Twitter Bomb Joke Case Rolls Back Into UK Courts 174
judgecorp writes "Paul Chambers, the Briton whose joke on Twitter backfired, will be back in court following a legal stalemate, after more than two years. Chambers joked about blowing up South Yorkshire's Robin Hood airport in January 2010, and was arrested and fined for 'sending a public electronic message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.' His resultant criminal record lost him his job as an accountant. Now his appeal has been heard, but the two judges disagreed with each other, so Chambers will be back in court again."
Seriously though... (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, who the hell uses their real information on a goddamned twitter account?!?!
Re:Seriously though... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really about that tho, it's about being able to joke without being arrested. .. doesn't make any sense.
Imma kill all presidents of the world!
then next morning im arrested. that
and then we get history lessons about how 200 years ago people got jailed, fined, and/or killed for a yes or no from more powerful people.
it didn't change all that much.
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, if you say you want to kill somebody, I don't think that should be considered a threat. If you say you are going to, sure.
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, if you say you want to kill somebody, I don't think that should be considered a threat. If you say you are going to, sure.
Anyone who has ever "joked" in that manner regarding the POTUS would surely learn that there's not a tremendous difference.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! I am gonna create an evil plan, that is going to severe the heads of all the heads of the states in one go. :) :).
That was a joke (not a very funny one, I admit) in case, it was not clear. And that is how you joke about the POTUS.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think you can count it as a threat when it's spelled wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Ignorant people are more likely to resort to violence as they don't have the intellectual means to express themselves otherwise. I would be more worried about a misspelled death threat than a well-written and eloquent one.
Re: (Score:2)
Ignorant people are more likely to resort to violence as they don't have the intellectual means to express themselves otherwise.
You confuse ignorance with stupidity. Lack of knowlege is ignorance, lack if intellectual means is stupidity.
Ignorance can be cured, stupidity cannot.
Re:Even free speech has its limit (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, lucky for the bulk of society, 99.999999999999% of the world's population is not the President of the United States.
I don't think I've ever met a person who hasn't said they wanted to kill someone at some point. Obviously they don't actually mean they're going to kill someone. Hell, find me a parent who hasn't said they wanted to kill their kid(s) at some point. Good luck.
People who can't make that distinction remind me a lot of those people that respond to obviously commiserative apologies with a "Why are you apologizing?" I mean, yes, obviously I didn't drive over to your house flatten your tire last night, I was saying I'm sorry that you woke up to a flat because that sucks. Fucking DURRRRRRRR.
The difference is context, and most people with a functioning brain can tell whether a threat is real or not.
Re: (Score:3)
People who can't make that distinction remind me a lot of those people that respond to obviously commiserative apologies with a "Why are you apologizing?"
Do you know me? Apologies are way overused. I sometimes feel like responding with "Really?" or "No you are not!". But instead opt for a sarcastic "I knew it was you", or sometimes a boring "Why are you apologizing".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're a tit, then. People are saying they feel sorry for you, not claiming they were the cause of your woes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the quoted figure was obviously a gross overestimation regarding the percentage of a typical President which could be considered human.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Ted Nugent or some other racist-ass hick rockstar just get away with doing exactly this?
Seems like even the US government can tell the difference between a joke and serious threats.....sometimes.
Re:Even free speech has its limit (Score:5, Insightful)
Is everyone in the justice system thick? Never mind whether the joke is funny or not, if you are actually going to bomb a public place, you don't announce your plan publicly on twitter using your personal fucking account because that would put you in the iq range of someone who has to ride the special bus and thus somewhat stunt your ability to organise acts of domestic terrorism.
Re: (Score:2)
“Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!”
He is not saying he wants to blow up the airport. He is saying he is going to blow up the airport if they don't run their operations in a manner he deems fit.
Re:Even free speech has its limit (Score:5, Insightful)
Because of something called "context". If I go to a comedy club, and the comedian on-stage tells a joke and then says as the punchline, "And I'm going to blow up the airport!" do you think he would be arrested? Do you think any fucken moron in the audience wouldn't see it as part of a joke. CONTEXT. I don't know the context of this guy's post on Twitter, but I think it might be safe to say that this particular case could have used a little more fucken intelligent analysis...
