Pinky

Thanks. Clearly, CES doesn't like having people point out when he says something proufoundly retarded.

Your post reeks of someone whose argument was destroyed, and while I don't expect you to admit it, we both know it. Beyond this, you have FURTHER demonstrated that you a complete ignoramus (I didn't think that was possible, but the power of human stupidity never ceases to amaze me). By your logic, once something is posted on the internet on a "non-regulated server", it becomes public domain... wrong again, Einstein. Do you think that corporate trademarks become public domain once they grace the internet? Can I go use the McDonalds logo for my store because I saw it on a website and hey, everything on the internet is public domain. No. What about photographs? In most countries, authorship remains with the photographer. A photographer/artist doesn't automatically forfeit their rights to a work just because they post it on the internet, dumbass. "Fair use" often ends up as an excuse for copyright/artistic infringement, and just as often gets a judicial smackdown. Your uninspired rebuttal to the "privacy ending at the front door comment" is blatent backtracking. You made an incredibly stupid comment. Why don't you just own up to it? In a 'practical sense of the concept', you could have your throat slashed by a psychotic maniac the second you walk out the door. Does this mean that "hey, if you have your throat slashed the second you leave your home, tough luck"? Only a clinical retard would agree with that assessment. And are you saying that you wouldn't mind if you were pursued by the paparazzi 24/7? "Dumb kid" Wow, I'm truly in awe of your complex, scathing and cunningly brilliant insult. How ever did you know I was in that demographic??? I tremble in fear of your vastly superior intellect... of course, I shouldn't be suprised, since you're the mastermind that came up with "Worthless 25 year old skank". Get a life.

What part of of "there IS such a thing as internet privacy laws" failed to permeate your thick skull? Please show me evidence that you can divulge any type of someone else's personal information on the internet with total freedom from legal reprecussion. When, and only when, you've done that will I consider anything you say with regards to issues of internet privacy worthy of merit. Or, perhaps you agree with CES that not only on the internet but also in real life, privacy ends at the front door of your home. God, I hate dense people.

You are profoundly and densely stupid. So stupid that my head hurts just trying to comprehend the sheer ignorance and stupidity of what you've just posted. PRIVACY ends at your front door? Seriously, are you aware that all Western democracies have privacy laws? Furthermore, are you aware of the fact that many of these laws extend beyond the confines of your home... beyond you front door, as it were? For example, do you think that you have no legal recourse if a fat, naked man runs up to your children and takes a picture of them at a public pool? By your logic, no, since you forfeited your right to privacy once you left your home. In reality, of course you can take legal action. In Canada, it's an indictable offence under the Criminal Code (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ ), and unless you live in some third world country, it'll be illegal in your jurisdiction too. Ever heard of a photographer's release form? People can't just walk up to you in public, take your picture, then post it in the media without obtaining your consent. If they do so, they open themselves up to any number of lawsuits. Of course, you must be right that the internet is a free-for-all zone of privacy infringement, right? Wrong again, you fukking ignoramus. In the European Union, it's illegal to publish "embarrassing pictures of people without their consent" (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/27/eu_internet_privacy_laws_tightened/ )... ...oh, but what about privacy laws in the United States? A cursory Google search reveals that indeed, if you violate someone's privacy in an inflammatory fashion, you can be held responsible for defamation by the affected individual and sued accordingly. Additionally, all sorts of private information is protected on the internet (SIN#, financial information etc.). So next time you want to make retarded statements like "privacy... it ends at your front door", why don't you think long and hard about it, and STFU to spare the rest of us from your blinding idiocy.

I reject this argument. When someone posts their picture on the internet, they usually do so with the assumption that it'll only be viewed by their friends/family/trusted contacts... or at the least, by neutral and psychologically-balanced strangers. Strictly speaking, you're correct that once your picture graces the internet, your reasonable expectation of privacy plummets. Nonetheless, it's perfectly reasonable for Anna to be annoyed with the asshats both here and on Off Topic Forum who tracked down her personal information and spewed it all over the place. Why? Because I strongly doubt she posted her information with the intent of having jealous, foaming-at-the-mouth nutcases on debate forums posting it all over the place. I mean, if you put a picture of your kids on the web, and an insane sex offender gets ahold of said picture and jacks off to it for 6 hours a day (I'm looking at you, OCP), does that mean you're not allowed to be mortified since "hey... you posted it on the internet, no expectation of privacy"? Of course not.

