Our new truth czar proposing that "verified" people edit the posts of the unverified to allow for a "fuller picture" and more "context."

[Ubiquitous]

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1525101559851384832

Biden's "Ministry of Truth" director says she wants "verified people" like
her to be able to edit people's tweets so they can "add context to certain
tweets"

https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1524422163725434881

--
Let's go Brandon!

[BTR1701]

In article <t63aia$fla$5...@dont-email.me>,

They really are going full-Stasi, aren't they?

[shawn]

What makes the "verified people" any better at knowing what context to
add? I mean there's nothing that says a "verified person" couldn't
also be a 911-truther or a Flat Earther or maybe a "birds aren't real"
believer.

[Ian J. Ball]

And she has just resigned, and the whole "Board" idea has been backburnered.

Could have saved this Admin a lot of headaches if they had just done
this 2 weeks ago. They are just completely incompetent.


--
"Who would ever do this to him!?" - HottCiara on DOOL (04-27-2020), asking
who would stab Victor Kirakis... How about ANYONE WHO'S EVER MET HIM??!!

[BTR1701]

In article <t63gtv$ajo$1...@dont-email.me>,

Ian J. Ball <IJB...@mac.invalid> wrote:

> On 2022-05-18 17:46:29 +0000, BTR1701 said:
>
> > In article <t63aia$fla$5...@dont-email.me>,
> > Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >
> >> https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1525101559851384832
> >>
> >> Biden's "Ministry of Truth" director says she wants "verified people" like
> >> her to be able to edit people's tweets so they can "add context to certain
> >> tweets"
> >>
> >> https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1524422163725434881
> >
> > They really are going full-Stasi, aren't they?
>
> And she has just resigned, and the whole "Board" idea has been backburnered.
>
> Could have saved this Admin a lot of headaches if they had just done
> this 2 weeks ago.

Or not done any of this at all, since the entire concept is antithetical
to the 1st Amendment.

[BTR1701]

In article <i6ha8h1feo4bu092j...@4ax.com>,

Yes, I don't get this idea that 'verified' people are somehow more
important, intelligent, reliable, or superior to all the rest. All the
blue-check means on Twitter is that you've provided Twitter proof of
your identity. They've verified that you're really you so that other
people know it's not someone pretending to be you. It's not any kind of
endorsement of what you may post or how reliable or truthful it is.

Someone should have pointed out to this silly bint that Trump was
verified before his account was shut down. Would she want him (or others
like him) to have the power to come in behind people and edit their
posts?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Who is forging Ubi here? He didn't hide the URLs in his headers.

[anim8rfsk]

This is the exact opposite of the Facebook who have people that don’t know
English censoring the posts of their betters because that way Facebook will
be safe for all cultures.

> --
> Let's go Brandon!
>
>

--
“The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it’s still on my list.”

[Adam H. Kerman]

Ian J. Ball <IJB...@mac.invalid> wrote:

>On 2022-05-18 17:46:29 +0000, BTR1701 said:
>>Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:

>>>https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1525101559851384832

>>>Biden's "Ministry of Truth" director says she wants "verified people" like
>>>her to be able to edit people's tweets so they can "add context to certain
>>>tweets"

>>>https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1524422163725434881

>>They really are going full-Stasi, aren't they?

>And she has just resigned, and the whole "Board" idea has been backburnered.

>Could have saved this Admin a lot of headaches if they had just done
>this 2 weeks ago. They are just completely incompetent.

I just read the Washington Post (note the "the"; it means it's a
province of Russia) article. It's chock full of newspeak and Orwellian
logic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/05/18/disinformation-board-dhs-nina-jankowicz/

From what I can tell, those vile horrid right wingers felled her with...
parody.

[moviePig]

'Verified' means you're not a bot, which is some part of the battle.

