bhull242’s Techdirt Profile


About bhull242

bhull242’s Comments comment rss

  • Sep 21st, 2019 @ 12:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The age to view porn is largely a state issue. I believe in some places it’s like 16 years of age.

    As for the first bit, I admit that that was worded absolutely horrendously. Just replace “any boy” with “any boy that fits the aforementioned requirements”.

  • Sep 20th, 2019 @ 11:59pm

    Re: Re: Spam

    Ah, good. I was concerned about that, but now I feel better.

  • Sep 20th, 2019 @ 11:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: By the way, WHO else wants other

    Well, I was against defending this lawsuit from the start. I thought it was stupid. I never shove my religion into people’s faces. I firmly believe in the strict separation of church and state, and that no religious monuments should appear in courthouses. Even if I did, I knew that the Supreme Court made it crystal clear that that wouldn’t fly. I am also a Christian.

    Why should I apologize for the behavior of people I don’t know, have never met, and have no control over and whose behavior I have criticized all along when I myself did not participate in the questionable behavior?

  • Sep 20th, 2019 @ 11:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One Simple Fix

    Okay, sure, but I meant “you” as the person on the street, not the “you” I’m talking to right now.

    At any rate, it was just meant to be a joke rather than a serious proposal. That’s why I mentioned the dragon and the teacup, which are references to other cases where the idea of an undetectable thing can be assumed to not exist, much like the IPU does with God.

  • Sep 20th, 2019 @ 11:14pm

    Re: WHAT'S an actual lie anywhere

    Hawley may indeed have other or more ideas than the current text! So what? There may be changes before passed.

    Irrelevant. The criticisms are regarding the current text, which Hawley does not say even might change. We are not debating a hypothetical future version of the bill but the current bill. Hawley also didn’t say that these are changes to the existing bill that he will make in the future. He’s saying that this is what the bill says now, which is clearly a lie, not a slant, because the bill says nothing like that.

    State the specific words that you claim are lies, or "Gary" will call you out.

    I’m not entirely sure who ‘Gary’ is, but if you actually read the article, you might see that they actually do specify which words are lies. It also explains why they are lies.

    That stuff about being blocked is a PRATT that I’m not going to address. Suffice to say that you’re not credible, Techdirt has good reason to block you given past and current behavior, and I have no idea what you mean by “hidden tactics” in a way that has anything to do with Hawley.

  • Sep 20th, 2019 @ 11:00pm

    Re: Re:

    Huh? Are we reading the same story?

  • Sep 20th, 2019 @ 10:57pm

    Re: Re: Is TD "purely automated format, or with real human

    Do you make any money for comments on this site (directly or indirectly)?

    Can people still read the comment after it’s been hidden?

    Do the site operators play a direct role regarding what comments get hidden? Or is it only a matter of whether enough users flag the comment?

    Is the community for this site very large?

    Are comments the primary draw for this site?

    There’s a large difference between getting a stream removed from Twitch and having your comment hidden on Techdirt. There’s no real similarities here.

    Also, you have been given reasons for why your comments get hidden, and you have not changed anything. In fact, people can tell it’s you even if the name and IP address are not already associated with you. And you haven’t pointed out other cases that are similar to or more extreme than yours that were treated differently. (And for the record, that example you mentioned, in addition to being 10 years old and thus of minimal value regarding the rules for current enforcement of the rules, was one of several quotes from Obama’s memoir, and was never meant to be taken seriously. You, on the other hand, clearly want to be taken seriously, and seem to be using your own words, even if you tend to repeat yourself. The two are clearly different.)

  • Sep 20th, 2019 @ 10:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I’m confused about him complaining that his comment was held for moderation. Why can’t he just wait for it to get through moderation or be rejected first?

  • Sep 20th, 2019 @ 8:02pm


    Alternatively, they could work or live there. It’s not an empty street, you know. Note that out of 30 stops over 8 years, this cop found fewer than 5 people guilty of a crime. So I wouldn’t say that it’s very unlikely that people were only turning down that road to avoid that stop. The only statistic—empirical or otherwise, that we have is Perez’s experience, which doesn’t even prove that more than a third of those who turn down that street were criminals or were using that street to avoid the stop.

    Unless you can show that at least half the people who turn down that street are doing so for criminal activity—no, doing so to avoid a stop isn’t enough, as that’d make the “suspicious” activity too far removed from predicted activity—then there’s nothing reasonable about assuming that literally anyone turning down that street is suspicious. If a majority of people going down that street are not doing so as a criminal, then there’s nothing suspicious about it without more.

    At the very least, Perez could’ve waited to see if the guy lived or worked on that street (or had some legitimate business being there) or if he was just passing through. At least then he’d eliminate a pretty good reason to doubt that suspicion.

    Regarding “activist judges”, it’s worth noting that the legislature was not responsible for either the “reasonable suspicion” standard or the “border exception” to the 4th Amendment. That was all the result of the courts. The legislative branch never had a say in this in the first place. This was all about the reach and limitations on the protections from the 4th Amendment, not about interpreting a piece of legislation.

  • Sep 20th, 2019 @ 7:43pm

    Re: This ruling wasn't made to protect our constitutional rights

    What new rights? Also, this ruling had nothing to do with immigration at all.

