Stathol wrote:
Taskiss wrote:
I think you're an idiot if you think there's a problem with anyone (government or otherwise) reading what is being publicly distributed [...]
Publicly accessible material is not the same thing as publicly distributed material. A newspaper or, even moreso a television program, is publicly distributed. Its publishers not only makes the material accessible to a public, but actively distribute their material to the public. It's not merely a case of "if you're interested, you come to us and get our material", but of the publisher taking deliberate action to place their material, quite literally and physically, into public spaces -- i.e. news stands in public right-of-way.
Were the actions of the DHS restricted to such media, I might feel differently. At that point, it wouldn't be inappropriate so much as "mere" waste of time and taxpayer resources with no clear justification. For the most part, internet forums and social networking media do not fall into the same category.
So what? In both cases, it's being advertised, it's publicly available, publicly disclosed, and no privacy of any kind was violated. You're distinction doesn't offer enough of a difference to make a difference.
Quote:
Taskiss wrote:
... that's probably why you think it's trolling.
Even blooming idiots know better...but this is the age of Facebook, where idiots think they can post crap about themselves and it won't bite them in the ***...so I guess you guys think because you're just doing what everyone else is doing, it should be OK...
No, I think it's trolling for exactly the reason that I implied: that you didn't read (or didn't comprehend) my post. I say this because your responses to it are complete non-sequiturs:
Taskiss wrote:
Foot the bill for what, the square footage that's part of the restaurant?
Me, in the post that you were supposedly responding to:
Stathol wrote:
Moreover, if they [the owners of a web site] are under surveillance, it is costing them money in the form of bandwidth. In this respect, it is quite different from the hypothetical. For the most part, it doesn't cost a store/restaurant/whatever owner anything for someone to just loiter around without actually buying anything.
Hell, you clearly didn't even read the one sentence of mine that you quoted in your response (emphasis mine):
Stathol wrote:
It is not acceptable for the same reasons that it wouldn't be acceptable for DHS to hire a bunch of people to stand around in restaurants nation-wide, recording everything that goes on and then demanding that the owners foot the bill for it on top of everything else.
I read it, I don't think it's applicable. The cost of doing business is what it is, no matter if it's floor space, bandwidth, etc., and you offer a free lunch to everyone, don't forget that "everyone" includes ... well, everyone. Including the men in black.
I know what point you're trying to make, I just don't accept that it's relevant.
Quote:
Taskiss wrote:
I think it's not only acceptable, but commonplace.
Really?
Really?You think it's commonplace for Department of Homeland Security personnel to stand around in restaurants, recording everything that transpires?
The "reasons" are commonplace, sure.
Quote:
Taskiss wrote:
Unless you mean that YOU find it unacceptable, then I see where you're coming from, but your opinion is not obligating the government.
Hellfire is a place where people engage in debate in discussion. I expect people to have at least a 3rd-grade understanding of how to distinguish between fact and opinion. I am not about to signpost everything I say that carries an element of opinion for your or anyone else's supposed benefit -- and neither should anyone else unless they just personally feel like it. It's a complete waste of time. This is an obviously an editorial context. If you can discern fact from opinion without being told, then it serves no purpose for me to declare "THIS IS AN OPINION". And if you can't discern fact from opinion on your own, that's
your problem.
And YOUR problem is that I don't I think your whiny crap has merit. It surely doesn't have anything other than your paranoia to justify the "unacceptable" label you've placed on it. It's not illegal, immoral or unethical. It doesn't hurt anyone, and the only harm that may come from it would be self-inflicted by the one harmed.
Other than the possibility your blood pressure might suffer, there's no harm or foul by the activity.
Quote:
I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt that you just somehow accidentally a few dozen words, but I don't think I can. I offered up an entirely civil and expository post in response to a specific question that hinged on the nature of "public domain". It wasn't argumentative. It wasn't even a rebuttal to anything that anyone had said thus far in the thread. And yet, here you come out of nowhere with a stream of name-calling, insult-laden, largely nonsense "arguments". You do this over and over again in Hellfire and over and over again, I make myself ignore it because, hey -- don't feed the trolls. But you know...
Taskiss wrote:
Idiots. Get the meds checked.
The joke is on you, because the further I get into my treatment plan -- which, by the way, extremely **** classy of you to drag my personal medical history into an argument
again; you're a real class act and a wonderful person -- the less inclined I am to just bite my tongue and ignore people who are shitting up a communal resource with vitriol and drama. So maybe you should be careful what you wish for. What you're doing right here? Hellfire is a worse place because of it. You, yes you personally, are contributing to why people rightfully don't want to read and post here anymore.
There's the door over there.
Quote:
And before you waste breath telling me, I'm well aware of just how little a **** you give about me, or my (or anyone else's) opinion of you or your behavior. The supreme irony is that this is precisely the problem. There's a word for that. There's a word for a persistent inability to: empathize with other people, care about how your actions affect them, and respect basic social or legal norms. That word is sociopathy. It's not a trait that you should be patting yourself on the back about.
Me thinking you're an idiot and your opinions in the form of posts a waste of disk space doesn't make me anything other than someone annoyed by your self absorbed rantings. You want to post and not read how much of an idiot your rant makes you? Sorry, not today.
Quote:
So maybe you stop worrying about how well my meds are being adjusted, and use the time saved to go have yours checked.
I have never been prescribed meds. I don't care if you have or not. If I ever read that you were taking meds, I've forgotten it. You just don't make enough of an impression on me that I remember stuff you write. However, unreasonable feelings of persecution and paranoia suggest you may just want them checked if you do have them, and any concern about the topic of this thread is because of paranoia and nothing else.
Stathol wrote:
Call me crazy.
I did. You then took it personally.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