Re:Even free speech has its limit (Score:5, Insightful)
How can a threat to bomb an airport be considered as a joke? Because of something called "context". If I go to a comedy club, and the comedian on-stage tells a joke and then says as the punchline, "And I'm going to blow up the airport!" do you think he would be arrested? Do you think any fucken moron in the audience wouldn't see it as part of a joke. CONTEXT. I don't know the context of this guy's post on Twitter, but I think it might be safe to say that this particular case could have used a little more fucken intelligent analysis...
Yeah, I think yours is the kind of point that needs to be emphasized here. It seems there is no dispute that he was joking. The government is not trying to prove that he actually intended to bomb anything because they know he wasn't. That being the case, the arrest alone would have been more than enough to teach him a lesson he'll never forget.
I just don't share or understand this desire to drag someone through the mud and nail him to the cross as hard as you can when there was no actual intent to do harm. This is a bean counter, not a hardened criminal mastermind who actually made bombs or showed any indication that he was going to. The guy did something extremely stupid and has already been punished enough. He's not going to do it again, so what purpose does it serve to prolong the affair?
Just give him his appeal, let him go, wipe his record clean, maybe threaten him with the most severe punishment available if he ever does do it again, and be done with it. Let him go back to earning an honest living. Show him that the legal system does have a sense of proportion and justice, that way he's even less likely to ever become a hardened criminal.
For the US there is a valuable lesson here. This is why you should eliminate with extreme prejudice any and all "zero tolerance" rules in the school systems. After a generation or two grows up thinking that this is normal, you wind up with obsessive enforcement of laws like this.
Re: (Score:3)
Show him that the legal system does have a sense of proportion and justice, that way he's even less likely to ever become a hardened criminal.
This is impossible by now.
After two years of harassment, there's nothing one can do do show that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it makes the prosecution look bad if they ever arrest someone and don't get a conviction.
I suppose that depends on who's looking.
To me, not letting this go makes them look bad in the strongest possible terms. There are few things I respect more than the ability to humble yourself and admit when you made a mistake, when you took something too far, when it's time to reverse course. That's because I've made mistakes in life and I know it takes courage to do this.
But then, I have principles. I have reason. You could say I have a soul. These people clearly don't.
Re: (Score:2)
The fools who prosecuted him need to be punished. He lost his job and had to go through years of appeals. If he wins heads should roll.
Re: (Score:2)
*= I don't see why a criminal record necessarily has to result in loss of your job, or harm your chances of getting a new one. Yeah, maybe when he applies for airport maintenanc
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> I don't see why a criminal record necessarily has to result in loss of your job, or harm your chances of getting a new one
It depends on the hiring policies of the place for which you're working.
> I never got asked whether or not I have a criminal record, and I consider that private (if you do have one you served your time, right?).
Again, it depends. Rehabilitation of Offenders act (1974) has guidelines over when a conviction can be regarded as 'spent' (typically seven years for a custodial sentence
Re: (Score:3)
Kudos for the first use of scrote on Slashdot
Re: (Score:3)
'Fraid not [slashdot.org] ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Even free speech has its limit (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree that he did anything "extremely stupid". Bungie jumping with a 10 m cable and a 5 metre drop would be extremely stupid. Posting a joky comment online is not. It is the authorities that are completely unreasonable here. What he did should not be a crime.
As someone from the UK I shake my head in disbelief at the surveillance society that they have let themselves become, and hope like hell it an't contagious.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The guy did something extremely stupid
I believe it's the government that is doing something extremely stupid. Just like they waste time and taxpayer money hunting down copyright infringers and people who use drugs, they waste time and taxpayer money trying to punish someone for what I think was an obvious joke.
Re:Even free speech has its limit (Score:4)
Next time I see legal insanity like this, I'm blowing a court house sky high. (for people with very small brains:joke and no intent to ever actually do this)
The really sad thing is that you had to explain that it was a joke, and still had to post as anonymous. Land of the brave, home of the free! What happened to you Americans!!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Even free speech has its limit (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem, is that context can get lost, especially on twitter. What if someone else retweets it? And then their followers see it. Some of which have no idea of the context in which the original comment was made, and may have no idea who the person was who made the original comment.
