Jail Zuckerberg

[Andre Jute]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9273261/Facebook-news-ban-Australian-PM-says-tech-giants-think-theyre-bigger-governments.html


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

Andre Jute
Zuckerberg isn't bigger than any government.

[AMuzi]

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

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

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

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

[sms]

On 2/19/2021 6:13 AM, AMuzi wrote:

<snip>

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

All the news content that the news organizations publish will still be
available in Australia, there just won't be links to that content on
Facebook, Google, etc.

You don't understand why Facebook took that action in Australia. It's
the governments' News Media Code that will require that social media
companies pay the publishers for links to the publishers' content in
users news feeds. A Facebook user that posts a link to a news story
would also require payment by Facebook to the news publisher.

It's a short-sighted move because the publishers make money from
advertising that are pushed out with the news content, and those links
will no longer be available in Facebook.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Facebook is a private company. If someone doesn't like the manner in which they conduct their business, they are under no obligation to participate. I agree with your assessment of section 230, Andrew, but I'd add the caveat that trying to limit the spread of dis-information is a delicate balance. One persons freedom fighter is another persons traitor. There's no way they can self-police without pissing _some_body off. There are other remedies -If Hillary Clinton wants to hold someone libel for promoting the notion that she's a cannibalistic pedophile, she needs to go after the person screaming into the megaphone, not the megaphone manufacturer.

[AMuzi]

On 2/19/2021 11:27 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 9:13:27 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/19/2021 4:13 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9273261/Facebook-news-ban-Australian-PM-says-tech-giants-think-theyre-bigger-governments.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Article 230 should have been long gone. Zuckerberg is arrogant beyond belief, clearly convinced that these favours from corrupt politicians is his birthright. A few years on Rikers Island should straighten him out.
>>>
>>> Andre Jute
>>> Zuckerberg isn't bigger than any government.
>>>
>> Section 230 is well crafted but not enforced or applied as
>> written. Platforms have and should have libel immunity.
>> Publishers with a slat/opinion/agenda do but perhaps should
>> not to some degree.
>>
>> The trouble started when the nattering busybody crowd
>> insisted that certain speech be limited, by ukase of
>> operators with no accountability. Like Topsy, it grew from
>> there.
>>
>> We've come to such a ridiculous place that Constitutional
>> defenders and individual rights proponents from both right
>> and left (and even the great ignorant middle) are now
>> attacking our First Amendment together. I'm concerned, but
>> not ready to toss this baby out with the bathwater.
>>

> Facebook is a private company. If someone doesn't like the manner in which they conduct their business, they are under no obligation to participate. I agree with your assessment of section 230, Andrew, but I'd add the caveat that trying to limit the spread of dis-information is a delicate balance. One persons freedom fighter is another persons traitor. There's no way they can self-police without pissing _some_body off. There are other remedies -If Hillary Clinton wants to hold someone libel for promoting the notion that she's a cannibalistic pedophile, she needs to go after the person screaming into the megaphone, not the megaphone manufacturer.
>

We agree on your main argument.

Yes, these are private entities, but consider:

"Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press..."

Congress did make Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act.
One might argue that the Act does, by denying access to the
civil courts for redress of torts, abridge freedom of speech.

I have drawn no breathless passionate conclusion yet. I'm
not convinced this law is wrong as written. Then again no
one but no one is interested in applying it as written either.

[jbeattie]

No, the liability limitations do not prevent or compel speech. It's not a First Amendment issue, although it may be a Fifth Amendment/Fourteenth Amendment Due Process issue -- or even a Seventh Amendment right to jury trial, but considering all the federal liability protections out there -- from guns to planes to vaccines to COVID countermeasures -- I doubt any of those arguments have gotten traction, but I haven't looked. Section 230 clearly relates to interstate commerce -- or clearly enough. I don't see any basis for challenging federal power to make the law.

IMO, the entire issued could be remedied by repealing Section 230, which would effectively muzzle the defamers since they would be excluded from the platforms, or the platforms would wither and die. Win-win. Go back to reading the newspapers and watching non-defamatory YouTube videos on how to fix my backflow preventer. I have a Facebook page that I never visit; I don't Twitter and don't own stock in either of them. This is the sum-total of my internet presence, and small platforms like Usenet or bike bulletin boards can be moderated.

-- Jay Beattie.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

I'd argue the exact opposite. By not allowing people to sue the megaphone manufacturer, the inherently protect the speech of the individual screaming into it. As I said, there are other methods of redress still available - the liable-ee can sue the liable-er without having to involve the megaphone. There is nothing in section 230 which suppresses the right of the offended to seek redress against the offender.

> I have drawn no breathless passionate conclusion yet. I'm
> not convinced this law is wrong as written. Then again no
> one but no one is interested in applying it as written either.

The main point was a hands off approach by the gubmint. It doesn't take much effort to apply that.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 1:46:04 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
>
> IMO, the entire issued could be remedied by repealing Section 230, which would effectively muzzle the defamers since they would be excluded from the platforms, or the platforms would wither and die. Win-win.

Not so fast - then you have to have some well-established and equally applied rules, which for all intents and purposes would constitute a) the gubmint dictating acceptable speech and b) the gubmint interfering the operation of a private business - both of which are anathema to conservatives. I think if you allow that to happen - effectively muzzling the defamers since they would be excluded from the platforms, or the platforms would wither and die - wouldn't be a win win at all. Again, one persons truth-to-power is another persons defamation.

>
> -- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

+1
This isn't as clear-cut as some would claim.
I remain concerned but undecided.

[News 2021]

On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 09:02:14 -0800, sms scribed:

> On 2/19/2021 6:13 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> We've come to such a ridiculous place that Constitutional defenders and
>> individual rights proponents from both right and left (and even the
>> great ignorant middle) are now attacking our First Amendment together.
>> I'm concerned, but not ready to toss this baby out with the bathwater.
>
> All the news content that the news organizations publish will still be
> available in Australia, there just won't be links to that content on
> Facebook, Google, etc.
>
> You don't understand why Facebook took that action in Australia. It's
> the governments' News Media Code that will require that social media
> companies pay the publishers for links to the publishers' content in
> users news feeds.

> A Facebook user that posts a link to a news story
> would also require payment by Facebook to the news publisher.

Where did you get that bit from? Was that a Zucker claim.

FWIW, faecesbook ban on Aussie news came to my notice by a post & url in
a usenet group. It has zilch affect on me obtaining news from sources.

>
> It's a short-sighted move because the publishers make money from
> advertising that are pushed out with the news content, and those links
> will no longer be available in Facebook.

FWIW, the first figures reported say that the faeces book ban only caused
a 13% drop in people coming to their site. A lot of online news services
in Australia do NOT spam advertising. A few sites have links to
supporters and there is a not the enormous number of adds and
advertorials the dead tree version previously carried.

News Limited is the only Australian news peddler that has a subscription
only firewall. The others just ask for subscriptions.

[jbeattie]

Defamation law protects opinions and statements of belief, and First Amendment rights, if any, are protected by the liability standards announced in NYT v. Sullivan and Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. The law works well and has allowed people to speak truth to power over bull horns and in newspapers for centuries without liability.

Section 230(c)(1) prevents platforms from being characterized as "publishers" and exempts them from liability for re-publishing defamatory statements -- an obligation that ordinary publishers have been observing forever. It does not redefine defamation or protect the original defamer. It just lets platforms be lazy. WaPo doesn't have the protections or the New York Post. Why Facebook? Because its really big and policing its content would be hard? Defamation is defamation, and if you re-publish a defamatory statement, you should be subject to liability -- unless we want to give a free pass to all erstwhile publishers.

The difference between me and the gung-ho pro Section 230(c)(1) folks is that I see most of these platforms as a net detriment to society. I could care less if they withered and died. Let them play by the ordinary rules applicable to every other publisher. I've also litigated cases involving internet defamation (with significant commercial consequences), and immune platforms sit idly by and ISPs basically run interference. Meanwhile, some poor guy gets put out of business. Imagine an anonymous poster plastering the internet with claims that The Yellow Jersey sells phony Campy components made by child sex-slaves chained-up in its basement. If I did that, and Andrew got hurt, well he knows where to find me -- but he would not know where to find, uh, "Funkman." The publisher would be the only pocket.

Now, I'm conflicted about non-defamation liability as a publisher or distributor, and the slop over and into Section 230(c)(2)

(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

This is really where the actions at for many people -- censorship or failure to censor, which translates into a mind-boggling array of common law claims -- real and imagined, e.g., Facebook getting sued because it didn't take down a site fast enough, and caused emotional trauma to a Facebook user; Facebook getting sued because some guy was shot in Paris by ISIS operatives who coordinated on Facebook. Or Facebook getting sued because it filtered someone's violent videos. I don't know what to do with that . . . and again, I don't care, because if Facebook were gone tomorrow, it wouldn't matter to me. I haven't thought through every angle of Section 230 and admit this is a piss in your own boots kind of approach, but I'm pining away for the days of three networks and Walter Cronkite.

