I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Noncommercial bulk emailers can ignore delisting requests

Those of you who have participated in my email protest campaigns that use email lists may have received requests from addressees asking you to remove them from your email list. The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act) requires bulk emailers to comply with addressees' delisting requests only when the emails are commercial. BTW, here are the main provisions of the CAN-SPAM act:
.
(1) It bans false or misleading header information. Your email's "From," "To," and routing information – including the originating domain name and email address – must be accurate and identify the person who initiated the email.

(2) It prohibits deceptive subject lines. The subject line cannot mislead the recipient about the contents or subject matter of the message.

(3) It requires that your email give recipients an opt-out method. You must provide a return email address or another Internet-based response mechanism that allows a recipient to ask you not to send future email messages to that email address, and you must honor the requests.

(4) It requires that commercial email be identified as an advertisement and include the sender's valid physical postal address.

The law apparently does not apply to noncommercial emails containing porn (I am not urging you to include porn in the email campaigns).

IMO you should not delist addressees when those addressees should be getting the emails because the emails are specifically about them, their organizations, or their occupations. Just ignore their requests to be delisted. If they are rude enough to ask to be delisted even though your emails directly concern them, then you can be rude enough to ignore their requests. And if these folks had a real spam problem, they probably would not bother to ask you to delist them if you send them emails only occasionally, since your emails would be lost in a flood of spam. And if they don't care what others may be reading about them or their organizations, then the hell with them. And these very same people who ask you to stop sending them emails usually expect you to read their emails -- I know their kind. Also, if your list is not automated, delisting addressees can be a lot of extra work for you -- the addressees have to be removed by hand from a list that might be non-alphabetical and if the list exists only in your emails then the delisting can be done only when you send out emails. However, as a courtesy to the addressees, you should do the following: (1) use the same sender address when sending emails to the group and (2) use descriptive subject lines -- make the subject line as specific as possible within the space allowed.

The trolls are now going to say, "Larry, you stupid fathead, just because something is not illegal does not necessarily mean that it is not unethical or discourteous." Thank you, trolls, I cannot think of a better argument against arbitrary censorship of visitors' comments on blogs. And IMO arbitrary censorship of blog comments is an infinitely worse offense than ignoring a request to be removed from a bulk emailing list.
.

Labels:

29 Comments:

Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> Those of you who have participated in my email protest campaigns that use email lists may have received requests from addressees asking you to remove them from your email list. <

Were there any others?

> If they are rude enough to ask to be delisted even though your emails directly concern them, then you can be rude enough to ignore their requests.<

This definitely shows the insanity the made you unpopular with your own side in the smog fee cases. The opposition loved you. You acted as a bull in the china shop to your supporters.

> The trolls are now going to say, "Larry, you stupid fathead, just because something is not illegal does not necessarily mean that it is not unethical or discourteous." <

The sane will say it too. Of course you are not a member of that group.

> I cannot think of a better argument against arbitrary censorship of visitors' comments on blogs. <

A great example of illogic!

I think Larry is getting worse. How long before he blows?

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 8:38:00 AM  
Anonymous Sherry D said...

It looks like Larry is deteriorating and it is sad to see. Perhaps some of you could let up on the attacks even though you are just replying in kind.

His belief that there is anything sinister in people asking him not to email them is a definite sign. Larry, not everyone is interested in what you have to say. This can't by any stretch be considered a violation of your freedom of speech.

If you seriously believe in the positions you advocate, you are doing them a disservice. Your repetition of tired arguments, irrational syllogisms, and delusions tend to paint the supporters of these causes with the same brush.

You claim to want more readers and posts like the more scholarly blogs enjoy. You are acting as if you just want attention. Someone, perhaps VIW, suggested that you are like a little kid who acts up because he wants attention. Don't play into the hands of your opponents, as you have thus far.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 9:19:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Sherry D. said,
>>>>>Larry, not everyone is interested in what you have to say. <<<<<<

And I am not interested that not everyone is interested in what I have to say.

And what makes you think that I am interested in what you have to say?

>>>>> This can't by any stretch be considered a violation of your freedom of speech. <<<<<

I never said that. All I did was the following:

(1) -- told what the law is.

(2) -- gave some reasons for ignoring delisting requests.

(3) -- gave advice on courtesy in bulk emailing (particularly on the importance of descriptive subject lines)

Also, in my book, those who think that ignoring bulk-email delisting requests is unethical and discourteous but that arbitrary censorship of blog visitors' comments is not have a badly distorted sense of values, to put it mildly.

>>>>>>Someone, perhaps VIW, suggested that you are like a little kid who acts up because he wants attention. <<<<<<

Yes, the kid who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes was acting up, wasn't he?

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10:12:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

>>>>>Larry, not everyone is interested in what you have to say. <<<<<<

> And I am not interested that not everyone is interested in what I have to say. <

Then why do you carp about the lack of links and "serious commenters"? You have serious commenters, you just don't read or understand their posts.