You see, that's why the police are supposed to investigate crimes prior to charges being filed.
Re: (Score:2)
You see, that's why the police are supposed to investigate crimes prior to charges being filed.
Investigations just take too much time. This is the 21st century, we file the charges and then investigate. Don't worry, though, when it turns out it's all bullshit, they'll probably be good enough to drop the charges. Probably.
Re:Even free speech has its limit (Score:5, Informative)
CONTEXT. I don't know the context of this guy's post on Twitter, but I think it might be safe to say that this particular case could have used a little more fucken intelligent analysis...
His exact words were "Robin Hood airport is closed, you’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!".
Re: (Score:2)
So...only someone who might be a hair's breadth away from being classified as "sub-human" would misinterpret what is clearly NOT a bomb threat.
Re: (Score:3)
And IIRC the context was that the airport being closed was stopping him going to Northern Ireland to see his girlfriend. And he wasn't aware that his tweets could be seen outside of his group of mates.
The two exclamation marks alone would mark it as a joke.
Without intending or starting to commit a REAL crime I fail to see why society should consider anything a crime at all.
Re:Even free speech has its limit (Score:5, Insightful)
This reminds me a lot of another Twitter fiasco, where a couple were barred entry into the U.S. because of his tweets that he was going to 'destroy America' [dailymail.co.uk] ('Destroy' being British slang to get drunk and run amok, but no, they thought it was a literal threat).
He also said they were going to dig up Marilyn Monroe and the fucking idiot immigration people actually searched their bags for shovels. Because they wouldn't buy one here in the states from one of the eight-fucking-million stores one can buy a shovel if they were actually going to do this...no, they'd bring one with them from England.
We have a seriously disproportionate number of dumbshits in our police agencies, it seems.
Re:Even free speech has its limit (Score:5, Insightful)
We have a seriously disproportionate number of dumbshits in our police agencies, it seems.
When it comes to government, I've learned to attribute malice over stupidity no matter how adequately it would explain it.
Probably they knew perfectly well it wasn't meant literally. They just wanted to make a very public harrassment so other people might be sufficiently scared into censoring themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
In case you didn't already know, destroy is also used in America in the exact same way. There was no excuse for them being so stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The stupid thing was that he didn't convert to islam first.
Then his comments would have been a valid protest against decadent Western imperialism, and the EU twats would have awarded him 23 million pounds in compensation because the police looked at him a bit funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Twitter itself is the context, you shitcock.
Re:Even free speech has its limit (Score:5, Insightful)
How can a threat to bomb an airport be considered as a joke?
Isn't there some meme here about "nuking things from orbit just to be sure"...
If we can routinely make posts advocating total annihilation by nuclear weapons and that can achieve meme status and no one here is even put off by it then I'm pretty sure a twitter threat to bomb an airport could be both sent and understood as a joke by a lot of people.
Now the actual context:
The message Chambers sent to his 600 followers in the early hours of 6 January said: "Robin Hood Airport is closed. You've got a week... otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!"
Now I don't use twitter but I could easily see myself saying something like that to my friends in jest.
If I say I want to kill somebody, it's a threat, and should not be considered as "free speech" anymore.
Because people should be criminalized for saying something like
"I'm going to kill the neighbors kid next time she lets their dog shit on our driveway..."
Lots of people say things like that all the time. Its not a threat. Its not serious. Everybody but a few uptight twats know there is no weight behind it.
Zero Tolerance is Maximum Stupid.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually the tweet was:
Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!
The version you've quoted is a recent misquote which lazy reporters in various media outlets propagated - the original tweet is even more clearly not a serious threat.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What I don't really understand is why we insist on Zero Tolerance for "jokes made on the internet" but not for failed banks.
Re: (Score:2)
the interesting thing is that it's taking them over two fucking years to decide if the guy should have a criminal record or not.
it would be fairly simpler if criminal record wasn't such a simple binary thing.
because why the fuck shouldn't an accountant get to keep his job if he gets a criminal record for making a tweet? lying on their tax statement yeah, for that it would be appropriate.
and for the record you can in usa apparently advocate people to beat up their children for acting queer without getting sl
Re: (Score:2)
> So then, what is the governments motive for pursuing this?
