[OT] Tesla: Use Your Car The Way We Say or We'll Cut the Power

[BTR1701]

If Tesla doesn't like the way you drive, it can cut you off from
recharging your car.

This limit on "commercial driving" is, as they say, just the beginning.
Wait until those driverless cars everyone's so jazzed about become
mandatory and watch the behavior modification really kick into high gear.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/17/16787010/tesla-prohibiting-commercial
-drivers-supercharger-station

[RichA]

Elon Musk. Hero of enviroqueers, progressives and people who think TED Talks are the height of intellectual achievement.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <atropos-6F0DAD...@news.giganews.com>,

I noticed this crap when I was shopping for them a few months ago. The
contract says you can't use it as an UBER or LYFT vehicle. I asked why
and was told that they are going to start their own service in a couple
years. Why they wouldn't want people to see how nice their cars are NOW
as free advertising is beyond me.

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/

[FPP]

Your leftist agenda is showing.
I thought all you Libertarians wanted to leave everything to the "free
market"?

Lord knows we wouldn't want Big Government regulating things like that,
now would we?
--
"I call my own shots, largely based on an accumulation of data, and
everyone knows it. Some FAKE NEWS media, in order to marginalize, lies!"
-2017
"WAR IS PEACE." "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY." "IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!" -1984
Eric Arthur Blair

[BTR1701]

In article <p17fnm$ikc$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 12/17/17 11:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

> > If Tesla doesn't like the way you drive, it can cut you off from
> > recharging your car.
> >
> > This limit on "commercial driving" is, as they say, just the beginning.
> > Wait until those driverless cars everyone's so jazzed about become
> > mandatory and watch the behavior modification really kick into high gear.
> >
> > https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/17/16787010/tesla-prohibiting-commercial
> > -drivers-supercharger-station

> I thought all you Libertarians wanted to leave everything to the "free
> market"?

We do. We also like personal property. When we buy something on the free
market, it's ours to do with as we please.

[FPP]

Then you're not only wrong, but hilariously naive, as well.

[shawn]

As I understand it that's only Tesla preventing people from using
their free charging service. If you want to use your Tesla as a
Taxi/Uber/Lyft then go ahead and do so. Just don't expect Tesla to
help subsidise your business. That's why they also limit how much
regular customer can use the free charging service unless they pay
extra. I can't really see a problem with this as Tesla is paying for
that 'free' charging service.

[BTR1701]

In article <frhe3dtupvlm372m3...@4ax.com>,

Then they need to stop advertising it as free.

Just like the ISPs that sell you 'unlimited data', but then put limits
on your data.

[BTR1701]

In article <p17gto$mth$3...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On 12/17/17 11:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

> > In article <p17fnm$ikc$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/17/17 11:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> >>> If Tesla doesn't like the way you drive, it can cut you off from
> >>> recharging your car.
> >>>
> >>> This limit on "commercial driving" is, as they say, just the beginning.
> >>> Wait until those driverless cars everyone's so jazzed about become
> >>> mandatory and watch the behavior modification really kick into high gear.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/17/16787010/tesla-prohibiting-commercial
> >>> -drivers-supercharger-station
> >
> >> I thought all you Libertarians wanted to leave everything to the "free
> >> market"?
> >
> > We do. We also like personal property. When we buy something on the free
> > market, it's ours to do with as we please.

> Then you're not only wrong, but hilariously naive, as well.

Hardly. Just because some company puts a clause in a contract, that
doesn't rob me of my property rights.

If Tesla can put anything in a sales contract and bind you to it, could
they put in a clause that says you agree never to let a black person
ride in your Tesla?

Or are there limits to what's allowed under contract law?

