Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 Patenting of hyperlinks

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Feb 15, 2002
 Comments:
yes it could become reality very soon.
diaries

More diaries by PotatoError
Hackers: Misunderstood
To all you Windows Criminals
The financial time bomb
Too controversial for Adequacy
A big HI! from Linuz Zealot
Linux Zealot Tells a Story
Why the GNU licence is a good thing
Why copying copyrighted music isnt wrong.
Okay I'll pay for music
Poz techie seeks same. T-count above 10000.
Human behaviour - my thinking on it
Question
The little things
What is god?
awww
Iraq, Israel, Palestine and Afghanistan
The consequences of Determinism
I think nuclear weapons are good
What IS adequacy all about????
Where are we going?
Secret World Conspiricy Revealed!!!
Diary Entry 24/05/02
The Internet - where is it heading?
Terrifying and Shocking news
w0w I must be 1337 h4X0r
An Introduction to Online Gaming
Why Al-Qeada isn't responsible for the WTC
Linux Zealot - My thoughts about him
How many Adequacy members are there?
Why Internet Piracy is Moral
Trees and Grass. Two more lies of society.
Why US bombs should be banned
The Hunt for God
My vacation to America and what I found there
Are you an Enemy Combatant?
Rock vs Pop
Why we should make all guns illegal
Invasion: America
One Year since 9/11 and Americans haven't changed
Basically the company British Telecom (BT), has discovered that it patented hyperlinks back in the 70's and is now prosecuting ISP's for infringing their intellectual rights.

It would mean that us internet users could be charged everytime we clicked on a hyperlink.

This will be heralded as a great victory by many on this site - a great example of a company protecting its rights over its intellectual property. The illegal american ISP's who have breached the rights of BT will suffer indeed. We can only hope that most of them will shut down when BT makes them pay high royalties each time one of their customers uses a hyperlink.

By enforcing its rights on the ownership of the idea of hyperlinks, BT will make millions - possibly billions. They could charge users any ammount they wanted every time they clicked on a link on a web site. After all its their intellectual property so they can charge what they like.

In fact they could charge such an extortionate rate as to shutdown the internet completely. Quite funny IMO.
This sort of thing will surely aid innovation and promote the growth of the internet in the next century! Hurray to data protection laws and intellectual property rights!

       
Tweet

I should... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by tkatchev on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 10:58:50 AM PST
I should patent the right to post dumb diary entries. Stifle the competition, so to speak.


--
Peace and much love...




While you're at it, (none / 0) (#3)
by jvance on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 11:13:24 AM PST
patent the right to put up stupid websites. Same thought, broader impact.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Copyright and quoting (none / 0) (#7)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 12:36:50 PM PST
"patent the right to put up stupid websites. Same thought, broader impact."
That isnt illegal.

Your: "This comment jvance, 2002.
This material may not be reproduced or edited, in whole or in part, without written consent of the author."
Is worth shit legally.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

We'll See (none / 0) (#8)
by jvance on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 12:49:27 PM PST
When my army of lawyers are done with you and a certain other individual, there'll be nothing left except deep-fried potato-skins and parchment shreds of ancient Greek disputations.


--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Lawyers? (4.00 / 1) (#9)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 01:10:56 PM PST
Isn't it too cruel?

Wouldn't a truck of explosives be more human?


What makes you think (none / 0) (#10)
by jvance on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 01:20:38 PM PST
that those options are mutually exclusive?


--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

argh!! (none / 0) (#16)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 09:34:56 PM PST
Everyone is conspiring against me!! RUNNN FOR THE HILLS!!!!
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
How... (none / 0) (#2)
by derek3000 on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 11:11:25 AM PST
In fact they could charge such an extortionate rate as to shutdown the internet completely. Quite funny IMO.

would this be beneficial to them? Quite funny indeed.

Look--the sky is falling!




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

so what? (none / 0) (#6)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 12:35:30 PM PST
"would this be beneficial to them? Quite funny indeed."
Well you have just given the power to shutdown the internet to a single company. It might not benefit them to do so. More likely it will benefit them to shutdown all websites which dont support their ideals. They would be able to promote their own websites while charging competition for high-priced royalties. Therefore monopolising their position. Something the US courts would have no rights to stop as it is a british company.

