That One Guy’s Techdirt Profile


About That One GuyTechdirt Insider

That One Guy’s Comments comment rss

  • Jun 26th, 2017 @ 1:30pm

    Re: Take stuff they have never read...

    I laughed, but it was not a happy laugh...

  • Jun 26th, 2017 @ 4:10am


    Oh you can be sure it won't be one of the dangerous idiots proposing the idea, as that would suggest that they were at fault for forcing such an insanely stupid idea into practice.

    No, instead they'll heap all the blame on the companies, since clearly if they'd made a proper Unicorn Gate, with real Leprechaun Gold-level security then it wouldn't have been compromised, and would have only let the 'Good Guys' in.

  • Jun 26th, 2017 @ 1:44am

    "'No security for anyone not us' is 'reasonable', right?"

    “These discussions will focus on the need to cooperate with service providers to ensure reasonable assistance is provided to law enforcement and security agencies.”

    Undermining the security of everyone is not even remotely in the same field as 'reasonable assistance'. Service providers already provide 'reasonable assistance', handing over what they can without compromising the security of everyone in the process, which means they're not asking for 'reasonable assistance', they're asking for 'anything they might want, at any time, and damn the consequences for the public.'

  • Jun 25th, 2017 @ 6:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: foolish assertions

    Statements made must be empirically and discernibly false

    What did Oliver say that was demonstrably false?

    Keeping in mind 'they didn't present it like I wanted them to'(Which Murray's team seems to be bring up almost as much as talking about Murray's poor health) does not meet this qualifier, what, precisely, did Oliver present that was demonstrably false?

    The 'contacted under false pretenses' claim is undercut when they admit later on that they sent the C&D to try to stop 'any misguided attempt at humor', making it pretty clear they knew who Oliver was at the outset(and this one wouldn't be defamation in any case).

    The 'earthquake/earthquake-like event' claim is likewise undercut by the fact that Murray himself apparently claimed, within a day of the event that it was caused by an earthquake, despite now admitting that that sort of determination is 'vastly complex and can take years', with Oliver's statements based upon the 'experts'(their words, not mine) of the MSHA, and as the article points out if basing your statements/opinions on the findings of government agency findings is grounds for defamation claims then things have reached an entire new level in crazy.

    Bringing up the statements made by friends/family of the victims of the collapse isn't going to cut it because that actually happened, and that those statements(whether written by the ones making them or by 'adverse counsel in a lawsuit against Murray Energy') might not make Murray and/or his company look the best isn't likely to make bringing them up meet the bar of 'demonstrably false and made maliciously'.

    So I'll ask again, what exactly did Oliver say that was demonstrably false? Because as far as I can tell this is a pretty blatant example of a SLAPP suit, designed to shut down and/or punish someone for saying something that someone didn't like, which you claim you're opposed to.

  • Jun 25th, 2017 @ 2:35pm

    'A little far reaching' in the same way that the surface of the sun is 'slightly warm'

    All email in the world? Possibly not. The concept in general? Well, I'll let his own words state his position on that.

    “I was issued the first US copyright for EMAIL,” he said on The Alex Jones Show earlier this year. “I was officially recognized as the inventor of email.”


    Aamoth introduced the piece by reciting Ayyadurai’s view that the 1978 EMAIL program was when “e-mail—as we currently know it—was born.


    “And I’m telling you, e-mail is the electronic version of the replicated form of the interoffice mail system, and I defined it. I called it E-M-A-I-L. These are facts.

    As I and several others have pointed out before, if his claim was simply that he 'invented' an email program, then he wouldn't be catching flack for his claims as that does indeed seem to be true.

    But when he claims to have invented email in general, accusing others of trying to write him out of history('These guys want to re-write their history.') by pointing out that his program had little to nothing(as far as I know it's 'nothing') to do with the development of email as people know and use it today, and then sues someone for pointing this out, at that point he deserves all the mockery he gets for his words and actions.

    He went from 'moderately amusing' to 'deserving of mockery and ridicule' when he started mocking those that worked on the projects that resulted in email as the public knows it, claiming that their work and it's results didn't count, and then didn't just cross the line but utterly demolish it by suing someone(Gawker, and then Mike/TD) for presenting the facts that contradicted his version of history.

  • Jun 24th, 2017 @ 3:34pm

    Re: Aren't we forgetting something?

    Yes, but if they pile even more hay on top of the already overflowing stack then surely the'll somehow reach a point where having vast amounts of useless data magically becomes incredibly effective at stopping terrorists! /s

  • Jun 24th, 2017 @ 3:30pm

    Beats the alternative

    They should be unless something's gone wrong.

  • Jun 24th, 2017 @ 2:52am


    Probably because it's irrelevant.

    Just because the cop may have said it doesn't mean that that was what was happening. If memory serves Castile also said repeatedly that he wasn't reaching for a gun.

  • Jun 23rd, 2017 @ 10:48pm

    Be careful what you wish for

    But when you purposefully defame good and honest people, asking the public (through a jury) to enforce a penalty seems appropriate.

    Lower down in the same comment section...

    Mix in some lesbian separatists and angry violent non-whites, and that pretty much covers the regulars here, right?