> And what makes you think that I am interested in what you have to say? <

Nobody cares if you are interested. Her remarks were probably aimed at the serious commenters, me for example.

>>>>> This can't by any stretch be considered a violation of your freedom of speech. <<<<<

> I never said that. <

You have claimed that all sorts of things were violations of your freedom of speech just because they reduced your ability to blather at people who did not want to hear you.

> Also, in my book, those who think that ignoring bulk-email delisting requests is unethical and discourteous but that arbitrary censorship of blog visitors' comments is not have a badly distorted sense of values, to put it mildly. <

You have a badly distorted sense of values, to put it mildly. Besides you have still not come up with a citation of a case of arbitrary censorship.

>>>>>>Someone, perhaps VIW, suggested that you are like a little kid who acts up because he wants attention. <<<<<<

> Yes, the kid who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes was acting up, wasn't he? <

A bad analogy. We all see that you have no clothes. Only you can't see it.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 11:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

I see that you have returned to your status as not only the founder, president, and emperor, of the Association of Non-Censoring Bloggers. You are again the only member.

Who else will you drive out by your hypocrisy, Larry?

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 11:42:00 AM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

Larry, just because one law only applies to a particular group and set of circumstances doesn't mean that another law doesn't apply to a different group and set of circumstances. Take a look at 47§223(a)(1)(E)

(a) Prohibited acts generally
Whoever—
(1) in interstate or foreign communications—
...
(E) makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication; or
...
shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.


Repeatedly sending emails to someone who has requested you not do so is considered harassment. Since some of the people on Larry's list live outside of California or have international addresses, he is in danger of committing a federal crime.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 1:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Hector said...

This blog has deteriorated to Larry making a fool of himself and a bunch of hyenas circling in for an easy kill. It's sad.

The Internet has made it possible for anyone to be able to post their ideas on a worldwide scale. There is a downside to this and it is shown here.

As Ed Brayton observed "It is not good sport to pull the tail of the clinically insane."

I don't know if the curiosity as to what will come next will outweigh my disgust at what is happening on this blog. We are seeing someone self-destruct.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 1:53:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

Hector, I assure you that the blog hasn't deteriorated - it started out that way. I mainly stick around to correct the most egregious of Larry's lies and misunderstandings, on the off-chance that a neonate to a topic might stumble across the blog via a google search and think that what Larry is espousing is actually true. This post being a prime example - Larry is simply incorrect in his assertion because he is looking at the wrong law, and someone that didn't know better might think they could get away with what is actually a federal crime that could put them in prison for up to two years. The odds are slim, but you never know.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 2:24:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Kevin Vicklund (May 30, 2007 @ 1:52:00 PM) cites the following provision of federal law --

(E) makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication

Note the phrase, "during which conversation or communication ensues." If an email recipient does not respond, then there is no conversation. As for "communication," in the unlikely event that the few words in a subject line are considered to be a "communication" for purposes of this law, then the sender could get around that by sending blank subject lines.

BTW, I don't see how the telephone calls can be considered to be harassing for purposes of this law if the callee repeatedly engages in conversation with the caller.

This law also says,
(C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;

So the above provision of this law is a reason for following my recommendation of always using the same sending address in bulk emailing. I don't know about other spam filters, but the AOL spam filter offers the option of automatic deletion of emails from a particular sender (on keyword/phrase filtering, filtered emails are always sent to a spam "folder" where they must be manually deleted or saved).

However, the law that Kevin linked to is an out-of-date copy (the cited website says that the laws may be one or two years out of date) -- the law has since been amended to expressly apply to the Internet. An article dated Jan. 9, 2006 says --

It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

The amendment to the law says,
"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

How is "identity" defined? Is not one's normal email address a kind of identity? As I said, if the sender consistently uses the same email address, then at least on AOL the emails can be filtered out with automatic deletion.

The article continues,

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.


Since some of the subjects addressed by this 2006 amendment and the CAN-SPAN Act of 2003 are the same, the following Supreme Court ruling in Posadas v. National City Bank of New York, 296 U.S. 497 (1936), applies:

The cardinal rule is that repeals by implication are not favored. Where there are two acts upon the same subject, effect should be given to both if possible. There are two well-settled categories of repeals by implication: (1) Where provisions in the two acts are in irreconcilable conflict, the later act to the extent of the conflict constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier one; and (2) if the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute, it will operate similarly as a repeal of the earlier act. But, in either case, the intention of the legislature to repeal must be clear and manifest; otherwise, at least as a general thing, the later act is to be construed as a continuation of, and not a substitute for, the first act and will continue to speak, so far as the two acts are the same, from the time of the first enactment.

I am astonished that this amendment of 47 USC §223 was never mentioned in all of the material that I read about "cyberbullying". I think that I am going to make a new post about this. .