[BTR1701]

Facebook is picking up the slack, though. Their latest is to disallow and
censor any homemade recipes for baby formula.


https://reason.com/2022/05/18/victories-for-rand-paul-pot-and-some-maga-candidates-in-primary-elections/#markets

Facebook labeled the 1960 recipe for homemade baby formula "false information"
because it's "not up to today's nutritional standards" and the recipe hasn't
been "evaluated by governing authorities", per the attached "fact check".

So... it's not actually false information. It's just not government-approved
information. And that requires censorship, per Facebook. Got it.

The ironic bit is that the reason it failed Facebook's censorship test is the
inclusion of Karo syrup in the recipe, which Facebook's truth ministry regards
as "a debated ingredient to be administered to babies".

Karo is a type of corn syrup. Many current government-sanctioned commercial
infant formulae are made with corn syrup.

Not only is the censorship appalling on its face, it doesn't even make logical
sense.

Also, Facebook now seems to be saying any food that the government doesn't
nutritionally recommend is prohibited on Facebook. Chocolate chip cookies
aren't "up to today's government-approved nutritional standards". Neither are
cheeseburgers. Are people going to be censored for sharing receipts for those
as well?

Only foods Michelle Obama endorses can be discussed in public now...

[Rhino]

It might be a tad premature to call this a victory for the Good Guys
(the people that champion free speech).

According to this article, the "Disinformation Board" is just PAUSED,
not dead:

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/robert-spencer/2022/05/18/breaking-disinformation-governance-board-being-paused-n1598926

If you don't like the source, prove them wrong....


--
Rhino

[BTR1701]

The verification badge was around long before the bots became an issue.

[moviePig]

Infant formula has higher safety standards than chocolate-chip cookies.

[BTR1701]

In article <y7ehK.33754$6dof....@fx13.iad>,

The claim by Facebook isn't that recipe is dangerous. It's that it
doesn't "meet today's government-approved nutritional standards".

[trotsky]

I get it too. Hey, at least you guys are consistent. Baby formula that
will your baby? Caveat emptor. More mass shootings making us look like
a shit for brains society? Pull yourself up by your dickstraps and live
with it until you get shot! Not ready to have a baby? Too fucking bad,
the right wing assholes don't give a shit what happens to it after its
born. You're consistently causing death and detriment to American
society. I can't fathom how fucked in the head you'd have to be to
think this is cool, but you're there alright!

[trotsky]

And the anonyshits.

[moviePig]

You mean before they were *publicized* as an issue. Regardless, there
was still, e.g., the banks of Russian spoofers.

But, no, there's no perfect system ...and I've long suggested that bogus
posts be deliberately seeded, to vaccinate users into healthy doubt.

[moviePig]

To some extent, FB is probably dodging liabilities -- not only from
forwarding poisonous pabulum recipes, but also from accusing others of
doing that. It's safer to just blame "government standards".

[Nyssa]

That's just nuts.

I well remember watching a friend's mother mixing up
batches of homemade baby formula for her granddaughter.
She used Pet evaporated milk and <gasp!> Karo syrup.
This was 'way back in the early 1960s.

IIRC the famous Dr. Spock baby book which was practically
the first book any expectant mother would read once
"the rabbit died" going back to the mid-1950s had the
evaporated milk and Karo syrup recipe in it.

What did new mothers (who didn't breastfeed) do before
the government issued government-approved recipes for
baby formula?

As you wrote, are we now limited to government approved
recipes for everything going forward?

Nyssa, who has a few non-government approved recipes on
her website and will continue to add to them, so there!

[Adam H. Kerman]

They aren't the source. They didn't report the story. It's from the same
Washington Post piece I found.

"Paused" is just the Biden administration spinning. It's dead, Jim.

[Rhino]

I sincerely hope you're right. That is an idea that truly deserves to die.

--
Rhino

[The Horny Goat]

Which is a ludicrous statement since if the person works for Biden
his/her beliefs will be in accord with Biden's.

If the holder of an office who works for the president can't uphold
the president's principles he or she has to go and quickly.

This isn't even Pollitics 101.

