The logical response -- to avoid any risk of trademark infringement -- would be for no one to talk about football (the NFL version, anyway). In fact, to be safe, no one should watch it, either in person or on TV, lest they be tempted to infringe by talking. And buying NFL-branded goods also encourages infringers to make their own for sale, so none of that. It all makes perfect sense now.
Strangely, her blog posts are competently written and she's very responsive in her comment section, so this doesn't seem to be "crazy person has keyboard" sort of thing.
Profound mental illness and competent writing are not mutually exclusive.
That said, could she be using some bizarre keyword (or not even keyword) search? My completely unscientific survey of her fourth notice shows that the word "fake" appears at least once in every one of the Yelp and Wordpress pages cited. The same word appears 15 times in the offending techdirt article. (It's a fairly common word, and it doesn't appear in some of the other pages I noticed as I jumped around the list, but don't kill my fakescience buzz with your inconvenient facts. And maybe she's searching for other words as well.)
it's Harper saying "we just publish what we believe to be the position of the British government."
See... this actually would be OK, as a starting point. There's no inherent problem in reporting what the government claims, as the government's claims only, if they also take time to investigate them.
The Sunday Times could have reported, "Two sources in the British government claim X. We requested but have not been provided any evidence to support X. These other people who are familiar with the circumstances say that X is untrue/unlikely, and have offered this evidence in support."
That really would have been a very simple thing to do. If they cared at all about journalistic integrity. Or facts.
Here's the harm of including warnings when there's no evidence to indicate that they're warranted (aside from spreading needless fear and disinformation): When warnings are ubiquitous, people develop a higher tolerance for them. In time, they'll just disregard them, even the ones that are legitimate. Case in point: California's Proposition 65 warnings (dealing with chemicals that actually do cause cancer, in sufficient doses). When I first saw the Prop 65 warning signs outside businesses, many years ago, I was alarmed. But those signs are everywhere. There's one on the front of my apartment building, at the grocery store, the building where I work. EVERYWHERE. But I barely notice them anymore. They're just part of the background.
Save the warnings for when they're needed. It's actually safer.
This is a bit of an aside, but it seems kind of unfair to lump Sonic in with those others ISPs. Sonic has hardly been quiet about net neutrality. (Happy Sonic customer. Ending shameless promotion now.)
From the Wikipedia article (Thanks for the link, BTW):
Depending on the particular bill, one of four trees may be used: the first tree has room for three amendments, the second and third trees have room for five amendments, and the fourth tree has room for 11 (or 12 in rare instances) amendments. To fill the tree, none of the slots may be left available.
I'm just picturing the meeting where people came up with these rules. Does 3-5-5-11 (or rarely 12 - and why does it get to be the sole exception?) have some significance I'm missing? Did they just roll the dice? Or maybe one 12-sided die?