[anim8rfsk]

In article <frhe3dtupvlm372m3...@4ax.com>,
shawn <nanof...@notformailgmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 20:01:18 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >If Tesla doesn't like the way you drive, it can cut you off from
> >recharging your car.
> >
> >This limit on "commercial driving" is, as they say, just the beginning.
> >Wait until those driverless cars everyone's so jazzed about become
> >mandatory and watch the behavior modification really kick into high gear.
> >
> >https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/17/16787010/tesla-prohibiting-commercial
> >-drivers-supercharger-station
>
> As I understand it that's only Tesla preventing people from using
> their free charging service. If you want to use your Tesla as a
> Taxi/Uber/Lyft then go ahead and do so.

No sir. You are specifically prohibited from using your Tesla as an
Uber/Lyft at all.

Just don't expect Tesla to
> help subsidise your business. That's why they also limit how much
> regular customer can use the free charging service unless they pay
> extra. I can't really see a problem with this as Tesla is paying for
> that 'free' charging service.

[shawn]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 23:11:52 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:

>In article <frhe3dtupvlm372m3...@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanof...@notformailgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 20:01:18 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >If Tesla doesn't like the way you drive, it can cut you off from
>> >recharging your car.
>> >
>> >This limit on "commercial driving" is, as they say, just the beginning.
>> >Wait until those driverless cars everyone's so jazzed about become
>> >mandatory and watch the behavior modification really kick into high gear.
>> >
>> >https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/17/16787010/tesla-prohibiting-commercial
>> >-drivers-supercharger-station
>>
>> As I understand it that's only Tesla preventing people from using
>> their free charging service. If you want to use your Tesla as a
>> Taxi/Uber/Lyft then go ahead and do so.
>
>No sir. You are specifically prohibited from using your Tesla as an
>Uber/Lyft at all.

You are forbidden from using the self-driving Tesla as an Uber/Lyft
vehicle. Any Tesla that has a human driver at the wheel can be used as
an Uber/Lyft vehicle. That limitation is very different from saying
no Tesla can be used by Uber/Lyft. All due to the fact that Musk would
like to get into that Uber/Lyft ridesharing business using self
driving cars. Which makes perfect sense if you've got a true
self-driving car even if that car can only be used within some limited
area. Imagine Tesla Ride Share in a place like NYC so instead of a sea
of honking cars you get a quiet hum of TRSs waiting patiently for the
lights to change.

[FPP]

There are limits to everything... except the stupidity that Libertarians
seem to have when it comes to the "free market".

[FPP]

But it *is* free... so long as you accept their conditions. Free
doesn't mean "unconditional".

The word "free" is being used in the monetary sense, not in the sense
that you are free to do anything you want.

And nothing is "unlimited".

[trotsky]

Cite?

[trotsky]

On 12/17/17 10:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <p17gto$mth$3...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/17/17 11:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>> In article <p17fnm$ikc$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/17/17 11:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>>> If Tesla doesn't like the way you drive, it can cut you off from
>>>>> recharging your car.
>>>>>
>>>>> This limit on "commercial driving" is, as they say, just the beginning.
>>>>> Wait until those driverless cars everyone's so jazzed about become
>>>>> mandatory and watch the behavior modification really kick into high gear.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/17/16787010/tesla-prohibiting-commercial
>>>>> -drivers-supercharger-station
>>>
>>>> I thought all you Libertarians wanted to leave everything to the "free
>>>> market"?
>>>
>>> We do. We also like personal property. When we buy something on the free
>>> market, it's ours to do with as we please.
>
>> Then you're not only wrong, but hilariously naive, as well.
>
> Hardly. Just because some company puts a clause in a contract, that
> doesn't rob me of my property rights.

Aren't you limited by what you can do with your guns too?

[trotsky]

On 12/17/17 10:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> If Tesla doesn't like the way you drive, it can cut you off from
> recharging your car.

That's a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. Get your shit
together and see if you can properly summarize what they're actually doing.

