You obviously have no idea what I'm talking about, or you're simply desensitized yourself. Just watch the basic channels during the day and watch for local news commercials. They always lead with an attention-grabbing story that is typically more dramatic than it needs to be, usually dealing with something that will scare you into watching. However, you're probably just not understanding the term "sensational" in the context intended. The fact that my straightforward analogy went completely over your head just indicates to me that you're wildly off-base, as does the inference that my last post was referring to you in any way.
Ok, that, "you obviously have no idea" stuff has to stop. I've directly responded to your points each time, with specific examples. You seem to also show little knowledge of what is in these bills or of the topic and are only arguing with vague ambiguities and how unimportant the topic is without giving direct reasons why while at the same giving pointless retrospective statements like, "this shouldn't ever get to vote, or "never should have gotten this far to begin with". Yes, those statements are true but as the situation as progressed past that they are meaningless statements. Mind if I make a similarly bad analogy. Those statements are like saying the Holocaust should have never happened. Its a true statement but saying it now doesn't change what happened so is pointless in nature to say it. So you also used the news as an example after what you just said...Anyway, I highlighted the important part of your point. Commercial. They have about 15 seconds to a minute to get you to spend your time watching their show. Of course they'll lead of with the biggest stories. How "hyped" up they are is all subjective and yes there are exceptions which occur that doesn't mean it happens all the time and to say it does is ignorant. And if we are talking about local news then those lead ins are usually things like fires, theft, murder, etc, so yeah I can see where the need to over dramatize those things there is. Do the occasional Simpsons Kent Brockman or Family guy Tom Tucker stories happen where a commercial will say, "find out what can be killing your kids..tonight at ___" happen sure. But that isn't the typical case and is a digression of the point I'm making which you seem to keep wanting to move away from. sen·sa·tion·al [sen-sey-shuh-nl] adjective 1.producing or designed to produce a startling effect, strong reaction, intense interest, etc., especially by exaggerated, superficial, or lurid elements: a sensational novel. I know how your using it and keep responding in kind. The implications that I don't understand what your saying, (which keep getting further from the point showing an obvious lack of interest in the subject at hand), is getting progressively more annoying. And yes, a drug addict needing more and more of a drug to get their fix is the same as learning about telling people about a bill that has the potential to do some very bad things. What was I thinking, that's the most straight forward analogy that went over my head in years. As far as the "referring to me part" I guess the you're in the following sentence threw me a bit, I'm sorry I didn't realize you moved on from general ambiguities to specifically me without a link between them. But hey, I'll make this absolutely clear for you. What parts do you feel have been sensationalized? Was it that part? Because I directly told you in the following post why it wasn't absurd as major websites are the ones opposing it. They wouldn't be opposing it if they didn't think it would affect them. That isn't sensationalist that's just observation. This was a more specific repeat of your last statement, which I directly answered. First of all, what level of "impacted" is sensational to you. Would saying our favorite sites (and that is vague in itself as I don't know which sites you mean) could possibly be shut down be too sensational? That's a specific power the government would have in the bill to be able to do. Is saying that our favorite sites will change in at least some way too sensational? At the very least that will be guaranteed to happen. The whole point of the bill is to prevent piracy so if someone posts a link on say facebook to a pirated movie or blocked site then facebook would have to know about the comment and delete it or warn the person or at least make a general statement about not doing that or else they'd be liable. So on some level our "favorite" sites would be effected based on that example which is far from sensationalist to say. Or is it the sensational part to say how much would actually change if the bills passed which is what I believe you're actually trying to argue about though failing to do so. As I keep saying in every one of my responses, that is unknown until the bill passes if the bill passes how much would actually change. Maybe nothing, maybe everything which is why I haven't been bringing that up. My point is simply the bills lay down the groundwork for bad bureaucrats to do some pretty nasty stuff, which is also hardly sensational. Bad bureaucrats currently do some nasty stuff with crap bills that have been already passed so its not a stretch to assume such things. So please, stop wasting my time with this, "you don't understand" crap. The only person "widely off base" is the person trying to change the point of this thread from talking about a bill that has the potential to change how Americans go on the internet to discussing how sensationalist media can be when they want attention. Read what's in the bills, decide for yourself how poignant the issue is then.
