Re: Here's a thought experiment you might enjoy
“There is no Techdirt Community.”
Then who are the people you keep attacking with your rambling idiocy?
Re: Re: Here's a thought experiment you might enjoy
Don’t wrestle with hogs – they just drag you down into the dirt and have fun while they’re doing it.
Here’s a question for you, PaulT, and it’s a sincere one: It seems to me that accepting a public award with GI Jerk will hurt Mike in the eye of the American public more than anything I could ever say or do. I really cannot imagine why he would want to be associated with this particular individual, whom many people call a traitor. A traitor. Is this a political message? Like, is there some community, inside America, that sees this as an honor? Could you, PaulT, or any other American explain the merits of appearing in public with a traitor to the country, our country, America. Is there another story where Chelsea is not a traitor, could you explain it? I can’t find it, but maybe you could open my mind to a new perspective. In all sincerity.
Re: Re:
“Could you, PaulT, or any other American”
I’m not American, nor located anywhere on your continent. If you were as interested in reading what I actually post as you are in typing utter crap, you’d have noticed that by now.
But, this is why your jingoistic nonsense is so fun to respond to – it’s not only incredibly silly from my point of view, but dripping with ignorance.
Re: Re: Re:
OK, sorry, you’re right, you’re a foreigner and I forgot. But come on, I still can’t understand why Mike is interested in Chelsea, other than to sleep with her. I mean, I get that, but that’s not we’re talking about, is it? Chelsea probably isn’t going to give up anything to Mike, he just looks too desperate, I think she plans to just appear with him in public celebrating their celebrity. I can’t get over the “traitor” thing, I’ve researched it, seems pretty much everybody agrees Chelsea is a traitor to America. How does that help anyone to identify with? How do you see it? Do you think Chelsea was a traitor, or not a traitor. If a traitor, that’s bad, right, or is being a traitor good in your view? It’s not a usual view, traitors are usually bad, comes with the meaning of the word. Or is there an argument that Chelsea is not a traitor, would you argue that? I just don’t get it, honestly. Is there a “traitor” party, like the “Pirate” party? What’s the deal, really?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe it’s just a desperate way to get some publicity, I once heard that bad publicity is better than no publicity. I’ve been thinking about it, and that’s all I’ve come up with in my personal ponderings. From that point of view, maybe some shirts would help celebrate the event, that could be good, right? How about “I’m with the traitor” for you and all you Techdirt supremacists, I’ll bet all your fans would be happy to wear it for you, Mike. Not me, I wouldn’t wear one, but I might buy one, just like a historical thing. I guess anyone who goes and buys the $75 tickets is pretty much saying that anyway, right? And we’ll get pictures of them all, right, that will be good. Pre-identified traitor party members, cool.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Why do you keep saying “Supremacists”, nobody here has advocated any kind of “were better than you” position based on political position, race or sex. NOT listening to you is not the same as advocating a superior position.
Hiding your comments has nothing to do with the concept of supremacy, nor is it censorship (we can see all your comments, I just wasted about half an hour reading through them).
It’s very hard to take you seriously when you intersperse every comment with bigoted, hateful, angry, condescending remarks in every post you’ve ever made.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Yes you do. Look at the articles about Thailand and the Thai king. You supremacists are absolutely sure that view is superior to everyone’s view, but your own. Pretty hard to argue otherwise, the censoring speaks for itself.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
And… you care why, Hamilton? What the Thais believe doesn’t matter, because you’re supposed to be American. Or are you secretly a globalist?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
You see, that’s what you supremacists don’t understand. Americans have a long history of tolerance and acceptance of other countries and other cultures. Live and let live, that’s our motto, for those outside of the US. Peaceful co-existence, that’s our our belief. The Thai people have their own peaceful, productive and happy nation and are not subject to American law. Why should they be? Only TechDirt Supremacists, with their total absence of morals, ethics, education and manners could demean an entire country and an entire culture so disgustingly, and then giggle about it. No different than skin-heads or neoNazis. No difference at all. And it doesn’t matter if they area demeaning law abiding Americans (like Shiva) or law abiding Thai people, their self-proclaimed moral superiority is on display for all to see. With disgust.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Actually it’s quite easy to see why you’re so hot under the collar. Thais believe that their king is literally a deity and are not above using lese majeste laws to silence suspected infringement, including challenges to heavy-handed military crackdowns of dissidents.
Seeing your constant support of Trump, who in fact supports the Supremacists you claim to loathe, it’s no wonder why you’re so enamored. It’s because you’re an authoritarian, and a specimen of the simpering, easily outraged variety at that.
President Trump would rather saw off his own leg than admit that the Supremacists screwed up, big time. He’d rather blame the “alt left”, which you have proclaimed a great dislike for as well.
We’ll just stand behind the safety barriers while the putrid rubbish dump you use for a brain starts to overheat.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Ok good.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look, just because you’re obsessed with this site due to some deeply repressed feelings about Mike, that doesn’t mean he believes the same about anyone else. Your fixation on things of a sexual nature is rather disturbing, but as ever I congratulate Mike on allowing the community to decide the value of your comments rather than blocking you outright. You often cross lines that would have you banned completely from other venues.
“OK, sorry, you’re right, you’re a foreigner and I forgot.”
This has no bearing on my input, nor the ability for me to join in the conversation. Your weird nationalist fixation doesn’t change the fact that your words are visible across the entire planet, nor the fact that everyone reading them can respond. Retreat to whatever US-only hole you wish if you find the other 95% of the world’s population uncomfortable to acknowledge.
“I’ve researched it, seems pretty much everybody agrees Chelsea is a traitor to America.”
Your research appears lacking, but given that you apparently hold anyone outside of a narrow definition to be suspect you’re hardly going to get the truth of the matter.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Apparently foreigners can’t respond to him, but because one Asian nation deified their monarch, he suddenly can’t stand it when they’re criticized.
It’s too bad Shiva can’t invent a way to pick a better PR attack dog…
Congrats Mike. I think Chelsea is kinda cute myself.
Pioneer Award
You deserve the award for making people aware of various aspects of government and corporate actions. Nor are you avoiding wrist, as witness you SLAPP suit. Thank you for all you do!
Mike? Don’t undersell yourself. You deserve that award just as much as they do, because without reporters willing to speak up, no amount of leaks or speech protections would do anything.
Congrats
Some pretty important things have been covered by TD over the years, and neither threats minor or major have stopped you from covering them so I’d call that an important action worthy of being noted.
However, if you feel that you don’t deserve to be put on the same level as the other two named in the award I’d say use that as motivation to strive to be even better than before so that you do feel like you deserve equal recognition with them.
“neither threats minor or major have stopped you from covering them”
And Mike’s shining the spotlight on threats to society minor amd major via his writing has played some part in stopping some of them, by bringing them to the attention of the right (or just to enough) people. Kudos to Mike.