WG's Techdirt Profile


About WG

WG's Comments comment rss

  • Jul 26, 2013 @ 07:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: The veil has been lifted

    Listen, everyone, I AM NOT A RACIST - OF ANY COLOR! However, I am a white, 60-year-old man, who grew up in a heavily-populated black community, and my best and first friend was black. I truly hate racism for racism's sake - but I have no problem calling someone an asshole when I encounter it, regardless of what color they are. I have many black (and Mexican) friends who know me and would tell you to go shove a cactus up your ass for suggesting that. I have individuals who are members of my family that just so happen to be black; many of my closest friends are black, red, and brown.

    I've seen many, many politicians come and go, of all colors, that have never made me feel this way. There is something wrong here with Obama and his cronies that goes way beyond your instantaneous racial shrill. Get over yourselves.

  • Jul 26, 2013 @ 06:57pm

    Re: Re: The veil has been lifted

    There wasn't anything racial about it, it was simply recognition that he IS black, and that no other black politician had ever made me feel that way. His color had absolutely nothing to do with that feeling, but it would be disingenuous of me to ignore it. Evil is evil, and no amount of pigmentation can cover it.

  • Jul 26, 2013 @ 12:44pm

    The veil has been lifted

    Now we see just how corrupt and evil this administration is. Seriously, the people need to recall every ass-licking politician they voted for. We need to clean house of the cockroaches. I noted that when Obama was running for his first term, there was something evil about him; something didn't feel right. I've never felt that way about ANY previous politician, black or otherwise; and that feeling just got worse.

  • Jul 25, 2013 @ 04:03pm

    Re: How ITH can this be justified?

    Ditto. I am quickly leaning towards the anarchist's point of view. Now that we have names of those who are trying to gut the constitution, I say F#*k the vote. . .get a rope! These assholes simple don't understand that when they are out of office, they become one of us.

  • Oct 10, 2011 @ 11:38am

    New musicians taking a closer look at their contract

    I have several friends who have active, successful bands - successful because of their tireless energy in getting their music out to potential fans. To both of them, each contemplating taking on a contract with a label, I warned not to go down that road, to read TechDirt, Wired, and several other sites, in an effort to enlighten them about the pitfalls of signing with a label, that the current crop of labels are not their friend - just the opposite - as their only interest is in how much money can they make off of ignorance of these young, clueless bands. Guess what? Neither have signed, and both are now in the process of looking at starting their own label, or at the very least carrying on the way they have been.

    They are not 'successful' to the extent that the major players are today, but they are happy and making a living doing what they love. They both feel that monetary excess/success will eventually come as their fan base is continually growing.

  • Sep 29, 2011 @ 12:31pm

    Re: Re: Protect your right to say it

    Yeah, as much as I hate to say it, I would have to agree with you AC. I'm from Topeka, and these idiots...you have no idea how much the majority of Topekans wish they would all just up and spontaneously combust; however, I bow to their right to exercise their First Amendment rights to be delusional, if not outright offensive - all in the name of freedom (for everyone, not just attention-whores).

  • Sep 06, 2011 @ 01:49pm


    I don't even own an Android, yet; however, just to say I joined the masses pissing off someone at CBS, I just downloaded the app - just in case. ;)

  • Aug 20, 2011 @ 11:21am

    AC rebuttal

    "This site is simply a cesspool of sociopathic, parasitic sewer fucks."

    So....what are you doing here, then? You, and others of your ilk, swim in the same cesspool; much like leeches who can't survive without their sewer fucks. That would make you 1) a leech, and 2) an argumentative, low-brow parasite. I should know, my ex-girlfriend is just like you. I kicked her ass to the curb. It is one thing to express your polar-opposite opinion (which, in your case, is quite humorous, should you like mouth-foaming and eye-bulging insanity outbursts); it is quite another to verbally bash others for their's.

  • Jul 26, 2011 @ 03:38pm

    Red lighting

    On further thought, maybe allowing the content industry to 'flag' a suspected site of containing/harboring alleged infringing material could be a good thing for everyone. What if, Google CHARGES whomever/whatever $1 million to 'flag' an offending site - each and every time. You want to flag a site? It'll cost you! And, giving them that particular avenue of approach, the 'offending' sites get to sue said company should the truth be anything other.

  • May 10, 2011 @ 05:06am

    Re: Re: Osama drama

    Troll? I've never really understood that term, especially in context of being accused of complementing someone for a job well done. What I do find interesting in the term is that it seems to be used quite frequently by those whose vocabulary is, shall we say, lacking depth. However, that being said, I will offer compliments to those who deserve them, but will also scorch the ground around those who don't. Trolling (whatever that means) is not a 'technique' that I would utilize in the course of commentary.