  • Sep 20th, 2019 @ 6:04pm

    Re: Re:

    In another comment, you were complaining about PC culture on the internet, which is closely related to being respectful. Now you’re passive-aggressively whining about someone being disrespectful. How do you reconcile these seemingly inconsistent views?

    And how was the other AC politicizing anything? Sure, he mentioned political campaigns, but only to note that if Yeager was to prevail here, that could have severe consequences for political campaigns. Nothing else they said came close to discussing political topics beyond what is necessary whenever talking about legal issues.

    As for practicality, the whole idea is that what Yeager is saying wouldn’t be practical. I’d say he understands practicality pretty well.

  • Sep 20th, 2019 @ 5:56pm

    Re: Re:

    No one has a “right to an achievement”. That is a historical fact that cannot be patented, copyrighted, trademarked, or made a trade secret. It also cannot be restricted by the right of publicity or similar rights. There are no rights to be had here, other than the right to be associated with that achievement and vice versa.

    Also, wouldn’t the data retained by the Air Force include the information that Yeager was the pilot and that this was the first successful manned flight of a supersonic jet? That is data, after all.

  • Sep 20th, 2019 @ 5:51pm

    Re: Re:

    TBH, I’ve never understood how even having a celebrity endorse your product works, and I’m quite skeptical regarding how effective some forms of advertising are.

    But even that’s a far cry from whether simply mentioning a household name has a substantial impact on your success. Particularly where, as here, the use is only tangentially related to the specifics of the ad, which is about pricing for flights.

    It also doesn’t change the fact that it’s completely irrelevant to whether Yeager has a non-frivolous case here. Neil Armstrong is also a household name, but even if merely mentioning his name was able to substantially increase sales and/or awareness of your brand (which is itself questionable), he still wouldn’t be entitled to anything if all that was said about him was that he was the first to walk on the Moon.

    That’s not how trademark or right of publicity works. Stating a historical fact cannot infringe on trademark or right of publicity, even if doing so provides commercial benefits for the speaker. As such, whether or not Yeager is a household name is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

  • Sep 20th, 2019 @ 5:40pm

    Re: Re:

    FTR, it’s this:

    [W]hat you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

  • Sep 20th, 2019 @ 5:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Huh? First of all, I can find plenty of non-PC terms on plenty of online dictionaries.

    Second, nothing being discussed here has anything to do with PC culture or could be considered even remotely politically incorrect.

    Third, nothing being discussed here is a matter of life or death, so we don’t need our sources to be that reliable. There are lots of things that are completely reliable that I still wouldn’t rely on in a life-or-death matter, but here the stakes aren’t that high.

  • Sep 20th, 2019 @ 5:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Still no evidence, huh? How exactly are you crowing about winning when what you said did not even remotely address anything the other AC said or asked.

    The only thing you did say wasn’t supported by any evidence either, and it doesn’t prove that, in the here and now, military spending comes from anywhere other than tax revenue (outside of some war-related spending, which does not include the Pentagon). Based on the budgets passed by Congress, at the very least some of the military’s funds comes from tax revenue.

    Do you have any actual, verifiable evidence for any of your claims here?

  • Sep 20th, 2019 @ 5:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Military funding is not tax payer funds. Remember the government prints its own money before they tax it 1000 times over.

    [citation needed]

    Obviously you know not where our tax money goes. 40% to the Church of England and 60% to the Vatican.

    [citation desperately needed]

  • Sep 20th, 2019 @ 5:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The fact that Yeager was the first pilot was largely luck. He was hardly the only member of the Air Force able and willing to fly the plane, which was designed and built by a number of people, none of whom were Yeager or doing so because Yeager told them to.

    And they would’ve been stupid to fly multiple supersonic vehicles simultaneously, so someone had to go first. That “someone” just so happened to be Yeager.

  • Sep 20th, 2019 @ 5:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Dumbass is a word, you dumb ass.

  • Sep 20th, 2019 @ 5:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It takes a year for you to find your dictionary?

    At any rate, subconscious is both a noun and an adjective. And since conscious is not at all the same as or similar to conscience, there is no reason to believe that sub-conscience—even if it is a word, and I can find no evidence suggesting it is, and you provide to reason to believe it is—it would not be synonymous with subconscious. In fact, it would actually be more closely related to the word conscience. And I can’t find any concept that would relate to the combination of the root word “conscience” with the prefix “sub-”.

    And then there’s this gem:

    Anyone can go into wiki and edit stuff. Who is to say what you read there hasn't been edited fifteen time?

    Ummm, you were the only one who mentioned wikis here, and there are a lot of online dictionaries that don’t operate like wikis do. But since you asked, when it comes to Wiktionary, that really only questions redirects, definitions, pronunciations, or origins. It’s a completely different matter when a word doesn’t show up at all. And even if there may be some issues with the precise definitions given, they are at least reasonably close to what my physical copy of a dictionary says, as well as what the first several online dictionaries I could find say. I highly doubt that they’re all wrong.

    The main issue with using Wikipedia as a source is when using it in an official paper or something or when you rely on it too much too religiously (which is true for any source). It’s actually pretty reliable for most things, especially the kind of things that are relatively simple or are commonly viewed. Dismissing wikis as a source out of hand in a comments section is just dumb and lazy, especially if you can’t give a better alternative. Your memory of what a dictionary we don’t know and you can’t find once said is not convincing, especially since you can’t give any details.

More comments from bhull242 >>