You really want to hand control of the internet to a single company - and a company based outside the US?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

don't worry (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 08:42:45 PM PST
There are a number of businesses speaking out against BT. They don't even know if the really have a patent on it anyway.

Besides so many people invented a form of hypertext linking it would really depend on which one everyone is actually using.

Douglas Englebart (1960s) and later Tim Berners-Lee (1984) both developed forms of hypertext linking. Bt didn't receive their patent until 1989.

I'm sorry but only an idiot would let BT get away with this.


 
This is called competition. (none / 0) (#20)
by derek3000 on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 08:58:46 AM PST
Before I make my first point--did the internet become a thing of life or death all of the sudden? You sound so fucking freaked out about this. "Dude, could you imagine life w/o the internet?" Yes I can. It's called everything before 1970 (or whenever it was 'invented', because I know if I say 90s someone will be all up on my shit and say 'but it was invented a long time ago').

If the phone company starts charging exorbitant prices, then you will use e-mail/instant messenger. See? There may not be direct competition, but there will be at least indirect competition.




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

Internet (none / 0) (#21)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 09:23:07 AM PST
Actually the "Internet" truly didn't come into being until the late 80s and early 90s. Before it was a collection of ARPANets. Eventually ARPANet gave way to the Internet. ARPANet has been around since the early 60s.


 
Well (none / 0) (#26)
by PotatoError on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 10:33:19 AM PST
If the internet shut down tommorow I guarantee that the stock markets would crash.
Too many companies are dependant on the internet. Global communications will severly suffer. As you have said we would be set back 30 years of progress.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Go on, BT! (none / 0) (#4)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 11:19:38 AM PST
Ruin the American Net!

Everybody will then move to Europe, Asia, and Africa, where no stinkin' software patents are.

There are prior art proofs, so the case is moot anyway, though.

Patents of this kind are ridiculous thing. I found that if I'd have to pay royalties for every thing that infringes on some patent, even the ones I developed from scratch without any prior knowledge about the patent, I'd go bankrupt overnight. No way! There is no force that could make me paying for something I come up with myself!


FWIW (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 11:45:27 AM PST
patent holders are blissfully unaware of your existence and would like to remain that way until such time as you apply their technology to your marketed product. If this sounds like a business stratagem, it is. And since there is no market for stupidity by an opinionated crank who is only too eager to "explain" why everyone should run Lunix, you are safe from patent holders for all of perpetuity.


 
WOW!!! (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 03:51:43 PM PST
"It's probably among the Top 10 most controversial patents in the world," said Charles Cella, a former patent attorney and co-founder of BountyQuest Corp., a U.S. startup that monitors patent cases.

Finally, a real example of controversy to hit this site!


 
It's all clear now. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by RobotSlave on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 05:06:23 PM PST
So what you're saying, Potato, is that you actually don't care much about Intellectual Property or Copyright or any of that stuff. You simply hate Americans.

Damn, it sure gets tired, you know? One after another, day after day, you ignorant, xenophobic nationalists step up on the soapbox and bark through your megaphones, telling anyone who will listen that the US is a teeming cesspool of ignorant, xenophobic nationalists.

And then, invariably, some wingnut pipes up to accuse Americans of being categorically incapable of appreciating irony. Sheesh.

It used to be sort of droll, sure, but it's grown stale lately.

When I hear the familiar bleating these days, my mind starts to wander, and I usually end up thinking about two people joining hands and leaping together from the broken window of a burning skyscraper.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

I see (1.66 / 3) (#13)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 08:34:46 PM PST
It used to be sort of droll, sure, but it's grown stale lately.

Kind of like the same old factually incorrect drunken ramblings of a self proclaimed expert that comes off sounding like a preschooler? And not just any preschool. The ones for "special" kids.

Oh look, yet another post about un-American (we're not all Americans so who cares), communist, Lunix hacker geek slobs.