I'm much more concerned with anti-competitive behavior and the giant Google Algorithm which are not protected by Section 230.

-- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

On 2/19/2021 6:06 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 12:20:56 PM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 1:46:04 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
>>>
>>> IMO, the entire issued could be remedied by repealing Section 230, which would effectively muzzle the defamers since they would be excluded from the platforms, or the platforms would wither and die. Win-win.
>> Not so fast - then you have to have some well-established and equally applied rules, which for all intents and purposes would constitute a) the gubmint dictating acceptable speech and b) the gubmint interfering the operation of a private business - both of which are anathema to conservatives. I think if you allow that to happen - effectively muzzling the defamers since they would be excluded from the platforms, or the platforms would wither and die - wouldn't be a win win at all. Again, one persons truth-to-power is another persons defamation.
>
> Defamation law protects opinions and statements of belief, and First Amendment rights, if any, are protected by the liability standards announced in NYT v. Sullivan and Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. The law works well and has allowed people to speak truth to power over bull horns and in newspapers for centuries without liability.
>
> Section 230(c)(1) prevents platforms from being characterized as "publishers" and exempts them from liability for re-publishing defamatory statements -- an obligation that ordinary publishers have been observing forever. It does not redefine defamation or protect the original defamer. It just lets platforms be lazy. WaPo doesn't have the protections or the New York Post. Why Facebook? Because its really big and policing its content would be hard? Defamation is defamation, and if you re-publish a defamatory statement, you should be subject to liability -- unless we want to give a free pass to all erstwhile publishers.
>
> The difference between me and the gung-ho pro Section 230(c)(1) folks is that I see most of these platforms as a net detriment to society. I could care less if they withered and died. Let them play by the ordinary rules applicable to every other publisher. I've also litigated cases involving internet defamation (with significant commercial consequences), and immune platforms sit idly by and ISPs basically run interference. Meanwhile, some poor guy gets put out of business. Imagine an anonymous poster plastering the internet with claims that The Yellow Jersey sells phony Campy components made by child sex-slaves chained-up in its basement. If I did that, and Andrew got hurt, well he knows where to find me -- but he would not know where to find, uh, "Funkman." The publisher would be the only pocket.
>
> Now, I'm conflicted about non-defamation liability as a publisher or distributor, and the slop over and into Section 230(c)(2)
>
> (2)Civil liability

> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

> (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
> (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
>
> This is really where the actions at for many people -- censorship or failure to censor, which translates into a mind-boggling array of common law claims -- real and imagined, e.g., Facebook getting sued because it didn't take down a site fast enough, and caused emotional trauma to a Facebook user; Facebook getting sued because some guy was shot in Paris by ISIS operatives who coordinated on Facebook. Or Facebook getting sued because it filtered someone's violent videos. I don't know what to do with that . . . and again, I don't care, because if Facebook were gone tomorrow, it wouldn't matter to me. I haven't thought through every angle of Section 230 and admit this is a piss in your own boots kind of approach, but I'm pining away for the days of three networks and Walter Cronkite.
>
> I'm much more concerned with anti-competitive behavior and the giant Google Algorithm which are not protected by Section 230.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.

+1 Yes, I get those points.

I'm concerned as well that one's political positions,
failing any other test, can be labeled 'hate speech' and
banned/erased/deplatformed because and only because they do
not align with Mr Zuckerberg's world view. I am also not a
member of The Face Book or any of those but the issue brings
serious issues readily to mind.

Section 230 was written in as much good faith as 535 of the
least among us could manage. But without any enforcement,
the wording, and they're nice words, is just as impotent as
the Soviet 1936 Constitution.

[Andre Jute]

On Saturday, February 20, 2021 at 12:59:52 AM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/19/2021 6:06 PM, jbeattie wrote:
.
> > Defamation law protects opinions and statements of belief, and First Amendment rights, if any, are protected by the liability standards announced in NYT v. Sullivan and Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. The law works well and has allowed people to speak truth to power over bull horns and in newspapers for centuries without liability.
> >
> > Section 230(c)(1) prevents platforms from being characterized as "publishers" and exempts them from liability for re-publishing defamatory statements -- an obligation that ordinary publishers have been observing forever. It does not redefine defamation or protect the original defamer. It just lets platforms be lazy. WaPo doesn't have the protections or the New York Post. Why Facebook? Because its really big and policing its content would be hard? Defamation is defamation, and if you re-publish a defamatory statement, you should be subject to liability -- unless we want to give a free pass to all erstwhile publishers.
> >
> > The difference between me and the gung-ho pro Section 230(c)(1) folks is that I see most of these platforms as a net detriment to society. I could care less if they withered and died. Let them play by the ordinary rules applicable to every other publisher. I've also litigated cases involving internet defamation (with significant commercial consequences), and immune platforms sit idly by and ISPs basically run interference. Meanwhile, some poor guy gets put out of business. Imagine an anonymous poster plastering the internet with claims that The Yellow Jersey sells phony Campy components made by child sex-slaves chained-up in its basement. If I did that, and Andrew got hurt, well he knows where to find me -- but he would not know where to find, uh, "Funkman." The publisher would be the only pocket.
> >
> > Now, I'm conflicted about non-defamation liability as a publisher or distributor, and the slop over and into Section 230(c)(2)
> >
> > (2)Civil liability
> > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
> > (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
> > (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
> >
> > This is really where the actions at for many people -- censorship or failure to censor, which translates into a mind-boggling array of common law claims -- real and imagined, e.g., Facebook getting sued because it didn't take down a site fast enough, and caused emotional trauma to a Facebook user; Facebook getting sued because some guy was shot in Paris by ISIS operatives who coordinated on Facebook. Or Facebook getting sued because it filtered someone's violent videos. I don't know what to do with that . . . and again, I don't care, because if Facebook were gone tomorrow, it wouldn't matter to me. I haven't thought through every angle of Section 230 and admit this is a piss in your own boots kind of approach, but I'm pining away for the days of three networks and Walter Cronkite.
> >
> > I'm much more concerned with anti-competitive behavior and the giant Google Algorithm which are not protected by Section 230.
> >
> > -- Jay Beattie.
> +1 Yes, I get those points.

.
Yah, me too. +1. This is the first time since 1915 that I find myself in unqualified agreement with Jay. That's a powerful statement.

.
> I'm concerned as well that one's political positions,
> failing any other test, can be labeled 'hate speech' and
> banned/erased/deplatformed because and only because they do
> not align with Mr Zuckerberg's world view. I am also not a
> member of The Face Book or any of those but the issue brings
> serious issues readily to mind.

.
Whatever happens, someone will feel hard done by. For instance, I operate a large page (27,000 members and over a 150 new applications a day) for writers and if Section 230 falls, Facebook will of necessity have to enquire into the content of their books. There is nothing a publisher fears more than libel cases, because the defamed party's lawyers always make the writer and the publisher co-defendants -- and collects mainly from the publisher, if that is how the case goes. There is absolutely no evidence that Facebook knows anything about publishing, or even about good judgement. For instance, my page operates on free speech for everyone but with a relevance test of no pederasty, religious rants, political irrelevancy. Facebook lets all of those pass, and comes down hard on pornographers who I don't care about unless their covers exhibit violence; also, pornographers are such obsessive navel-watchers that they are unlikely to libel anyone.. The point is that pornography can no longer get a publisher in civilised nations into trouble, but pederasts, religious maniacs and the political fringes can. The removal of Section 230 will be an absolute disaster for Facebook, and they will take it out on their posters, among them my tens of thousands of writers doing very nicely, thank you, under the present regime. All the same, Section 230 is a redistributive evil: it takes from print and broadcast publishers and gives to the masters of the social media, who have repeatedly exposed themselves as arrogant, anti-social scum. That is enough reason for it to fall.

.
> Section 230 was written in as much good faith as 535 of the
> least among us could manage.

.
Nonsense on both counts. It was vindictive, and that's at best, intended to punish print and broadcast media. Even if it is only the law of unintended effect that now makes Section 230 dangerous to civic decency and free speech, it is a disastrous racket which should be corrected forthwith.

.
> But without any enforcement,
> the wording, and they're nice words, is just as impotent

.
It's too late to salvage S230, Andrew. You can't ever go back on warping the written law in favour of the powerful, especially if those concessions were what made them powerful in the first instance.
.

>as
> the Soviet 1936 Constitution.

.
That's a brilliant observation. I once made the case that Stalin's Soviet Constitution was -- given some editing to remove peculiarly Soviet excrescences like holding 12-year olds responsible right up to death sentences for the crimes against the state of their families -- as apparently great-hearted and conservative and workable as the United States Constitution. The problem with both lies not in the wording or even the intent, but in the will to execute these foundation documents, and the laws arising from them, faithfully and forcefully.

Andre Jute
Liberty is indivisible, and inseparable from free speech, which is the first measure of liberty.

[Tom Kunich]

Wel, from the hard lefties here we've seen vindictiveness on a level that is difficult to believe. Can you picture Jay doing everything within his power to act as if these were "mostly peaceful demonstrations" in Portland? With sheer ignorance he has made of himself a target. And someone will not miss.