[trotsky]

On 12/17/17 10:41 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 12/17/17 11:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <p17fnm$ikc$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/17/17 11:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>>> If Tesla doesn't like the way you drive, it can cut you off from
>>>> recharging your car.
>>>>
>>>> This limit on "commercial driving" is, as they say, just the beginning.
>>>> Wait until those driverless cars everyone's so jazzed about become
>>>> mandatory and watch the behavior modification really kick into high
>>>> gear.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/17/16787010/tesla-prohibiting-commercial
>>>>
>>>> -drivers-supercharger-station
>>
>>> I thought all you Libertarians wanted to leave everything to the "free
>>> market"?
>>
>> We do. We also like personal property. When we buy something on the free
>> market, it's ours to do with as we please.
>>
>
> Then you're not only wrong, but hilariously naive, as well.

I wonder how to describe what is wrong with Thanny here. He really
doesn't seem to be cognizant of the trap he falls into over and over
again. I think it has to be mental illness. To wit: he posts an
article saying Tesla limits the users of its Supercharger charging
stations to non commercial users. Thanny, in his syphilitic brain, then
claims Tesla is preventing people from charging their personal property.
He doesn't seem to realize that Tesla's Superchargers are their
corporate property and they can let anyone or no one use them as they
see fit. I guess my question is do you think Thanny is too stupid to
see the logical fallacies he continuously falls into? It's weird, I
really don't know if he is able to discern how fucked up his "point of
view" is here.

[trotsky]

On 12/18/17 12:11 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> In article <frhe3dtupvlm372m3...@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanof...@notformailgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 20:01:18 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If Tesla doesn't like the way you drive, it can cut you off from
>>> recharging your car.
>>>
>>> This limit on "commercial driving" is, as they say, just the beginning.
>>> Wait until those driverless cars everyone's so jazzed about become
>>> mandatory and watch the behavior modification really kick into high gear.
>>>
>>> https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/17/16787010/tesla-prohibiting-commercial
>>> -drivers-supercharger-station
>>
>> As I understand it that's only Tesla preventing people from using
>> their free charging service. If you want to use your Tesla as a
>> Taxi/Uber/Lyft then go ahead and do so.
>
> No sir. You are specifically prohibited from using your Tesla as an
> Uber/Lyft at all.

Cite, liar?

[trotsky]

shawn, you do need to realize you're making intelligent remarks to
people that aren't intelligent. What you're saying is 100% accurate.

[trotsky]

Agreed, if you want to steal electricity from Tesla that is your
business. Fucking idiot.

[FPP]

You know... with that kind of a blatant disregard for the facts, maybe
he really *is* a lawyer!
--
Today we learned that Disney is buying most of 20th Century Fox.
Not included in the acquisition is Fox News, which really is
surprising... because you'd think "The Masters of Fantasy and
Imagination" would WANT to be bought by Disney. - S. Colbert 12/14/17

[anim8rfsk]

In article <olue3dl8ahoru83ui...@4ax.com>,

Okay, what I read didn't say anything about self driving, it was just a
paragraph that said you couldn't use the car for uber/lyft. But it's
possible I was in some sort of arcane subsection where the self driving
part was implied.

[BTR1701]

In article <p17vgg$sqa$3...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 12/17/17 11:56 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

> > In article <frhe3dtupvlm372m3...@4ax.com>,
> > shawn <nanof...@notformailgmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 20:01:18 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> If Tesla doesn't like the way you drive, it can cut you off from
> >>> recharging your car.
> >>>
> >>> This limit on "commercial driving" is, as they say, just the beginning.
> >>> Wait until those driverless cars everyone's so jazzed about become
> >>> mandatory and watch the behavior modification really kick into high gear.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/17/16787010/tesla-prohibiting-commercial
> >>> -drivers-supercharger-station
> >>
> >> As I understand it that's only Tesla preventing people from using
> >> their free charging service. If you want to use your Tesla as a
> >> Taxi/Uber/Lyft then go ahead and do so. Just don't expect Tesla to
> >> help subsidise your business. That's why they also limit how much
> >> regular customer can use the free charging service unless they pay
> >> extra. I can't really see a problem with this as Tesla is paying for
> >> that 'free' charging service.
> >
> > Then they need to stop advertising it as free.
> >
> > Just like the ISPs that sell you 'unlimited data', but then put limits
> > on your data.

