Jail Zuckerberg

On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 10:02:33 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 4:10:57 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 6:20:30 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 2:11:09 AM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 11:42:43 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 2:30:30 AM UTC, wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 02:13:31 -0000 (UTC), News 2021
wrote:

Searching reveals this is all total fantasy on your behalf.
Not only does your name not appear in the catalogue or back catalogue of
any leading or minor publisher, none of your supposed legion of readers
has ever considered any of your scribing worthy of sharing. I guess they
all received complimentary copies that went strait to the round file/dev
null.
Search again. Not exactly publishers but...
http://coolmainpress.com
https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=andre+jute&title=&lang=en&isbn=&new_used=* &destination=us&currency=USD&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=q r
https://www.alibris.com/booksearch?mtype=B&keyword=Andre+Jute&hs.x=37&hs.y =18
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&n=100121503&cm_sp=SearchF-_-usedbooks-_-Results&an=andre+jute&tn=&kn=
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=andre+jute&i=stripbooks
The assumption is that someone bought the book and is now reselling
it.


--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Thanks for being evenhanded, Jeff. I was laughing so hard at this ludicrous anonymous ****** News2021, way out of his depth, libelling the publishers of Kafka and Orwell, and of more Nobel literary laureates than he can name, and the American equivalents of my British publishers, that I'm afraid I was a bit tardy in straightening him out -- in fact, he's so preposterous, I was thinking of egging him on to see how high over his head his arse is, which is how one measures the IQ of a baboon (in inverse proportion to the elevation of bum over noggin). -- AJ
Give it a rest. Sink Hole is not Orwell or Kafka, unless you're talking Milt Orwell and Ned Kafka -- the night managers at the local Motel 6 who dabble in Theater of the Absurd. https://www.scribd.com/read/335121666/Sinkhole Is that really your work? It lacks the byzantine sentence structure and Edwardian era high diction you display here on RBT. It's flat -- like young adult literature. I'm disappointed and expect an immediate rewrite.

-- Jay Beattie.
Never mind: since you didn't pay, you can't expect a refund, never mind a rewrite, but my publisher will get the full price of the book for the part you read for free -- she thanks you, heh-heh!, all the way from Florence, Italy. As for the style, it's written precisely for people like you. There are different styles in other books aimed at more sophisticated markets..

Tell us, how does a cheap* Portland shyster, who last read fiction when a novel was prescribed in junior high school, suddenly become a literary critic?

“Jute has clearly conducted a great deal of research into everything he describes, investing the novel with an air of prophecy. His moral and ecological concerns are important.� -- Times Literary Supplement on SINKHOLE.

Guess whose opinion I pay attention to: it isn't yours.

Unsigned out of contempt for a would-be bully

*I charged more per hour, by several multiples, when I was 23 than you are able to charge at the end of your career.
Charged per hour for what?
I used to represent a publisher that printed books of your quality, and the writers had to supplement their income by giving plasma.
That sounds like a cheap Grub Street jerk well matched to a cheap ambulance chaser.
What was the advance on Sink Hole -- $10K? Yes, you should not pay attention to my reviews, because I am not your target market, thankfully.
-- Jay Beattie.
Oh dear, the provincial shyster doesn't like a target that strikes back.

Tell us, Jay, how do you earn a living if you can't even manage a little light adversarial ****-slinging without get hot under the collar?

Give it a rest, man. You disgraced yourself enough by piling onto Tom with the rest of the RBT scum.

Unsigned out of contempt for a wannabe bully.
I don't believe that Jay can make a living anymore. He has been reduced to slinging case law about as if people could care about his ridiculous arguments. There no longer is any law in Portland and even he has said that he is moving because of the burgeoning taxes to pay for the covid-19 hoax. But he will religiously wear a mask because that is his latest religion - hoaxes anonymous. The only stronger True Believer is that moron Frank. The last covid cases of any number were April 30, 2020 and since then respiratory diseases have been no higher than normal. This year not that they've killed off all of the obese people the numbers of all deaths are FAR below normal except for Alzheimer's and other dementias that are hurried along by isolating them from their friends and families. Seems like the sort of thing that Jay and Frank approve of.