[Andre Jute]

.
It has always amazed me that, despite all the written and readily accessible accounts of murderous starts to the regimes of Lenin/Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and countless other marxist murderers, in which their second act, after denying the rest of the populace communications, is to murder the entire intellectual class, every professional, every writer, every doctor, every lawyer, basically everyone whose job requires a university degree. Yet this very class is in the vanguard of those wishing out loud for a Soviet future. When they're kneeling on the rubber mat after achieving their desire, I hope they remember how fervently they desired their own demise. My bet is that none of them have the fortitude to die with grace.
.
Andre Jute
Rage, rage against the dying of the light -- Dylan Thomas

[Andre Jute]

On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 10:13:09 AM UTC, Andre Jute wrote:
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9273261/Facebook-news-ban-Australian-PM-says-tech-giants-think-theyre-bigger-governments.html

.
The meme spreads:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9282037/TOM-TUGENDHAT-pivotal-moment-history-world-defeat-Facebooks-bullying.html
.

[Tom Kunich]

Facebook is getting in extremely deep doo-doo and Zuckerberg is finally getting the picture that not only is Facebook going to collapse but that criminal charges are going to be filed against him.

[Andre Jute]

,
He's paying the price for all those years of hypocrisy, saying Facebook was a public service bringing people together, until his shareholders forced him to start "monetising" their investment. -- AJ

[Andre Jute]

.
And Zuckerberg ran into trouble in an amazingly short space of time. He's clearly not too bright if he takes Angela Merkel's word that what was wanted from him was censorship of the right, which would buy him protection forever. Yo, Zuck yo surrogate momma is an unreconstructed Komsomol flack. If you don't know what this is, ask you pals at Google to look it up for you. -- AJ
.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 7:06:16 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 12:20:56 PM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 1:46:04 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
> > >
> > > IMO, the entire issued could be remedied by repealing Section 230, which would effectively muzzle the defamers since they would be excluded from the platforms, or the platforms would wither and die. Win-win.
> > Not so fast - then you have to have some well-established and equally applied rules, which for all intents and purposes would constitute a) the gubmint dictating acceptable speech and b) the gubmint interfering the operation of a private business - both of which are anathema to conservatives. I think if you allow that to happen - effectively muzzling the defamers since they would be excluded from the platforms, or the platforms would wither and die - wouldn't be a win win at all. Again, one persons truth-to-power is another persons defamation.
> Defamation law protects opinions and statements of belief, and First Amendment rights, if any, are protected by the liability standards announced in NYT v. Sullivan and Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. The law works well and has allowed people to speak truth to power over bull horns and in newspapers for centuries without liability.
>
> Section 230(c)(1) prevents platforms from being characterized as "publishers" and exempts them from
> liability for re-publishing defamatory statements -- an obligation that ordinary publishers have been observing
> forever. It does not redefine defamation or protect the original defamer. It just lets platforms be lazy. WaPo
> doesn't have the protections or the New York Post. Why Facebook? Because its really big and policing its
> content would be hard? Defamation is defamation, and if you re-publish a defamatory statement, you should
> be subject to liability -- unless we want to give a free pass to all erstwhile publishers.

I'm led to believe there's a difference between publishing and republishing. Posting someone else's claim isn't the same as posting a claim of your own. Libelous information published by a newspapers reporter or editorial board that either didn't do their research or failed to fact check is very different from posting and opinion piece from someone with no affiliation to the publication other than they managed to get their work published. In the former case, certainly the published has culpability, in the latter, I don't think so, and isn't that why the disclaimer 'this bullshit is the work of the author, and does not represent views of the publishers or owners' exists?

>
> The difference between me and the gung-ho pro Section 230(c)(1) folks is that I see most of these
> platforms as a net detriment to society. I could care less if they withered and died. Let them play by
> the ordinary rules applicable to every other publisher. I've also litigated cases involving internet defamation
> (with significant commercial consequences), and immune platforms sit idly by and ISPs basically run
> interference. Meanwhile, some poor guy gets put out of business. Imagine an anonymous poster
> plastering the internet with claims that The Yellow Jersey sells phony Campy components made
> by child sex-slaves chained-up in its basement. If I did that, and Andrew got hurt, well he knows
> where to find me -- but he would not know where to find, uh, "Funkman." The publisher would be the only pocket.

Since when is there a law that the published can't provide information about the the author of the work? That's the choice of the publisher. If they decide they don't want to reveal the identity of the person making the claim, then sure, hold them liable. (I'm really not that hard to find, btw, it's just that certain people in this forum who tend to bitch about it are too fucking lazy and stupid to figure it out).

>
> Now, I'm conflicted about non-defamation liability as a publisher or distributor, and the slop over and into Section 230(c)(2)
>
> (2)Civil liability
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
> (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
> (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

Again, I don't see a problem here. If a platform decides to clean house - fine, it's their platform. If they decide to let stuff slide, then engage in the obfuscatory behaviour you describe above, then fine, hold them liable. Take this as a nuance to my feeling: you can't sue the megaphone manufacturer unless they promote the speech of the user and/or protect the user. The point is that I don't think the govern should be saying 'you need to clean house'. Actions - and the lack thereof - have consequences. In the hypothetical that 'funkman' might publish injurious information about Yellow Jersey, I wouldn't disagree with the publisher being compelled to reveal the whereabouts of funkman, or themselves be held liable.

>
> This is really where the actions at for many people -- censorship or failure to censor, which translates
> into a mind-boggling array of common law claims -- real and imagined, e.g., Facebook getting sued
> because it didn't take down a site fast enough, and caused emotional trauma to a Facebook user;
> Facebook getting sued because some guy was shot in Paris by ISIS operatives who coordinated
> on Facebook. Or Facebook getting sued because it filtered someone's violent videos.
> I don't know what to do with that . . .

Again, if the platform refuses to reveal the information about the offender, sure hold them liable. This isn't a case where a reporter refuses to reveal a source. I seriously doubt facebook would suffer dramatically if they made a policy that legal action demanding the identity of the user will be complied with. Don't like that policy? Then either quit being an asshole on face book, or stop using facebook.

> and again, I don't care, because if Facebook were gone tomorrow, it wouldn't matter to me.
> I haven't thought through every angle of Section 230 and admit this is a piss in your own boots
> kind of approach, but I'm pining away for the days of three networks and Walter Cronkite.

I don't disagree with you at all there. I'm on facebook, but if it were to disappear tomorrow it wouldn't faze me in the least

> I'm much more concerned with anti-competitive behavior and the giant Google Algorithm which are not protected by Section 230.

Very clearly a much more insidious problem, imho.

[jbeattie]

There are interesting options for dealing with defamers, but censorship seems to be why Facebook is so reviled -- too much or too little, and not of defamatory material (necessarily). Most of the suits I've seen look frivolous, so I don't have an issue with Section 203(c)(2) immunity, but those pouting about having their megaphones pulled may see it differently, particularly if there is some business angle.

This reminds me of another service I need to disconnect from my e-mail: Nextdoor. People complain about things that I didn't even know were a thing.

-- Jay Beattie.

[News 2021]

On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 08:35:05 -0800, funkma...@hotmail.com scribed:

> I'm led to believe there's a difference between publishing and
> republishing.

That is the nub of the matter.
Facesbook, Gfgdh, et all are not paying to collect the information for
the initial report and are using their market power to put their
advertisers in the eyeballs of people wanting the information.

[News 2021]

On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 06:34:25 -0800, Andre Jute scribed:

.
> And Zuckerberg ran into trouble in an amazingly short space of time.
> He's clearly not too bright if he takes Angela Merkel's word that what
> was wanted from him was censorship of the right, which would buy him
> protection forever. Yo, Zuck yo surrogate momma is an unreconstructed
> Komsomol flack. If you don't know what this is, ask you pals at Google
> to look it up for you. -- AJ .

No wonder your books never sell.

[Andre Jute]

.
My novels and other books were commissioned by leading publishers. Since you won't know what that means, it means they contracted and paid for them before I wrote them. If you imagine they would have kept on doing it for half a century if there was no return, you're even more stupid than you appear to be.

Look, I understand your general perception of your own worthlessness, and your consequent resentment of someone who apparently effortlessly received everything you lust after but, honestly, you don't want my life: I work sixteen hour days seven days a week.

By stalking me so ineffectually, you're telling us a great deal more about your own inadequacies than about me. And it all makes zero difference: in the end I'll cut your balls off and the next day have to ask your name. Soon some new little man will take your place in the hot belief that by harassing me he'll make a name for himself. I'll shrug and bat him around a bit while I think up an amazing way to turn him into a profit centre.

Unsigned out of contempt for a public idiot.
Multitasking, that's the thing.

[Tom Kunich]

Andre, don't bother to respond to the idiot trio. They are like dust in the wind. None of them have ever accomplished a single thing that they can be proud of so all they can do is attempt to degrade others down to the sewer level.