Kevin, your indirectly bringing this amendment to my attention for the first time shows the folly of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face by blocking or ignoring potentially important "spam" just because one thinks that the sender is stupid, ignorant, obnoxious, or whatever. By "potentially important 'spam'," I mean "spam" related to one's job, organization, or special interests. One could make a major mistake, miss a big opportunity, or be greatly embarrassed because of ignorance about something that one might have learned about through that "spam." If I were like Ed Brayton, I would have deleted your comment on sight and never learned about this amendment. You don't learn anything by burying your head in the sand.

Well, anyway, Kevin, I thank you for bringing this recent amendment to my attention, though I know that was not your original intention.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 5:41:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Regarding my last comment --

The Volokh Conspiracy says this about this 2006 anti-cyberbullying law --

The new law simply expands the old law so that it applies to the Internet as well as the telephone network. It does this by taking the old definition of "telecommunications device" from 47 U.S.C. 223(h), which used to be telephone-specific, and expanding it in this context to include "any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet."

-- and --

It turns out that the statute can only be used when prohibiting the speech would not violate the First Amendment. If speech is protected by the First Amendment, the statute is unconstitutional as applied and the indictment must be dismissed. An example of this is United States v. Popa, 187 F.3d 672 (D.C. Cir. 1999). In Popa, the defendant called the U.S. Attorney for D.C on the telephone several times, and each time would hurl insults at the U.S. Attorney without identifying himself. He was charged under 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(C), and raised a First Amendment defense. Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Ginsburg reversed the conviction: punishing the speech violated the Supreme Court's First Amendment test in United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), he reasoned, such that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to those facts.

You and Hector really made fools of yourselves by jumping all over me before I had a chance to respond. You never learn.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:43:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

If you send an email and the receipient receives it, "communication ensues." And if the receipient responds to ask you not to send any more emails (either personally or by official proxy), "conversation ensues."

The article Larry refers to (which is what pointed me to the statute I quoted and which I debated whether to reference) is actually referring to 47§223(a)(1)(C), whereas the statute I referred to is 47§223(a)(1)(E). The law Larry refers to did not alter subparagraph E; instead, it was limited solely to subparagraph C. Furthermore, the CAN-SPAM Act did not affect anything in subsection a. The statute I quoted is in fact the most recent version as quoted. So Posada does apply, but not in the way Larry implies - neither of those laws repeal by implication the statute I quoted. Nor does one repeal the other, neither in whole nor in part. (I don't think Larry understands the ruling in Posada and its precedential value, but that is off-topic unless Larry wishes to explore it further) The statute I quoted remains unchanged since the 1996 amendment and is thus not obsolete as quoted.

As far as the case Larry cites, note the critical phrase, "protected speech." Private speech is generally not considered protected speech for First Amendment purposes. Popa involved a man complaining about a political matter to a government official in his official capacity. That is protected speech.

That said, I have a major mea culpa, which I will address separately so that it does not get buried at the bottom of a long post.

Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:20:00 AM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

All that said, my above post is moot. I made a fatal error in that I didn't read the entire section. In light of the recent amendment and the CAN-SPAM Act that Larry mentioned, I assumed that "telecommunications device" included computers (and thus, email). However, subsection h of the section specifically excludes computers ("interactive computer services") from the definition of telecommunications device. Therefore, simple harassment is not, in fact, covered by the statute I cited.

As a side note, the recent amendment discussed above added a subparagraph to the definition of "telecommunications device." This addition only affected 47§223(a)(1)(C). In the end, it turns out that the addition included VoIP as a "telecommunications device" for that one subparagraph, the anonymous caller rule. Essentially, if you are using the computer as a phone to initiate voice communication, you can't make anonymous harassing calls.

However, my initial statement stands: just because one law only applies to a particular group and set of circumstances doesn't mean that another law doesn't apply to a different group and set of circumstances.

Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:39:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

For the first time since the blog was started Larry is (half) right.

Even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn.

Then again Larry made the following statement:

> You and Hector really made fools of yourselves by jumping all over me before I had a chance to respond. You never learn. <

Both Hector's and my posts predated Kevins and say nothing about the subject he covered so the validity of anything he said is quite irrelevant to our observations. Larry has again made a fool out of himself.

Try to read and think before posting and you won't look as bad.

Thursday, May 31, 2007 6:44:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Kevin Vicklund said (May 31, 2007 @ 1:20:00 AM),
>>>>> If you send an email and the receipient (sic) receives it, "communication ensues." <<<<<

Wrong. If the subject line is blank and the recipient does not open the email, then there is no communication. Even if there is something in the subject line, there may be a question as to whether there was any actual communication if the recipient does not open the email. And if the recipient puts the sender's address in a spam filter and the sender's emails are automatically deleted, then there is certainly no communication.

