This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is a simple anonymous comment, saying something that shouldn’t need to be repeated so often but for the weird anti-regulation absolutists who need to be reminded over and over:
Regulation isn’t bad. It’s a tool. Using the tool wrong is bad; Over-regulating and under-regulating are bad. The government shouldn’t control what you see on the Internet (which isn’t Net Neutrality, by the way), that would be bad regulation. Being able to enjoy a nice meal without having lethal amounts of harmful chemicals in it is good regulation.
For second place, we head to our post about the dispute between the San Diego and Salt Lake Comic-Cons, where one anonymous outside observer described how it all looks to someone with no horse in the race:
Hello. I’m a random asshole on the internet. :D
As far as I know, I have never had any connection of any kind with either party involved. I’ve no plans ever to visit the USA, much less either convention in the future. As far as I can recall, I’ve never so much as visited either of their websites. I have no particular interest in the case participants in any way at all.
They do not exist in my world. While I’ve heard of Comic Cons, this case is literally the only reason I now know they take place in either city.
Nonetheless, I’m rooting for SLCC. Not because of anything SLCC said, but simply because of what SDCC did.
SDCC started a legal fight on what seems – to the outside eye – to be very questionable grounds.
SDCC engaged in what seems – to the outside eye – to be behaviour designed to silence legitimate reporting.
SDCC has now successfully obtained a court order that seems – to the outside eye – to be little more than poorly-justified censorship.
Don’t piss on the planet and tell us it’s the Great Flood, SDCC – this is all your own damned fault. If you don’t like the world calling you cunts, then stop acting like cunts, you daft fuckers.
It’s not exactly rocket science, now, is it?
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we’ve got a pair of responses to the findings of the oversight board saying that NYPD officers are still violating the public’s right to record them. First, we’ve got Discuss It, who noticed a pattern:
Odd this keeps happening with the people that are supposed to enforce the law. I know that when my employer tells me a policy and I violate it, the least I can expect is time off without pay at best, and termination is more likely.
Odd that a policeman can’t grasp the concept. Perhaps they are too stupid to be allowed to carry a weapon. Those things are dangerious and if they can’t understand “People can record you” then I would assume they are too stupid to understand the concept of fire lines, back stops, and “What is behind what you shoot at?”.
Next, we’ve got That One Guy with some questions about how exactly this will be fixed:
“It’s unrealistic to expect the number of violations to hit zero, but some disciplinary changes need to be made if these policies are going to have much effect on officer behavior.”
If by that you mean ‘heavily fine all first time violators, along with mandatory ‘yes the public can record you, get over it’ classes’ and ‘fire all repeat violators’ then yes, this could be cleared up nicely with ‘disciplinary changes’. The only way they’ll stop is if they personally face penalties for their actions, until then they’ll feel free to make up rules and laws on the spot to suit their own whims.
Over on the funny side, our first place comment comes in response to the glorious letter sent by Vincent Malone in response to threats from the Olive Garden over his blog. That letter ended with a request to respond in limerick form, and A Non-Mouse decided to take on that challenge:
There once was a man Branden Forcements
who confused some reviews for endorsements
His threats that came after
caused so much laughter
that perhaps he should seek new employments
In second place, we’ve got an anonymous comment on our article about the unique copyright story of George Romero’s Night Of The Living Dead:
I just wish he’d hurry up and get on with the whole “reanimated corpse” thing, because we’ve been waiting for a couple of days now and I’m starting to think this whole “Romero is the father of zombies” thing doesn’t hold much weight.
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we’ll start out by throwing in one more limerick, this time from Doug:
Oh Vino, don’t know what came over me
I wrote with such haste I just couldn’t see
That to eat at our joint
Is kind of the point
Of your whole blog and your joie de vivre
And finally, we’ve got an anonymous response to our headline asking Is James Woods A Hypocritical Asshole?
This violates Betteridge’s law of headlines
That’s all for this week, folks!
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Go to Source
Author: Leigh Beadon