It's the same motive for the "security theater" [wikipedia.org] conducted by the TSA on a daily basis affecting millions of legitimate travelers: show the good monkeys what happens to the bad monkeys. It's evident from the design of the system itself, especially the fact that they conduct enhanced pat downs in full view of other travelers with no privacy at all.
> If the government can make an example of this one case, they have just changed the mindset of m
Re: (Score:3)
When heavy snowfall threatened to scupper Paul Chambers’s travel plans, he decided to vent his frustrations on Twitter by tapping out a comment to amuse his friends. “Robin Hood airport is closed,” he wrote. “You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!”
Like that.
Kinda like the way many people 'threaten' killing people in a figurative sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read his twitter post? It was an obvious joke. No reasonable person could possibly interpret it as an actual threat. Most unreasonable people would even understand it was a joke.
Re:Even free speech has its limit (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you read his twitter post? It was an obvious joke. No reasonable person could possibly interpret it as an actual threat. Most unreasonable people would even understand it was a joke.
Let's say you are a government (that is, party leaders, financiers of campaigns, and other power brokers within that government). You know that it is politically difficult or impossible to pass law severly curtailing the existing level of free speech. You also know what a chilling effect is. You want to expand your power and make people more afraid of government.
What do you do? You take laws that may have started out in a reasonable way. You then use them in an unreasonable way and make someone's life hellish when you know they don't really deserve it. What's the result? You set a precedent. Everyone else double-checks and carefully tiptoes around everything they want to say because they don't want to be next.
Objective accomplished.
I'll never understand this insatiable lust for more and more money and power, but then I am not an insecure fevered ego. Its machinations, however, are very easy to understand because they repeat over and over again throughout history (a subject that isn't properly taught anymore, at least not by the gov't sponsored schools, though you can remedy that for yourself with some reading.).
Re: (Score:2)
How can a threat to bomb an airport be considered as a joke?
When it's not even a threat?
How the fuck is this a meaningful threat:
"Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"
And he's an accountant so that makes the risk even lower, engineers are more likely to be the ones that blow stuff up.
Re: (Score:2)
A bomb announcement on Twitter is not exactly the same as shouting 'Fire' in a theater, despite the desperate efforts to make you believe so. Nobody would have known of the tweet if the police wouldn't be wasting money and man hours on monitoring Twitter. Do they really think that the next OBL will announce his 9/11 on Twitter? Seriously? Is this false sense of security really worth having an accountant losing his job over? Is the only allowed way of communication now honest, straightforward and without dou
Re: (Score:2)
are you aware of the actual tweet?
"Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"
even the airport management at the time considered it to be not credible as a threat.
Re: (Score:2)
first of all, it's a cultural thing.
here in brasil we say "i should kill you" or "i'm gonna kill that that guy" all the freaking time, for even the smallest offense, and everybody undertands that it's just a way to vent some anger.
this is why i don't get why the british are uptight about that. people need a way to relieve tension, keep censoring this kind of stuff, people will start going crazy and actually blowing shit off, instead of just talking it.
Re: (Score:2)
Who uses their real information anywhere online.
Oh... wait...
Seriously, though. My rule of thumb (whether using Twitter where I don't use my real name or on Slashdot where I do) is: Would I feel comfortable saying this to my parents, boss, wife, kids (for topics that are kid-friendly in general), in-laws, etc.? If the answer is no, then I'm probably not going to say it online. After all, no matter how anonymous you feel behind a screen name, these things have a way of getting out to your family/co-worker
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, who the hell uses their real information on a goddamned twitter account?!?!
"Paul Chambers", because he is the bomb.
what happen? (Score:2)
Are you suggesting they set up him?
Re: (Score:2)
Lets check the twitter transcript.
Yes it looks like it was some kind of setup although I am not sure how to translate twitter twatter.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a Twitter twit, but I use my real name on slashdot, used my real name at K5, used my real name on the websites I used to publish, used my real name in articles I wrote that Planet Quake published.