>>>>> And if the receipient (sic -- repeated misspelling, so might not be a typo) responds to ask you not to send any more emails (either personally or by official proxy), "conversation ensues." <<<<<

A simple request -- with no discussion -- that asks for stoppage of emails might not be considered to be actual "conversation." Anyway, as I said, I wonder how the calls or emails can be considered to be harassment if the recipient repeatedly engages the caller in conversation.

>>>>>> The article Larry refers to (which is what pointed me to the statute I quoted and which I debated whether to reference) is actually referring to 47§223(a)(1)(C), whereas the statute I referred to is 47§223(a)(1)(E). The law Larry refers to did not alter subparagraph E; instead, it was limited solely to subparagraph C. <<<<<<<

The 2006 law I referred to (not to be confused with the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003) -- which does not appear in the outdated version of 47 USC §223 that you cited -- expressly modifies only paragraph C, but paragraph E is related to paragraph C. Here is the 2006 law, Sec. 113, "preventing cyberstalking" --

SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.

(a) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `and' at the end;

(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).'.

(b) Rule of Construction- This section and the amendment made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning given the term `telecommunications device' in section 223(h)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect before the date of the enactment of this section.:


Here are subparagraphs (C) and (E) of subsection (a)(1) --

(C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications

(E) makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication


BTW, I think that Sec. 113 above was really written in a stupid way. Instead of modifying section 223(h) to give the term "telecommunications device" a special meaning in subparagraph (a)(1)(C) that does not apply to the rest of 47 USC §223, they should have just rewritten subparagraph (a)(1)(C). They created a lot of unnecessary confusion.

>>>>> Furthermore, the CAN-SPAM Act did not affect anything in subsection a. <<<<<

I disagree -- the CAN-SPAM Act helps show how subsection "a" applies to commercial bulk emailers (or commercial "spammers"), even though the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 was enacted before that 2006 law (Section 113 above) expressly applied subsection "a" to the Internet.

>>>>> The statute I quoted is in fact the most recent version as quoted. <<<<<<

You quoted from an outdated version of 47 USC §223. The Section "a" that you quoted is probably current, but section "h" of that version has since been modified by the 2006 Section 113 that I cited above.

>>>>> So Posada does apply, but not in the way Larry implies - neither of those laws repeal by implication the statute I quoted. <<<<<

Posadas (not Posada) does not apply only to repeals by implication.

>>>>> I don't think Larry understands the ruling in Posada and its precedential value, but that is off-topic unless Larry wishes to explore it further <<<<<<

Posadas is not off-topic, because this thread led naturally to it. Comment threads are called "threads" because they are free to change direction while maintaining continuity. I am also generally tolerant of truly off-topic comments, within reason.

>>>>> The statute I quoted remains unchanged since the 1996 amendment and is thus not obsolete as quoted. <<<<<<

That statute could be rendered obsolete by another statute.

>>>>> Private speech is generally not considered protected speech for First Amendment purposes. Popa involved a man complaining about a political matter to a government official in his official capacity. <<<<<

Popa involved a private conversation with a government official, but it was still a private conversation.

In the next post (May 31, 2007 @ 1:39:00 AM), Kevin said,

>>>>> my above post is moot. I made a fatal error in that I didn't read the entire section. In light of the recent amendment and the CAN-SPAM Act that Larry mentioned, I assumed that "telecommunications device" included computers (and thus, email). However, subsection h of the section specifically excludes computers ("interactive computer services") from the definition of telecommunications device. <<<<<<

WHAT? That 2006 amendment I mentioned specifically added the Internet to the definition of "telecommunications device" in subparagraph (a)(1)(C) --

(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).

-- but also said that this change does not affect the meaning of that term "telecommunications device" so far as the rest of 47 USC §223 is concerned --

Rule of Construction- This section and the amendment made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning given the term `telecommunications device' in section 223(h)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect before the date of the enactment of this section.:

As I pointed out, the above amendment is absent from your linked version of 47 USC §223.

>>>>> In the end, it turns out that the addition included VoIP as a "telecommunications device" for that one subparagraph, the anonymous caller rule. Essentially, if you are using the computer as a phone to initiate voice communication, you can't make anonymous harassing calls. <<<<<<

I had to look up the definition of VoIP -- it means "Voice over Internet Protocol." I was aware that broadband lines can be used for both the Internet and voice telephones, but was not aware that the Internet could be used to "initiate" voice communication. Does that mean that one can switch to voice communication without leaving the Internet? That is a new one to me. Anyway, the amendment makes no mention of VoIP, so I presume that the amendment applies to the Internet generally. As for the "anonymous caller" rule, the terms "annoy" in section (a)(1)(C) is too vague and section (a)(1)(C) does not define what the term "identity" means on the Internet -- does it mean a person's name or can it just be a person's preferred email address?