On 2/25/2021 1:24 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 10:02:33 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 4:10:57 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 6:20:30 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 2:11:09 AM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 11:42:43 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 2:30:30 AM UTC, wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 02:13:31 -0000 (UTC), News 2021
wrote:

Searching reveals this is all total fantasy on your behalf.
Not only does your name not appear in the catalogue or back catalogue of
any leading or minor publisher, none of your supposed legion of readers
has ever considered any of your scribing worthy of sharing. I guess they
all received complimentary copies that went strait to the round file/dev
null.
Search again. Not exactly publishers but...
http://coolmainpress.com
https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=andre+jute&title=&lang=en&isbn=&new_used=* &destination=us&currency=USD&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=q r
https://www.alibris.com/booksearch?mtype=B&keyword=Andre+Jute&hs.x=37&hs.y =18
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&n=100121503&cm_sp=SearchF-_-usedbooks-_-Results&an=andre+jute&tn=&kn=
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=andre+jute&i=stripbooks
The assumption is that someone bought the book and is now reselling
it.


--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Thanks for being evenhanded, Jeff. I was laughing so hard at this ludicrous anonymous ****** News2021, way out of his depth, libelling the publishers of Kafka and Orwell, and of more Nobel literary laureates than he can name, and the American equivalents of my British publishers, that I'm afraid I was a bit tardy in straightening him out -- in fact, he's so preposterous, I was thinking of egging him on to see how high over his head his arse is, which is how one measures the IQ of a baboon (in inverse proportion to the elevation of bum over noggin). -- AJ
Give it a rest. Sink Hole is not Orwell or Kafka, unless you're talking Milt Orwell and Ned Kafka -- the night managers at the local Motel 6 who dabble in Theater of the Absurd. https://www.scribd.com/read/335121666/Sinkhole Is that really your work? It lacks the byzantine sentence structure and Edwardian era high diction you display here on RBT. It's flat -- like young adult literature. I'm disappointed and expect an immediate rewrite.

-- Jay Beattie.
Never mind: since you didn't pay, you can't expect a refund, never mind a rewrite, but my publisher will get the full price of the book for the part you read for free -- she thanks you, heh-heh!, all the way from Florence, Italy. As for the style, it's written precisely for people like you. There are different styles in other books aimed at more sophisticated markets.

Tell us, how does a cheap* Portland shyster, who last read fiction when a novel was prescribed in junior high school, suddenly become a literary critic?

“Jute has clearly conducted a great deal of research into everything he describes, investing the novel with an air of prophecy. His moral and ecological concerns are important.� -- Times Literary Supplement on SINKHOLE.

Guess whose opinion I pay attention to: it isn't yours.

Unsigned out of contempt for a would-be bully

*I charged more per hour, by several multiples, when I was 23 than you are able to charge at the end of your career.
Charged per hour for what?
I used to represent a publisher that printed books of your quality, and the writers had to supplement their income by giving plasma.
That sounds like a cheap Grub Street jerk well matched to a cheap ambulance chaser.
What was the advance on Sink Hole -- $10K? Yes, you should not pay attention to my reviews, because I am not your target market, thankfully.
-- Jay Beattie.
Oh dear, the provincial shyster doesn't like a target that strikes back.

Tell us, Jay, how do you earn a living if you can't even manage a little light adversarial ****-slinging without get hot under the collar?

Give it a rest, man. You disgraced yourself enough by piling onto Tom with the rest of the RBT scum.