Nothing bad that I know of has resulted, but then I never threatened to bomb an airport, either.
I'll kill those festering scumbags! (Score:5, Funny)
Who made it illegal to be an internet tough guy? I'll kill them and feast on their children.
When someone perfects rStabInEye, then we worry.
There's a lesson here... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I was hoping you'd say "put a third judge to have the final say". :-P
pathetic... (Score:2)
to quote "As far as I know both professional [chartered etc.]accountants and acuaries are exempted occupations under the Rehabilitation Of Oggemnders Act so employers can if they wish require disclosure of *all* convictions, whether spent or not, just the same as happens when working in health care or in contact with children or vulnerable adults. But it is then up to the employer to decide upon overall suitability for the role." so as I thought its up to the employer
so he did not loose his job because of t
Re: (Score:2)
Rickrolls back into UK courts (Score:3, Funny)
If you make a stupid joke (Score:5, Informative)
If you make a stupid joke in public about killing the president, blowing up an airport, etc., I think you can reasonably expect to have some polite men in black suits show up at your door to ask you some very serious questions. Maybe you might even have to go with them for a while to answer some questions in a secure location.
But I don't think it is reasonable to expect that you will be arrested, charged with a crime, and lose your job over what is clearly and obviously a joke to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together. It was a stupid joke, and a very badly-thought-out one, and I have no problem with someone facing reasonable consequences for doing something like that. But what happened to this guy has gone way beyond reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
"obviously a joke to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together" -> Funny you should mention that. Rumor has it, the policy enforcement agencies in the US do employ a battery of intelligence tests to ensure that they only admit applicants who will not become, well, bored with the job. The kinds of people who find tying their shoe-laces to be somewhat challenging. That sort of thing.
But I have heard that occasionally some of the brighter variety slip through the net. I believe they're the ones
Re: (Score:2)
"obviously a joke to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together" -> Funny you should mention that. Rumor has it, the policy enforcement agencies in the US do employ a battery of intelligence tests to ensure that they only admit applicants who will not become, well, bored with the job. The kinds of people who find tying their shoe-laces to be somewhat challenging. That sort of thing.
But I have heard that occasionally some of the brighter variety slip through the net. I believe they're the ones who do not feel threatened by the presence of a video camera, nor are they inclined to shoot the family dog during a raid. One or two of them might even offer opinions on current law issues that are not considered "going with the pack."
This is one of the best posts I've read in a while.
Re: (Score:2)
what is clearly and obviously a joke
If it's clearly and obviously a joke, then I think people shouldn't come up to you asking questions, either.
and I have no problem with someone facing reasonable consequences for doing something like that
I don't believe there should've been any consequences whatsoever. It's a pointless waste of taxpayer money, manpower, and time. Why not catch some real criminals?
Reminds me of the same mentality that allows for the TSA. The terrorists are going to get us! They're hiding behind every corner! The only way to stop them is to violate everyone's rights and go completely insane with paranoia!
Re: (Score:2)
Where did I suggest violating anyone's rights?
I never said you did. Only that the mentality of the government in this case is similar to that of the mentality that allows for the TSA. Paranoia zero tolerance nonsense.
Nobody needs to be arrested, nobody needs to be convicted of a crime, nobody needs to lose their job.
Ah. But I did think you were suggesting that he be punished in some way. That said, you did say it was a clear and obvious joke, so if that is the case, there would be no point in questioning him, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since you have to ask, the words 'sky high' - this sort of hyperbole undermines the message, and marks it as an obvious joke.
This sort of silly threat *might* merit investigation (though frankly I think it is such an obvious joke investigating would be pointless, there are plenty of real crimes to investigate), but on finding someone without the means, motive, or motivation to actually bomb an airport, perhaps the police and CPS should have thought better of wasting public money on a trial and incarceration
Rules for life: 101 (Score:2)
2) Always talk nicely to someone with a gun
3) You can't fight city hall
The ex-accountant forgot #1. He's about to come up to #3.