  • May 09, 2011 @ 04:27pm

    Osama drama

    Mike, I'm an egg-suckin', kiss-ass, brown-nosin', mo-fo - simply because I've discovered (over 50+ years) that schmoozn' works. That being said, I'm a big fan of yours; and, I've read a tremendous number of your posts since becoming a member (even though I'd lurked for some time before that). You're articulate, if not quite grammatically correct at times, and usually hit the nail on the head about the glaring WTF of the topic at hand. Again, that being said, I find this response of yours over this tidbit of news to be a really nice read.

  • Nov 20, 2010 @ 05:33am

    Here's an idea

    Congressional Reform Act of 2010

    1. Term Limits.

    12 years only, one of the possible options below..

    A. Two Six-year Senate terms
    B. Six Two-year House terms
    C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

    2. No Tenure / No Pension.

    A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

    3. Congress (past, present, & future) participates in Social Security.

    All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.

    4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

    5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

    6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

    7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

    8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.

    The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves!

    Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators; you serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

  • Nov 16, 2010 @ 04:43am

    It's like watching paint dry

    I never did like MLB anyway. It's just one more 'game' that isn't a game anymore, as it's really more of a business. Personally, I'd let it die. . .slowly, and painfully.

  • Nov 11, 2010 @ 04:33pm

    Cutting the cable cord...fer sure

    I decided to follow up with my correspondence with Cox (as well as discovering the html tags) :)

    Your response wasn?t what I wanted to hear. What you don?t understand is that I am NOT HAPPY with the current situation ? and saving $17.50 a month isn?t going to be a deal breaker; however, to make matters worse, you?re going to up my monthly bill by another $40 after 7/2011!? Are you kidding me!? I am in contact with other service providers and have been researching alternative sources of entertainment; and, in light of what I have discovered in doing so, have come to the conclusion that ALL cable companies do not care one whit about their subscribers, other than to make sure they get their Benjamins. Truly sad, I have to say, that greed trumps good will and loyalty. Well, Cox Communications has just lost another loyal customer because of that. From everyone I?ve heard, or have spoken to, no one wants bundling. Bundling services trap subscribers into pricing tiers that do not cater to their needs ? it only caters to the cable companies? bottom lines. Cable companies have the capability to cater to the needs and wants of subscribers, yet either pretend they can?t ? or simply don?t want to ? just so they don?t jeopardize their own revenues; and trust me, I?ve researched this quite a bit; I know exactly how this works.

    In addition, what really rubs my fur the wrong way is the fact that I have had to endure mindless commercials far more than I have been able to watch a show/movie. In years past, it was common to expect a commercial once every fifteen minutes during a show/movie. Now, it seems as though I am watching an endless barrage of commercials, interjected with whatever show/movie I had originally intended to view. I don?t know about you, but for me and everyone else in the world, that is frustrating, disgusting, and a total turnoff. Just today, I was trying to watch a movie?but had to endure commercials that seemed to intrude every five minutes ? and lasted for nearly as long; I finally got so frustrated with it that I turned off the TV.

    Be advised that in July of 2011 I will be cancelling my Cox subscription, if not beforehand. I am sick and tired of the whole programming structure, not to mention the fact that I?m paying a stupid amount of money to do so. There is no need to respond to this email, because I know that you cannot make anything work for me ? you?ve already said as much. If you take anything away from this, understand that parroting corporate guidelines isn?t going to be in the best interests for the survivability of the cable industry, as a whole ? listening to what people WANT, and are willing to pay for, is the key. It is really that simple. It is truly sad that the cable industry has lost over 500,000 subscribers since last year because of that one, simple fact.

  • Nov 11, 2010 @ 03:28pm

    Re: Re: Cord cutting

    Sorry 'bout that - they were all nicely paragraphed before I hit the button. I was as surprised as....well, I was.

