I remember MUDs. They were great for social networking. People who actually share your weird interest (MUDs) getting together online and being social. The first one of those was MUD and the program was written in 1978.
The problem is that he keeps getting a response. He has proven that no matter how foolish he look that he will continue to yell out nonsensical phrases instead of having a discourse with the rest of us. Several people have tried, and several others just railed right back at him (like that ever helps).
If you find his stuff amusing, keep on making comments like this. It'll keep him fueled up and shouting. I personally think it's kind of funny, so I've thrown a few comments his way. However, this has pretty much run it's course in this particular thread so I think it's about time to ignore him for a while and let him fade into obscurity.
I was wondering that. What if I got the blessing of the soldier (not that I think it's necessary, but for the sake of argument) and he helps me create another movie based on him and his friends? Would that be alright, or would I be set upon by a bunch of lawyers trying to keep anyone from seeing the film?
Actually, xkcd is Randall's day job. Just like Questionable Content is Jeph Jacques day job. Eric Schmidt is internet successful. Is Dilbert as successful as Google? You're right, the difference is obvious.
Upon further reading (I was too lazy earlier to really pay a whole lot of attention) I do agree with you. The guy seemed to be betting his 'livelihood' on the bill passing, which means he was at the end of unemployment benefits to begin with. Which means he is a douchebag. If his family needed it that bad, he would be out flipping burgers or digging ditches before his benefits dried up. Some people, however, are entitled to unemployment benefits for some period of time, such as those who pay into unemployment insurance while they are working and lost their job through no fault of their own. This guy isn't one of those guys, but that doesn't makes a difference in this lawsuit.
I stand my my statement that the harassment charge is stupid either way.
Your father was a hamster and your mother smelled of elderberries. My name is not AGuyWhoNeedsTenBucks and I'm not telling you my real name or where I live other than it is in the United States. The preceding was meant to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass you. I am now in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 223.
I half agree with you, but I wish I had more information. Unemployment insurance, his particular situation prior to becoming unemployed, and how long he has been receiving these benefits makes a large difference in exactly how I view him. If he has been out of work for a month or two and just needs that extra push until he can get a job (and he has been actively searching), then I feel genuinely sorry for the guy and they're doing him dirty. If he's been on unemployment for a while and has been laying on the couch watching Judge Judy or Sponge Bob then your entitlement statement is right on the mark.
Either way the harassment charge is stupid. Seriously, harassment because he falsely reported his location?