[News 2021]

On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 08:47:37 -0800, Andre Jute scribed:

> On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 3:01:22 AM UTC, News 2021 wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 06:34:25 -0800, Andre Jute scribed:
>> .
>> > And Zuckerberg ran into trouble in an amazingly short space of time.
>> > He's clearly not too bright if he takes Angela Merkel's word that
>> > what was wanted from him was censorship of the right, which would buy
>> > him protection forever. Yo, Zuck yo surrogate momma is an
>> > unreconstructed Komsomol flack. If you don't know what this is, ask
>> > you pals at Google to look it up for you. -- AJ .
>>
>> No wonder your books never sell.
> .
> My novels and other books were commissioned by leading publishers. Since
> you won't know what that means, it means they contracted and paid for
> them before I wrote them. If you imagine they would have kept on doing
> it for half a century if there was no return, you're even more stupid
> than you appear to be.

Searching reveals this is all total fantasy on your behalf.
Not only does your name not appear in the catalogue or back catalogue of
any leading or minor publisher, none of your supposed legion of readers
has ever considered any of your scribing worthy of sharing. I guess they
all received complimentary copies that went strait to the round file/dev
null.

[News 2021]

On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 09:48:10 -0800, Tom Kunich scribed:

> Andre, don't bother to respond to the idiot trio.

Funny, I thought he was responding to my post

>They are like dust in
> the wind. None of them have ever accomplished a single thing that they
> can be proud of so all they can do is attempt to degrade others down to
> the sewer level.

The world is ACCOMPLISHED, as in in the past, have already done so. I'm
proud of everything I've done. Unlike you & AJ, I do not need to create
fake resumes, books, etc.

It is funny how my bicycle just keep rolling along whilst you are
continually buying stuff in desperate search of similar achievement.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 02:13:31 -0000 (UTC), News 2021
<new...@woa.com.au> wrote:

>Searching reveals this is all total fantasy on your behalf.
>Not only does your name not appear in the catalogue or back catalogue of
>any leading or minor publisher, none of your supposed legion of readers
>has ever considered any of your scribing worthy of sharing. I guess they
>all received complimentary copies that went strait to the round file/dev
>null.

Search again. Not exactly publishers but...
<http://coolmainpress.com>
<https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=andre+jute&title=&lang=en&isbn=&new_used=*&destination=us&currency=USD&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=qr>
<https://www.alibris.com/booksearch?mtype=B&keyword=Andre+Jute&hs.x=37&hs.y=18>
<https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&n=100121503&cm_sp=SearchF-_-usedbooks-_-Results&an=andre+jute&tn=&kn=>
<https://www.amazon.com/s?k=andre+jute&i=stripbooks>
The assumption is that someone bought the book and is now reselling
it.


--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[News 2021]

On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 18:30:19 -0800, Jeff Liebermann scribed:

> On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 02:13:31 -0000 (UTC), News 2021 <new...@woa.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>Searching reveals this is all total fantasy on your behalf.
>>Not only does your name not appear in the catalogue or back catalogue
>>of any leading or minor publisher, none of your supposed legion of
>>readers has ever considered any of your scribing worthy of sharing. I
>>guess they all received complimentary copies that went strait to the
>>round file/dev null.
>
> Search again.

Err, you're easily fooled.

> Not exactly publishers but...
> <http://coolmainpress.com>

That is AJ.

> <https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?
author=andre+jute&title=&lang=en&isbn=&new_used=*&destination=us&currency=USD&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=qr>
> <https://www.alibris.com/booksearch?
mtype=B&keyword=Andre+Jute&hs.x=37&hs.y=18>
> <https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?
sts=t&n=100121503&cm_sp=SearchF-_-usedbooks-_-

Results&an=andre+jute&tn=&kn=>
> <https://www.amazon.com/s?k=andre+jute&i=stripbooks>
> The assumption is that someone bought the book and is now reselling it.

Wrong assumption. Remember AJ= AJ & 27 sock puppets.
That is all stuff that AJ or any other desperate faker can inject fantasy.
It is also self compounding crap where some desperate web entity sucks
up web pages any where an lists items in perpetuity.

Hint; time line has a major big hole.

There are NO independent people sources, which is exceptional for any
publisher of note.

If you really want to know, as far as I can find, in the early 80's AJ
has three small books printed by a new publishing house desperate for
authors and titles. This was in Melbourne, Australia and 100 copies was a
typical vanity published project of the time. A few years later, he paid
another small publisher to reprint only two of those titles. That was it
until a decade(?) later when he produced his Alaskan sledge race ripoff
trash which was a topic covered in Reader's Digest in the 70s.

Everything else could have been mostly knocked off on laser printers with
a big stapler and hand guillotine in your own garage.

[Andre Jute]

Thanks for being evenhanded, Jeff. I was laughing so hard at this ludicrous anonymous wanker News2021, way out of his depth, libelling the publishers of Kafka and Orwell, and of more Nobel literary laureates than he can name, and the American equivalents of my British publishers, that I'm afraid I was a bit tardy in straightening him out -- in fact, he's so preposterous, I was thinking of egging him on to see how high over his head his arse is, which is how one measures the IQ of a baboon (in inverse proportion to the elevation of bum over noggin). -- AJ

[News 2021]

On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 11:42:41 -0800, Andre Jute scribed:

> Thanks for being evenhanded, Jeff. I was laughing so hard at this
> ludicrous anonymous wanker News2021, way out of his depth, libelling the
> publishers of Kafka and Orwell, and of more Nobel literary laureates
> than he can name, and the American equivalents of my British publishers,
> that I'm afraid I was a bit tardy in straightening him out -- in fact,
> he's so preposterous, I was thinking of egging him on to see how high
> over his head his arse is, which is how one measures the IQ of a baboon
> (in inverse proportion to the elevation of bum over noggin). -- AJ

More typical verbal diarrhoea with no facts from AJ.
Where are the official sources of your printed books?
Which major publishers carrying the in their catalogue or back catalogue?
Where are the posts from REAL people sharing your works?

[jbeattie]

Give it a rest. Sink Hole is not Orwell or Kafka, unless you're talking Milt Orwell and Ned Kafka -- the night managers at the local Motel 6 who dabble in Theater of the Absurd. https://www.scribd.com/read/335121666/Sinkhole Is that really your work? It lacks the byzantine sentence structure and Edwardian era high diction you display here on RBT. It's flat -- like young adult literature. I'm disappointed and expect an immediate rewrite.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Andre Jute]

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

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

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

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

Unsigned out of contempt for a would-be bully

*I charged more per hour, by several multiples, when I was 23 than you are able to charge at the end of your career.

[jbeattie]

Charged per hour for what? I used to represent a publisher that printed books of your quality, and the writers had to supplement their income by giving plasma. What was the advance on Sink Hole -- $10K? Yes, you should not pay attention to my reviews, because I am not your target market, thankfully.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Andre Jute]

That sounds like a cheap Grub Street jerk well matched to a cheap ambulance chaser.

>What was the advance on Sink Hole -- $10K? Yes, you should not pay attention to my reviews, because I am not your target market, thankfully.
> -- Jay Beattie.

Oh dear, the provincial shyster doesn't like a target that strikes back.

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

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

Unsigned out of contempt for a wannabe bully.

[Tom Kunich]

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

[Frank Krygowski]

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

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

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

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

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

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

John B.

[Andre Jute]

Two desiccated old clowns still are still trying to attract your attention, Tom, and succeeding only in demonstrating daily that they are idiots without the brains to consider the image they inflict on potential recruits to bicycling and this group. Do you think they lust after your body? You should rent a motel room and invite them, and then duck out before they arrive. Film footage of Slow Johnny in bed with Franki-boy would probably earn a fortune at "WrinklyPorn.com" and "DisgustingPorn.com". -- AJ

[Andre Jute]

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

On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 2:13:27 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:

> On 2/19/2021 4:13 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
> > https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9273261/Facebook-news-ban-Australian-PM-says-tech-giants-think-theyre-bigger-governments.html
> >

> > Article 230 should have been long gone. Zuckerberg is arrogant beyond belief, clearly convinced that these favours from corrupt politicians is his birthright. A few years on Rikers Island should straighten him out.
> >
> > Andre Jute
> > Zuckerberg isn't bigger than any government.
> >

> Section 230 is well crafted but not enforced or applied as
> written. Platforms have and should have libel immunity.
> Publishers with a slat/opinion/agenda do but perhaps should
> not to some degree.
>
> The trouble started when the nattering busybody crowd
> insisted that certain speech be limited, by ukase of
> operators with no accountability. Like Topsy, it grew from
> there.

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

> We've come to such a ridiculous place that Constitutional
> defenders and individual rights proponents from both right
> and left (and even the great ignorant middle) are now
> attacking our First Amendment together. I'm concerned, but
> not ready to toss this baby out with the bathwater.
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

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

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

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

Andre Jute
That's a good start for today.

