h. My. Gd. BngBng hs tkn tht crtcl lp frm bs t bllgrnt gnrnc.

Wht th fck s ths?

S tht prtty mch wrps p rfttn f yr n xmpl...

r y THT nscr?

r y THT ntnt n sndng mssg t nyn wh qstns yr mmrlty?

I'm not making an ad hominem argument. I'm not making any argument at all, because argumentation is impossible when dealing with such ignorance.

There are only two options when dealing with ignorance: Ignore it or destroy it. Since I cannot destroy you, I have no choice but to ignore you.

If you accuse someone of engaging in ignorance, he's going to say you're incoherent. Always.

Patricia Yellow Hammer. What an amazing name.

S tht prtty mch wrps p rfttn f yr n xmpl...

Nt hrdly.

Th plc crclt phts frm srvllnc cmrs whn th cmrs cptr ftg f crm bng cmmttd, s n rmd rbbrs. Thy dn't crclt phts tht >my b f crmnls.

(n xcptn: Sm spclly fscst plc dprtmnts rcrd nd crclt ftg f prtstrs.)

Th fct tht nwsppr hs pckd p ths stry ds nt xnrt th ntrnt. t n fct shws tht th ntrnt hs dltrs ffct n jrnlsm.

Lt m tll y wht's hppnng hr. Y dn't lk ppl crtczng th lft, s y'v tkn t pn yrslf t lmnt my crtcsm. Y'v ttmptd t d tht by crrllng my crtcsm nt mngbl frm (n "xmpl") nd rgng tht my xmpl s nvld. (s f hv nly n xmpl. s f plyng ths gm hs ny mpct n th trth.) Tht s frly plt frm f dlgcl fnby bhvr.

thr frms f dlgcl fnby bhvr ncld prsnl ttcks, mckry, hrssmnt, cnsrshp, nd bnnng. Ths thr frms r smtms rsrvd s lst rsrts, smtms chsn by dflt; t dpnds n hw rbd th nln frm's cmmnty.

(Fr n xmpl f mckry nd hrssmnt, lk t wht Cry's wrttn bt ndrw Kn.)

Nw, Trs jst wrdd BB W th "rs nd tl" fr "frml lgc." s tht d t lv f rgmnttn, r s t d t dlgcl fnbysm (grpthnk).

'v jst shwn tht BB W dd nt sht dwn my xmpl, s t cld hrdly b sd tht h "wn" thrgh "frml lgc." t sms mr lkly tht BB W stppd p s th chmpn f n nln cmmnty tht wnts mr thn nythng t sht dwn crtcsm f th lft.

Ths s th brdr prblm f nln cmmnts: Brds f fthr flck tgthr, nd gnrnc wnts nthng mr thn t rmn gnrnt, s ll nln cmmnts nfrc dysfnctnl stts q.

nthr wy t lk t tht: Ppl wh dn't cnsnt t th cnsnss rlty f gvn frm lv. t's stnshngly rr fr nyn t jn frm nd tll th mmbrs thy'r ll wrng. (Whn t ds hppn, th prsn s qckly chsd ff th st r bnnd.)

Th pctr rprdcd n ths wb st ws pblshd n pblc wb pg frst, s t's hrdly vltn f prvcy.

Ths s prhps th mst dsgstng clm f th -Lftsts. Whl smltnsly rgng tht th gvrnmnt nd crprtns nvd prvcy nd nfrng pn ndvdl rghts, thy clm th rght t d whtvr thy wnt wth nfrmtn vlbl nln. nly prblm: vrythng s vlbl nln. Thy thn rg tht th vctm shld hv prtctd hmslf by ncryptng r thrws mkng hs nfrmtn nvlbl, whch s xctly wht t snds lk--blmng th vctm.

Jst bcs y cn pck lck dsn't mn y shld. Jst bcs y cn fnd prsn's phtgrph r hm ddrss nd s t n hrssmnt cmpgn gnst hm dsn't mn y shld. -Lftsts ppr t b ncpbl f lkng wthn fr thr wn mrlty, nd blv th ntrnt tslf s t blm fr tht.

BOB W,

My side of the discussion has nothing to do with your side of the discussion. Nixon/Reagan/Bush I/Bush II? Enemies List? I'm not even sure what it is you're talking about, except that you don't like people criticizing the left.

But, okay, you want an example? BoingBoing posted a photograph of an alleged thief this morning. The "fascist" police would never do that, as it's a serious invasion of privacy and infringement of individual rights. e-Leftists (my made-up word for leftwing bloggers, particularly "copyleft" bloggers) have no conception of individual rights to privacy or liberty except when involving their own egocentric pursuits of happiness at the lowest price. When you talk about the ethics and morality of leftwing bloggers, you're talking about--for the most part--mob rule.

Liberal copyright campaigners are also generally the loudest anti-DRM/pro- Net-Neutrality/ pro- Free-Software voices, people who spend their lives warning everyone who'll listen of the danger of technology in the wrong hands.

That's just the thing. They're concerned only about technology in the wrong hands, meaning not their hands. When abusing their own power, e-Leftists are worse censors and privacy invaders than the government/corporate ("fascist") establishment they seek to overthrow.

How do you know he didn't get away with it?

I think it's unlikely that the police will take any action on this, and even less likely that they'll catch the thief if they do act.

How does forensics explain finding the hijackers' (many of whom are still alive) passports at a crash site where fires were supposedly hot enough to make a steel frame skyscraper collapse in on itself as if by controlled demolition?

"Oh read Popular Mechanics, har har."

The censor also deleted my comment, in which I expressed support for the dissenter.

I am not CANTSTOPTHESIGNAL, and I do not believe the censor's story. (It's awfully convenient that the accused isn't here to defend himself.)

REPOST:

I just want to say that I support CANTSTOPTHESIGNAL, whatever he says. We all deserve an explanation for why his post was deleted (and, I assume, his IP banned).

On the content of the post:

You do realize nations need law enforcement, don't you? And don't you think federal agents should be well-trained?

If this were a school for future surgeons, you wouldn't say, "Oh, there they go, training more Frankensteins!" No, you'd be thankful for the existence of such a school, because you see the need for skilled surgeons.

I don't understand why you don't see the need for skilled law enforcement.