Anyway, IMO ignoring bulk-email delisting requests is quite legal, safe, and ethical when the emails : (1) are non-commercial, (2) use a consistent sending address, (3) have descriptive subject lines, and (4) contain no threats, porn, etc.

BTW, the title of 47 USC § 223, "Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications," is now obsolete.

Thursday, May 31, 2007 9:03:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViW said (May 31, 2007 6:44:00 AM) --
>>>>>>> You (Kevin) and Hector really made fools of yourselves by jumping all over me before I had a chance to respond. You never learn. <

Both Hector's and my posts predated Kevins and say nothing about the subject he covered so the validity of anything he said is quite irrelevant to our observations. Larry has again made a fool out of himself. <<<<<<

Wrong -- you missed the following comment ( May 30, 2007 @ 1:53:00 PM ) that Hector made in response to Kevin's comment --

This blog has deteriorated to Larry making a fool of himself and a bunch of hyenas circling in for an easy kill. It's sad.

The Internet has made it possible for anyone to be able to post their ideas on a worldwide scale. There is a downside to this and it is shown here.

As Ed Brayton observed "It is not good sport to pull the tail of the clinically insane."

I don't know if the curiosity as to what will come next will outweigh my disgust at what is happening on this blog. We are seeing someone self-destruct.


And Kevin then chimed in --

Hector, I assure you that the blog hasn't deteriorated - it started out that way. I mainly stick around to correct the most egregious of Larry's lies and misunderstandings, on the off-chance that a neonate to a topic might stumble across the blog via a google search and think that what Larry is espousing is actually true. This post being a prime example - Larry is simply incorrect in his assertion because he is looking at the wrong law, and someone that didn't know better might think they could get away with what is actually a federal crime that could put them in prison for up to two years. The odds are slim, but you never know.

Thursday, May 31, 2007 9:18:00 AM  
Anonymous Hector said...

> Wrong -- you missed the following comment ( May 30, 2007 @ 1:53:00 PM ) that Hector made in response to Kevin's comment <

I didn't plan on coming back but this should be addressed.

No sane person could take my post to be a response to Kevin's comment. Not only was nothing that Kevin said addressed in my comments, but my post was made exacly one minute after Kevin's. I could not have even read his post and then had the time to type mine.

Larry's mental problems are even worse than I thought.

Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:03:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Hector said...
>>>>>>> Wrong -- you missed the following comment ( May 30, 2007 @ 1:53:00 PM ) that Hector made in response to Kevin's comment <

I didn't plan on coming back but this should be addressed. <<<<<<<

Thank you for not planning on coming back, but I wish that you had stuck to your plan.

>>>>>> No sane person could take my post to be a response to Kevin's comment. <<<<<<

Then Kevin also appears to be insane -- his comment that quickly responded to your comment (see my preceding comment) implies that he thought that your comment was a response to his first comment. Kevin, did you or did you not think that Hector's comment was a response to your first comment?

>>>>>> Not only was nothing that Kevin said addressed in my comments, <<<<<

That doesn't mean anything -- you often make comments here that do not address the issues but just contain insults and ad hominem attacks.

It appeared that your comment was an approval of Kevin's comment, because Kevin's comment was the first one to address the legal issues.

>>>>>> but my post was made exacly one minute after Kevin's. I could not have even read his post and then had the time to type mine. <<<<<<<

Well, you obviously worked pretty fast! LOL

OK, I accept your explanation. It looks like you had some bad timing -- if your comment had been posted two minutes earlier, we would not have had this misunderstanding.

Also, ViW incorrectly stated, "Both Hector's and my posts predated Kevins." Your post did not predate Kevin's. ViW's statement misled me because I thought he was referring to a post of yours that predates Kevin's -- I now see that there is no such post.

Actually, the fact that your comment was not a response to Kevin's makes your comment even worse, because no comment preceding Kevin's addresses the legal issues.

>>>>>> Larry's mental problems are even worse than I thought. <<<<<<

You are the one with the mental problems. Only a paranoid would think that my assumption that your comment was a response to Kevin was unreasonable.

Friday, June 01, 2007 12:48:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

>>>>>> No sane person could take my post to be a response to Kevin's comment. <<<<<<

> Then Kevin also appears to be insane -- his comment that quickly responded to your comment (see my preceding comment) implies that he thought that your comment was a response to his first comment. <

Here we have an iron clad proof of Larry's insanity. "Quickly" is a half hour and nothing Kevin said implied that he thought that Hector's comment was a response to anything other than Larry's obvious shortcomings.

>>>>>> Not only was nothing that Kevin said addressed in my comments, <<<<<

> That doesn't mean anything <

The fact that someone doesn't address anything in another comment is not proof that they were not responding to it? Discuss this with your therapist.

> you often make comments here that do not address the issues but just contain insults and ad hominem attacks. <

You seem to be talking to yourself again.