AGAIN? (Score:2)
WTF is up with British tourists and their "tweeter" accounts.
this guy was sent home from LAX because he said he was going to "destroy" America (the same way a hungry person would destroy a burger)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16810312 [bbc.co.uk]
and Stephen Fry offered to pay Paul Chambers' fees. /stephenfryisawesome
Reinventing the wheel (Score:2)
The ''sending a public electronic message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" law could have been rolled-up into the pre-existing "issuing a threat that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" law.
No wonder law school is so expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
well, the lawmakers saw easy money in copycatting the companies patent procedures.. old stuff + "with a computer".
Idiocracy (Score:3)
I have nothing else to say.
A bit of background (Score:2)
Really? Because nobody else who read it or was involved in the case ever claimed to have taken it seriously. Not the airport 'security' goon who searched for it, not the "special budget" coppers who arrested Chambers. They all said "Well, we know that it was a joke, nobody actually felt threatened, but... er... we saw it, so now we have to set
Some useful links (Score:3)
David Allen Green, Paul Chambers' solicitor, blogs for the New Statesman and under his own name at Jack of Kent [jackofkent.com] and has written about the case a number of times. He has also discussed it on the Without Prejudice podcasts on a number of occasions, e.g. two days ago [wordpress.com].
Re:Don't make stupid jokes. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
A few months ago I had a domestic flight in Australia, the first time I'd flown in years. Amusingly, I get swabbed for explosives by security. Afterwards, sitting around waiting for my flight I came very, very close to making a Facebook status a long the lines of "Just got swabbed for explosives at the airport, lucky I left my C4 at home". I'm glad I was smart enough not to.
It's too bad that the criminals we really have to worry about aren't stupid enough to even joke about such things. They're the ones who would never mention a thing to anyone under any pretext until it's too late.
Re: (Score:2)
But your post, at least, would have been mildly amusing, unlike his.
Re: (Score:2)
A few months ago I had a domestic flight in Australia ... I'm glad I was smart enough not to.
Irony is more acceptable in Australian culture and you are a lot less likely to get in trouble for that sort of thing here. The problem really occurs when we travel overseas.
Recall the Australian violinist who when checking trough Canadian customs responded to the question "what have you got in that violin case" in the only acceptable manner "whatdya reckon, a machine gun ..." (ask a stupid question, get a stup
Re: (Score:2)
I highly doubt they'd take that kind of comment lightly.
Obviously not. They went to the expense of having signs made telling people to stop doing it.
Sure, they might get that you're joking but they'd still be required to take you in for some serious questioning.
If they get that you're joking why would they waste time questioning you?
Seriously, what happened in Canada wouldn't happen here. I mean people with an IQ as low as the guy who called the alarm just because someone told him they had a machine g
Re: (Score:2)
Ah I see you're the Aussie originally posting ... In which case strike that last paragraph :)
Seriously point me to the legislation which requires them to take you in for some serious questioning for making a stupid joke (maybe it exists now, but I I'd like to see it). Really if they know you are joking it, you'll get into trouble because you've pissed them off (after a dozen of bomb jokes a day, it's gonna wear thin eventually). And as I said, posting something like that online actually is asking for tro
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't make stupid jokes.
It's kind of like when I walked into a biker bar and said loudly "Well fuck me raw!", and seconds later some neanderthal in a leather jacket bent me over a pool table and gave me a serious ass pounding like I had never had before.
Something like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't make stupid jokes. It's that simple. Comedians know it. Amateurs should as well.
Tell that to Jeff Dunham.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't badmouth the government. It's illegal. Comedians know it. Amateurs should as well.
Being the victims, it's completely their fault that the government is a piece of garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
This is so easy... leave some emoticon, shorthand, or just plain the word "Joke" to mark all jokes so they don't get taken the wrong way.
LostCluster2.0 is a dead tween.
Re: (Score:2)
and wait until all serious comments start being tagged with the same mark. Go back to square one.
Re:New Rule: Mark your jokes. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You mean like:
"DESTROY THE INFIDEL AMERICANS!, lol"
(here is some random text because Slashdot is being wanky about caps again :) )
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Nobody expects the repetitive meme!
Re: (Score:2)
Denigrate not the Python.
When Python said it, it was not a repetitive meme.
Next objection!
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you never ever meet someone like you. I don't think you will survive the encounter.