"the ability to give money to a person is not an accurate barometer of character." Which was NOT MY POINT. I gave a donations under my real name. We were talking about anonymity, not virtue. Do try to keep up. "I enjoy the same level of anonymity you enjoy" At least you can be sure you're replying to the same person as before. I can't. "I don’t doubt someone will harass you." Well, isn't that nice of you. I guess deanoning to keep you amused is worth my real-life endangerment. "copyright-extreme positions" Oh yes? Which ones have I espoused? I mean, other than recognising that creators do have copyright, and are allowed to use that to make money from their work? You apparently can't tell the difference between someone acknowledging how copyright laws operate, and someone defending them. And seriously, the rest of your comment is just full of shit, like you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law
Muphry's law is an adage that states: "If you write anything criticizing editing or proofreading, there will be a fault of some kind in what you have written."The name is a deliberate misspelling of "Murphy's law".
The number of ebooks you can store in a terabyte would literally run into the tens of thousands. Even songs in that volume would run to a similar number, It really depends on what you're downloading. But a terabyte of downloads is a lot of pirated material. And your point is irrelevant to my point.
"posting publicly allows them to be." That is so not how copyright works. For fuck's sake.
Not only does he drive a BMW, he has a vanity plate. Hanging is too good for him.
"Really not sure Matthew M Bennett knows what spell a checker is." Muphry's law in action :)
What's the bet that it involves something that rhymes with 'tribes'?
Obviously the value of a Twitter VFT (VeryFungibleToken) has escaped you!
The house always wins :(
"Maybe folks would even start TALKING to one another if they did" How, pray, is it not talking to each other if you are talking to each other over social media? It's not social media that's the problem. It's the exploitation of users that is. I'm 60. I love smart phones, computers, the internet, and I don't see myself ever wanting not to have it. I've been listening to this bullshit "damn technology kids, get off my lawn" for decades. Instead of demonizing the tools, how about we accept the reality of them, and make sure they are not used by bad actors to nefarious purposes, and more importantly, educate the population on how to avoid the pitfalls. Hell, even my Catholic primary and secondary schools taught us how to examine media claims critically, and that was a loooong time before the WWW existed.
Poor Gym. He has a mountain of shit and wrongdoing the size of Mt Everest to cover up, and it doesn't help that he's producing so much of it himself. He's gonna wear his little self out spinning this garbage, hoping, like Rapunzel, to turn it into gold.
Mike, Mike, you know it's not serious criticism unless you called Newsom a 'dumb*tch', and used 'fuck' every second word. That's how you really prove you're antagonistic. Screw pointed rhetoric. Just use all the slurs and swears!
Did you even read the comment you’re replying to?
Borked that last sentence's html. Ignore the strike out, the text should stand. This link under 'attacked' has been lost: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2000/aug/04/childprotection
"The person you responded to isn’t John" That person had been flagged as a troll before I even saw the post, and is patently a nut even if I didn't connect the dots. I am trying very hard not to reply to trolls. (In fact that explanation you linked to, I'm not sure I had seen? There was another one about the same person and I replied to that one complaining about the inability to tell one anon from anon.) I was simply addressing the idea by yet another anon (I really wish you lot would at least each pick a user name/nom de plume) that anonymous comments are harmless to reputations. Ironically, the Paediatrician/Paedophile confusion turns out to be a minor incident which wide reporting cemented into an urban myth. But it is certainly true that people have been attacked and even murdered after being identified incorrectly as child abusers.
Ye, I remember that explanation. But what in the hell make you think the person I responded to, is that poster?
Like in China, you can vote for anyone you want, as long as they are Communist Party representatives :(
Thanks. That's very clear :)
House trolls, being ignorant of the way science works, are unable to comprehend that when new research reveals new facts, good scientists and doctors (Dr Fauci is both) will change their practices and recommendations based on that new data. House trolls, being ignorant of the way science works, also believe in precognition, and somehow think that because Tony Fauci is brilliant, he must also be aware of what will happen in the future as well as what happened in the past, and thus must have known that new research would change the recommendations on masks. And yet somehow he wilfully, and against all precedent and practice in his career, chose not to reveal that knowledge to Congress. Because Dr Fauci has apparently spent a lifetime in public service doing fuck all to help ordinary Americans not die from avoidable causes.
"We do not possess any of your personal data" "PimEyes searches only those web sites that officially allow data scraping and never searches for social media or other user-restricted online sources." Well, if they say so, it must be true, right?