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 18 May 2022 15:28:53 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>The claim by Facebook isn't that recipe is dangerous. It's that it
>doesn't "meet today's government-approved nutritional standards".

Heck that would describe most any item of cuisine all of us ate 25 or
more years ago....since I'm older than 25 you can safely assume I
survived the non-abuse.

[Adam H. Kerman]

During the Trump administration, some of them stayed.

[BTR1701]

On May 18, 2022 at 1:31:15 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1527009226954088448?s=20&t=-BRJJFMS9wi8HMnEWzOLdA

The board "never convened" but their work "will indeed continue".

That's some classic Washington DC doublespeak right there, I'll tell you
what.

[Ed Stasiak]

> moviePig
> > BTR1701

> >
> > The claim by Facebook isn't that recipe is dangerous. It's that it
> > doesn't "meet today's government-approved nutritional standards".
>
> To some extent, FB is probably dodging liabilities -- not only from
> forwarding poisonous pabulum recipes, but also from accusing others
> of doing that. It's safer to just blame "government standards".

Facebook is protect by Section 230 of the The Communications Decency Act of 1996,
they can't be held legally responsible for what their users post, unless Facebook acts
as a "publisher or speaker" by censoring users posts, which is exactly what Facebook
and other corporate social media sites do...

[moviePig]

I can accept that FB's policies might be more paranoid than logical...

[trotsky]

On 5/19/2022 4:33 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> moviePig
>>> BTR1701
>>>
>>> The claim by Facebook isn't that recipe is dangerous. It's that it
>>> doesn't "meet today's government-approved nutritional standards".
>>
>> To some extent, FB is probably dodging liabilities -- not only from
>> forwarding poisonous pabulum recipes, but also from accusing others
>> of doing that. It's safer to just blame "government standards".
>
> Facebook is protect

Yeah, that makes sense.

[Ed Stasiak]

> moviePig
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > Facebook is protected by Section 230 of the The Communications Decency Act of 1996,

> > they can't be held legally responsible for what their users post, unless Facebook acts
> > as a "publisher or speaker" by censoring users posts, which is exactly what Facebook
> > and other corporate social media sites do...
>
> I can accept that FB's policies might be more paranoid than logical...

Paranoid of what? Are you suggesting that Facebook's executives and lawyers (as well
as those of other corporate social media sites) are somehow unaware of the Section 230
protections?

[moviePig]

I'm suggesting that citing "govt. standards" may seem the safest course.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Explain to that blithering idiot moviePig that Section 230 was written
by corporation counsel for these networks so they couldn't be held
accountable as publishers.

btw, thank you for not saying "It makes them common carriers!" 'cuz
that's an unrelated law.

[anim8rfsk]

I’d suggest that they don’t care

[The Horny Goat]

>> Facebook is protect by Section 230 of the The Communications Decency Act of 1996,
>> they can't be held legally responsible for what their users post, unless Facebook acts
>> as a "publisher or speaker" by censoring users posts, which is exactly what Facebook
>> and other corporate social media sites do...
>
>I can accept that FB's policies might be more paranoid than logical...

But absolutely REFUSE to do since by admitting they do it means they
are taking on legal responsibilities they would prefer to ignore or
disclaim responsibility for

[Ed Stasiak]

> Adam H. Kerman

>
> btw, thank you for not saying "It makes them common carriers!" 'cuz
> that's an unrelated law.

I'd say they are defacto "common carriers" and thus shouldn't be able
to censor their users posts, (other then illegal shit) just like the phone
companies are prevented from doing.

[Ed Stasiak]

> anim8rfsk
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > Paranoid of what? Are you suggesting that Facebook's executives and lawyers (as well
> > as those of other corporate social media sites) are somehow unaware of the Section 230
> > protections?
>
> I’d suggest that they don’t care

Then I'd suggest stringing them up from street lights, but then my advice is rarely heeded...

[Adam H. Kerman]

Yeah yeah you couldn't help yourself.

