US Government Censors 70 Websites
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 27th Nov 2010 10:46 UTC
Legal The US is really ramping up its war on intellectual property infringement, a war which I'm sure will be just as successful, cheap and supported by the people as the wars on drugs and terrorism. The US has started seizing the domain names of various websites through ICANN - not because owners of these sites were convicted of anything, but merely because complaints have been filed against them. Anyone want to take a guess how long it will be before the US government blocks WikiLeaks? Update: The blocks function outside of the US too. In other words, the US is forcing its views upon the rest of the world once again.
E-mail Print r 16   · Read More · 176 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/ikq
Thread beginning with comment 451428
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Slant
by Icaria on Sun 28th Nov 2010 08:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Slant"
Icaria
Member since:
2010-06-19

so you disagree with a quote Thom used
No.

therefore you tell him to remove the quote
I believe my exact words were:
you might want to reconsider


so that you won't feel so embarrassed to share the link
At a minimum. You should have also inferred that I was suggesting that perhaps Thom should feel a little embarrassed to be quoting a comic book/Wakowski bros. film when commenting on serious political issues and should perhaps realise that he risks people not being able to take him seriously, in doing so. Grand eloquent speeches are bad enough when they're not anachronisms, let alone when they're from cheesy action films.

And in an article about censorship no less. Classic.
Are you really this ridiculously hysterical about everything, or are you just an insufferable demagogue?
'Try parting your hair on the left'
'STOP CENSORING ME!'
Nope, don't see it. I'm guessing the latter w/ perhaps a hint of brown nosing.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Slant
by Morgan on Sun 28th Nov 2010 09:32 in reply to "RE[4]: Slant"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Heh, brown nosing? Who is reaching now? If you look back on my past posts, you'll see that if anything Thom and I butt heads quite often. And besides, not only would I not brown nose (it's against my nature) but I don't work for OSNews nor do I wish to, and I've declined an offer to write for them recently so what would even be the point?

But none of that matters anyway. If you take such issue with Thom's writing style, why address it to me, a third party with no direct involvement apart from calling you out for a flameworthy post? If you truly did care about the editor's quality of writing you'd address him directly and not here, else you'd go to CNN.com or another mainstream news site for your "serious news". No, I suspect I know your continued motive, and given your moderated status I'm inclined to believe others see it too.

Oh, and then there's this gem:

Are you really this ridiculously hysterical about everything, or are you just an insufferable demagogue?


Interesting; it's a tired old trolling method to get under a person's skin by insulting them twice in one sentence, with irrelevant pseudo-observations no less.

Nice try though! If this were fark.com I'd give you a 4/10 for effort.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[6]: Slant
by Icaria on Sun 28th Nov 2010 13:13 in reply to "RE[5]: Slant"
Icaria Member since:
2010-06-19

and I've declined an offer to write for them recently
Well if these comments are reflective of your general tone and content, I can only thank you.

If you take such issue with Thom's writing style, why address it to me
...are you completely daft? Who was my original comment in reply to? Please, tell me. Oh wait, you already did:
Wait, so you disagree with a quote Thom used on his site, therefore you tell him to remove the quote
Your own words. I 'told' Thom. My next reply was addressed to you, since you so obviously needed some clarification and I obviously wasn't going to stand for being so thoroughly misrepresented.

No, I suspect I know your continued motive
Oh Christ, here it comes: the troll allegation. Even were I a troll, this is the internet in the year 2010; we're long since past crying 'troll' being an instant argument winner (or salvager, as the case may be) and you wouldn't need to point it out to people and attempt to institute a bias, were I a troll. Never mind that I could just as easily label your... critique 'tone trolling', if not outright trolling over equating making a suggestion with censorship.

and given your moderated status I'm inclined to believe others see it too
While I'd take an internet popularity contest with a grain of salt, I'd be more inclined to attribute that to my being argumentative and crass. People (at least on this site) find me unpleasant. Big surprise there.

it's a tired old trolling method to get under a person's skin by insulting them twice in one sentence
It's also a tired old method of addressing something childish, if not completely bat-shit crazy: you accused me of attempted censorship over something incredibly innocuous. Your original reply really was ridiculously disproportionate and hysterical and I think you know that as well as I do, lest you wouldn't resort to doggedly strawmanning me and playing the troll card.

with irrelevant pseudo-observations no less.
Irrelevant? Irrelevant how? 'Pseudo-observations?' How are they distinct from observations proper - or at all distinct from your own 'pseudo-observations' regarding me? Vague, undemonstrated, undefined, non-exclusive much? You're really just throwing everything at me in the hope that something'll stick; quantity over quality and all that. You're really not doing a terribly good job of establishing the high ground, here. These are gutter tactics.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Read more of this thread... >