> But it *is* free... so long as you accept their conditions.

LOL! "It's free as long as you accept our conditions requiring payment."

> And nothing is "unlimited".

Then they shouldn't be allowed to lie and say it is.

[BTR1701]

In article <p17vc0$sqa$2...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

You didn't answer the question: If Tesla can put anything in a sales

[Rhino]

Not true. I have yet to see a limit to your nonsense. You seem to have
an unlimited supply of that!

--
Rhino

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

As well as other scenarios, even so.

> > And nothing is "unlimited".
>
> Then they shouldn't be allowed to lie and say it is.

Corporations have done this for years. What's the problem?

[moviePig]

You're invoking 'free market' and 'property rights' as though they bring
the buyer some a priori, all-inclusive license. But, afaik, there's
nothing in the UCC preventing me from selling exactly what I want to
sell and can clearly describe. (See. e.g., homeowners' covenants.)

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[David Johnston]

The "supercharger stations" aren't the property of the Tesla owners.

[BTR1701]

The cars are, and Tesla has been known to remotely increase or decrease a
car's battery range without the prior consent of its owner.

I'm just saying that we should be quite careful and thoughtful about how we
move into a world where the company that sells you something retains an
astounding amount of control over how and even if you are allowed use it,
based on how much it likes or dislikes you or your profession. Because
sooner or later, these issues are going to get bigger and more problematic
-- and it might help if we really thought about them now, before things get
messy.

[FPP]

Sure. They can put anything they want into a contract.

It'll be struck down by a court for civil rights violations... but
there's nothing I can see that would prohibit them from putting anything
they want in writing.

[FPP]

Man... it's almost like we should have some kind of regulatory agency
that kept tabs on those kinds of abuses, isn't it?

Maybe you Libertarians should propose something like that... maybe even
a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of some sort.

[FPP]

I'm sure it's there, in the fine print.

[FPP]

I beat you to that one, too:

On 12/18/17 3:47 AM, FPP wrote:
> There are limits to everything... except the stupidity that Libertarians

> seem to have when it comes to the "free market".

[RichA]

On Sunday, 17 December 2017 23:21:12 UTC-5, FPP wrote:

> On 12/17/17 11:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > If Tesla doesn't like the way you drive, it can cut you off from
> > recharging your car.
> >
> > This limit on "commercial driving" is, as they say, just the beginning.
> > Wait until those driverless cars everyone's so jazzed about become
> > mandatory and watch the behavior modification really kick into high gear.
> >
> > https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/17/16787010/tesla-prohibiting-commercial
> > -drivers-supercharger-station
>

> Your leftist agenda is showing.

> I thought all you Libertarians wanted to leave everything to the "free
> market"?

Leftist can't distinguish between freedom, free markets and restraint of trade. Like the ---holes who run Amazon, and try to enforce regional market hegemony by restricting the flow of electronic goods across borders.

[BTR1701]

In article <p19jns$rhb$6...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On 12/18/17 10:38 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <p17vc0$sqa$2...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/17/17 11:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> >>> In article <p17gto$mth$3...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:

> >>>> Then you're not only wrong, but hilariously naive, as well.
> >>>
> >>> Hardly. Just because some company puts a clause in a contract, that
> >>> doesn't rob me of my property rights.
> >>>
> >>> If Tesla can put anything in a sales contract and bind you to it, could
> >>> they put in a clause that says you agree never to let a black person
> >>> ride in your Tesla?
> >>>
> >>> Or are there limits to what's allowed under contract law?
> >>
> >> There are limits to everything... except the stupidity that Libertarians
> >> seem to have when it comes to the "free market".
> >
> > You didn't answer the question: If Tesla can put anything in a sales
> > contract and bind you to it, could they put in a clause that says you
> > agree never to let a black person ride in your Tesla?
>
> Sure. They can put anything they want into a contract.
>
> It'll be struck down by a court for civil rights violations...