[Ubiquitous]

atr...@mac.com wrote:
> shawn <nanof...@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 10:46:29 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:

>>>> https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1525101559851384832
>>>>
>>>> Biden's "Ministry of Truth" director says she wants "verified people"
>>>> like her to be able to edit people's tweets so they can "add context to
>>>> certain tweets"
>>>>
>>>> https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1524422163725434881
>>>
>>>They really are going full-Stasi, aren't they?
>>

>> What makes the "verified people" any better at knowing what context to
>> add? I mean there's nothing that says a "verified person" couldn't
>> also be a 911-truther or a Flat Earther or maybe a "birds aren't real"
>> believer.
>

>Yes, I don't get this idea that 'verified' people are somehow more
>important, intelligent, reliable, or superior to all the rest. All the
>blue-check means on Twitter is that you've provided Twitter proof of
>your identity. They've verified that you're really you so that other
>people know it's not someone pretending to be you. It's not any kind of
>endorsement of what you may post or how reliable or truthful it is.
>
>Someone should have pointed out to this silly bint that Trump was
>verified before his account was shut down. Would she want him (or others
>like him) to have the power to come in behind people and edit their
>posts?

I thought by "verified", they meant "vetted", i.e., "he works for Snopes".

--
Let's go Brandon!

[Ubiquitous]

IJB...@mac.invalid wrote:
> On 2022-05-18 17:46:29 +0000, BTR1701 said:

>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>
>>> https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1525101559851384832
>>>
>>> Biden's "Ministry of Truth" director says she wants "verified people"
>>> like her to be able to edit people's tweets so they can "add context to
>>> certain tweets"
>>>
>>> https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1524422163725434881
>>
>> They really are going full-Stasi, aren't they?
>

>And she has just resigned, and the whole "Board" idea has been backburnered.

Mark my words: They'll try it again with a different name in order to slip
under our radar.

[Ed Stasiak]

> Adam H. Kerman
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > I'd say they are defacto "common carriers" and thus shouldn't be able
> > to censor their users posts, (other then illegal shit) just like the phone
> > companies are prevented from doing.
>
> Yeah yeah you couldn't help yourself.

Well, it's true. Facebook and such are straight-up communication corporations,
that a user is shitposting via website instead of shittalk'n on a phone doesn't
change the fact that they are defacto common carriers and shouldn't be able
to censor their users.

Facebook alone has over 4 BILLION daily users, that's more then any phone
company on the planet.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Ed Stasiak <edstas...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Adam H. Kerman
>>>Ed Stasiak

>>>I'd say they are defacto "common carriers" and thus shouldn't be able
>>>to censor their users posts, (other then illegal shit) just like the phone
>>>companies are prevented from doing.

>>Yeah yeah you couldn't help yourself.

>Well, it's true.

No, it's not.

>Facebook and such are straight-up communication corporations, that a
>user is shitposting via website instead of shittalk'n on a phone doesn't
>change the fact that they are defacto common carriers and shouldn't be
>able to censor their users.

>Facebook alone has over 4 BILLION daily users, that's more then any phone
>company on the planet.

It's nothing to do with common carrier law. A common carrier publishes a
tariff and offers exactly the same terms from one customer to the next.
Not only does it have nothing to do with censorship, the customer
doesn't have any such contractual guarantee unless it's in the tariff.

[moviePig]

I don't know what legal definitions might apply, but, functionally,
public bulletin-boards differ from private messaging.

[Ed Stasiak]

> moviePig
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > Facebook alone has over 4 BILLION daily users, that's more then
> > any phone company on the planet.
>
> I don't know what legal definitions might apply, but, functionally,
> public bulletin-boards differ from private messaging.

Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. are public communication corporations,
anybody can join up.

[BTR1701]

Facebook and Twitter censor and punish for wrongspeak in their private
message features, too.

[Adam H. Kerman]

. . . which makes them a publisher. Section 230 doesn't shield
publishers from P.I. for the possible harm their users caused.

