Repercussions of court ruling against F.C.C. and Net Neutrality

[kamk2k8]

This might sound hard to believe, but when you first begin writing, no one knows about it, and if you fail to promote it, things will stay as such

I am not trying to sell you anything I am simply posting things I have written, which last time I checked, was the purpose of a forum. I am sorry if you are offened with messages that contain information that has actually been thoughtfully constructed and carefully sourced

I think my articles are relevant to this forum and not "free hot piczzz h3re!!!" genre posts

 

[texasPI]

This might sound hard to believe, but when you first begin writing, no one knows about it, and if you fail to promote it, things will stay as such

I am not trying to sell you anything I am simply posting things I have written, which last time I checked, was the purpose of a forum. I am sorry if you are offened with messages that contain information that has actually been thoughtfully constructed and carefully sourced

I think my articles are relevant to this forum and not "free hot piczzz h3re!!!" genre posts

You might find this hard to believe but not everyone believes what you write especially when it has not been thoughtfully and carefully sourced. If you had sourced it properly you would not havge written that piece to begin with. Besides, I don't think reading other blogs etc qualify as sources. Also, nice way to make it more about WalMart than the actual court case and pointing to healthcare etc is hilarious.

Yes, thanks for telling me what a forum is all about. I can guarantee you that I've been on them far longer than you. What you are doing is not contributing (positively anyway) at all to this forum, just posting links to your site.

 

[kamk2k8]

You might find this hard to believe but not everyone believes what you write especially when it has not been thoughtfully and carefully sourced. If you had sourced it properly you would not havge written that piece to begin with. Besides, I don't think reading other blogs etc qualify as sources. Also, nice way to make it more about WalMart than the actual court case and pointing to healthcare etc is hilarious.

Yes, thanks for telling me what a forum is all about. I can guarantee you that I've been on them far longer than you. What you are doing is not contributing (positively anyway) at all to this forum, just posting links to your site.

What do you mean if I had sourced it properly I would not have written that piece? Opinions are subjective but where did I display incorrect facts? I posted no links to blogs and I'm not sure what kind of qualification you have to support such an implication. Most of my information came from sites like fcc.gov, cnet, and the Wall Street Journal.

Although you seem to disagree with my opinion I do not think that is a sufficient reason to imply that I am not contributing positively to this forum in any way.

As for the Wal-Mart metaphor I think it is fitting, and once again you are the one providing blatantly incorrect facts: two of the eleven paragraphs in that article relate to Wal-Mart, 18% is not a majority.

 

[texasPI]

You might find this hard to believe but not everyone believes what you write especially when it has not been thoughtfully and carefully sourced. If you had sourced it properly you would not havge written that piece to begin with. Besides, I don't think reading other blogs etc qualify as sources. Also, nice way to make it more about WalMart than the actual court case and pointing to healthcare etc is hilarious.

Yes, thanks for telling me what a forum is all about. I can guarantee you that I've been on them far longer than you. What you are doing is not contributing (positively anyway) at all to this forum, just posting links to your site.

What do you mean if I had sourced it properly I would not have written that piece? Opinions are subjective but where did I display incorrect facts? I posted no links to blogs and I'm not sure what kind of qualification you have to support such an implication. Most of my information came from sites like fcc.gov, cnet, and the Wall Street Journal.

Although you seem to disagree with my opinion I do not think that is a sufficient reason to imply that I am not contributing positively to this forum in any way.

As for the Wal-Mart metaphor I think it is fitting, and once again you are the one providing blatantly incorrect facts: two of the eleven paragraphs in that article relate to Wal-Mart, 18% is not a majority.

At this point we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not going to rehash this whole thread. There is one incontrovertible fact here and that is that all of your posts here are for self promotion. You contribute nothing beyond links to your articles.

Anyhow, I'm bored with this thread already. I see from your profile that you're 19 and I feel I should not have gone at you as hard as I did. Truth be told, I commend you for even taking the initiative to even consider and write about these topics. Many in your generation are not so contemplative.

While I disagree with your stance and/or the tone with which you wrote this piece, I wish you success.

 

[kamk2k8]

Wow, I don't know what else to say other than it's always the most unexpected things like that which make me the happiest, as trivial as your change of heart may seem to others,

thank you, I wish you likewise

 

[pyro6128]

"well sir, I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"

 

[texasPI]

Wow, I don't know what else to say other than it's always the most unexpected things like that which make me the happiest, as trivial as your change of heart may seem to others,

thank you, I wish you likewise

No hard feelings, ok? Btw, in mentioning your age, I did not mean to sound dismissive. It looks that way to me now that I re-read what I wrote.

"well sir, I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"

Damn straight! lol

 

[drewlamo1]

the lesson imo of government power is this

lets say you give the federal government the right to do whatever they want etc. they give the fcc and all other agencies within the government the right to changes laws to 'protect' the people as they see fit.

now this could be all fine and dandy if these people in power to the right thing %100 of the time but what happens when a new president and such are elected and they turn out to be some type of tyrant

next thing you know you have a cruel person in power who has 100% authority over everything you do.

most people dont mind till it effects them directly and if you keep giving the government more and more power one day they WILL effect you

heck pretty soon they will be telling you what to eat because it effects the price of healthcare lmfao

anywho just my 2cents on stuff , i probably wont be back to check if anyone replies but long live the right to jump in and voice opinions anytime you want right?

 

[kamk2k8]

I don't want to rehash old stuff, but basically...

When something happens, it doesn't automatically mean it will go all the way to its most extreme possible conclusion, it's not probable or really even plausible

So you can't assume giving the fcc the power to keep the internet free means we will soon be living in a totalitarian fascist state

this is for the protection of equality and the little guy, not the reverse...

And that's not even mentioning that you assume the government is the only big bad entity out there, do you know about the companies they are theorretically trying to regulate? they are no saints my friend

 

[zero7starz]

What exactly does this mean anyway? The article didn't really make much sense as to what is really going on?

 

[kamk2k8]

It's an opinion column...

The situation is explained in the first paragraph and the rest is a commentary

My opinion being that net neutrality is a good thing and something the government needs to protect because I doubt the ISPs will when it comes down to the bottom line

 

[Darkseider]

I don't want to rehash old stuff, but basically...

When something happens, it doesn't automatically mean it will go all the way to its most extreme possible conclusion, it's not probable or really even plausible

So you can't assume giving the fcc the power to keep the internet free means we will soon be living in a totalitarian fascist state

this is for the protection of equality and the little guy, not the reverse...

And that's not even mentioning that you assume the government is the only big bad entity out there, do you know about the companies they are theorretically trying to regulate? they are no saints my friend

You're so right, it's not plausible. Take your head out of your ass and take a look around. Gov't gives money to car companies and banks. Now they can regulate how much corporate officers make, see "pay czar". Gov't passes bill into law on healthcare and now people who WORK have to pay an extra tax on premium health plans to pay for those who don't. Gov't bans smoking in bars and restaurants. Now it also includes the grounds as well. Let's not forget the whole taxation of "sugared sodas" in NY state as well as not allowing eateries to cook with real fats or salt their foods anymore because it is unhealthy. WHO THE **** IS THE GOVERNMENT TO TELL A PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENT WHAT TO DO!? Do you get that? Jesus Christ on a crutch you have to either be the reincarnation of Chairman Mao or a complete goddamned imbecile. History repeats itself, that saying exists far a reason. Take a good hard look.