That's just it, I made a minor comment about this organization's approach to gathering support, and you blew it out of proportion. It has been your posts arguing what is essentially an inarguable observation that has led the conversation astray. As for how you misunderstand repeatedly, you take words I used like "shouldn't" and took them to mean "won't". While reading it that way is perfectly valid, it is simply not how I intended you to take it. In reality, I meant that the bills "shouldn't" get to vote on principle; that is, I am opposed to them. You did want our opinions after all, and I can't make what I initially said any more clear than this. As for the analogy, I'll spell it out again. It was illustrating how you would advocate using even more of the sensational style of gaining attention as a counter to the apathy of the public. I said nothing of the bill, and "you're" was used in the general sense, as you seem to have noticed. Again, it's just another spot where one could read two possible meanings, and you happened to choose to wrong one. The sensational approach they use lies in their warnings about sites shutting down and the oversimplification of complex issues, not to mention making huge leaps in logic by claiming censorship will become the norm while juxtaposing the big bad countries that hate freedom. Again, scaring people for attention is understandable, but it's all sensational, and I don't see how that's even worth debating. By the way, it's a similar approach to how the news does it, especially local news. I only singled out commercials because they demonstrate that approach more concisely, but I'm certainly not implying nothing occurs outside of the commercials. All things considered, I've only been trying to clarify what I believed to be a straightforward observation because you got caught up in the semantics. I'll make an effort to speak more plainly in future topics of yours so that there is no room for misinterpretation. I am fully aware of what these bills propose, and I am opposed to them. I am personally displeased with how apathetic our society has become, and I am disappointed by the tactics that americancensorship.org and similar websites are forced to use. Better?
soooooo anyway. now that you two are done being bitchy. what is the verdict on this? did it pass? i saw Nov 16 on there. havent seen anything else about it. when does it start being enforced
It will have to go through the House first, then the Senate. If all else fails, I believe the President has vowed to veto the bill. It will take some time.
It takes two to tango chrono This was your original comment and my response to it, Hardly "blowing it out of proportion". I answered your "minor" statement which had nothing to do with an organization and this is the first time you've brought up on other than "sensationalist media" which is about as vague a description as it gets. As far as "inarguable" what? Which part is inarguable, how media sensationalizes stories to get more attention which isn't the point of this thread or that large websites would not be affected by the bill which is a down right false statement. I'm not the one who brought up "sensationalist" anything so if you want to know who blew it out of proportion or moved the subject off topic it wasn't me. I perpetuated it in my responses in at attempt to move the conversation back to my point but you didn't seem to get that. Just because my responses get longer doesn't mean I'm "blowing" it out of proportion, it means I'm trying to explain the situation as clearly and with as little ambiguities as possible. ...because you said "won't", look its in the quote I did just right above this quote. What is this one of those politician tactics of denying something you said? Irregardless the second part of your comments hasn't been the priority of what my responses have been about it was the first part, the "websites won't be affected" parts. If your opinion was, "I don't think the bills will effect all that much" that would have been fine, but you didn't state it like that. You belittled the point of the bill while making it seem like everyone else is over reacting. Again...I got the the analogy. It wasn't a good one, why you're sticking by it is beyond me. The simple example of a commercial hyping what is in it to get more attention is a better analogy then a drug addict which has sooooo many more factors going into it then the simple comparison you think you're making. Saying nothing of the bill is the exact problem I'm talking about with you. And I'm calling bull on the "you're" in a general sense. Now you're just arguing every point I make for the hell of it regardless of what's true or false anymore. If you meant it in a general sense you would have said, "that only enables the hyperbole" not give it a direct subject like you did. If you want to vehemently deny such an obvious thing, whatever, fine you meant the imaginary people within this thread or internet people in general are exaggerating it. You know, some people would view that as the failure of the one supplying ambiguous reasoning for why there are multiple interpretations of the same thing, not the person interpreting it. If you can't explain your points without ten different interpretations of what it could mean maybe your point isn't good enough. Awh, finally a clear description of what you meant that until now hasn't been made (and if you think it has, reread the exact things you've said and see if they are the same, what's in your head is not what is written down most of the time). A sensational approach would be saying, "These sites will/are going to/are a sure thing to shut down", not giving a general warning of what could happen based on what the bill stipulates it can do. Based on the next couple of things you said I'm guessing you watched the 4 minute video and read the infographic as your only source on the subject. As those are the only sources I provided that could accused of "oversimplification