Unsigned out of contempt for a wannabe bully.
I don't believe that Jay can make a living anymore. He has been reduced to slinging case law about as if people could care about his ridiculous arguments. There no longer is any law in Portland and even he has said that he is moving because of the burgeoning taxes to pay for the covid-19 hoax. But he will religiously wear a mask because that is his latest religion - hoaxes anonymous. The only stronger True Believer is that moron Frank. The last covid cases of any number were April 30, 2020 and since then respiratory diseases have been no higher than normal. This year not that they've killed off all of the obese people the numbers of all deaths are FAR below normal except for Alzheimer's and other dementias that are hurried along by isolating them from their friends and families. Seems like the sort of thing that Jay and Frank approve of.

So, Tom, you're still posting your "wisdom" here instead of advising
governments and medical experts? They say the death toll is 500,000.
You say it's nearly zero. Why aren't you out there setting them straight?

You're failing to convince anyone even in this backwater group. You
_know_ nobody with official power will listen to you. But that shouldn't
stop you from picketing a memorial ceremony with your sign on a stick.

You could become famous! You might even get a job offer - maybe to dance
on a sidewalk to advertise the closeout of a My Pillow outlet!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 14:03:00 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/25/2021 1:24 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 10:02:33 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 4:10:57 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 6:20:30 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 2:11:09 AM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 11:42:43 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 2:30:30 AM UTC, wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 02:13:31 -0000 (UTC), News 2021
wrote:

Searching reveals this is all total fantasy on your behalf.
Not only does your name not appear in the catalogue or back catalogue of
any leading or minor publisher, none of your supposed legion of readers
has ever considered any of your scribing worthy of sharing. I guess they
all received complimentary copies that went strait to the round file/dev
null.
Search again. Not exactly publishers but...
http://coolmainpress.com
https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=andre+jute&title=&lang=en&isbn=&new_used=* &destination=us&currency=USD&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=q r
https://www.alibris.com/booksearch?mtype=B&keyword=Andre+Jute&hs.x=37&hs.y =18
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&n=100121503&cm_sp=SearchF-_-usedbooks-_-Results&an=andre+jute&tn=&kn=
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=andre+jute&i=stripbooks
The assumption is that someone bought the book and is now reselling
it.


--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Thanks for being evenhanded, Jeff. I was laughing so hard at this ludicrous anonymous ****** News2021, way out of his depth, libelling the publishers of Kafka and Orwell, and of more Nobel literary laureates than he can name, and the American equivalents of my British publishers, that I'm afraid I was a bit tardy in straightening him out -- in fact, he's so preposterous, I was thinking of egging him on to see how high over his head his arse is, which is how one measures the IQ of a baboon (in inverse proportion to the elevation of bum over noggin). -- AJ
Give it a rest. Sink Hole is not Orwell or Kafka, unless you're talking Milt Orwell and Ned Kafka -- the night managers at the local Motel 6 who dabble in Theater of the Absurd. https://www.scribd.com/read/335121666/Sinkhole Is that really your work? It lacks the byzantine sentence structure and Edwardian era high diction you display here on RBT. It's flat -- like young adult literature. I'm disappointed and expect an immediate rewrite.

-- Jay Beattie.
Never mind: since you didn't pay, you can't expect a refund, never mind a rewrite, but my publisher will get the full price of the book for the part you read for free -- she thanks you, heh-heh!, all the way from Florence, Italy. As for the style, it's written precisely for people like you. There are different styles in other books aimed at more sophisticated markets.

Tell us, how does a cheap* Portland shyster, who last read fiction when a novel was prescribed in junior high school, suddenly become a literary critic?

“Jute has clearly conducted a great deal of research into everything he describes, investing the novel with an air of prophecy. His moral and ecological concerns are important.” -- Times Literary Supplement on SINKHOLE.

Guess whose opinion I pay attention to: it isn't yours.