Ah, so you admit that contract terms can be voided as violating people's
basic rights, even if agreed to during the sale.

Great. We're on the same page. As usual, it took a while to pull it out
of you, but we got there eventually.

[FPP]

We probably agree on more than you think... but where's the fun in that?

[trotsky]

On 12/18/17 4:15 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-12-17 9:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>> In article <p17fnm$ikc$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/17/17 11:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>>> If Tesla doesn't like the way you drive, it can cut you off from
>>>>> recharging your car.
>>>>>
>>>>> This limit on "commercial driving" is, as they say, just the beginning.
>>>>> Wait until those driverless cars everyone's so jazzed about become
>>>>> mandatory and watch the behavior modification really kick into high gear.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/17/16787010/tesla-prohibiting-commercial
>>>>> -drivers-supercharger-station
>>>
>>>> I thought all you Libertarians wanted to leave everything to the "free
>>>> market"?
>>>
>>> We do. We also like personal property. When we buy something on the free
>>> market, it's ours to do with as we please.
>>>
>> The "supercharger stations" aren't the property of the Tesla owners.
>
> The cars are, and Tesla has been known to remotely increase or decrease a
> car's battery range without the prior consent of its owner.

Cite?

> I'm just saying that we should be quite careful and thoughtful about how we
> move into a world where the company that sells you something retains an
> astounding amount of control over how and even if you are allowed use it,
> based on how much it likes or dislikes you or your profession. Because
> sooner or later, these issues are going to get bigger and more problematic
> -- and it might help if we really thought about them now, before things get
> messy.

Thanny's cautionary tale.

[trotsky]

WTF? Libertarians don't actually do anything.

[NoBody]

You're not familiar with Comcast?

[anim8rfsk]

In article <eith3d5luh335f0uk...@4ax.com>,

or Cox

[David Johnston]

http://www.businessinsider.com/hurricane-irma-tesla-range-extension-2017-9

[David Johnston]

On 2017-12-18 5:01 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Sunday, 17 December 2017 23:21:12 UTC-5, FPP wrote:
>> On 12/17/17 11:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> If Tesla doesn't like the way you drive, it can cut you off from
>>> recharging your car.
>>>
>>> This limit on "commercial driving" is, as they say, just the beginning.
>>> Wait until those driverless cars everyone's so jazzed about become
>>> mandatory and watch the behavior modification really kick into high gear.
>>>
>>> https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/17/16787010/tesla-prohibiting-commercial
>>> -drivers-supercharger-station
>>
>> Your leftist agenda is showing.
>> I thought all you Libertarians wanted to leave everything to the "free
>> market"?
>
> Leftist can't distinguish between freedom, free markets and restraint of trade.

That's because corporations making the deals they want to make IS the
free market, even if that that denies options to consumers.

[J.B. Nicholson]

David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That's because corporations making the deals they want to make IS
> the free market, even if that that denies options to consumers.

If by "IS" you mean information services (an older name for what today
might be called "IT" -- information technology) I concur, but it's not
just corporations doing this. Smaller software developers working
alone also pursue what (for 30+ years now) has been identified as
software nonfreedom: not respecting a computer user's freedom to
control their own computers by distributing to them published software
they are not free to run, inspect, share, and modify at any time for
any reason.

This framing of the issue -- software freedom versus nonfreedom --
does a better job of explaining a running theme in a lot of the
stories that the computer press covers these days. But this theme is
almost never brought up in these terms. Software freedom uses an
ethical backing to explain why all computer users deserve software
freedom. This is what corporate media apparently won't stand for and
thus won't convey to their audience.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Or any advertising by any ISP pointing out how every other ISP caps your
data?