[AMuzi]

On 2/26/2021 10:28 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
>
> Okay, now that we've slapped down the mouth-foaming haters and the cheap shysters, let's get back to jailing that bad-faith book-burner, Zuckerberg.
>
> On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 2:13:27 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/19/2021 4:13 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9273261/Facebook-news-ban-Australian-PM-says-tech-giants-think-theyre-bigger-governments.html
>>>
>>> Article 230 should have been long gone. Zuckerberg is arrogant beyond belief, clearly convinced that these favours from corrupt politicians is his birthright. A few years on Rikers Island should straighten him out.
>>>
>>> Andre Jute
>>> Zuckerberg isn't bigger than any government.
>>>
>> Section 230 is well crafted but not enforced or applied as
>> written. Platforms have and should have libel immunity.
>> Publishers with a slat/opinion/agenda do but perhaps should
>> not to some degree.
>>
>> The trouble started when the nattering busybody crowd
>> insisted that certain speech be limited, by ukase of
>> operators with no accountability. Like Topsy, it grew from
>> there.
>
> Not snipping, because what Andrew says is a perfectly reasonable view: the law was, perhaps, good but the implementation failed. But what I really want to focus on is this:
>
>> We've come to such a ridiculous place that Constitutional
>> defenders and individual rights proponents from both right
>> and left (and even the great ignorant middle) are now
>> attacking our First Amendment together. I'm concerned, but
>> not ready to toss this baby out with the bathwater.
>>

> The baby is innocent and will survive stronger forces than the losers now aligned against it.
>
> However, American media have long had another monopoly license that should be gone with S.230, in fact should long since have gone. That is the "absent malice" defence against libel. There clearly is malice in the present defamations of the mainstream press and television. Pull the fig leaf and their defamations, if continued, will close the responsible papers by the cost of the libel settlements. The newspaper owners will fire these bad actors wholesale, and that will be the end of the cancel culture too. I don't mind if the limp legislators want to substitute a "public interest" defence to libel, such as operates in the UK, as legitimate media do serve a public interest, exactly as the Founders intended.
>
> What's more, the US should have a strong privacy law, like the one in France, to slap down the paparazzi, nauseating scandalmongers like the New York Times and the Washington Post.
>
> Andre Jute
> That's a good start for today.
>

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

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

Further, this arrived in yesterday's mail:

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

[Tom Kunich]

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

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

[Andre Jute]

.
That's because of the presumption that malice is absent in most newspapers, which is no longer the case, but once was near enough true (it was never 100% true). Remove the presumption and made the medium prove absence of malice, or public interest, and you've evened up the tilt of the playing field, away from the unrestrained power of the media and towards the victims of the media. The government is supposed to bring just evenly to everyone. I've never heard anyone claim that the Founders intended the media to have special privileges that are denied to other parties.

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

.
Perhaps. I see it as a question of restoring a necessary balance. The balances I'm in favour of work very well here, in the UK and in France.

> Further, this arrived in yesterday's mail:
>
> https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/author/allumbokhari/

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

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

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

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

[Andre Jute]

On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 6:06:00 PM UTC, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:

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

.
Heh-heh! Spot-on! -- AJ

[Tom Kunich]

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

[AMuzi]

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

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

Such is life.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 1:06:00 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Digital engineering for people like me is so easy it is difficult to see why people would think it hard.

Says the idiot that thinks VHDL is very high density logic. Yes, hardware design comes easy to some of us, especially when you know how to program in VHDL.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

By that logic neither of you two idiots have valid opinions.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 1:25:57 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:

> I can hardly wait for Dominion to try and press a law suit again Rudy Giuliani who forgot more about the law than most people ever learned.

JEsus christ you're a fucking moron. He forgot so much abut the law, that he forgot he can't slander with impunity.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/01/25/dominion-sues-rudy-giuliani-for-13-billion-over-election-conspiracy/?sh=1d76471653c8

> Funny thing about free speech, the cancel culture can't do anything about that without enraging their own followers.

Beyond a fucking moron.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/cpac-cancels-anti-semitic-speaker-001525348.html

[AMuzi]

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

I've written here before that our beloved founder:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/seanmorris.html

a PhD candidate in Slavic languages, often said, "The
eastern Europeans want to be free. They want to be free to
kill their neighbors and when the Russians leave, they will."

Which, as your account, may be overly pessimistic. On one
hand Yugoslavia but on the other the Czechs & Slovaks. A
hard rule isn't right for both.

[Frank Krygowski]

Of course everybody has a right to an opinion. But it's nonsense to say
that all opinions are equally valid.

The astonishing fact here is that Tom routinely portrays himself as
having "experience and education" leading to more knowledge than anyone
else, whether he's talking about medicine, history, theology, genetics,
physics, economics, politics, biology, engineering, bicycles or brake
fluid.

All that despite dropping out of high school, getting no post-secondary
education and being unable to hold any one job for more than three years.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

Was it you who directed me to an Irish essayist I didn't know, Hubert Butler, who wrote penetratingly about Eastern European affairs? Did that come from Sean Morris? -- AJ

[AMuzi]

> Was it you who directed me to an Irish essayist I didn't know, Hubert Butler, who wrote penetratingly about Eastern European affairs? Did that come from Sean Morris? -- AJ
>

I don't think that was from me.
Spent the prewar years with Rebecca West in Serbia! Woo hoo!

[John B.]

I think that perhaps the problem is the definition of "opinion". After
all the dictionary has it that "opinion" is "a personal belief or
judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty".

Based on that interpretation then all opinions are equal in the sense
that "all men are created equal"

In fact, isn't the notion that "my" opinions are better then "your"
opinions because I went to school, or I ride a bicycle, or I'm a
Republican or I'm a Democrat just another way of saying "Well, I'm
better than you because..."?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/26/2021 5:54 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 14:05:38 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2/26/2021 1:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 2/26/2021 12:05 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>
>>> > "The major failing of the social media is that people with no
>>> experience and no education believe that they have a right to an opinion
>>> as valid as those that do have experience and education."
>>>
>>> Yes, they do indeed. You got a problem with that?
>>
>> Of course everybody has a right to an opinion. But it's nonsense to say
>> that all opinions are equally valid.
>>
>> The astonishing fact here is that Tom routinely portrays himself as
>> having "experience and education" leading to more knowledge than anyone
>> else, whether he's talking about medicine, history, theology, genetics,
>> physics, economics, politics, biology, engineering, bicycles or brake
>> fluid.
>>
>> All that despite dropping out of high school, getting no post-secondary
>> education and being unable to hold any one job for more than three years.
>
> I think that perhaps the problem is the definition of "opinion". After
> all the dictionary has it that "opinion" is "a personal belief or
> judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty".
>
> Based on that interpretation then all opinions are equal in the sense
> that "all men are created equal"

Sorry, I can't buy that. For one thing, Jefferson may have written that
all men are _created_ equal, in the sense of their inherent rights. But
I doubt he would have said that all men have equal wisdom, knowledge,
skill, etc.

And based on that, I doubt he would say all opinions are equal. I
believe there are opinions that ought to be judged erroneous even if
absolute disproof is still pending.

> In fact, isn't the notion that "my" opinions are better then "your"
> opinions because I went to school, or I ride a bicycle, or I'm a
> Republican or I'm a Democrat just another way of saying "Well, I'm
> better than you because..."?

But I do believe that certain people are better than certain other
people. I'm too conservative to say that what you do or don't do has no
effect on your personal value.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 20:12:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Well, if you want to get into the foibles of the Constitution it is
probably true that when the writers proclaims that "all men are
created equally" they meant only white, Protestant, folks and
certainly not black folks, nor Catholic folk for that matter :-)

But as I said, opinions are simply "a personal belief or judgment that
is not founded on proof or certainty" and you are trying to claim that
somehow education or knowledge effects them.

But is it true? I would refer you to the three Abrahamic religions,
all of whom claim to worship the same God and all slaughter each other
in the name of that God.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

And there was enough debate about that to result in actual wording in the constitution re: the 3/5 compromise.

> But as I said, opinions are simply "a personal belief or judgment that
> is not founded on proof or certainty" and you are trying to claim that
> somehow education or knowledge effects them.

It most certainly does. Your opinion is framed by your life experience. Your education is an integral component of that. Every opinion is valid, the difference is if you can rationally defend it. To that point, kunich and jute has yet to be able to defend any of their opinions rationally. In that context, their opinions (especially those opinions they incorrectly call facts) are of considerably less value than the vast majority of others appearing in this forum. It isn't due to their level of education, but their individual aggregated life experience.

>
> But is it true? I would refer you to the three Abrahamic religions,
> all of whom claim to worship the same God and all slaughter each other
> in the name of that God.

Again, opinions incorrectly called facts.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

+1

[AMuzi]

Better in some ways perhaps, surely lesser in others. There
are a gazillion criteria for 'better'.

Yes, every man may have his own opinion while you are
similarly entitled to your opinion of him and his positions.

[Frank Krygowski]

It's certainly true that the fundamental concepts of American democracy
evolved over time. The original idea was not that every Tom, Dick &
Harry should get an equal say. (Let alone Thomasina, Rikki and Harriet.)

I suppose we could discuss which of those changes were beneficial and
which were detrimental.