Let me know when one of you social rejects writes something new. That is if you can actually go out into the world instead of reading poetry and philosopy all friggin day. You may realise that nobody actually buys into your foolishness and uniformed bullshit. I mean come on, constant rambling about communist governments? Or about welfare, social security, and unemployeement being communist. And you want me to believe you're all intellectuals? HELLO!?! The term communist government is an oxymoron. Under communism THERE IS NO GOVERNEMENT. And who gives a shit about it? It doesn't work, because its time has past.

So let's stop spouting the same old rhetoric. And one more thing. Natalie Portman is extremely attractive. At least if you forget about the rediculous costumes she wore in Star Wars Episode I. I myself love latin women. That's why there will always be a place in my heart for Salma Hayek.


Dear troll: (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by RobotSlave on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 08:50:18 PM PST
I've zeroed your comment, so it may no longer be visible. Trolling is not permitted at the adequacy.

Also, your technique is terrible. Go practice on the gibbering gibbons for a while, and report back.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
WTF?!!!! (none / 0) (#17)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 09:40:31 PM PST
whats your problem? The only thing I said was that BT was prosecuting American ISPs - which IT IS. Thats fact. Okay I said "evil" american ISPs or something like that. But then everyone can understand me on this as most people on this site frequently do the "*insult verb* linux", "*insult verb* hackers", etc.

I was making a point that under your own views that copyright infringers are "evil" and "bad" that american ISPs infringing BTs intellectual property rights must also be considered "evil" and "bad". I didnt mean you to babble on about people jumping out of windows. No, that was a bonus for me.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

So you enjoy the slaughter of innocents? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by RobotSlave on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 10:22:05 PM PST
I didn't realize you would enjoy the "bonus" of reliving the horror of the most grisly event in recent memory.

Not only do you hate America, you're apparently some sort of bloodthirsty monster, as well. You probably masturbate to historical footage of Auschwitz. Or do you only get off on Americans dying?

As to the rest of your alarmist scenario: you simply provide further evidence that you have absolutely no idea how the business world actually works, and have never bothered to think about it or listen to anyone who has.

Your understanding of the economy appears to come from the slow, laborious reading of a few chapters in your remedial large-type children's history book, and from an extraordinary amount of wishful thinking.

So our picture of PotatoError grows. The nearly-illiterate anti-Irish and anti-American Linux bigot with a greedy infant's understanding of economics is also a bloodthirsty fiend who enjoys descriptions of innocent people forced to leap to their deaths.

And he doesn't understand why nobody agrees with him.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Also (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 05:38:58 AM PST
He doesn't seem to possess even a retarded child's understanding of the animal kingdom either (see previous PE diary entry).

I think it is a general trait of geeks. They all seem to be so full of themselves that they have no need to read any books, research, journals, or anything substantial about any topic whatsoever. They think that it is enough for them to apply their magnificient intellect to a subject and they will immediately be able to think all thoughts that possibly exist about it.


yea (none / 0) (#25)
by PotatoError on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 10:31:02 AM PST
but maybe its you who are wrong. If you sit there blindly defending something like "animals dont have free will" or "human behaviour is non-deterministic" without any sort of evidence then theres I dont even bother wondering why you would attack my arguments. Its just an impulse reaction rather than anything you have actually thought about.

My post wasnt anything to do with the animal "kingdom" either.

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
oh I see (none / 0) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 09:31:31 AM PST
So let me get this straight. Copyright violations and infringing on a patent are bad. However, when Americans do it, no one can say anything about it? I'm an American and I say that's hypocitical bullshit.


no no no (none / 0) (#24)
by PotatoError on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 10:27:41 AM PST
Maybe you should look up the word sarcasm.

I disagree with the whole idea of intellectual property. Im just saying that advocates of the idea are now going to see a flaw with it because of BT's actions.

As many observers have already said - all that stuff about videos of supposed hyperlinks being used back in the 60s will probably not hold up in court. BT wouldnt waste millions fighting the case if it thought the video would prove them wrong.
From what ive heard the video doesnt show hyperlinks as used today and patented by BT.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

I am referring to fools (none / 0) (#27)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 01:50:37 PM PST
I was referring to the fact that someone mentioning that BT is going after American ISPs is considered Anti-American. As I said, if America does something wrong it's ok. However, if someone mentions how wrong it is and how someone should be punished its considered, by this site to be anti-American.