Unsigned out of contempt for a would-be bully

*I charged more per hour, by several multiples, when I was 23 than you are able to charge at the end of your career.
Charged per hour for what?
I used to represent a publisher that printed books of your quality, and the writers had to supplement their income by giving plasma.
That sounds like a cheap Grub Street jerk well matched to a cheap ambulance chaser.
What was the advance on Sink Hole -- $10K? Yes, you should not pay attention to my reviews, because I am not your target market, thankfully.
-- Jay Beattie.
Oh dear, the provincial shyster doesn't like a target that strikes back.

Tell us, Jay, how do you earn a living if you can't even manage a little light adversarial ****-slinging without get hot under the collar?

Give it a rest, man. You disgraced yourself enough by piling onto Tom with the rest of the RBT scum.

Unsigned out of contempt for a wannabe bully.
I don't believe that Jay can make a living anymore. He has been reduced to slinging case law about as if people could care about his ridiculous arguments. There no longer is any law in Portland and even he has said that he is moving because of the burgeoning taxes to pay for the covid-19 hoax. But he will religiously wear a mask because that is his latest religion - hoaxes anonymous. The only stronger True Believer is that moron Frank. The last covid cases of any number were April 30, 2020 and since then respiratory diseases have been no higher than normal. This year not that they've killed off all of the obese people the numbers of all deaths are FAR below normal except for Alzheimer's and other dementias that are hurried along by isolating them from their friends and families. Seems like the sort of thing that Jay and Frank approve of.

So, Tom, you're still posting your "wisdom" here instead of advising
governments and medical experts? They say the death toll is 500,000.
You say it's nearly zero. Why aren't you out there setting them straight?

You're failing to convince anyone even in this backwater group. You
_know_ nobody with official power will listen to you. But that shouldn't
stop you from picketing a memorial ceremony with your sign on a stick.

You could become famous! You might even get a job offer - maybe to dance
on a sidewalk to advertise the closeout of a My Pillow outlet!

Gee Frank, you still don't realize just how brilliant out Tommy boy
really is. Why he invented the universe.... didn't he?
He know's all, see's all and even stoops to advise the world on it's
shortcomings.

We should be proud to have such an exalted figure in our humble midst.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Okay, now that we've slapped down the mouth-foaming haters and the cheap shysters, let's get back to jailing that bad-faith book-burner, Zuckerberg.

On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 2:13:27 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2021 4:13 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vernments.html

Article 230 should have been long gone. Zuckerberg is arrogant beyond belief, clearly convinced that these favours from corrupt politicians is his birthright. A few years on Rikers Island should straighten him out.

Andre Jute
Zuckerberg isn't bigger than any government.

Section 230 is well crafted but not enforced or applied as
written. Platforms have and should have libel immunity.
Publishers with a slat/opinion/agenda do but perhaps should
not to some degree.

The trouble started when the nattering busybody crowd
insisted that certain speech be limited, by ukase of
operators with no accountability. Like Topsy, it grew from
there.

Not snipping, because what Andrew says is a perfectly reasonable view: the law was, perhaps, good but the implementation failed. But what I really want to focus on is this:

We've come to such a ridiculous place that Constitutional
defenders and individual rights proponents from both right
and left (and even the great ignorant middle) are now
attacking our First Amendment together. I'm concerned, but
not ready to toss this baby out with the bathwater.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

The baby is innocent and will survive stronger forces than the losers now aligned against it.

However, American media have long had another monopoly license that should be gone with S.230, in fact should long since have gone. That is the "absent malice" defence against libel. There clearly is malice in the present defamations of the mainstream press and television. Pull the fig leaf and their defamations, if continued, will close the responsible papers by the cost of the libel settlements. The newspaper owners will fire these bad actors wholesale, and that will be the end of the cancel culture too. I don't mind if the limp legislators want to substitute a "public interest" defence to libel, such as operates in the UK, as legitimate media do serve a public interest, exactly as the Founders intended.

What's more, the US should have a strong privacy law, like the one in France, to slap down the paparazzi, nauseating scandalmongers like the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Andre Jute
That's a good start for today.