> But as I said, opinions are simply "a personal belief or judgment that
> is not founded on proof or certainty" and you are trying to claim that
> somehow education or knowledge effects them.

Of course! As an example, say a new comet is sighted in the sky. An
isolated indigenous Amazonian may have an opinion about the comet's
source and composition. So may a trained astrophysicist. There may be
uncertainty in both opinions, but that doesn't mean each is equally valid.

> But is it true? I would refer you to the three Abrahamic religions,
> all of whom claim to worship the same God and all slaughter each other
> in the name of that God.

Even that doesn't prove all opinions are valid. I'd say it better
illustrates that there will always be people who get things wrong.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Probably. And I'd say not all criteria are equally valid, or equally
valuable. Society seems to agree even while it quibbles over the details.

"That dude is better than _anyone_ at breaking into bike shops and
stealing bunches of bikes!"


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:05:58 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your
informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant."
- Harlan Ellison

>Look at those morons John, Flunky and clueless Newsless. They claim
>I don't know anything about a subject and then when I reply with my
>qualification, they say I'm bragging or lying.

Please append my name to the list of those who find both your opinions
and qualifications to be rather dubious. Your inability to
substantiate or corroborate any of you claims or provide sources or
references is sufficient to demonstrate the problem. You've been
caught contriving numbers to suit your agenda several times. You have
never bothered to directly debate these matters. Usually, you just
change the subject. 40 acres for the average farm size is one example
that comes to mind.

>Even Jeff who claims to be in the engineering game is saying things
>so far out of line that I have grave doubts for him.

"Out of line"? What line? What things? What doubts?

Incidentally, your new resume looks much better but still could use
some cleanup:
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-kunich-22012/>

Perhaps fill in some detail on what you did at Diablo Research. Diablo
was allegedly purchased by Cadence Design Systems in Jan 1999
according to the link your provided:
<https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/diablo-research-co-llc>
Yet, the Wikipedia entry for Cadence does not show the aquisition of
Diablo. What happened?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadence_Design_Systems#Acquisitions>
The Jan 1999 date is probably wrong as announcements were released in
Nov 1999. Maybe include something about the RF/wireless design stuff
that Diablo was doing.
<https://www.eetimes.com/cadence-to-buy-diablo-research-to-expand-design-services-in-wireless-arena/#>
Seventeen-year-old Diablo is expected to complement
Cadence's services in such areas as Bluetooth and
HomeRF (radio-frequency) technology, as well as new
capabilities in telemetry, global-positioning satellite
(GPS) solutions, and personal wireless products.

No need to thank me.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 13:30:26 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>Perhaps fill in some detail on what you did at Diablo Research. Diablo
>was allegedly purchased by Cadence Design Systems in Jan 1999
>according to the link your provided:
><https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/diablo-research-co-llc>
>Yet, the Wikipedia entry for Cadence does not show the aquisition of
>Diablo. What happened?
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadence_Design_Systems#Acquisitions>
>The Jan 1999 date is probably wrong as announcements were released in
>Nov 1999. Maybe include something about the RF/wireless design stuff
>that Diablo was doing.
><https://www.eetimes.com/cadence-to-buy-diablo-research-to-expand-design-services-in-wireless-arena/#>
> Seventeen-year-old Diablo is expected to complement
> Cadence's services in such areas as Bluetooth and
> HomeRF (radio-frequency) technology, as well as new
> capabilities in telemetry, global-positioning satellite
> (GPS) solutions, and personal wireless products.

Digging deeper, I find that Diablo was part of Tality at the time of
purchase. From the Cadence 2001 annual report:
<https://www.cadence.com/content/dam/cadence-www/global/en_US/documents/company/investors/annual-reports/annual-report-01.pdf>

Pg 36:
Acquired Intangibles Write-Offs
In reaction to the current decline in business conditions
generally and the wireless communications industry in particular,
Cadence restructured certain of its businesses and realigned
resources to focus on profit contribution, high-growth markets
and core opportunities. As a result, Cadence recorded a charge
of $25.8 million in 2001 related to the impairment of goodwill
and acquired intangibles associated with the acquisition of
Diablo (a part of Tality). Key factors in this write-off were
significant downsizing or reassignment of personnel directly
related to these assets and abandonment of most of Diablo's
line of business. The charge was determined as the amount by
which the carrying value of the intangible assets associated
with Diablo's acquisition exceeded the fair value of those
assets.

Pg 70:
Diablo Research Company LLC
In December 1999, Cadence acquired all of the outstanding
stock of Diablo Research Company LLC for $39.9 million in cash
in a transaction accounted for as a purchase. Diablo is a
high-technology engineering services company with expertise
in wireless communication, global positioning satellite
solutions and data transfer and home automation markets.
In connection with the acquisition, Cadence acquired intangibles
of $40.9 million, which are being amortized over three years.
In 2001, Cadence recorded a charge of $25.8 million related
to the impairment of acquired intangibles associated with
Diablo. See "Restructuring, Asset Impairment and Unusual
Items Ì Acquired Intangibles Write-Off."

In other words, Cadence bought Diablo for $39.9 million and maybe 1
year later takes a $25.8 million write-off on the purchase. Since the
economy was in bad shape in 2001, the write-off and layoffs are not
surprising.

I can see now why you left Cadence off the resume.

I just noticed another duplicate entry. You have Tality listed from
Mar 1997 to Dec 2001, as well as Diablo Research 1997 to 2001. Since
Tality owned Diablo, you should probably make these one job instead of
two.

While you're doing damage control, permit me to remind you for the 3rd
or 4th time to change "Windows XT" to "Windows XP" in the
BioElectroMed section. It may seem trivial but to a computah geek
like me, it's sacrilege.

Again, no need to thank me, although it is getting to be a bit of a
time burner researching your former employers.

[Tom Kunich]

There is absolutely no way to convince absolute ignorance that they are wrong. Their argument can only be summed in the simple statement "You're wrong". From that point they will spend the next 300 years attacking you for having the temerity of pointing out the truth to them. As to the attacks, I couldn't care less, but they purposely destroy the point of a discussion board with their fruitless and mindless attacks.

[John B.]

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 12:03:38 -0500, Frank Krygowski

You keep shying away from the definition of opinion which is "

"opinion" is "a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on

proof or certainty":

And your statement that difference in religious belief illustrates
that "there will always be people who get things wrong" would be,
heresy to a majority of the world's population.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

You are absolutely right Tommy Boy and people have been demonstrating
your absolute ignorance and that you are wrong since you first posted
in the Internet.... and yet you continue happily posting ignorant
statements and insulting anyone that demonstrates your errors.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Tom Kunich]

I worked at many places that weren't on that resume. I had told you that my resume was shortened from 14 pages on the advice of several employment agencies and it would be edited to fit whatever job I was applying for. That seems to have escaped your rather dubious notice. Since that resume was lost to a virus and my memories jumbled from a concussion all I can assume is that your jealousy of accomplishment is all you have left in this world.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/27/2021 4:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> Incidentally, your new resume looks much better but still could use
> some cleanup:
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-kunich-22012/>

I'm glad Tom is still trying for a job. I wish him success in finally
finding one. He should be grateful for the help.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 1:30:33 PM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:05:58 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The major failing of the social media is that people with no experience
> >and no education believe that they have a right to an opinion as valid
> >as those that do have experience and education.
> "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your
> informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant."
> - Harlan Ellison

I met Harlan Ellison in '75 or '76. He was friend of my English professor and would show up at our writing class now and then. He loved to argue and disabuse the young of their romantic ideals. A paraphrase from Harlan: "people care more about whether they had a good bowel movement than whether ten thousand people died in India." I didn't have much in the way of romantic ideals, so I just went along with him. He was quite a character.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

Tom, you need a better story.

First, I doubt a resume with a long string of two year jobs looks good
to any employer.

But any resume sent our department with gaps and inconsistencies would
almost certainly not get a second look. If by some miracle it did get a
second look, a story like "I'm brain damaged so I can't remember, and I
lost the records of most of my jobs" would terminate any consideration.
That's just the way it is.

You can prove us wrong about all this, of course. Suitable proof would
be evidence that you just got hired.

(BTW, "I was offered a job but decided not to take it" does not work as
proof.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 15:20:24 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

(big snip)

>I worked at many places that weren't on that resume. I had
>told you that my resume was shortened from 14 pages on the
>advice of several employment agencies and it would be edited
>to fit whatever job I was applying for. That seems to have
>escaped your rather dubious notice. Since that resume was
>lost to a virus and my memories jumbled from a concussion
>all I can assume is that your jealousy of accomplishment
>is all you have left in this world.

Thank you for ignoring everything I wrote. 90 minutes down the drain.