Unfortunately, most people that visit this site can't seem to understand that Americans are not the only ones accessing it. This web site is accesible by everyone all over the world.

I wonder how long it will be before we see another article by say elenchos in which they make a bold statement like "if you aren't willing to code for Uncle Sam then don't code at all". What about non-Americans, like the French, Germans, British, or Japanese? Do they have to code for Uncle Sam? Hell no. Just because someone speaks up about American actions doesn't mean you are anti-American.

Someone once said that patriotism is not waving little American flags made in China. It taking an active role in America and its democracy. In other words if you see something that's not right then speak up. THAT'S Patriotism. Fighting for what you believe in.


Secondary nations... (none / 0) (#29)
by elenchos on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 07:21:39 PM PST
...like Japan or Europe need to make a choice. They are either for us or against us. Civilization is facing its darkest hour, and only one country is left to defend art, moneymaking, sexual license, and the crowning achievment of Western Humanism, irreverence.

The fact is, there is no difference between an appeaser and a collaborator, except maybe to split hairs by saying that hackers are collaborators and those writing code that does not serve American interests are appeasers.

What would you have us do? Let them blow up the Space Needle, the Missippi River, and the Washington Monument? Let them burn us in our cubicles? Well, here's a shock: we have the stomach to stand up and fight back. Sorry if you thought we would just roll over.

I would have expected better from British Telecom, but they are apparently more Telecom than British. The Telephone-Industrial Complex is a notorious rats-nest of Luddite religious fundamentalism and outright Communism. Not to worry.

Their silly claim of a patent on America's Internet (do you even know what the A in AOL stand's for, Ivan?) will be laughed out of court, and the Tele-Communists will have to report bad news to their master, Osama bin Laden, and face his wrath.

But then Osama will get his reward too, in due course. Whose side are you on, by the way?


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Hmm (none / 0) (#30)
by PotatoError on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 08:32:42 PM PST
you seem to live in some fantasy world where there are "goodies" and "baddies".

"we have the stomach to stand up and fight back. Sorry if you thought we would just roll over."
Every nation on earth fights back. Thats the problem.

Heh I wouldnt expect better from BT. They are shits and always have been.

"The Telephone-Industrial Complex is a notorious rats-nest of Luddite religious fundamentalism and outright Communism"
And the record industry :)

"Their silly claim of a patent on America's Internet"
Which is unfortunately 100% legal. Afterall they did legally patent hyperlinks. Are you all of a sudden against intellectual property? One thing people on this site taught me is that intellectual property owners can charge as much as they want for its use.
Its not just a claim on America's internet - its a claim on the worlds internet. Afterall intellectual property law is international. America could simply void BTs patent because its "stupid" but then we would have some real fun as china decided to void hundreds of US patents.

"Civilization is facing its darkest hour"
No, its just that the US has woken up to reality. Other countries have been fighting and witnessing large scale violence for decades.
Just look at afghanistan. US bombing killed more civilians than the terrorists did at WTC.




<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

As legal as the GPL, I suppose. (none / 0) (#33)
by elenchos on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 03:17:34 AM PST
Do you ever stop and ask yourself if you have begun to lose your grip on reality? If the judge hasn't even heard prelimnary arguments yet, how can you pronounce the outcome in favor of one side? The legality of this foreign "patent" is the very thing that is at issue, yet you believe you can call it "100% legal"? Didn't you try the same thing with the highly questionable and still-untested GNU Public License?

Who are you fooling with all this? Other hackers?

Excuse me if I am such a chauvinist as to apply the label "bad" to murdering terrorists who slaughter innocents by the thousands. I would rather be sneered at by America-hating fascist hackers who hang the evil Osama bin Laden's picture next to their beloved Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold portraits, than be so devoid of feeling and conscience that I can equate the just actions of an assaulted people defending themselves against heinous aggession with outright murder of the foulest kind. It shocks you that your equivocating moral relativism doesn't exist outside hacker opium dens? Sorry to shock you.