I don't quite understand the whole Anna hatred here (although I admit I wasn't really paying attention to the specific goings-ons at GF when Anna first came here). First, I don't understand where the whole "Anna has no life" statements come here. The people saying that are the ones with post counts in the thousands. By contrast, Anna only posts here a couple times a week. Additionally, any statements demeaning her intellectual capacity are blatently false. Only an idiot blinded by rage would have a hard time admitting that her serious-minded posts are actually well-researched and articulate. I think that, despite their claims to the contrary, most of the people who hate Anna are jealous of her. Grow up.

I'm trembling in my moon boots.

Ownage dispensed. CES proves himself to be among the saddest, most depraved Anna-stalkers of all time.

This is old news, people. The whole "Anna's true identity" broke at Off Topic Forum over a year ago. Anna, shall I post the "cats" picture? Doing so will instantly subjecate the gullible male population of this board in short order (and enrage the 'females' here with jealousy). The 'cats' picture is an ultimate weapon of the Suckage. If it's deployed, half the members of this board will be converted to Castor wannabes.

A well thought-out post, and I agree with your comments about George Bush being a total fool, as well as hammaring home the need for people to back-up their opinions with sources. That said, I still can't concede my position that I find Moore to be rather underhanded at times. I find it irritating that his later films were pushed as being documentaries, rather than opinion pieces.

The Darwin Awards are indeed always good for a laugh. Five bucks says this guy will be a contender for the 2005/06 title.

That's some fukked up shit. On the bright side, the guy did remove himself from the gene pool. Darwin strikes again!

Actually Anna, I feel obligated to point out that Moore does pull some fairly manipulative tactics in some of his films that are quite sketchy. For example, in Bowling for Columbine he edits the film together in such a fashion that we're led to believe that he walked out of the bank with a gun on the same visit he opened the account to get his 'free gun'. In reality, that segment was shot over a couple weeks - he had to wait until a background check was completed before picking up the gun. I generally think that Moore's work has declined in recent years. His first real film, "Roger and Me" I found to be interesting. With regards to that film, the fact of the matter is that American corporations feel very little social responsibility. Their obligation is only to their shareholders. In the eyes of GM, closing down the plants in Flint was a necessary evil to help boost the bottom line. Interestingly, this attitude isn't pervasive everywhere else in the developed world. For example, the Japanese have a dramatically more stakeholder-oriented disposition. They're very hesitant to downsize simply to boost profits. They like to keep production facilities inside the country. Only recently have they begun to loosen their resistance to foreign direct investment, too. Germans, to a lesser extent, embrace 'social capitalism' - they're not as cut-throat as Americans are with regard to the bottom line. So really, Moore's criticisms in the film are somewhat moot. Sorry, but that's just the way American corporations are... they see social responsibilty as belonging in the realm of government, not the market. Anyways, Moore's more recent films have been too bias for my liking. Yes, while technically falling under the definition of documentary, his last couple entries have been nauseatingly bias. They lack any sort of real objectivity to them. That's not to say I necessarily disagree with what he says... I do believe the Iraq war was a mistake, and I think that gun laws in America are a fukking joke. But Bowling for Columbine and F9/11 felt like Moore was trying to force-feed gullible idiots their opinions. What I hated most is how he tried to portray everything in black and white terms, without giving enough substancial material for the audience to make up their own minds. I mean, his message in F9/11 can be summed up as: Bush and Co. = evil, anti-war protestors, democrats and everyone killed in Iraq = Good.

No day is complete without a quick visit to fark. The fact that the stories are true is what makes the site. It just goes to prove that sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

http://www.fark.com Not a debate board in the same sense as this one, but links to a bunch of funny/ridiculous news headlines for the day. The comments sections often get quite heated in political/social issues threads. At any rate, it's still worth visiting just for the hilarious news articles.