of complex issues". As for the latter, its an image, if you wouldn't mind scrolling for ten minutes as you read everything on an image then sure I guess they could have added more or been a little less on the nose about things. For the former the video was far from sensationalist, it expressed what could happen and the precedent the bills would cause. And you know what...its really not that complicated an issue when you actually read the bills so this time you're over complicating it by stating such things. Large media conglomerates advocate the bill because it would allow them prevent internet piracy (at least that's what they think). The bill allows for some agency of the government to shut down websites by telling the ISP to shut of service to them and to close down ad revenue to those sites essentially killing the site. I nor the other sources are not sensationalizing anything there, THAT IS IN THE BILLS. But, and this is what's important to get out of this discussion. How sensational the words used in these sources isn't what my point is and I don't know why you keep bringing it back to that. My point, has and still is what the bills are capable of doing and the fact that this issue is in congress AS WE SPEAK. You seem to keep getting stuck on the specific words that people use to bring attention to the issue which I don't care about in the slightest. ...I mentioned the news as an example before you mentioned commercials...guess you didn't read that part. While I appreciate trying to conceal that conceited tone there, a couple things. Trying to clarify would have been what you said in this post, ^ That was a clear description of what you meant. Until that point you kept bringing up the media or explaining how I don't get your analogies or saying purely wrong statements like large websites won't be affected which is far from clarifying anything. So if you want to do me a favor in discussions I create, fact check them before you say them and be damn sure what you say is what you mean. I don't want to go through a multiple day debate over what you really meant to say before you finally give it 20 long responses later. Also, if you make a mistake during a discussion (like the "you're" thing) don't cover it up by giving some lame excuse about how the other person didn't get what you meant, just don't say anything. If you were fully aware of what the bills proposed you showed little evidence of it during this discussion and in many cases said statements that were just not true based on specific things that were in the two bills. But, yes that is better. Albeit a little contradictory. You can't both be displeased by how apathetic our society is and be disappointed by the tactics causes do to combat that apathy. What would you propose instead, a change in human nature? People in general don't act unless it affects their personal welfare. Is that that a sad realization yes, but that's how society functions. Taxes are such a large issue and one of the largest taboo areas in politics because taxes affect the personal welfare of everyone. So anything anyone says on them needs to be carefully calculated to piss the least amount of people off or gain the most support of those people. So if human nature doesn't change what does, the tactics the different causes use? Apart from the info-graphic every other source I posted in the op (and there are many more that I didn't) are all pretty objective and list the direct consequences of the bill and what is in the bill. Also, if people aren't made aware of what could happen in the worst case scenerio (which would be your "sensational tactics" then if it does happen (however unlikely) then the situation gets even worse due to people's unawareness that it could happen.
Are you kidding me, Pac? This entire post is semantics; I make a simple post about the topic, and you don't care for the tone or the way I said something and you begin picking everything apart. I don't care about whatever point you were making and I never made an effort to address it with my initial post. I never clarified because I didn't think I was required to meet some minimum level of detail that you seem to want. I also didn't realize that trying to clarify my own point after you seemingly misread it would only confuse you even further, so I won't continue doing that; you're welcome to dance by yourself. Let me say that again, I made my own point, and I never had any intention of addressing what your point was, so reading my posts as if they are a response to your concerns is central to your complete misunderstanding of this situation. Your response to the re-wording of my initial post crystallizes this perfectly. Not only is it absolutely all over the place, but you're actually trying to tell me that I can't feel the way I do in a thread asking us how we feel. I am flabbergasted, really. My advice to you is this: if you want to have a serious discussion, stick to live conversations. You are far less likely to over-analyze what the other person is saying.
The Anti-Internet Bill has NOT Been Postponed To 2012 [br][/br]Edited by merge: http://torrentfreak.com/firefox-add-on-bypasses-sopa-dns-blocking-111220/ [br][/br]Edited by merge: Be a HERO and Help STOP SOPA Now!! I'll tell you How! This Video that Must Be SHARED! - YouTube sure Pac no problem ill keep updating your thread
Sorry, I've been following the progress but skyrim man... Track the state of Protect-IP here S.968: PROTECT IP Act of 2011 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress SOPA here H.R.3261: Stop Online Piracy Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress List of companies supporting SOPA http://gizmodo.com/5870241
Here's a link to an online position held by Google, courtesy of cheeze. https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/ SOPA voting has been put on hold until it can be "reworked" PIPA is the next immediate threat. The Washington Current: SOPA Opponents Make Progress Ahead Of Blackout