On 2/26/2021 10:28 AM, Andre Jute wrote:

Okay, now that we've slapped down the mouth-foaming haters and the cheap shysters, let's get back to jailing that bad-faith book-burner, Zuckerberg.

On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 2:13:27 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2021 4:13 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vernments.html

Article 230 should have been long gone. Zuckerberg is arrogant beyond belief, clearly convinced that these favours from corrupt politicians is his birthright. A few years on Rikers Island should straighten him out.

Andre Jute
Zuckerberg isn't bigger than any government.

Section 230 is well crafted but not enforced or applied as
written. Platforms have and should have libel immunity.
Publishers with a slat/opinion/agenda do but perhaps should
not to some degree.

The trouble started when the nattering busybody crowd
insisted that certain speech be limited, by ukase of
operators with no accountability. Like Topsy, it grew from
there.

Not snipping, because what Andrew says is a perfectly reasonable view: the law was, perhaps, good but the implementation failed. But what I really want to focus on is this:

We've come to such a ridiculous place that Constitutional
defenders and individual rights proponents from both right
and left (and even the great ignorant middle) are now
attacking our First Amendment together. I'm concerned, but
not ready to toss this baby out with the bathwater.


The baby is innocent and will survive stronger forces than the losers now aligned against it.

However, American media have long had another monopoly license that should be gone with S.230, in fact should long since have gone. That is the "absent malice" defence against libel. There clearly is malice in the present defamations of the mainstream press and television. Pull the fig leaf and their defamations, if continued, will close the responsible papers by the cost of the libel settlements. The newspaper owners will fire these bad actors wholesale, and that will be the end of the cancel culture too. I don't mind if the limp legislators want to substitute a "public interest" defence to libel, such as operates in the UK, as legitimate media do serve a public interest, exactly as the Founders intended.

What's more, the US should have a strong privacy law, like the one in France, to slap down the paparazzi, nauseating scandalmongers like the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Andre Jute
That's a good start for today.


Malice may be blatantly evident, even admittedly in the
extant case, but proving malice in a court of law is another
thing altogether.

On this side of the Atlantic, we think that's great, and a
bulwark around free speech despite its many and famous
abuses. On your side, opinions are very different and
there's no middle to our different cultures.

Further, this arrived in yesterday's mail:

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/author/allumbokhari/

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 8:28:30 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
Okay, now that we've slapped down the mouth-foaming haters and the cheap shysters, let's get back to jailing that bad-faith book-burner, Zuckerberg.

On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 2:13:27 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2021 4:13 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vernments.html

Article 230 should have been long gone. Zuckerberg is arrogant beyond belief, clearly convinced that these favours from corrupt politicians is his birthright. A few years on Rikers Island should straighten him out.

Andre Jute
Zuckerberg isn't bigger than any government.

Section 230 is well crafted but not enforced or applied as
written. Platforms have and should have libel immunity.
Publishers with a slat/opinion/agenda do but perhaps should
not to some degree.

The trouble started when the nattering busybody crowd
insisted that certain speech be limited, by ukase of
operators with no accountability. Like Topsy, it grew from
there.

Not snipping, because what Andrew says is a perfectly reasonable view: the law was, perhaps, good but the implementation failed. But what I really want to focus on is this:

We've come to such a ridiculous place that Constitutional
defenders and individual rights proponents from both right
and left (and even the great ignorant middle) are now
attacking our First Amendment together. I'm concerned, but
not ready to toss this baby out with the bathwater.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

The baby is innocent and will survive stronger forces than the losers now aligned against it.

However, American media have long had another monopoly license that should be gone with S.230, in fact should long since have gone. That is the "absent malice" defence against libel. There clearly is malice in the present defamations of the mainstream press and television. Pull the fig leaf and their defamations, if continued, will close the responsible papers by the cost of the libel settlements. The newspaper owners will fire these bad actors wholesale, and that will be the end of the cancel culture too. I don't mind if the limp legislators want to substitute a "public interest" defence to libel, such as operates in the UK, as legitimate media do serve a public interest, exactly as the Founders intended.