> It appeared that your comment was an approval of Kevin's comment, because Kevin's comment was the first one to address the legal issues. <

While Hector's said absolutely nothing about the legal issues, just about your insanity which you display in this post.

> if your comment had been posted two minutes earlier, we would not have had this misunderstanding. <

If you read and understood posts before shooting off your toes, you would not have had this misunderstanding.

> Also, ViW incorrectly stated, "Both Hector's and my posts predated Kevins. <

Hector's post predated the one in which you believe you made a point. Now we see that you are taking the position that Hector's post could be a response to any post that Kevin has ever made.

> ViW's statement misled me because I thought he was referring to a post of yours that predates Kevin's -- I now see that there is no such post. <

Your eyesight is failing. Hector's post does predate the only post of Kevin's that could possibly be taken to be related.

> Actually, the fact that your comment was not a response to Kevin's makes your comment even worse, because no comment preceding Kevin's addresses the legal issues. <

Hector did not seem to be discussing legal issues. His post is quite straightforward and it would take a warped mind to misinterpret it (which explains your problem). Where do you get the misconception that he was discussing legal issues?

>>>>>> Larry's mental problems are even worse than I thought. <<<<<<

> Only a paranoid would think that my assumption that your comment was a response to Kevin was unreasonable. <

You are sane. It is the rest of the world which is crazy.

P.S. Look up "paranoid". For that matter, perhaps you should look up every word of more than four letters before misusing them.

Friday, June 01, 2007 7:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Hector said...

It's worse than I thought.

Larry, how could a rational mind make any connection between my post and anything that Kevin said?

Then again, a rational mind didn't.

Friday, June 01, 2007 8:29:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViW drivels,
>>>>>> Then Kevin also appears to be insane -- his comment that quickly responded to your comment (see my preceding comment) implies that he thought that your comment was a response to his first comment. <

Here we have an iron clad proof of Larry's insanity. <<<<<<

I asked Kevin -- not you -- whether he thought that Hector was responding to him. I am still waiting for Kevin's answer.

>>>>> The fact that someone doesn't address anything in another comment is not proof that they were not responding to it? Discuss this with your therapist. <<<<<<

Holy shit -- I can't believe that anyone could be dumb enough to say that.

>>>>>> Also, ViW incorrectly stated, "Both Hector's and my posts predated Kevins. <

Hector's post predated the one in which you believe you made a point. <<<<<<

WHAT? You were talking about Hector's posts predating Kevin's posts, not my posts. I can't believe this.

>>>>> Hector's post does predate the only post of Kevin's that could possibly be taken to be related. <<<<<<

You just made the flat statement that Hector's post predated Kevin's posts, and that statement was wrong. And are you claiming that Kevin's post that preceded Hector's post is not "related"?

>>>>> Hector did not seem to be discussing legal issues. <<<<<<

Hector did not discuss any issues -- his comment just made insults and ad hominem attacks.

Friday, June 01, 2007 8:39:00 AM  
Anonymous Bill Carter said...

Larry,

You seem to have found yourself in another hole and are continuing to dig.

>>>>> The fact that someone doesn't address anything in another comment is not proof that they were not responding to it? Discuss this with your therapist. <<<<<<

> Holy shit -- I can't believe that anyone could be dumb enough to say that.<

Before you make such a dumb statement Larry, you will have to explain yourself. You are saying that something that doesn't address any of the issues in another post is a response to it. VIW is right. This is not the statement of a sane man.

>>>>>> Also, ViW incorrectly stated, "Both Hector's and my posts predated Kevins. <

Hector's post predated the one in which you believe you made a point. <<<<<<

> WHAT? You were talking about Hector's posts predating Kevin's posts, not my posts. I can't believe this. <

Believe it. What could it predating your posts possibly have to do with this issue?

>>>>> Hector's post does predate the only post of Kevin's that could possibly be taken to be related. <<<<<<

> You just made the flat statement that Hector's post predated Kevin's posts, and that statement was wrong. <

What are you trying to say here? It is obvious that you have some goofy idea in your mind that you haven't stated. Since Kevin began posting many months ago and Hector has only been around for a week or so, someone could say that Kevin's posts predated Hector's. Beyond that it sounds like the creatures in your head are leading you astray.

> And are you claiming that Kevin's post that preceded Hector's post is not "related"? <

VIW is right. No sane person could find them to be related.

>>>>> Hector did not seem to be discussing legal issues. <<<<<<

> Hector did not discuss any issues <

... that you could understand.

> his comment just made insults and ad hominem attacks. <

Not everything that says something negative about you is an ad hominem attack. You don't seem to understand the meaning of the term, however, if this were true, how could Hector's post be a response to Kevin's?

If you have a point here, you will have to explain it more clearly. As it is, you are only proving the widely held belief that you are nuts.

