Police Director Sues AOL For Critical Blogger's Name 282
Pippin writes "Memphis Police Director, Larry Godwin, is suing AOL for the names of the authors of the Enforcer 2.0 blog. The blog is rumored to be authored by a Memphis police officer, and is critical of the department, Godwin, and some procedures. Godwin is actually using taxpayer dollars for this and, interestingly, the complaint is sealed".
Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:5, Funny)
with a Godwin Law violation...
what? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know whether to be amusingly or annoyingly about the quality of the editing round here.
1st... (Score:2, Funny)
Oh I forgot about the First Amendment being repealed and the new laws forbidding freedom of speech... oh wait
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:5, Funny)
I believe this story has Godwined itself.
You know who else (Score:4, Funny)
You know who else sued AOL for a critical blogger's name?
Re:Great idea. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:1st... (Score:4, Funny)
The point of being an Anonymous Coward is so the gangs of thugs don't know who you are...
Oh, and to troll.
Re:You've missed something important (Score:5, Funny)
What's all the fuss about? (Score:4, Funny)
Posted by Dirk Diggler MPD
;)
Re:what? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Anyone else over the internet? (Score:5, Funny)
Then, obviously, you get the expected three replies to each of those posts and the thread exponentially drifts more and more off-topic until the initial point is lost amongst a haze of Natalie Portman's and gritz.
But "Natalie Portman's [sic] and gritz [sicker]" is the whole reason why I visit Slashdot.
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Anyone else over the internet? (Score:4, Funny)
It's time to create something else that provides free speech? They already did, it's called Europe.
Re:what? (Score:5, Funny)
Grammar is for Grandmas -- it's so 20th century.....
I thought Grammar was for Grampar !
Re:Links (Score:2, Funny)
mmmm meta-waffle
do they come with irony icing and sarcasm syrup?
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:4, Funny)
> Only if the thread is irrational
What discussion thread isn't? The empty thread?
c.
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:5, Funny)
"When I see professional clowns, mimes, or people who makes balloon animals, I think of their relatives and how disappointed they must be." - Jimmy Fallon
Re:what? (Score:2, Funny)
Perhaps it was sealed in an interesting fashion?
With ear wax, for example. Or by a team of weaver ants.
Re:Anyone else over the internet? (Score:5, Funny)
Now, Grasshopper, THAT's a true demonstration of how Godwin's law works. :)
Re:Anyone else over the internet? (Score:3, Funny)
Free speech in Europe? Try promoting Nazism in Germany. Try denying that the Holocaust happened in Austria. Try insulting Ataturk in Turkey (okay, let's not argue whether or not Turkey is in Europe).
Free speech is more free in the U.S.
what about free speech in Mexico (okay, let's not argue whether or not Mexico is in USA)
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:5, Funny)
I think you mean 'meme'. Unless there's a whole other level of slashdot interaction that I am not aware of, where people mime each meme.
In any case, I propose a Meta-Meme-Mime Meme: I feel a great disturbance in the air, as if every slashdotter in the world suddenly mimed the meme 'whoosh'.
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:4, Funny)
Try reading the The Godwins Law FAQ [faqs.org]
The point of Godwins Law is that once a thread degenerates into comparisons with Hitler that thread is effectively over, and can be killfiled by the participants without risk of losing any useful information.
This leads to the tradition that mention of Nazis in a thread by a participant automatically makes them lose the argument (http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/g/GodwinsLaw.html)
What if the whole point of the article is about real world Nazis? Is there no point in reading it?
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:4, Funny)
I know you're referring to rational and irrational as numerical concepts, but do you seriously expect to be able to describe any slashdot discussion thread (never mind an infinitely long one) as completely 'rational'? ;)
Godwin's law is likely to be invoked pretty quickly in any debate where both sides dislike each other, a lot quicker than my law at least: "as any discussion continues to infinity, the probability of a man on horseback lighting jelly babies on fire, tossing them up into the air and catching them in his eyes being mentioned approaches 1".
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:5, Funny)
No, with Bush it's a little different. I believe it's something like "The longer Bush remains in office the probability of his dying in a bunker in Germany approaches 1".
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:5, Funny)
so then whats the law for soviet russia
In Soviet Russia, the law breaks YOU!
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:3, Funny)
First of all - expecting /.ers to stay on one topic? Even if it's not the topic of the summary/article? You must be new here ;)
Comparing the chances of something coming up in an infinite discussion (and note that no /. discussion is infinite, they are locked after a week or 2) to the odds of throwing a 6 in one throw is spurious. Out of 6 fair throws it is reasonably probable you will get at least one 6. Out of 12 fair throws it is even more probable you will get at least one 6. Out of an infinite number of fair throws, the chances are very close to one that you will get at least one 6.
Likewise, out of an infinite discussion (which is kind of beyond our comprehension, becuase even the whole of human discussion in the past, present and future is not infinite, and most people would get bored of a slashdot discussion or feel they've proven their point and move onto another discussion), the chances of any topic cropping up do indeed approach one. The chances of a topic being mentioned at any single moment kind of depend on what is being discussed, but taken over time, the chances of a completely random topic being mentioned do approach one due to the very nature of infinity, and the capacity for humans to ramble on and on. Much like I'm doing now.
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:2, Funny)
What are you? Some sort of Godwin Nazi?
What's the sound... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You've missed something important (Score:2, Funny)
Stirring up some dirty dirty water there... (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Do, Do let me be first.. (Score:3, Funny)
Guess you were wrong. At this point, we can posit the existence of at least one female on Slashdot. Given the lack of a second downward moderation, however, we can likely bound the number at less than 2 * (1 / p) where p is the probability of a given user getting mod points today, assuming a normal distribution.... :-D
Re:You've missed something important (Score:1, Funny)
So, what you're saying is that the status quo is that the Status Quo are British, and you are in favor of maintaining the status quo by keeping the Status Quo in Britain?