Many nations don't bother defending themselves. Saudi Arabia doesn't, for example. And there is France of course. You don't know anything.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Hmm (none / 0) (#34)
by PotatoError on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 10:27:21 AM PST
Do you ever stop and ask yourself if you have begun to lose your grip on reality?

Do you actually have any evidence of "America-hating fascist hackers who hang the evil Osama bin Laden's picture next to their beloved Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold portraits"

You don't know anything.

"than be so devoid of feeling and conscience that I can equate the just actions of an assaulted people defending themselves against heinous aggession with outright murder of the foulest kind"

Hahaha you should write for CNN.com!!
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
its you that have no idea (none / 0) (#23)
by PotatoError on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 10:23:16 AM PST
A simple example of your lack of understanding:

ME: "I didnt mean you to babble on about people jumping out of windows. No, that was a bonus for me."

Your Response: "I didn't realize you would enjoy the "bonus" of reliving the horror of the most grisly event in recent memory."

Any sane person would have realised that I was talking about you babbling on as being the bonus for me.

I still dont see how you cant understand the simple fact. If BT can impose charges on use of hyperlinks it can slowly own the entire internet. BT has its own ISP called BTInternet - this ISP wouldnt be charged for use of hyperlinks. All other ISPs could be charged extortionate rates - and it would be legal.
The reason why BT would want to do this: BT would want all other ISPs around the world removed and every person on this planet to use BT's own ISP. Crush the competition in other words.
AOL could be wiped out by BT - all BT would have to do is to impose charges of $10 on AOL each time one of its customers used a hyperlink. AOL would not be able to afford this.

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

I have more ideas than you do, Skippy. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by RobotSlave on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 05:08:57 PM PST
Any sane person would write clearly enough to be sure that his audience will not assume he is a bloodthirsty monster. Only a sick mind would claim heartwrenching tragedy as a "bonus."

Again, you have absolutely no clue about how modern businesses actually work, and no apparent interest in learning anything about the subject. You keep putting forward fantasy scenarios in which BT charges consumers on a per-hyperlink basis, or ISPs an "extortionate" rate.

Neither of these will happen. Keynes has my back on this. So does Adam smith, for that matter. In fact, I think just about any school of economic thinking would put the lie to your fantasy scenarios. But you don't know the first thing about economics, so you cling to your fantasies, and keep bleating them out as if they were forgone conclusions.

You really need to broaden your horizons, Potato. Start small-- try to develop an appreciation for some genre of music other than "Rock/Metal."


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

hahah (none / 0) (#31)
by PotatoError on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 08:44:54 PM PST
try to develop an appreciation for some genre of music other than "Rock/Metal."

You mean like UK garage, dance, R&B or manufactured pop. LOOOOOOOOL

Also I dont think you know much about BT. You say that they would never charge ISP's extortionate rates. lol they have been doing this for years in the UK with their phone tariffs. They are also being investigated for breaching competition laws - giving their ISP unfair advantages. They are a company purely in it for profit. Good ol' capitalism at its best. They dont give a shit about the internet and its growth and future sucess - they have stiffled the UK internet for the last 15 years. Neither do they give a shit about their customers. Otherwise they wouldnt have started this patent claim would they?

They have been used to being a monopoly for decades - if they win this patent case then they will be a monopoly worldwide. They would probably rival microsoft in value.

Yes, they ARE planning to charge royalties from ISP's - a BT spokeswoman said so. Knowing BT it wont be cheap either. I shit you not. If they are within the law then they will try and get as much money as possible.

If it makes the competition suffer and their own ISP florish even better for them. I now ask you - how is the functioning of modern businesses and the economy going to prevent this from happening? The law is the law - if BT own intellectual property to hyperlinks then they are allowed to charge what they want.
Yes, actually state the reason - dont just keep saying "you have no idea..the economy wont let it happen..blah blah"..tell me why it wont.





<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Laugh while you can, Skippy. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by RobotSlave on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 10:08:10 PM PST
I don't care what genre of music you broaden your horizons with, but thanks for proving your unwillingness to do anything other than denigrate music you don't understand. Want to prove me wrong? Broaden your horizons. Show us you can appreciate something new.

Now then.