[trotsky]

That must be quite an issue for the Oath Keepers. Hey, there's always
"Truth Social."

[moviePig]

I'm a user of neither ...but I'm wondering how they'd call it "private
messaging" if someone's riding herd.

[BTR1701]

Same way they sell you "unlimited internet", then penalize you for using
too much.

[trotsky]

Like I said, stupid anonyshits.

[suzeeq]

Bots. I found a friend whom I haven't been in contact with for 40 years
and posted my email to her. Since then, I've had a ton of spam daily,
where I had got it down to maybe 6 a week.

[anim8rfsk]

Though oddly there’s no overlap. I am off Facebook for making “credible
death threats” but there’s no punishment in messenger.

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>>. . .

>Though oddly there's no overlap. I am off Facebook for making "credible
>death threats" but there's no punishment in messenger.

You made me check the headlines. Jimmy Carter still lives.

[moviePig]

Meanwhile, it's odd to think that the appropriate response to a
"credible death threat" is to silence the speaker...

[Adam H. Kerman]

Oops. I missed a headline.

https://babylonbee.com/news/jimmy-carter-arrested-for-putting-biden-i-did-that-stickers-on-gas-pumps/

[anim8rfsk]

Lol

[anim8rfsk]

Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

;(

[The Horny Goat]

On Sat, 21 May 2022 18:56:36 -0400, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>> Though oddly there’s no overlap. I am off Facebook for making “credible
>> death threats” but there’s no punishment in messenger.
>
>Meanwhile, it's odd to think that the appropriate response to a
>"credible death threat" is to silence the speaker...

That DOES seem weird.

If I have knowledge of a "credible death threat" then either I'm loony
or there IS a credible threat and someone either needs to check it out
or check ME out.

At that point I don't see how doing nothing at all - even something as
minor as suspending somebody from social media - protects society.

[trotsky]

On 5/21/2022 7:00 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>> anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> . . .
>>
>>> Though oddly there's no overlap. I am off Facebook for making "credible
>>> death threats" but there's no punishment in messenger.
>>
>> You made me check the headlines. Jimmy Carter still lives.
>>
>
> ;(

We can only hope Anim8r dies first.

[anim8rfsk]

They also commuted the “you can’t post in groups” from 48 down to 37 down
to 24 hours. They mustn’t think I was very credible.

[trotsky]

But maybe if you had a fucking job other than card carrying member of
the white supremacists it wouldn't be a problem. I like how the right
wing douchebags think that anything big business does is permissible
unless it costs them money in which case then they're a bunch of fucking
whores. Hypocritical asshole.

[trotsky]

That's so funny that I forgot to act like a Verman.

[marika]

On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 7:45:11 PM UTC-5, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2022 15:28:53 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >The claim by Facebook isn't that recipe is dangerous. It's that it
> >doesn't "meet today's government-approved nutritional standards".
> Heck that would describe most any item of cuisine all of us ate 25 or
> more years ago....since I'm older than 25 you can safely assume I
> survived the non-abuse.

My mom was a holocaust survivor. Oh my God, I can't begin to understand the horrors that she went though in order to survive.

I know that today's moms are going through hell now - waiting, wondering and fearing the worst. Let's hope that somehow there will be a solution soon.

But I expect the food situation to get worse due to today's war
Putin is such an animal!

mk5000

How the times have changed since those days I spent on you
Where my happiness depended on the gifts and all I'd get from you
Snow falls as sorrow hold...==A New Year

King Virtue

[BTR1701]

Uh-oh, Kerman... looks like at least one court is siding with Ed.


https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22038400/google-ohio-common-carrier.pdf

"Herein lies the difficulty in applying 18th century common law to 21st
century technology and commerce. In the internet age, information is often as
valuable as goods. From telegraph, land-line telephones, cable television, and
cellular telephones, the law of what is transported and how it is transported
has developed over time. The State has alleged that Google carries
information. For purposes of the present posture, the State’s allegations are
sufficient."

[Adam H. Kerman]

Wow.