Friday, June 01, 2007 9:36:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Hector said...
>>>>>> Larry, how could a rational mind make any connection between my post and anything that Kevin said? <<<<<<

Kevin's direct reply to your comment said,

Hector, I assure you that the blog hasn't deteriorated - it started out that way. I mainly stick around to correct the most egregious of Larry's lies and misunderstandings, on the off-chance that a neonate to a topic might stumble across the blog via a google search and think that what Larry is espousing is actually true.

That above statement implies -- or at least suggests -- that he thought that you were responding to his comment. I asked Kevin if he thought that you were responding to his comment and I am still waiting for his answer. Also, Kevin's above comment reinforced the appearance that your comment was a response to his first comment.

Anyway, Hector, as I said, the fact that you were not responding to Kevin makes your comment even worse, because the comments that preceded Kevin's did not discuss specific legal issues but only discussed issues of ethics and netiquette. And I pointed out that arbitrary censorship of blog visitors' comments is far more unethical and discourteous than ignoring bulk-email delisting requests.

Friday, June 01, 2007 10:07:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Bill Carter said,
>>>>> You seem to have found yourself in another hole and are continuing to dig. <<<<<<

Digging is often a positive thing. People dig gold mines, canals, tunnels, space for structural foundations, etc.. My digging is a positive thing.

>>>>>(ViW said) The fact that someone doesn't address anything in another comment is not proof that they were not responding to it? Discuss this with your therapist.<<

>(Larry said) Holy shit -- I can't believe that anyone could be dumb enough to say that.<

(Bill Carter said) Before you make such a dumb statement Larry, you will have to explain yourself. You are saying that something that doesn't address any of the issues in another post is a response to it. <<<<<<

No, that is not what I am saying -- you are putting words in my mouth. Go back and see again what ViW essentially said: The fact that someone doesn't address anything in another comment is proof that they were not responding to it. What I am saying is that something that doesn't address anything in another comment could nonetheless be a response to that comment.

>>>>> Since Kevin began posting many months ago and Hector has only been around for a week or so, someone could say that Kevin's posts predated Hector's. <<<<<<

Now you are really stretching things. When ViW said that Hector's post predated Kevin's, it was fair to assume that he was just talking about this thread.

>>>>>> Not everything that says something negative about you is an ad hominem attack. <<<<<<

Wrong. Any argument that attacks me and does not address the issues is an ad hominem attack -- by definition.

Anyway, I am still waiting for Kevin's response to my question of whether or not he thought that Hector's first comment was a response to his own first comment.

Friday, June 01, 2007 11:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> Digging is often a positive thing. People dig gold mines, canals, tunnels, space for structural foundations, etc.. <

Your digging is a negative thing.

> Go back and see again what ViW essentially said: The fact that someone doesn't address anything in another comment is proof that they were not responding to it. <

What we have here is a failure to communicate. I said nothing of the kind. I was asking if you believed that something that doesn't address anything in another comment is necessarily a response to that comment? You have shown that you believe that something that is no way responsive to a comment is a response to that comment.

> When ViW said that Hector's post predated Kevin's, it was fair to assume that he was just talking about this thread.<

Hector's post predated the post to which you were responding. It was reasonable to assume that you were responding to the post which you quoted, rather than a preceding quote that you said nothing about.

I get it now. Posts are a response to prior posts they do not quote about subjects they do not discuss from people they do not mention.

> Any argument that attacks me and does not address the issues is an ad hominem attack -- by definition. <

So the majority of your posts are ad hominem attacks - by definition.

What about our posts that do address the issues?

Friday, June 01, 2007 12:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Sherry D said...

VIW is right, Larry.

If you want this thread to be anything but proof of your own insanity, you will have to come up with some reason to believe that there was any connection between Hector's post and that of Kevin. It sure doesn't look that way.

Friday, June 01, 2007 1:06:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViW said,
>>>>>>> Go back and see again what ViW essentially said: The fact that someone doesn't address anything in another comment is proof that they were not responding to it. <

What we have here is a failure to communicate. I said nothing of the kind. <<<<<<

Yes you did. I used your exact words, except that I stated the opposite of what you said because you indicated that you meant the opposite.

>>>>> I was asking if you believed that something that doesn't address anything in another comment is necessarily a response to that comment? <<<<<<

That was not what you were asking, but since you are asking that question now, I will answer it: the answer is of course no. But it is a straw man question. My point is that something that doesn't address anything in another comment could nonetheless be a response to that comment.

>>>>> You have shown that you believe that something that is no way responsive to a comment is a response to that comment. <<<<<<

I have already explained why I thought Hector's comment was a response to Kevin. I made an honest mistake. I think that Kevin made the same honest mistake, but he still has not answered my question as to whether he did or not.

>>>>>> Hector's post predated the post to which you were responding. <<<<<<

Wrong. I was responding to Kevin's post, which immediately preceded Hector's post. Anyway, I don't see what that has to do with anything.