What's more, the US should have a strong privacy law, like the one in France, to slap down the paparazzi, nauseating scandalmongers like the New York Times and the Washington Post.

The major failing of the social media is that people with no experience and no education believe that they have a right to an opinion as valid as those that do have experience and education. Look at those morons John, Flunky and clueless Newsless. They claim I don't know anything about a subject and then when I reply with my qualification, they say I'm bragging or lying.

Even Jeff who claims to be in the engineering game is saying things so far out of line that I have grave doubts for him. Digital engineering for people like me is so easy it is difficult to see why people would think it hard. I used to spend entire days studying all of the component catalogs so that I always knew the precise part for the precise job. So hardware design seldom comprised more than 20% of a project. Of course managers are only going to remember things like firmware or discovering errors in compilers and such. I cannot stress too highly the difficulty of discovering a compiler error. It would be similar to using a spelling checker and finding the same work corrected incorrectly in an entire book.

On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 4:57:33 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/26/2021 10:28 AM, Andre Jute wrote:

Okay, now that we've slapped down the mouth-foaming haters and the cheap shysters, let's get back to jailing that bad-faith book-burner, Zuckerberg.

On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 2:13:27 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2021 4:13 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vernments.html

Article 230 should have been long gone. Zuckerberg is arrogant beyond belief, clearly convinced that these favours from corrupt politicians is his birthright. A few years on Rikers Island should straighten him out.

Andre Jute
Zuckerberg isn't bigger than any government.

Section 230 is well crafted but not enforced or applied as
written. Platforms have and should have libel immunity.
Publishers with a slat/opinion/agenda do but perhaps should
not to some degree.

The trouble started when the nattering busybody crowd
insisted that certain speech be limited, by ukase of
operators with no accountability. Like Topsy, it grew from
there.

Not snipping, because what Andrew says is a perfectly reasonable view: the law was, perhaps, good but the implementation failed. But what I really want to focus on is this:

We've come to such a ridiculous place that Constitutional
defenders and individual rights proponents from both right
and left (and even the great ignorant middle) are now
attacking our First Amendment together. I'm concerned, but
not ready to toss this baby out with the bathwater.

The baby is innocent and will survive stronger forces than the losers now aligned against it.

However, American media have long had another monopoly license that should be gone with S.230, in fact should long since have gone. That is the "absent malice" defence against libel. There clearly is malice in the present defamations of the mainstream press and television. Pull the fig leaf and their defamations, if continued, will close the responsible papers by the cost of the libel settlements. The newspaper owners will fire these bad actors wholesale, and that will be the end of the cancel culture too. I don't mind if the limp legislators want to substitute a "public interest" defence to libel, such as operates in the UK, as legitimate media do serve a public interest, exactly as the Founders intended.

What's more, the US should have a strong privacy law, like the one in France, to slap down the paparazzi, nauseating scandalmongers like the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Andre Jute
That's a good start for today.

Malice may be blatantly evident, even admittedly in the
extant case, but proving malice in a court of law is another
thing altogether.
..
That's because of the presumption that malice is absent in most newspapers, which is no longer the case, but once was near enough true (it was never 100% true). Remove the presumption and made the medium prove absence of malice, or public interest, and you've evened up the tilt of the playing field, away from the unrestrained power of the media and towards the victims of the media. The government is supposed to bring just evenly to everyone. I've never heard anyone claim that the Founders intended the media to have special privileges that are denied to other parties.
..
On this side of the Atlantic, we think that's great, and a
bulwark around free speech despite its many and famous
abuses. On your side, opinions are very different and
there's no middle to our different cultures.
..
Perhaps. I see it as a question of restoring a necessary balance. The balances I'm in favour of work very well here, in the UK and in France.