    Your faux outrage never fails to entertain, especially when you expose your glaring hypocrisy and/or dishonesty when you do it. Claiming that saying 'mean things' about someone should be grounds for financial, legal or even physical penalties while never thinking for a moment how screwed you would be if the world matched what you claim to want.

  • Jun 23rd, 2017 @ 10:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Pretty sure to a trigger-happy nut 'I have a concealed carry permit/license' is going to be pretty much indistinguishable from 'I have a gun', because why else would someone mention that other than to inform you that they have a gun? Not moving after that point might work, but with someone already armed and hyped up it might also just aggravate them more for your 'refusal to do what you're told'. It seems a razor-thin line either way really.

    As for the 'how to avoid being shot' ideas in general, that strikes me very much as solving the wrong problem, and (possible rightly) paints the police in a light similar to a rabid animal, something you have to be extremely careful around unless you want to end up dead. Now, this could very well be the case(instances like this certainly support the idea), but if so it's hardly a flattering comparison to make and reputation for them to have.

  • Jun 23rd, 2017 @ 7:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Ah the good old 'dodge, deflect and project'. I'd say I was surprised you went that route, but I know you too well by now for something like that to be at all unexpected.

  • Jun 23rd, 2017 @ 7:53pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    A guy who tells the traffic cop "I have a gun" as he reaches into his pocket to retrieve the requested documents is basically asking to be shot multiple times, because that's exactly how American police are trained to respond to this sort of "threat".

    In which case the three things I pointed out above come into play. If that sort of thing is justification for being killed then the options are basically 'Don't be armed', 'Don't tell the cop you're interacting with that you're armed', and/or 'Refuse the orders of the police'.

    Somehow I don't imagine these options would go over very well with various groups, yet they seem to be the only ones available if one wants to claim that he did something 'wrong' that justified him being killed.

  • Jun 23rd, 2017 @ 7:46pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Yeah, no. If you're going to try to spin that 'Be respectful and you've got nothing to worry about' rubbish, it helps if you don't do so under an article that undermines your claim.

    The one killed this time around was killed because he exercised his legal right to carry a gun, informed the officer of it, and then attempted to follow the directions given to him to provide his ID. For this he was shot multiple times, killed in front of his girlfriend and her daughter.

    Unless you want to argue that he...

    a) Shouldn't have been armed at all, in which case good luck making that argument...

    b) Shouldn't have told the cop that he was armed...


    c) Should have refused to follow directions in reaching for his ID as directed.

    He did everything 'right' and was still gunned down for it. As such the idea of 'If you're just polite you won't be executed on the spot' is a nice/horrifying idea, but clearly doesn't match reality where even that won't save you.

  • Jun 23rd, 2017 @ 7:11pm


    Unless the approaching cop takes your movement to get the documents to be reaching for a weapon before they get there, in which case you're back at the problem you tried to avoid, 'How to avoid being shot by a trigger-happy cop?', a question that should never have escaped the realm of the purely hypothetical.

  • Jun 23rd, 2017 @ 6:27am

    "We're helpless, really."

    The Army said it lacked the ability to enforce price controls, but it would ask those nice people at Sanofi to commit to affordable pricing on a voluntary basis.

    Putting aside the fact that from the sounds of it this particular company shouldn't be trusted to so much as run a lemonade stand, the idea that the army was helpless to enforce price controls is complete and total crap. There are a multitude of pharma companies in the world, the army could have easily made selling the drug at a certain rate a condition to any company interested in selling the drug.

    They didn't lack the ability to set terms, they simply didn't care to, because why would they care if a taxpayer funded drug is priced out of range of those that need it?

  • Jun 22nd, 2017 @ 2:29pm

    When you make Gollom's long-lost brother look sane...

    Erdogan may be a thin-skinned thug, but as far as I know he's never sentenced someone to death for saying mean things about him, so at least he hasn't sunk as low as the pathetic ninnies in Pakistan.

  • Jun 22nd, 2017 @ 2:20pm

    Re: death sentence

    And when the US sentences someone to death for 'blasphemy'(one of the more absurd and stupid ideas out there), then you might have a point comparing the two. But they haven't, and I don't see it happening any time soon, so your comparison is completely empty of meaning.

  • Jun 22nd, 2017 @ 2:37am

    Hit enter too soon...

    Something like that might get them to be a little more careful in their words, if they faced a real financial penalty for being a little 'lose' with the truth.

  • Jun 22nd, 2017 @ 2:34am

    Re: Re:

    "I solemnly swear upon my pay and retirement fund, which shall be forfeited and given to the accused should I be found to have violated this oath, that I will tell the truth to the best of my ability, and shall not make any false or misleading statements at any time."

  • Jun 22nd, 2017 @ 1:54am

    Well nuts to that

    Yeah, Murray and his team really did not think this one through. It could have been over with, brought up in a single episode and then left behind as the show covered other topics, but by going legal they've ensured that it will be covered again, drawing even more attention both to the original episode and it's contents and now the fact that he's suing over it.

    So congrats Murray and company, you just Streisand'd yourself quite nicely, and if you think you had it bad from the previous episode covering you, just wait until the next one.

More comments from That One Guy >>