>>>>>> It was reasonable to assume that you were responding to the post which you quoted, rather than a preceding quote that you said nothing about. <<<<<<

I thought that we were talking only about Hector's and Kevin's posts and not about my posts.

>>>>> I get it now. Posts are a response to prior posts they do not quote about subjects they do not discuss from people they do not mention. <<<<<

Well, I don't get it now. For example, a post can respond to another post by just praising or condemning that other post without quoting that other post, without discussing anything in that other post, and without mentioning any people. It can also sometimes be assumed that a post is tacitly responding to another post and I mistakenly made that assumption here and I said that there was a misunderstanding. So what's the beef about? You are making a mountain out of a molehill. And I am still waiting for Kevin's response to my question as to whether or not he had the same misunderstanding that I did.

>>>>> So the majority of your posts are ad hominem attacks - by definition.<<<<<<

I made no insults or ad hominem attacks in responding to Kevin's posts in this thread. Considering that he is a big cyberbully and pettifogger, that showed commendable restraint on my part.

>>>>>> What about our posts that do address the issues? <<<<<

This thread is chock full of my responses to such posts. You are really wasting my time by making absurd charges.

Friday, June 01, 2007 2:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

>>>>>>> ...I said nothing of the kind. <<<<<<

>Yes you did. I used your exact words, except that I stated the opposite of what you said because you indicated that you meant the opposite.<

A typical example of Larry's inability to read. I did not indicate that I meant the opposite.

>>>>> You have shown that you believe that something that is no way responsive to a comment is a response to that comment. <<<<<<

> I have already explained why I thought Hector's comment was a response to Kevin. I made an honest mistake. <

When Kevin made an honest mistake, he immediately apologized even though it didn't actually change most of his point. You dragged on for days trying to find a place to hide.

> I think that Kevin made the same honest mistake <

It doesn't appear that he did.

>>>>>> Hector's post predated the post to which you were responding. <<<<<<

> Wrong. I was responding to Kevin's post, which immediately preceded Hector's post.<

I see. After reply B was posted, you referred to it as a way of responding to reply A. To avoid the impression that you were applying to B, you made no mention of the issues in A.

> Anyway, I don't see what that has to do with anything. <

I would agree with that. You rarely see what anything has to do with anything.

>>>>>> It was reasonable to assume that you were responding to the post which you quoted, rather than a preceding quote that you said nothing about. <<<<<<

> I thought that we were talking only about Hector's and Kevin's posts and not about my posts. <

Hector's post does not refer to Kevin's post. You are the one making the silly claims as to what is a response.

You started this with your absurd statement:

> You (Kevin) and Hector really made fools of yourselves by jumping all over me before I had a chance to respond. <

And yet nothing you said in your response had a single thing to do with Hector's post.

>>>>> I get it now. Posts are a response to prior posts they do not quote about subjects they do not discuss from people they do not mention. <<<<<

> Well, I don't get it now. For example, a post can respond to another post by just praising or condemning that other post without quoting that other post, without discussing anything in that other post, and without mentioning any people. <

But if a post does not praise, condemn, mention, or acknowledge the existencd of another post, nor address anything covered in that post, only a blazing moonbat would assume that it was a reply.

> I said that there was a misunderstanding. <

At long last!

> So what's the beef about? You are making a mountain out of a molehill. <

You did by making such an absurd statement.

>>>>>> What about our posts that do address the issues? <<<<<

>This thread is chock full of my responses to such posts.<

Yes, insults and ad hominym attacks.

Friday, June 01, 2007 9:12:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

ViW driveled,
>>>>>>Yes you did. I used your exact words, except that I stated the opposite of what you said because you indicated that you meant the opposite. <

A typical example of Larry's inability to read. I did not indicate that I meant the opposite. <<<<<<<

Here are your exact words --

The fact that someone doesn't address anything in another comment is not proof that they were not responding to it? Discuss this with your therapist.

So your statement "discuss this with your therapist" does not indicate that your own position is the opposite of the statement in the preceding question (the opposite statement being, "The fact that someone doesn't address anything in another comment is proof that they were not responding to it")?

Or maybe your own position is, "The fact that someone doesn't address anything in another comment is not proof that they were responding to it," or maybe your own position is, "The fact that someone doesn't address anything in another comment is proof that they were responding to it." -- LOL

I am not going to waste any more time discussing this with you. Furthermore, I am not only wasting my time but encouraging you to clutter up this blog with your drivel.

All I want now is a statement from Kevin as to whether or not he thought that Hector was responding to him. He became strangely silent after I asked that question.

Friday, June 01, 2007 10:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> Here are your exact words --

The fact that someone doesn't address anything in another comment is not proof that they were not responding to it? Discuss this with your therapist.<

And they mean exactly what they say, not the contortions of illogic that you follow this with.

You have proved his point. You are irrational.

Saturday, June 02, 2007 12:10:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home