ottermaton’s Techdirt Profile


About ottermaton

ottermaton’s Comments comment rss

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 2:29pm

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

    It would be a shame if this comment doesn't make it to the Most Insightful list.

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 2:23pm

    Re: Disaster Porn

    Good analysis Mike.

    That wasn't Mike.

    I have coined a term ... disaster porn

    Oooooh! That's soooooo clever! It's not like anyone else ever thought of taking a term and combining it with the word "porn" to illustrate an obsession with something. How DO you come up with such startlingly unique ideas?

    I tune all such shizzle out.

    Ah, the common refrain of faux intelligentsia who wish to appear more serious and profound than the rest of the world. I see that you are above all that.

    Give us a break. Spare us from your self important drivel. Say something we haven't heard a thousand times before, something that isn't centered around YOU.

  • Oct 2nd, 2015 @ 4:54am

    Re: projecting

    Good to know in advance that you'll dismiss what I say without reading it based on presumptions

    Hahahahaha! That's really good! YOU are the one making a presumption that we were discussing anything about gun regulation when the conversation had nothing to do with that.

    Textbook case of Psychological Projection

  • Oct 1st, 2015 @ 2:00pm

    Re: The AC used guns as a relevant example.

    Whew! You went a loooooong way there only to illustrate that nobody was actually talking about regulation, only that you inferred that they were.

    Meanwhile, there are STILL no commenters discussing regulation. Except you.

    Try doing a Ctrl+F for 'regulat' and you'll see that the only matches are yours and mine where I'm telling you that regulation is NOT what we're talking about. Perhaps it's come up in a roundabout way in another thread (I'm starting to wonder if you understand what a thread is), but not in this one.

    Maybe you should take your axe to an anti-gun forum and grind it there.

  • Oct 1st, 2015 @ 5:40am

    Re: Re: guns, regulation is ALWAYS relevant.

    The only reason guns are discussed on this forum is regarding their regulation.

    Oh. Thank you o wise one for illuminating us as to what we were actually talking about.

  • Sep 30th, 2015 @ 4:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Excelllent piece

    I have also been non-reporting crime victim for the same reason.

    But, you have to wonder: hasn't that always been the case? If so, the stats aren't skewed at all. Well, at least they're as skewed as they've always been.

  • Sep 30th, 2015 @ 4:26pm

    Re: "Guns are weapons"

    Is irrelevant in the argument regarding whether or not they should be regulated.

    Which is totally irrelevant in THIS thread of the discussion where not a single person in this thread declared anything about regulation one way or the other.

    But thanks for your input. I guess ...

  • Sep 30th, 2015 @ 1:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not as basic concept as you would think

    the responsibility still lies with the person holding the gun, not the gun itself nor the manufacturer of the gun.

    Absolutely agree.

    Has any society, anywhere, ever held the blacksmith responsible for everyone killed or maimed with the swords he made?

    No, and I hope they never do.

    But that's completely besides the point that I was trying to make about guns being weapons. Which you seem to have gotten.

  • Sep 30th, 2015 @ 12:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Not as basic concept as you would think

    Guns have no other use than as a weapon.

    I'm not a hunter or even a gun supporter, but even I can see the stupid in that remark. Guns are simply tools and have wide range of uses beyond hurting other people. Hunting for food comes to mind. Protection while out in the wilderness is another.

    Funny, then, that every example you give is an example of a gun being used as a weapon. Hunting? You're using the gun as a weapon to take the animal down. Self defense? You're using the gun as a weapon to protect yourself.

    That is a whole lot of stupid in a remark.

    And no, I am absolutely not opposed to gun ownership in any way. But it's really disingenuous to claim they have any other purpose than as a weapon. Hell, even when someone is shooting targets or skeet they are practicing using the gun as a weapon.

    It's an absurd argument. Guns are weapons and nothing but weapons. They can be used responsibly, justifiably, and even honorably, but they are still only weapons.

  • Sep 29th, 2015 @ 11:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Excelllent piece

    Exactly! ^^

  • Sep 29th, 2015 @ 9:05am

    Re: Re: Poor wording

    It wasn't the preferred version part that's incorrect. It's that saying "Mac or PC" as if you can't run Linux on your PC (or even your Mac!) is wrong.

    If you want to get really technical about it, there's no distinction between Mac and PC since they are both "personal computers".

  • Sep 29th, 2015 @ 8:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Excelllent piece

    1) Ok, fair enough. Thank you

    2) False. See below

    3) ... compared to a 50s thug or an 80s gangbanger, the average kid today on the street seems way more likely to resort to violence with a weapon, to group attacks, and so on. That stuff is real,

    That stuff is NOT AT ALL REAL. This is:

    The murder rate worked out to six murders for every 100,000 U.S. inhabitants, the lowest level since 1966 when there were 5.7 murders for every 100,000 people.
    The US homicide rate, which has declined substantially since 1992 from a rate per 100,000 persons of 9.8 to 4.5 in 2013,
    That's less than HALF what the murder rate was 20 years ago!!! Source

    The boogeyman is NOT out there. Stop LYING and saying that he is.