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.

[David Johnston]

On 2017-12-19 1:05 PM, J.B. Nicholson wrote:
> David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> That's because corporations making the deals they want to make IS
>> the free market, even if that that denies options to consumers.
>
> If by "IS" you mean information services

I don't.

[Ubiquitous]

Silly people, that's just "trotsky"'s quaint way of saying he lost the debate.

[J.B. Nicholson]

BTR1701 wrote:
> Just like the ISPs that sell you 'unlimited data', but then put
> limits on your data.

trotsky <gms...@email.com> replied:
> Cite?

I don't know which services BTR1701 was referring to but it's not hard
to find examples of services that claim to be "unlimited" in some
respect and aren't. Microsoft's OneDrive, Amazon Drive, and some
commercial backup plans went from being pitched as "unlimited" to
being more restrictive according to:

https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/08/amazon-ends-its-unlimited-cloud-storage-plan/
http://www.zdnet.com/article/when-it-comes-to-cloud-storage-the-all-you-can-eat-buffet-is-closing-rapidly/

I imagine that cell phone carriers pull the same deceptive switches
for their customers with Internet access, photo/video storage, or
whatever else people are doing with their portable trackers these
days.

Many years ago (back when phone modem use was far more popular) some
smaller ISPs I knew of offered "unlimited" plans where one could stay
connected as long as one wanted and redial in as frequently as one
liked. The subscriber was paying whatever the ISP asked for so the ISP
had no legitimate reason to complain about users parking on the line
and avoiding a busy signal by being constantly connected (being
constantly online is something home users take for granted today). But
in some cases I knew of those so-called "unlimited" plans went away
when people actually set up their equipment to automatically dial in
and keep the line up.

Nowadays some ISPs will alter the data you get from unencrypted
websites. It might be adding advertisements, but the potential is
there for much more including censorship, misrepresenting what is said
on a webpage, and altering what's conveyed over other protocols (not
just HTTP). It's not clear to me if the alterations cut into one's
bandwidth quota and what evidence there is to justify whatever
conclusion. Also these things can change over time, so even a
definitive well-justified answer today could be rendered obsolete
tomorrow.

"Unlimited" is, in my view, so often fraudulent that it's reads to me
as a clear sign of either an organization that has not properly
figured the demand for their service, or a sign of an organization
trying to scam users into dependency in the future.

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

Ubi? As a reference?

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

As what? A suburban Washington help-desk temp worker back in the early 2000's?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Unconstitutional provisions in such covenants have been recognized in
federal courts since the late 1940s, you blithering idiot. You cannot
restrict the subsequent home owner from selling to a black family.

[FPP]

Just like clockwork, Ubi-One-Note chimes in with the same old saggy
tired line he trots out when he has nothing of value to contribute.

It never gets old, does it?

[trotsky]

I can't believe they violated people's rights like that!!!!!

[trotsky]

Where is the proof of the "unlimited data" that actually has data caps?
How fucking stupid are you fucking people?

[trotsky]

On 12/19/17 8:57 PM, J.B. Nicholson wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
>> Just like the ISPs that sell you 'unlimited data', but then put
>> limits on your data.
>
> trotsky <gms...@email.com> replied:
>> Cite?
>
> I don't know which services BTR1701 was referring to but it's not hard
> to find examples of services that claim to be "unlimited" in some
> respect and aren't. Microsoft's OneDrive, Amazon Drive, and some
> commercial backup plans went from being pitched as "unlimited" to
> being more restrictive according to:

Those are data storage, not internet service providers. I'll give you
credit for trying to make an intelligent answer, but those aren't valid
examples of the false claim that Thanny made.

[trotsky]

You just need a Pubie to English translator: "Lost the debate" means
"Pubie lost his mind again."

