dogtag_dez Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Glad I don't live in the United States :) You live in the same city as me :o Im shocked, noone lives here. And I mean noone. Like noone. *Puts you down on ignorant people to ignore on Tip.it list* *Does the same to you* That's fine with me coming from someone who was temp banned. Since I have never seen you before. And you did not justify your reason what so ever. Not to mention your horrible sig. What's wrong with his sig? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faux Posted January 11, 2006 Author Share Posted January 11, 2006 What's wrong with his sig? Nothing, he's just kitty-hurt from TheTrueNoob's comment. :: Guess the Movie Contest Champion: pfilc23 :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogtag_dez Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Oh, I see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Escape5 Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Bush is one silly guy :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
logic-is-overrated Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Guys I'm serious here! I want to know what they consider to be "annoying". My point is a person's perception of annoying can be completely different to someone elses. Because we had a similar problem here in England over the term "excessive force" for restraining someone breaking into your home.I'm pretty sure once they define annoying it's going to refer to serious harassment and it's going to be just like other harassment laws. Small things like a flame on a message board won't be prosecuted just like something small such as insulting your friend won't be prosecuted. It seems pointless because the law is so vague now but if they clarify it and it does end up as trying to stop harrassment online then I think it's a step in the right direction. This is the way the world ends. Look at this [bleep]ing shit we're in man. Not with a bang, but with a whimper. And with a whimper, I'm splitting, Jack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anesthesia Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 The problem with this law is that it can't be enforced, nor do we have a definition of annoy. (What's annoy is defined another problem could be that annoying someone is too easy for it to be punishable.) That's not true. What happens is a case comes to court THEN annoy is defined by the judge, it then sits as precedent for future cases. That's the whole point of Stare Decisis and common law. Some people are changed by being a moderator. I wouldn't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionheart_0 Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Isnt it illegal to enforce something that A) Doesn't tangibly exist So would that make it legal for me to threaten your life? Surely you don't consider threats as "tangible?" Ya but his life is "tangible" So what about psychological abuse? Still hurting your mind, your brain, and thats touchable. :wink: BTW, how can this law be. The internet is international. Sig by IkuraiYour Guide to Posting! Behave or I will send my Moose mounted Beaver launchers at you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anesthesia Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 BTW, how can this law be. The internet is international. The USA likes to forget that its not the only country in the world, that's how. It thinks that its laws are universal...forget about merely global. Some people are changed by being a moderator. I wouldn't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomato Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 BTW, how can this law be. The internet is international. The USA likes to forget that its not the only country in the world, that's how. It thinks that its laws are universal...forget about merely global. Okay moron... It's not like it would be impossible to only prosecute people residing in the United States. It's fairly easy to find where someone on the internet resides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anesthesia Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 The point is it's a USA law, so it applies only within the USA jurisdiction. Look at all the Swedish piracy sites there are, they openly mock Americans who try and prosecute them for an AMERICAN law that they broke in Sweden. How would you feel if you got prosecuted for chewing gum in the USA? It's illegal in Singapore. I would advise against peurile insults in the future, they just make it look like you can't put up a reasoned argument. They are the crutch of the inarticulate. Some people are changed by being a moderator. I wouldn't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomato Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 The point is it's a USA law, so it applies only within the USA jurisdiction. Look at all the Swedish piracy sites there are, they openly mock Americans who try and prosecute them for an AMERICAN law that they broke in Sweden. How would you feel if you got prosecuted for chewing gum in the USA? It's illegal in Singapore. I would advise against peurile insults in the future, they just make it look like you can't put up a reasoned argument. They are the crutch of the inarticulate. Yes, it is a USA law. I didn't see anything in that article(which, by the way, is completely biased to begin with, seeing as it comes from CNET News, which is a joke in itself) stating that the United States wishes to prosecute people outside of the homeland. Now, do I believe that those Swedish sites should be prosecuted? If they're attacking American companies, then yes, I feel America should do our best to protect our economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyPurpleCrayon Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 It's not like it would be impossible to only prosecute people residing in the United States. It's fairly easy to find where someone on the internet resides. Lmao. And about your question dogtagz. I'm hurt on the inside, just like Shadow said. :roll: Ghost: I am prejudice towards ignorance, so that would explain why I appear to be so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostRanger Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Isnt it illegal to enforce something that A) Doesn't tangibly exist So would that make it legal for me to threaten your life? Surely you don't consider threats as "tangible?" Ya but his life is "tangible" So what about psychological abuse? Still hurting your mind, your brain, and thats touchable. :wink: BTW, how can this law be. The internet is international. No..its not hurting your physical mind. Its hurting your emotions and your thoughts. Your physical mind is perfectly fine. :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user1991 Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 I was banned for saying the uncencored version of wagon. And your sigs like amazing, its like the "dope" dude. Its so good. Man I wish I had that sig... :roll: I know mine isnt good, but do you think I really care that much? Your sig is pretty pixelated too dude, its not like its uber amazing or anything. Um I don't care about your actual sig. Just the person in it. Either way, my point remains. You managed to argue with the smallest part of my post, but not the main idea. Try and back up your point a little bit. Hendrix pwns you dude. Better than Suburban Legends.. Hey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyPurpleCrayon Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Hendrix pwns you dude. Better than Suburban Legends.. That's like me comparing peanut butter to the color blue. But seriously, you're completely and totally wrong. :wink: Ghost: I am prejudice towards ignorance, so that would explain why I appear to be so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AThousandLies Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Hendrix pwns you dude. Better than Suburban Legends.. That's like me comparing peanut butter to the color blue. But seriously, you're completely and totally wrong. :wink: Maybe we should keep musical discussion out of this thread (and that's to the both of you). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vmser Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 I love how this is all pin-pointed on Bush. You do realize that a bill must go through several commities before being approved? In those committies, they can alter the bill. If the Legislative Branch did not wish for this law to happen, it would not have. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are "to blame" for this. Bush only approved it, he didn't write it nor alter it to his liking. If you are in charge, you are responsable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AThousandLies Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 I love how this is all pin-pointed on Bush. You do realize that a bill must go through several commities before being approved? In those committies, they can alter the bill. If the Legislative Branch did not wish for this law to happen, it would not have. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are "to blame" for this. Bush only approved it, he didn't write it nor alter it to his liking. If you are in charge, you are responsable. As much as I hate Bush and wish I could expel my fecal matter on his face, he's not the only one responsible. Yeah, you can blame him, but you might as well blame the rest of congress who voted on this law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now