Further, this arrived in yesterday's mail:

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/author/allumbokhari/

Thanks for that, Andrew. I've put Imprimis in my bookmarks folder "Good Reading". Bokhari favours an adjustment closer to what you want than my first version. (Hell, the man is so even-handed, I started reading from the beginning again, wondering if he understood the seriousness of the threat he was describing.) Fine, if that fits better with your culture, but Big Tech, and its gross impertinences against liberty and decency, doesn't stop at the American border.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

It's ironic: when the Berners-Lee internet first started up, I was hotly in favour, writing somewhere that it would "free Everyman from the editorial supervision and interference of people like us" (paraphrased). An old editor asked me, "What did you learn when you fought in the Congo 'for the freedom of our black brothers'?" He had me there; a few nights before I explained at his dinner table that the problem in Africa was that freedom for many meant the freedom to practice genocide on a neighbouring tribe without white men tut-tutting and holding enquires and handing out death sentences for mass murderers. The irony is that I was the target in one of the first attempted cancellations on the internet; that instead I cancelled the trash who harassed me doesn't change the irony. The old editor was right, and I was wrong. Essentially, the American Founders were right to fear the mob, and and arrange to have their -- er -- enthusiasms filtered through slower-moving institutions. But that's yesterday's error; I was much younger and less experienced then. Still, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that Big Tech is a mindless vigilante mob that should be restrained, and a time isn't far off when restraint will not be enough. The other key thing I took away from Bokharu is how fast things move in the online world, a platitude but in this case of the essence because Big Tech is the Manchurian Candidate already installed in our midst.

Andre Jute
My first computer had glowing thermionic tubes and lived behind an airlock in a temperature- and humidity-controlled space.

On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 6:06:00 PM UTC, wrote:

..
The major failing of the social media is that people with no experience and no education believe that they have a right to an opinion as valid as those that do have experience and education. Look at those morons John, Flunky and clueless Newsless.
..
Heh-heh! Spot-on! -- AJ

On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 8:57:33 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/26/2021 10:28 AM, Andre Jute wrote:

Okay, now that we've slapped down the mouth-foaming haters and the cheap shysters, let's get back to jailing that bad-faith book-burner, Zuckerberg.

On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 2:13:27 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2021 4:13 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vernments.html

Article 230 should have been long gone. Zuckerberg is arrogant beyond belief, clearly convinced that these favours from corrupt politicians is his birthright. A few years on Rikers Island should straighten him out.

Andre Jute
Zuckerberg isn't bigger than any government.

Section 230 is well crafted but not enforced or applied as
written. Platforms have and should have libel immunity.
Publishers with a slat/opinion/agenda do but perhaps should
not to some degree.

The trouble started when the nattering busybody crowd
insisted that certain speech be limited, by ukase of
operators with no accountability. Like Topsy, it grew from
there.

Not snipping, because what Andrew says is a perfectly reasonable view: the law was, perhaps, good but the implementation failed. But what I really want to focus on is this:

We've come to such a ridiculous place that Constitutional
defenders and individual rights proponents from both right
and left (and even the great ignorant middle) are now
attacking our First Amendment together. I'm concerned, but
not ready to toss this baby out with the bathwater.

The baby is innocent and will survive stronger forces than the losers now aligned against it.

However, American media have long had another monopoly license that should be gone with S.230, in fact should long since have gone. That is the "absent malice" defence against libel. There clearly is malice in the present defamations of the mainstream press and television. Pull the fig leaf and their defamations, if continued, will close the responsible papers by the cost of the libel settlements. The newspaper owners will fire these bad actors wholesale, and that will be the end of the cancel culture too. I don't mind if the limp legislators want to substitute a "public interest" defence to libel, such as operates in the UK, as legitimate media do serve a public interest, exactly as the Founders intended.