[trotsky]

On 12/17/17 10:06 PM, RichA wrote:

> On Sunday, 17 December 2017 22:58:59 UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
>> If Tesla doesn't like the way you drive, it can cut you off from
>> recharging your car.
>>
>> This limit on "commercial driving" is, as they say, just the beginning.
>> Wait until those driverless cars everyone's so jazzed about become
>> mandatory and watch the behavior modification really kick into high gear.
>>
>> https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/17/16787010/tesla-prohibiting-commercial
>> -drivers-supercharger-station
>

> Elon Musk. Hero of enviroqueers, progressives and people who think TED Talks are the height of intellectual achievement.


The range on his electric cars is unparalleled. Are you too stupid to
comprehend this?

[trotsky]

On 12/17/17 10:18 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> In article <atropos-6F0DAD...@news.giganews.com>,

> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> If Tesla doesn't like the way you drive, it can cut you off from
>> recharging your car.
>>
>> This limit on "commercial driving" is, as they say, just the beginning.
>> Wait until those driverless cars everyone's so jazzed about become
>> mandatory and watch the behavior modification really kick into high gear.
>>
>> https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/17/16787010/tesla-prohibiting-commercial
>> -drivers-supercharger-station
>

> I noticed this crap when I was shopping for them a few months ago. The
> contract says you can't use it as an UBER or LYFT vehicle. I asked why
> and was told that they are going to start their own service in a couple
> years. Why they wouldn't want people to see how nice their cars are NOW
> as free advertising is beyond me.


Another dude too stupid to comprehend the facts.

[NoBody]

This is FPP's usual way of admitting that he is in error once again.

[Ubiquitous]

Well, there you go accusing others of what you practice again!
It's hardly my fault your repetoire is so limited I am able consisely counter them.

BTW, you forgot to reply to me from the correct sockpuppet again.

--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.

[Ubiquitous]

Fer sure.

[Ubiquitous]

In article <0i5_B.24876$Wq7....@fx44.iad>, gms...@email.com wrote:
>On 12/18/17 4:15 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 2017-12-17 9:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/17/17 11:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

>>>>>> If Tesla doesn't like the way you drive, it can cut you off from
>>>>>> recharging your car.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This limit on "commercial driving" is, as they say, just the beginning.
>>>>>> Wait until those driverless cars everyone's so jazzed about become
>>>>>> mandatory and watch the behavior modification really kick into high
>>>>>> gear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/17/16787010/tesla-prohibiting-
commercial-drivers-supercharger-station
>>>>
>>>>> I thought all you Libertarians wanted to leave everything to the "free
>>>>> market"?
>>>>
>>>> We do. We also like personal property. When we buy something on the free
>>>> market, it's ours to do with as we please.
>>>>
>>> The "supercharger stations" aren't the property of the Tesla owners.
>>
>> The cars are, and Tesla has been known to remotely increase or decrease a
>> car's battery range without the prior consent of its owner.
>
>Cite?

Well, there goes that selective memory of yours whenever you've lost the
debate again! You do remember the followups you posted to the thread on that
subject in September, do you not?

[FPP]

On 12/20/17 7:18 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:

> BTW, you forgot to reply to me from the correct sockpuppet again.

Something you never seem to have a problem with...
Whose turn is it now? NoShit, or Irish Fakevet?

--
Today we learned that Disney is buying most of 20th Century Fox.
Not included in the acquisition is Fox News, which really is
surprising... because you'd think "The Masters of Fantasy and
Imagination" would WANT to be bought by Disney. - S. Colbert 12/14/17

[mog...@hotmail.com]

I see you, Trump and GW Bush all like to purposely misspell words in your own little ways. Pathetic.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <slrnp3is7...@forestfield.org>,

"J.B. Nicholson" <j...@forestfield.org> wrote:

> David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > That's because corporations making the deals they want to make IS
> > the free market, even if that that denies options to consumers.
>
> If by "IS" you mean information services (an older name for what today
> might be called "IT"

I think it's just supposed to be the verb "is", capitalized for emphasis.

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA