RoR: Forum

Yeah!

Post 1

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 1:34pm

I have mixed feelings about this [crowd: "That's cuz' you just got through with annoying the hell out of some of us!] and it's not because I just got through with annoying the hell out of some of you guys (and got the hell annoyed out of me on email by at least one member not using their real name).

If this is a law now, then I do have a court case against the surnamed RoR member that harassed me by email. I'm not sure that I should have that power to impact their life so. I mean, all they threw at me were words. Sure, words that were meant to kill my spirit, knock down my self-esteem a few notches, yeah -- but jail time? It just doesn't seem right to me.

I'd agree to jail anyone in cases of obvious stalking, etc. Someone you've told to bugger off (and have proof of). But I think that this law is more likely to be misused than used (ie. it will have a net negative effect on our culture).

Ed

Post 2

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 2:20pm

Ed,

Aside from e-stalking, I agree that it's rather e-absurd.

Sarah

Post 3

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 2:22pm

Finally they passed this law! Now if anyone does anything morally offensive and insulting to me, like refusing to worship and praise your's truly in every communication, the 2nd coming, I can have them thrown in jail.

Perhaps even declared an information "terrorist" and held without charges for "renditioning" in some foreign country notorious for human rights violations.

Seriously, if we are at "war" against "terror", which necessitates draconian laws that lend themselves to subverting our somewhat free republic, then politicians that exploit them are committing TREASON!

They should be dealt with appropriately!

Scott

Post 4

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 2:34pm

I don't mind opposing you three. Put spamers away I would be delighted.

Michael

though it wasn't clear to me about if they were talking about unsolicited mailings.

(Edited by Newberry on 1/10, 2:44pm)

Post 5

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 2:46pm

Michael,

Spammers and the average forum troll are different stories. What about Ed's situation?

Sarah

Post 6

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 3:32pm

Sarah,

I say shoot Ed. Capital punishment for this is just around the corner anyway...

Michael

Post 7

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 3:36pm

What a quandary! I'm supposed to worship men but what do I do when one of them tells me to shoot another? And no man to decide for me! Guess that's what I get for leaving the kitchen.

Sarah

Post 8

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 3:41pm

I knew there was a good reason for my rant;

Googling "anonymity "federalist papers" I got:

http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/000122.html

...I've heard from many people, lawyers and technologists alike, who don't seem to recognize that our rights to anonymous speech have deep roots. Many see anonymity as a bug of Internet architecture, to be eliminated in the next revision; or at best a feature of limited value readily traded off against other costs and benefits.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held otherwise, finding that a constitutional right to anonymous speech is derived from the First Amendment. Requiring a speaker to identify him or herself, after all, "abridg[es] the freedom of speech".
...
Even significant government interests in protecting their citizens can't be met with restrictions on anonymous speech.
...
from the days when "Publius" authored the Federalist Papers. More currently, whistleblowers use anonymity to expose company wrongdoing; human rights activists use anonymity to report human rights abuses; uncertain teenagers and adults use anonymity or pseudonymity to discuss their sexuality; and citizens of all political stripes still use anonymity to debate politics and governance without being judged on their personal atributes.

If that law isn't struck down as unconstitutional, then our Supreme Court is just as fubar as the congress and executive brances of our corrupt government.

Scott

Post 9

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 3:45pm

Oops, I included my own comment inside the blockquote of my last post, and didn't correct "brances" to "branches".

It would be nice if the "Post" button took the text to post from the latest changes in the edit box, even if the button isn't pressed again.

BTW what tags do you use to include pictures? Just regular HTML markup language? If this forum runs on a Windows box, I know there are server scripts that have edit boxes with HTML formatting buttons for bold, italics, colors, font-size/type, et.

Scott

Post 10

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 4:03pm

Sarah,

I didn't understand Ed's post.

Ed,

I don't know enough about writing but you remind me of an abstract painter.

Michael

Post 11

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 5:02pm

Michael,

He was just saying that he had people annoying him through RoR mail, so under that law he can file charges. But that doesn't seem right to him to jail someone just for annoying him. Stalking, verbal threats, sure. Annoying? Nah. (Correct me if I've got it wrong Ed. Apparently you're hard to understand.)

Sarah

Post 12

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 6:27pm

Ed wrote: "If this is a law now, then I do have a court case against the surnamed RoR member that harassed me by email. I'm not sure that I should have that power to impact their life so. I mean, all they threw at me were words. Sure, words that were meant to kill my spirit, knock down my self-esteem a few notches, yeah -- but jail time? It just doesn't seem right to me."

A brief glance at the posters, I am the only "surnamed" one. I doubled checked my "sent" emails, and there are none to Ed...so I get a little confused there. ...and I don't understand abstractions without specifics, or concretes...or examples...so I am confused there...

I am not confused that Ed is not going to prosecute someone for something.