    4) I don't believe for a second you judge cops by the same yardstick. You haven't shown any evidence of it here. You just like to make excuses for them.

    Respect my right to have [an opinion] too, even if you don't agree.

    You may have your own opinions. Try tempering them with FACTS sometime.

  • Sep 29th, 2015 @ 8:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Excelllent piece

    First, it's a question of reported crime. How many people get their bike ripped off and just don't bother to file a police report because it takes too long, they don't have insurance, and they are upset as f-ck about it and don't want to spend more time on it?

    Gee, you're back with even more complete and utter speculation (which happens to be TOTALLY wrong) and fear mongering. What is wrong with you? What do you have to gain by scaring people?

    Fortunately for anyone coming along that might be persuaded by your nonsense, I have this link to A handy myth-busting guide to UK crime statistics

    Guess where you myth of non-reporting comes on that list? #1

    You are totally, absolutely, 100% WRONG. At this point the only worthwhile thing you could say is to admit it and apologize.

  • Sep 28th, 2015 @ 3:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Excelllent piece

    UK Crime stats: You can start there.

    Cool story, bro. Except it's total horseshit.

    Nice way to play with the stats to make it look as though the boogeyman is already among us and ready to pounce. If you had a shred of intellectual honesty you wouldn't be trying to stoke people's fears and instead point out how crime has been falling for DECADES.

    Yea, you can start at the site, but the place an intelligent and honest person (i.e., not you) should end is here: "Crime in England and Wales falls 16% to lowest level since 1981"

  • Sep 28th, 2015 @ 1:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Excelllent piece

    The problem at hand is that all laws are some sort of moral value.

    Thanks for the belly laugh! It's incomprehensible to me how someone could be so naive to believe such a thing.

    But, it's possible you may be right. If you can go to this site and tell me the moral basis behind each of those laws, I will concede that you are correct.

    Good luck!

  • Sep 28th, 2015 @ 1:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Excelllent piece

    1) I would be jumpy too if a big percentage of the population was armed and had no problem mowing me down because I was trying to give them a speeding ticket (which is where a lot of cop shootings occur, traffic stops).

    You can't just pull a statement like that out of your ass and expect people to believe you or be swayed by your argument. Where are the numbers to support it? I call shenanigans (in other words, I think you're full of shit).

    2) Times are tough, no doubt about it.

    Yea, crime sure has been spiraling out of control. It's hard to feel safe these days.

    Oh, wait. That's only what people who can't be bothered to educate themselves the tiniest little bit believe. Crime in the US has been on the decline for DECADES

    Spare us the boogeyman bullshit.

    3) Teenagers will be teenagers - but now new and improved with gangsta mentality, guns, and a dumb attitude ...

    Yea, yea, yea. This generation is SO much worse, right?

    I'm sure you don't know this, but EVERY generation says that about the next generation. Even Aristotle (or was it Socrates? I'll look it up if you need me to) noticed way back then that the same thing had been going on forever.

    Your "get off my lawn" is showing.

    4) Society is often not defined by it's best, but by it's worst.

    Really? How come cops aren't judged by the same yardstick? Why do bootlicking apologists like you always claim "it's just a few bad apples" (despite the daily FLOOD of evidence to the contrary)?

    Your arguments are weak and erroneous.

  • Sep 28th, 2015 @ 12:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You don't know what you're talking about

    Are you suggesting, as the example, that KITT is not a character? Is Herbie the Love Bug not a character in it's own right?

    Hey dumbass: how about you read this comment I made which just happens to be right below this one that totally dismantles your "character" argument for the Batmobile.

    Only a moron would consider an inaminate object a character. You seem to fit the bill.

  • Sep 28th, 2015 @ 12:23pm

    Poor wording

    Available for $19.50 -- for either Mac or PC (select your preferred version in the drop down menu)

    So, I can run this on my PC that runs Linux since that is my preferred version, right?

    Seriously? TD should know better than to use this sort of phrasing. Instead you should say "for either Mac or MS Windows operating systems" or something similar.

  • Sep 28th, 2015 @ 6:24am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: I love that Caddy's personality!

    Hey, be careful there! Because I know what you're referring to that gives that object the status of a character. By even mentioning it you are committing a copyright violation!


  • Sep 28th, 2015 @ 6:18am

    Re: Re: Re: You don't know what you're talking about

    Is it irony that by pointing out that others may know what someone is talking about when they say, "The Batmobile" you illustrate that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

    How about if I said, "Bat Utility Belt" and people recognized that? Does that make it a "character"?

    Hell no.

    An example from another superhero: Superman's "Fortress of Solitude". Is it a character because people have heard of it?

    Of course not.

    Wonder Woman's lasso a "character"?


    I could go on and on and on and on. Just because someone is familiar with an object you mention does not make that object a character. Hell, one could even make the very reasonable argument that because people recognize those objects that they are part of our culture and therefore not "owned" by anyone.

    Trying to justify things that are nothing more than mindless objects as characters just so they can be controlled and profited from is the height of cynicism and greed.

More comments from ottermaton >>