Once again, you simply bleat out your fantasy scenario. You take the perfectly reasonable intent to charge royalties, and you inflate it to mean charging unreasonable, "extortionate" rates, because that is what your paranoid fantasy requires.

You've never heard of risk-benefit analysis. The notion of patent cross-licensing is more than you can comprehend. What's more, you won't make the slightest effort to understand these things. You just spew out pig-headed denial.

You don't like BT, and you think your ignorant, paranoid opinion amounts to legitimate economic analysis.

Just for kicks, here are a few other fantasy scenarios:
  • BT charges a reasonable rate to ISPs. The ISPs absorb the cost by raising prices by a few pennies. Life goes on.
  • BT is met with other patent challenges from larger ISPs. To avoid the expense of years of legal battles, patents are cross-licensed, and Life goes on.
  • A court concludes that BT has a perfectly good patent, but ISPs do not infringe on it. Life goes on.


No damage to consumers. No radical change in intellectual property law. No "BT owns the internet" end game.

All I have to do, by your standards of debate, is keep saying over and over again that one or another of the imagined situations I've outlined above is inevitable.

You continue to demonstrate the economic sophisitcation of a greedy, frightened two-year-old. You also show yourself to be incapable of apologising for expressing joy at the slaughter of thousands.

Your immaturity will leave you bloody and sobbing on the floor of the pub, once your parents have had enough of sheltering you and decide to let you out at night. And you know what? I won't be laughing. Shaking my head, yes, but not laughing. Grown-ups don't laugh at violence, little boy.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

haha (none / 0) (#35)
by PotatoError on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 10:38:50 AM PST
cut all the shit at the end. What was that all about? A novel or something?

Yea, you've given 3 possible fanasy senarios and I have given one too. You must at least admit that it is possible mine will come to be.

DO you actually live in the UK? If not then you dont know second shit about BT and what things its done.
If BT wins the case then I'll think you'll be suprised at what they will try to do. Just wait.

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

"Just Wait?" (none / 0) (#36)
by RobotSlave on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 04:26:49 PM PST
If it's time for me to "just wait," then it's time for you to "just shut up."

I rather like the idea of this as a novel. I think I will title it "Out Of Short Pants: The Education of a Young Bigot."

And if I can't talk about BT, then you can't talk about AOL. We Americans know just how likely AOL is to meekly roll over and submit to Rule Britannia when the Redcoats point a trembling little pop-gun of a patent at them. Our patents are bigger than your patents. But you can't talk about that. You don't know anything about that, because you're British, see?

Go home and wait for your doomsday fantasy to come true, Potato. It won't happen, and you'll be surprised when it doesn't. Just wait.

Isn't it fun when people take your infantile argumentative techniques, and throw them back in your fat little face?

You're a prat, Potato.

Your new name is PotatoPrat.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Well (none / 0) (#37)
by PotatoError on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 07:31:48 PM PST
your the one who's posts consist of 90% juvenile insults.

"Our patents are bigger than your patents."
Im glad to see you've got a firm grip on the legal system.

Like I said - If BT win the case (and I hope they dont) - then just wait.


<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Prat. (none / 0) (#38)
by RobotSlave on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 08:13:49 PM PST
Prat, prat, pratty PotatoPrat.

"If" is not an argument. I can do lots of "if" too. Note that the fantasies I outlined were "if" also, and that they were even "if BT wins the case."

How about this "if:"

"If PotatoPrat lets go of his paranoid BT fantasy, and admits that his diary entry is ill-informed and unrealistic, and apologises for laughing at the death of thousands while he's at it, then people might stop calling him a prat."


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Look! Slave learnt a new word! (2.50 / 2) (#39)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 03:56:38 AM PST
How about another one. You, 'Slave, are a pleb. A plebbity pleb pleb pleb. Your plebian nature sickens me to the core.


 
umm (2.50 / 2) (#40)
by PotatoError on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 06:02:35 AM PST
"If PotatoPrat lets go of his paranoid BT fantasy, and admits that his diary entry is ill-informed and unrealistic, and apologises for laughing at the death of thousands while he's at it, then people might stop calling him a prat."


see its that word *might* thats stuck in there. It scares me. Like I would put in all that effort only to *maybe* stop people calling me a prat.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.