Re: Re: drawing the line (in case you're not trolling)
No self defense against women by men? Yeah, bullshit. I haven't watched the video of the incident in question, so I don't know what he did in this particular instance was justified, but as a general principle it's absolutely fine.
This is a secret interpretation of what the government is allowed to do. There hasn't (yet) been any (documented) instances of secret interpretations of laws about what private citizens are prohibited from doing.
Citing security reasons, the U.S. has intervened in routine state public records cases and criminal trials regarding use of the technology.
The linked article didn't have much details on this. Did a defense attorney attempt to challenge the use of the cell tower spoofer, but to do so would need details about the spoofer, and the DA refused to hand over the info on grounds of national security?
Now I'm not trying to lay the blame for this at the feet of the Slender Man phenomenon, but there is a big difference between things like video games and Dungeons & Dragons vs Slender Man, which is that the former are games to be played, while with Slender Man a lot of it is non-game content presented as if it was real. If you're playing a game then what you're playing can't be real, as you're in the middle of playing it, so you'd have to be really delusional to think it's real. But with Slender blogs and vlogs, since they're not something being played, a person doesn't need to be nearly as delusional to think they're real.
Of course, if these two girls actually believe what they're saying, in addition to being delusional, they're sociopathic enough to not only be willing to commit human sacrifice, but they also want to be the servants of an eldritch abomination. With a pair of delusional sociopaths like that, it would only have been a matter of time before they ended up doing something horrible.
even though the government fully admits that she is no threat
Ah, but you see, implicit in that was the "reasonable suspicion". That is, the government fully admits that there is no reasonable suspicion that she is a threat. But the government has met a burden of proof besides "reasonable suspicion" to put her on the list. Of course, I wouldn't be so churlish as to say that they have an unreasonable suspicion. No, it must be that the government has come up with a new form of reasoning which transcends usual logic; they have a "transreasonable suspicion". Of course, they have to keep this new system of logic secret, lest the terrorists use it, so it's covered under the "secret exception".
This is an article about a paper being removed due to legal threats. While some people debate about the subject at hand (for instance, people arguing that the paper actually was libelous, so removing it was okay), everyone else instead debates about AGW itself. It's like the Popehat article on Mark Steyn's counterclaims against Michael Mann. Instead of talking about the counterclaims, most everyone talks about AGW itself, leading to Ken eventually shutting down the thread in exasperation.
Look, people, if you want to discuss AGW itself, there's already a zillion and one places to do it. You don't need to turn every related topic back too AGW itself.
Well, you don't need to, but you're going to anyway. Why I'm even bothering to type this comment out? *sigh*