|
|
Monday, January 10th, 2005
|
12:49a - it's all fun and games until someone calls in LJ abuse
In one corner we've got everyone's favorite fen ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif) ginmar in the other corner we have the user cheshyre.
Ever since ginmar posted a rant on female libido enhancing drugs (post was initially public, but was locked down due to much outcry (if anyone is able to find a cached copy/screen cap, feel free to post a link. I'm hopeless at that particular skill. Search around early december last year)), these two have not been on best of terms.
Arguing erupted (here and here) and eventually descended into the depths of accusations of plagiarism and purposely misunderstanding and misquoting text.
Things seemed to simmer down, until recently when the good ol' LJ abuse team was brought in and massive confusion arises over what exactly is fair use, copy right violations, and what exactly does the DCMA has to do with anything.
To add to the melee, it seems someone created a verbatim copy of cheshyre's journal in an attempt to make a point. Another LJ user makes an interesting observation on IP addresses and one of ginmar's most vocal supporters.
For all the full jugular biting action, just visit ginmar's and cheshyre's journals.
Just remember to wear a smock, because like a gallagher joke, everyone's getting messy.
~QB
note: post edited to clarify a sentence
edited to add: a good roundup of the whole proceedings provided by oulangi.
edited: dammit, ginmar has gone and either f-locked all her recent posts or has bahleeted them. Sorry guys!
(p.s. when I went to edit this, why did it give me the option of editing a post that wasn't mine?)
current mood: E-V-O-L (142 comments |comment on this)
|
3:41p
The irony of the day: Guy writes anti-seatbelt letter to newspaper. Guy is later killed in car accident in which he wasn't wearing his seatbelt.
Wanky enough by itself - and I can kind of agree with the point that having to wear a seatbelt could be considered an attack on personal liberties, but whether it's law or not doesn't mean you shouldn't wear them. For a guy with five majors who wanted to go to law school, I sense a distinct lack of common sense.
So anyway, the above article predictably leads to wank.
Highlights: Non-seatbelt users should have second priority to seatbelt users in the emergency room. Someone takes this as an attack on subsidized health care. Or something. Insulting of Republicans. Comparing of fast food to seatbelts.
The discussion is unusually intelligent (at least compared to what I usually read) but still incredibly wanky.
...I bet there's more wank about this if I looked...
EDIT: The link to the original editorial has some amusing comments under it, too. Some guy uses it as a place to promote the Libertarian candidate for election. Several comments are rather prophetic. I'm most amused by the comment meant in rebuttal to one of the prophetic-sounding ones. Go take a look.
EDIT stikes back: What would otf_wank be without Mock the Stupid Wank? Thanks, Icz.
(36 comments |comment on this)
|
|
|
|