Michael

Post 13

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 7:10pm

SARAH - What a quandary! I'm supposed to worship men but what do I do when one of them tells me to shoot another? And no man to decide for me! Guess that's what I get for leaving the kitchen.

Ok, Sarah, haul your happy ass back to the kitchen where you belong. The man wants you in the kitchen.... NOW GIT!!!!

ED - I got the hell annoyed out of me on email by at least one member not using their real name).

Ed - Please don't have me arrested. I wasn't trying to annoy you, only trying to fix you up and possibly get you some poontang! ;-)

Ms. Wheeler
(aka katdaddy - frustrated matchmaker, not a cyberstalker)

P.S. - seriously, this kind of law is so vague that it is a mockery and imposes on free speech. You can't throw every troll, internet gladiator or spammer in the slammer....that is just plain old-fashioned nutty. Maybe if they defined when the line is crossed from annoying to harassing it would make more sense. I just see this as more nanny government in our faces, eroding the Bill of Rights and invading our personal space. This is so ridiculous, it would be comical if it weren't true.

Post 14

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 7:17pm

Where does Sarah live, and where does Ed live? Speaking of which Sarah, fill out your damn extended profile!

Post 15

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 7:48pm

Kat your the one!

And. I disagree with you. I want the spammers in jail. I want them hung upside down, hanging by their toes with wire. They can be let out after they have written a zillion times: "I will not spam people anymore. I will not spam people anymore..."

Post 16

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 7:55pm

Sheesh! I leave for a few hours, and come back to this ruckus?!

Part of the crowd beckons to have me shot, another part beckons to have me understood. I'm likened to a painting elephant, another rushes to be a Fall-Gal for someone else's transgression, and I'm finally redeemed by the defense of a primary interlocutor. Now, is that so hard to understand?

First of all, the term "surname" slipped out of my fingers as I was trying to type "pen-name" (honestly, I was). NOW do you see the inevitable conundrum, Michael? What's funny is that a physicist got my point (by extreme integration, at the expense of detail) -- and an artist didn't get my point, due to an isolated anamoly! Michael, you earned quite a few Atlases for likening me to an abstract painter, but it seems that you could stand to be more like one, yourself (looking at the whole, not drowning in a single, incongruent detail).

The reason for my crypto-communication here, is to preserve the anonymity of my transgressor (you know, the one with the PEN-name -- who harassed me by RoR Mail).

Ed
[often verbose, seldom understood, always engaging]

Post 17

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 1:17am

Ed,

What's funny is that a physicist got my point (by extreme integration, at the expense of detail)

Well you see, I approximated you with an ideal, massless, frictionless, perfectly spherical Ed, let's call him Ted, and simply identified Ted's Lagrangian. It was then a trivial task to extract the likely meaning behind your post. Any errors were introduced by the approximation of Ed to Ted.

Jody,

Does your wife know you go around asking girls where they live? :-P

As for my profile, I can't be that popular. Surely anyone who wants to know can ask (though I may not always tell ;) ).

Sarah

Post 18

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 4:33am

what I find far more depressing, annoying, hilarious, critical (or whatever my pet peevee of the second) is the fact that these ridiculous laws passed under ridiculous subterfuge have not become the amusing by-product of an otherwise healthy world, but have become the core of a pretty messed-up society ...
this is not the first law of similar content and more than doubtful intent, but only one small one of a large fleet of such laws which can have only one intent:
total control of every sphere of my life - and soon enough of my life per se!
or did you really think the US want's to protect YOU from spammers? they want to get control of the internet anonymity where many of it's state properties (sorry: 'actual persons') have gone into hiding
to expand just on a few laws from Germany to make my point: bank-accounts are fully accessible to state authorities now (not just for inspection but for pillaging soon, too), social security is planned to become mandatory shortly even for self-employed (or should I say self-responsible) persons, the new bio-metric passports will in their final version make me visible/traceable wherever I go (talk about remote inventory of your 'state assets'), and the new patent laws for software (currently still in limbo) will not only put me out of a job, but make every bright idea I ever had accessible/exploitable by right to the state (and don't fool yourself that these laws are to protect your ideas for your own use) - all these laws (together with a host of other 'minor amendments') have been passed within the last two years and more are already planned ...
these laws are intended to be vague, intended to be doubtful, intended to be implemented under subterfuge, intended to be abused, so nobody can actually define their content, criticize their applicability or refuse their implementation and use (if they actually manage to see through this maze) - what else could be the reason to pass such ridiculous laws?
call me paranoid (if that's my current peevee), but you will never persuade me that it is pure chance that so many idiots are thinking up so many stupid laws which are passed by so many stupid politicians using so many stupid excuses - all at the same time ...
VSD
disclaimer: that's is not a petname, nor an alias, nor do I intend to harrass stupid people in general with this post - any other law I forgot? ... oh right: I should get a biometric passport and post that picture here in RoR so you can scan me in case you ever meet me in the streets and want to throw some spam at me ...

Post 19

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 5:28am