Yes, I recall your mention of a 14 page resume and associated "dog ate
my homework" story explaining its disappearance. The convenience of
that situation suggests that all you have left is a fading image of
those 14 pages and of all the companies itemized within that can
verify your employment. Oddly, I suspect that the 12 companies listed
are quite real, as is the accompanying job descriptions. What's
missing from the resume are the self-proclaimed achievements in
management and electronics. I've done both and can assure you one
does not jump instantly from programmer to product manager. It's a
ladder that must be climbed one step at a time, which should have been
evident on the resume. I'll give you credit for leaving out the
non-existent companies and details because these can easily trash your
credibility with any prospective employer who asks the right
questions. If you want to lead a double life, one as the real person
in your resume, and the other as the 14 page partial fabrication that
you try to project in this newsgroup, feel free to continue. I won't
do anything to stop you. Actually, it wouldn't be so bad if you
obtain employment and then don't have enough time for Usenet and
forums. Unfortunately, that seems unlikely.

You might be correct that I'm jealous of your accomplishments.
However, it's not the employment related accomplishments, but rather
those related to bicycling. If your self-reported times, distances
and elevations achieved on recent rides are real, I would certainly be
jealous. I have an assortment of heart and inside plumbing problems
which makes long distance rides and climbs impossible. A few miles
are fine, but then I run out of steam. If your numbers are for real,
then yes, I'm jealous.

Reminder: Change the Windows XT to Windows XP in the resume. It bugs
me.

Old business: Remember the discussion we had about snips vs scissors?
I went shopping and discovered that Klein tools sells almost identical
tools in both markets, calling the electricians 26001 2100-8 version
"scissors":
<https://www.kleintools.com/catalog/electricians-scissors/all-purpose-electricians-scissors>
and the telecom version "snips":
<https://www.kleintools.com/catalog/telecom-cutting/free-fall-snip-stainless-steel>
I ordered the telecom version but received the electricians version.
The electricians version is quite usable for CAT5, but doesn't do
free-fall rotation very well. I don't intend to spend my life
splicing phone wires, so the electricians version will suffice.

[John B.]

Do resumes normally show a lifetime of jobs?

My experience, mainly in the construction trades, was that the last
two or three jobs were what was important. Particularly when they
showed an advancement in skill and/or position. The guy that was
probably our most successful construction project manager started out
as a 14 year old bulldozer operator many years before he joined us.
What was far more important for his resume was that he had completed
his last three projects under budget and in less then the scheduled
time. And of course with a very nice profit, thank you.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Lou Holtman]

Op zaterdag 27 februari 2021 om 22:30:33 UTC+1 schreef jeff.li...@gmail.com:

Is there anyone interested in Tom's resume? What I was wondering about is why one is looking for a job at an age of 75 years and why one would hire a 75 year old with a massive memory loss. There is no need to answer these question. Just wodering.

Lou

[AMuzi]

It may make no sense, but over here we are firmly committed
to hiring the handicapped elderly and infirm:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/birthday-boy-biden-born-when-fdr-was-president-and-errol-flynn-reigned-in-hollywood

[Tom Kunich]

Lou, none of the memory loss has anything to do with the job I perform as I have proven by successfully completing a job since. A 75 year old seeks job because he can still be useful. Perhaps you're not familiar with that feeling?

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 08:43:48 -0800 (PST), Lou Holtman
<lou.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Is there anyone interested in Tom's resume?

Probably not.

For me, it's just an example of Tom not being truthful about his
background, failing to substantiate his claims, and contriving numbers
for his convenience. If he didn't present himself as an expert on
everything, none of this would have been necessary. Please note that
there has not been a single thread in R.B.T. that did lacked an expert
opinion by Tom.

I agree that I've overdone it on digging into detail and minutiae.
I'll try to restrain myself from any further postings. Or, would you
prefer I simply ignore Tom?

>What I was wondering about is why one is looking for a job at an
>age of 75 years and why one would hire a 75 year old with a massive
>memory loss.

The ADEA prevents employers from discriminating on the basis of age.
<https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0910/8-things-employers-arent-allowed-to-ask-you.aspx>
Since most pandemic era interviews are being conducted online, the
interview could be conducted without Tom being seen by the prospective
employer or knowing his age.

The city of Santa Cruz and others have gone one step further and
banned discrimination by appearance or "physical characteristics":
<https://www.hiringtofiring.law/2012/04/19/could-unattractiveness-become-a-protected-class/>
If Tom were a leper, ugly or covered with tattoos, a prospective
employer would not be allowed to see him.

>There is no need to answer these question. Just wodering.
>Lou

Ok, I get the hint. I'll go away. It's going to be difficult.
Sniff...

Oh wait. Perhaps we can make a deal. Could you convince those, who
have turned R.B.T. into a political debating forum, to reduce their
output? I'll also reduce my output. After that, we can work on
reducing the personality clashes and character assassinations. When
all those are removed, whatever is left, is likely to be bicycle
related. We can work on reducing that to only tech related later.

[Tom Kunich]

What you are telling me is that your career was a non-starter. I guess I shouldn't be surprised after your resume is "Grainger".

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 11:46:03 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>What you are telling me is that your career was a non-starter.
>I guess I shouldn't be surprised after your resume is "Grainger".

You also should not guess. Please re-read my resume:
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-liebermann-151823/>
The company is "Granger Associates", not be confused with Gainger
Industrial Supply:
<https://www.grainger.com>
Incidentally, one of the first thing we learned at Granger was the
correct company name and how to spell it.

Not much found on Granger Assoc. A little on the company:
<https://www.sjpl.org/svca/granger-associates>
Some references to telecom radios:
<http://www.repeater-builder.com/granger/granger-index.html>
A reference to the founder:
<https://www.nap.edu/read/10403/chapter/21>
Acquisition by DSC (Digital Switch Corp) in June 1984:
<https://www.referenceforbusiness.com/history2/56/DSC-Communications-Corporation.html>
I have some of the data sheets and manuals on the Granger Assoc
products I worked on. I guess I should scan them to JPG or PDF and
post them on the internet. (Yet another project).

In case you're looking for dirt on Granger Assoc, the president for
Granger Assoc at the time I was employed was Q.T. Wiles, who went on
to bigger and better things:
"Wiles Convicted of Fraud in MiniScribe Case"
<https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-08-09-fi-25289-story.html>

[Mark J.]

I gotta say that the accomplishments listed for your "Liebermann Design"
job are impressive indeed!

Mark J.

[Lou Holtman]

Op zondag 28 februari 2021 om 18:52:24 UTC+1 schreef jeff.li...@gmail.com:

Please don't let me hold you down. I admire your patience and enjoy most of your posts but if its ends in a repetition of moves I loose my patience much faster than you do. Tom, should asked himself why he ends up in a pissing contest in almost every thread after 3 or 4 posts. Ah.. well.

Lou

[Sir Ridesalot]

Seems to be a number of people on t his newsgroup are; judging by the replies or posts others make about it.

Cheers

[Ralph Barone]

Hey Jeff. Since we’re apparently critiquing resumes here, should the
“SCATA” in yours be “SCADA”?

[News 2021]

On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 09:22:02 -0800, Tom Kunich scribed:

> Lou, none of the memory loss has anything to do with the job I perform
> as I have proven by successfully completing a job since. A 75 year old
> seeks job because he can still be useful. Perhaps you're not familiar
> with that feeling?

Nope, all the 75 year old's I know have retired and left jobs for the
young people. They spend their time doing community service for the
greater good.

[Tom Kunich]

I agree with that Mark, But it is ONE accomplishment and he want to tell me that I'm lying with such a fit of jealousy that you have to wonder if what he is claiming in his resume has any truth behind it. Analog Design is a specialty and those that are really good are in large demand. I have a friend, Charley Button that is a spectacular analog designer and besides being chief designer for Clear-Com, has two other side companies to take rather large contracts. I know about these contracts because most analog design is used in combination with digital design. And Charley can't do digital design correctly no matter how good he is at analog. His brain doesn't see things in black and white but shades of grey so he calls me.

[Tom Kunich]

Lou, I respect your opinions but you should probably rather ask why people attempt to piss on me first? Didn't you just catch Frank saying that there had to be something psychologically wrong with me for buying and selling bikes to get the one's I want?

Or Jeff saying I'm lying because the dates on some of the jobs I worked at didn't jibe well so I had to be lying? This despite the fact that I originally told him that I was asked to cut my 14 page resume down to a couple of pages and that meant that I had to jig the dates a little to not show many gaps?

I worked at many companies that bear no connections to the medical or scientific designs that I prefer to do. Wouldn't you rather be solving the riddle of Cancer instead of making a utility meter reader? Or that NASA design for the International Space Station. The DOCUMENTATION that goes to NASA to prove that it meets all requested goals made a book size report. The design and programming of it took two weeks.

[Frank Krygowski]

I'm not yet 75, but that was what I did. After I retired I was asked to
continue teaching part time, and did so for a few years. I was also
asked to continue to attend department meetings but chose not to. But I
served on three different boards or committees, and do volunteer work
for three different advocacy organizations.

Let the young people have the jobs. They need them.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

You wanted to give that job to a demented 74-year-old instead? :-)

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

I've not been interested enough to actually look at Tom's resume. If he
didn't spend so much time bragging about his purported qualifications
and experience, I wouldn't think about his resume at all.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 23:39:40 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
<ra...@invalid.com> wrote:

>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-liebermann-151823/>

>Hey Jeff. Since we’re apparently critiquing resumes here, should the
>“SCATA” in yours be “SCADA”?