  • Nov 11, 2010 @ 07:09am

    Cord cutting

    I've commented recently on this, and the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to simply tell Cox to kiss my cable. I sent them a note several days ago: "Currently, I have bundled digital services ? with which I am not too happy with. Let me explain. I have been a Cox subscriber for a number of years now, and have had very few complaints. I am very happy with my IP portion of the bundle; however, I realized that of the many TV channels available to me with this bundle, I typically only watch four ? and infrequently, at that. I do, however, like to listen to the music channels (of which I usually listen to only two or three); but, then again, there are alternatives to even those. Also, I really don't need the bundled phone service, as I already have a fairly comprehensive cellphone service. In reality, I utilize the internet connection far more than I do any of the other services. So, my dilemma comes to the question of why must I pay such an exorbitant fee for those items I do not use? I have read of, and listened to, many people who have 'cut the cable cord' and are totally happy with it ? as there are other alternatives out there (rentals, Hulu, Netflix, torrents, etc.); and as such, I must admit that I feel these bundled services are becoming more and more untenable in light of the economy, my viewing habits, and alternative entertainment sources. Therefore, with all that being said, can anyone at Cox convince me to remain a Cox subscriber ? based on the fact that I seemingly have no choice as to what I really want, or need, in programming, as opposed to what I am told that I must have ? in order to save my budget from being beaten to death every month for programming I never use? Of the services I currently have, I only need the internet connection; and, I typically only view the HGTV, Speed, History, Spike, and the aforementioned music channels. Is there a choice in selecting specific services from Cox, as noted in the previous sentence, or am I SOL? If I am SOL, then I fear that I may not be a Cox subscriber for very much longer." Their response? "I certainly understand the need to not pay for services you do not use. We can go over all the services you subscribe to and set you up with a plan that best suits your needs. You can remove the home telephone service, however I strongly recommend you don't. Not for the bundle savings, but for your own security. Your cell phone is great, but you need a landline incase of emergency. If you need to call 911 and can't talk for some reason, your being robbed and if you talk they will hear you, or your having a medical issue and can't talk. By calling with the landline 911 gets your address and immediately sends help. If your using your cell phone, they have no idea where your calling from. Our basic phone service is $15.95 a month. You do subscribe to the caller ID for an additional $8.50 a month, you could remove this and save. You can also remove the extra Pak's you subscribe to. You just need to keep one Pak to have the bundle discount. You currently subscribe to the Movie Pak, Sports and Information Pak and the Variety Pak. By the channels you stated you like you will probably want the Sports and Information Pak. I can remove the Variety Pak, Movie Pak, and Caller ID and this will save you $17.50 plus taxes a month. You will still have those music channels you like and all the channels you requested. Please keep in mind you are receiving $40.00 off your monthly rate until 07/2011 with the special campaign you signed up for when starting your services. If you remove the phone or cable service you will cancel this special. Please let us know if there is anything else we can assist you with and if you would like to make changes to your services or go over packages available please call us..." What a load a corporate BS! I called my security company, Protection One, and they told me I did't need a landline as I have a wireless setup; and, I'm putting in an 8-camera, recording system that is accessible from my cellphone or computer at work. Say goodbye to the digital phone service COX. In addition, my freakin' monthly fee is going to go up another $40 after July! Are they kidding me! I'm pissed now at $125+ for the crap they're forcing me to have; what do they think I'm going to be after July, happy! WTF. I can live without TV - there's really nothing on nowadays that interests me anymore. Sure, I'll miss watching the UFC, History Channel, Speed, and HGTV...but I'm just tired of paying $125+ every month just to be entertained by seemingly endless commercials. I watch more commercials now than I do shows. All I need is a good, broadband connection to be entertained; and for that, I'll still end up paying a stupid amount of money, I sure.

  • Nov 08, 2010 @ 05:01am

    I've had a Cox digital bundle for some years now. It's becoming more and more frustrating to have to pay $130+ just to watch five favorite channels that are increasingly loaded with commercials. All I really want is my high-speed internet, and HGTV, Speed, History, Spike, and the Music Choice channels (101-948). Anyone know how I can accomplish this? I could probably give up the music channels and just find internet radio stations, I guess; but, I'd like to keep the aforementioned channels. I haven't cut the cable - yet, but I get the feeling it won't be too long before it happens.

  • Feb 22, 2010 @ 04:13pm


    After reading, and rereading, the biggest question I have is: how do we, as an internet community, combat this obvious wolf in sheep's clothing? Another question comes to mind as to whether anyone at the upper echelons of government ever read this blog? And, why aren't the millions of internet users out there uniting and demanding our government put a stop to these kinds of devious manipulations of our legal system? I'm losing any and all respect for our elected officials, especially when I see crap like this being foisted on the masses....against our collective will, no less. I, for one, will be emailing my congressman, and senator, to let them know exactly how I feel about this - and that I will NOT vote for them ever again if they don't make an effort to expose these kinds of evil being negotiated in backroom deals (and they will also know that I will make it a passion to tell everyone I know about how corrupt I see them in this regard). What a crock!

  • Oct 01, 2008 @ 01:18pm


    I'm a noob with all this. Could someone enlighten me as just how this group came into being, and who gave them that power? Was it the government?

  • Aug 20, 2008 @ 04:53am


    NOW....That's crack, right there!

More comments from WG >>