That specific paragraph is some pretty weak analysis. Elsewhere they
discussed the Communications Act of 1934 as an example of codification
of common carrier law. Clearly, that's about carriage of information and
not goods, so there's nothing new about the internet age in that respect.

I read through the opinion about whether the case survives Google's
motion to dismiss. The state won on whether the case can proceed in
which Google might be determined to be a common carrier but Google won
the dismissmal on whether it's a public utility.

I had no idea there were court cases in which offering an elevator or
escalator within a facility made the device a conveyance and the facility
operator a common carrier in operating that device within the meaning of
common carrier law.

If I was thinking about Google Search, I'd be thinking about it with
respect to whether a contract for carriage exists with respect to the
publisher of the Web page and not the user and whether that imposes a
duty of neutrality within its duty to serve the public indiscriminately.
Nothing in the opinion discusses the issues from that perspective.

State of Ohio made some lousy arguments that Google Search is a monopoly
and therefore a public utility. (Public utilities are a subset of common
carriers.) They couldn't cite any statute Google is regulated under and
Google is specifically excluded from Ohio's public utility law with
respect to being regulated by its public utilities commission. Absense
of such a law doesn't immediately exclude a business from being a public
utility but it is a major factor in making such an exclusion.

The opinion specifically states that being described in Section 230
(Telecom Act of 1996, federal law) isn't public utilities law with
respect to the state of Ohio.

Furthermore, the public has no legal right to demand Search of Google,
so it's not a public utility in that respect.

With respect to free speech, the common carrier designation in and of
itself isn't an infringement upon Google. It's the burdens upon Google
that accompany the designation.

Here, the opinion says that an intermediate scrutiny test must be
satisfied. I thought strict scrutiny applies. I don't get this. It says
that a law that compels specific speech is subject to strict scrutiny
but a law unrelated to the content of speech is subject to intermediate
scrutiny.

The speech issue is poorly treated by the opinion but then, the parties
have not developed a factual record which is why the opinion is not
developed at all in this respect. I'm really unhappy with the idea
that compelling Google, a speaker, to host another party's speech meets
the intermediate scrutiny test ignores the burden placed on Google that
the arrangement of the search results themselves are an application
of Google's editorial judgement and therefore publishing and Google
should win here on the basis of freedom of the press.

[Ed Stasiak]

> Adam H. Kerman
> > BTR1701

> >
> > Uh-oh, Kerman... looks like at least one court is siding with Ed.
>

> Wow.

Haha! Suck it, counselor.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Calm down, Ed. It survived the motion to dismiss. There's not yet a
record and no court has ruled.

Your chickens haven't hatched yet, Ed. Have some patience. You may yet
prevail. It is interesting that you have failed to consider the burden
it imposes on speech.

[trotsky]

On 5/30/2022 11:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On May 21, 2022 at 8:41:28 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> Ed Stasiak <edstas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Adam H. Kerman
>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>
>>>>> I'd say they are defacto "common carriers" and thus shouldn't be able
>>>>> to censor their users posts, (other then illegal shit) just like the phone
>>>>> companies are prevented from doing.
>>
>>>> Yeah yeah you couldn't help yourself.
>>
>>> Well, it's true.
>>
>> No, it's not.
>>
>>> Facebook and such are straight-up communication corporations, that a
>>> user is shitposting via website instead of shittalk'n on a phone doesn't
>>> change the fact that they are defacto common carriers and shouldn't be
>>> able to censor their users.
>>
>>> Facebook alone has over 4 BILLION daily users, that's more then any phone
>>> company on the planet.
>>
>> It's nothing to do with common carrier law. A common carrier publishes a
>> tariff and offers exactly the same terms from one customer to the next.
>> Not only does it have nothing to do with censorship, the customer
>> doesn't have any such contractual guarantee unless it's in the tariff.
>
> Uh-oh, Kerman... looks like at least one court is siding with Ed.

Yes, that's how sockpuppets generally work.