What's more, the US should have a strong privacy law, like the one in France, to slap down the paparazzi, nauseating scandalmongers like the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Andre Jute
That's a good start for today.

Malice may be blatantly evident, even admittedly in the
extant case, but proving malice in a court of law is another
thing altogether.

On this side of the Atlantic, we think that's great, and a
bulwark around free speech despite its many and famous
abuses. On your side, opinions are very different and
there's no middle to our different cultures.

Further, this arrived in yesterday's mail:

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/author/allumbokhari/
I can hardly wait for Dominion to try and press a law suit again Rudy Giuliani who forgot more about the law than most people ever learned. Funny thing about free speech, the cancel culture can't do anything about that without enraging their own followers. As for Mike Lindell, he has that college computer science professor that hacked into Dominion in 14 minutes. The Dominion MANUAL explains how to hook all of the machines up to the Internet and that is how they were set up.

On 2/26/2021 12:05 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 8:28:30 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
Okay, now that we've slapped down the mouth-foaming haters and the cheap shysters, let's get back to jailing that bad-faith book-burner, Zuckerberg.

On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 2:13:27 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/19/2021 4:13 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vernments.html

Article 230 should have been long gone. Zuckerberg is arrogant beyond belief, clearly convinced that these favours from corrupt politicians is his birthright. A few years on Rikers Island should straighten him out.

Andre Jute
Zuckerberg isn't bigger than any government.

Section 230 is well crafted but not enforced or applied as
written. Platforms have and should have libel immunity.
Publishers with a slat/opinion/agenda do but perhaps should
not to some degree.

The trouble started when the nattering busybody crowd
insisted that certain speech be limited, by ukase of
operators with no accountability. Like Topsy, it grew from
there.

Not snipping, because what Andrew says is a perfectly reasonable view: the law was, perhaps, good but the implementation failed. But what I really want to focus on is this:

We've come to such a ridiculous place that Constitutional
defenders and individual rights proponents from both right
and left (and even the great ignorant middle) are now
attacking our First Amendment together. I'm concerned, but
not ready to toss this baby out with the bathwater.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

The baby is innocent and will survive stronger forces than the losers now aligned against it.

However, American media have long had another monopoly license that should be gone with S.230, in fact should long since have gone. That is the "absent malice" defence against libel. There clearly is malice in the present defamations of the mainstream press and television. Pull the fig leaf and their defamations, if continued, will close the responsible papers by the cost of the libel settlements. The newspaper owners will fire these bad actors wholesale, and that will be the end of the cancel culture too. I don't mind if the limp legislators want to substitute a "public interest" defence to libel, such as operates in the UK, as legitimate media do serve a public interest, exactly as the Founders intended.

What's more, the US should have a strong privacy law, like the one in France, to slap down the paparazzi, nauseating scandalmongers like the New York Times and the Washington Post.

The major failing of the social media is that people with no experience and no education believe that they have a right to an opinion as valid as those that do have experience and education. Look at those morons John, Flunky and clueless Newsless. They claim I don't know anything about a subject and then when I reply with my qualification, they say I'm bragging or lying.

Even Jeff who claims to be in the engineering game is saying things so far out of line that I have grave doubts for him. Digital engineering for people like me is so easy it is difficult to see why people would think it hard. I used to spend entire days studying all of the component catalogs so that I always knew the precise part for the precise job. So hardware design seldom comprised more than 20% of a project. Of course managers are only going to remember things like firmware or discovering errors in compilers and such. I cannot stress too highly the difficulty of discovering a compiler error. It would be similar to using a spelling checker and finding the same work corrected incorrectly in an entire book.

"The major failing of the social media is that people
with no experience and no education believe that they have a
right to an opinion as valid as those that do have
experience and education."

Yes, they do indeed. You got a problem with that?

If your argument cannot convince, it may well be a poor
argument or your own technique and manner. It may also be
ignorant stubbornness which you just can't help at any rate.

Such is life.


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971