Oops. Thanks, I didn't notice. It's been like that since about 2005
and you're the first person to notice. I'll fix it as soon as I
recover my LinkedIn password. Last night was the full moon and it
take me a while to morph back to normal.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:55:25 -0800, "Mark J." <MarkU...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-liebermann-151823/>

>I gotta say that the accomplishments listed for your "Liebermann Design"
>job are impressive indeed!
>Mark J.

Yeah, that could be a problem. Since I haven't been looking for a job
since about 1985, I didn't see any reason for adding any
accomplishments. I did add a few items, such as all the model numbers
of the radios and equipment I helped design. At some point, LinkedIn
decided to change from a way for former co-workers to remain in
contact, to a Facebook clone. During the transition, all my education
history, some early jobs, the few items under accomplishments, just
disappeared. I re-entered some of the stuff and planned to fix the
rest later, which never happened.

LinkedIn offers the follow categories for accomplishments:
Publication None
Patent None
Course None
Project Lots
Honor and Award None
Test Score I haven't been tested and waiting for vaccine.
Language English. I know a little French, German,
Hebrew, and Yiddish, but due to zero practice,
I should leave them out. Unless they mean
computer language.
Organization None

I was going to list all the model numbers for Intech and Granger, but
am having problems remembering the numbers. I'll add them to my
LinkedIn resume when I have time.

What little engineering I did after about 1983 was mostly quick fixes
and leaning up someone else's mess. That doesn't seem to fit in
accomplishment categories.

However, there is hope. While looking for something else, I
accidentally found a copy of my 1984 resume:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/resume-old.pdf>
Fairly awful, but consider that was only 3 years after the
announcement of the first IBM PC. Looking at the original, it was
probably written in Wordstar, stored on 160 KByte 5 1/4" floppies, and
printed on an Epson MX-80 dot matrix printer.

Also, I found the preliminary data sheets for the Granger radio I
helped design:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/Granger%20Assoc/Granger%20RADAC%206710/>
I did the transmitter and synthesizer module, interface module, and
card cage wiring. Others did the receiver, duplexer, rack, and
package. I also did a really cheap 915-952 MHz yagi antenna, which
was deemed too cheap, and therefore rejected. I also designing a much
better package in my spare time on Granger's Applicon 3D CAD system.
For the 1980's, it ran on a PDP-11/34. I have photos somewhere.

[Ralph Barone]

Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 23:39:40 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
> <ra...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-liebermann-151823/>
>
>> Hey Jeff. Since we’re apparently critiquing resumes here, should the
>> “SCATA” in yours be “SCADA”?
>
> Oops. Thanks, I didn't notice. It's been like that since about 2005
> and you're the first person to notice. I'll fix it as soon as I
> recover my LinkedIn password. Last night was the full moon and it
> take me a while to morph back to normal.

I thought it might have been a term to describe Supervisory Control And
Data Acquisition for a sewage treatment plant :-)

[John B.]

Do you mean that assaulting a woman in the changing room of a
department store doesn't qualify you for the presidency?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 05:07:09 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone

<ra...@invalid.com> wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 23:39:40 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
>> <ra...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-liebermann-151823/>
>>
>>> Hey Jeff. Since we’re apparently critiquing resumes here, should the
>>> “SCATA” in yours be “SCADA”?
>>
>> Oops. Thanks, I didn't notice. It's been like that since about 2005
>> and you're the first person to notice. I'll fix it as soon as I
>> recover my LinkedIn password. Last night was the full moon and it
>> take me a while to morph back to normal.

>I thought it might have been a term to describe Supervisory Control And
>Data Acquisition for a sewage treatment plant :-)

Nope. It was used by electric utility companies to switch capacitors
for power factor correction on utility poles:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/Granger%20Assoc/Granger%20RADAC%206710/>
In the process of fixing my typo error, I discovered the cause of my
spelling error. I tend to pronounce it "SKAY-TA". When I corrected
it, I again typed "T" instead of "D". It took me 2 tries to get one
letter correct. Phonetic spelling. Anyway, it's fixed. I also added
some items from my resume.

[Ralph Barone]

Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 05:07:09 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
> <ra...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 23:39:40 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
>>> <ra...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-liebermann-151823/>
>>>
>>>> Hey Jeff. Since we’re apparently critiquing resumes here, should the
>>>> “SCATA” in yours be “SCADA”?
>>>
>>> Oops. Thanks, I didn't notice. It's been like that since about 2005
>>> and you're the first person to notice. I'll fix it as soon as I
>>> recover my LinkedIn password. Last night was the full moon and it
>>> take me a while to morph back to normal.
>
>> I thought it might have been a term to describe Supervisory Control And
>> Data Acquisition for a sewage treatment plant :-)
>
> Nope. It was used by electric utility companies to switch capacitors
> for power factor correction on utility poles:
> <http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/Granger%20Assoc/Granger%20RADAC%206710/>
> In the process of fixing my typo error, I discovered the cause of my
> spelling error. I tend to pronounce it "SKAY-TA". When I corrected
> it, I again typed "T" instead of "D". It took me 2 tries to get one
> letter correct. Phonetic spelling. Anyway, it's fixed. I also added
> some items from my resume.
>

Apparently my pun was too subtle. I was blending SCADA and skat.

[Mark J.]

I was referring to the "magic, and miracles." Quality over quantity,
you don't need to do many miracles to enhance your reputation.

Mark J.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 09:50:24 -0800, "Mark J." <MarkU...@comcast.net>

wrote:

>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-liebermann-151823/>
>>
>>> I gotta say that the accomplishments listed for your "Liebermann Design"
>>> job are impressive indeed!
>>> Mark J.

>I was referring to the "magic, and miracles." Quality over quantity,
>you don't need to do many miracles to enhance your reputation.
>Mark J.

I originally though that's what you meant. But then I noticed that
you used the word "accomplishments", which is what inspired me to fix
my resume. Should I erase and trash everything I did and put it back
the way it was originally?

Incidentally, I managed to perform a minor miracle yesterday. No
magic was needed. Customer simultaneously had two computers, one
Sharp TV, and his Yahoo password all fail at the same time. There was
nothing wrong with the computers, but both LCD monitors were kaput. I
brought the TV video back from the dead by performing the reset
ceremony, but had to reroute the cabling for the audio to get things
to work. I don't know how the password got trashed, but after
performing the "lost password" ceremony, he was able to receive his
spam normally. I left with a nice check.

However, like many miracles, things aren't quite as they seem. Today,
the TV crapped out again, this time announcing an EEPROM or firmware
failure. The Geek squad says his TV service contract expired 3 years
ago. The replacement monitor I found in the garage failed. That's
now three dead monitors. So far, the Yahoo password is still working,
but that's a bad thing because he's now bombarding me with email
suggesting we go shopping together.

Miracles and possibly magic don't always stay working and I might be
returning the nice check.

Grumble...

[Mark J.]

I understand that working with electronics sometimes involves apparent
miracles.

A friend who did it professionally said "So I went there, the device was
dead, I opened the case, found nothing obviously wrong, closed the case,
and now it's working correctly. How do you bill for that?"

I used to do this for student's expensive graphing calculators. I
referred to my services as "the laying on of hands."

May all your miracles be stable!

Mark J.

[AMuzi]

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/newfon.jpg

[Tom Kunich]

I don't think that people realize how much of their day that they spend screwing around on-line. Today I've driven 30 miles to pick-up a stem, The guy that owns it misspelled his address and then when I got that fixed, the Maps program was saying "turn left at the next corner." All I saw was a cliff wall. So I would drive along and it would say "Drive 3/4 mile to:" what turned out to be Brickyard Cove Marina. Then it would say, "Make a u-turn and go back to: (streetname)" again nothing more than a cliff. Finally got him on the phone and he said that it was a park building. Well I CRAWLED along that cliff face and just before the Richmond Ramblers motorcycle club there was a little house along the road. That turned out to be it - no street of any kind. But its address was a separate street name than the road it was on. Anyway, got my stem and returned and stopped at the store for some vegetables and decided that I would make seafood pasta tonight.

Came home, put everything away, then cut up the box that contained the Eddy Merckx and put it in the recycle container. My older brother is doing absolutely nothing but sitting in front of that screen. As a hobby he used to build guitars. Why the hell doesn't he do that instead of messing around on the Internet 24 hours a day digging up Fake News to believe?

My younger brother does nothing but go visit the older brother. They get along great together because the older brother who actually has a clue about politics keeps it to himself, unlike me. Well younger brother makes quite a bit of money as a retired city employee on Calpers and I want to hear what he has to say when taxes come in. Or the license on his Lexus. Or the payments on his Condo. Or the increases in the maintenance of the Condo area. He never rides a bike on the street anymore. Only rides a trainer.

When I used a trainer in rainy weather it never seemed to maintain my fitness level but he claims that it does. Have any of you ever had an experience of maintaining your fitness levels with a trainer?