Zoe Quinn accuses dev of assault , dev kills himself

[jehurey 3,231]

Just now, Saucer said:

Everyone knew you were a chicken who wouldn't live up to your own communist bullshit. 

LOL, I love how you can't control your bitterness.

 

You'd get into an argument with me over low-carb beer, if I wanted to.

 

I'm not deterring you from doing 30 seconds of googling, for godssakes, my name is such that probably less than 10 people in this country have my first name. LOL

 

That's how harmless I genuinely think all of you are.

[DynamiteCop 2,086]

Someone give me Jerry's full name. 

[jehurey 3,231]

Just now, Saucer said:

 

This is another Jerry gem.

 

Prodigy was around $15 a month back in the early 90s when it had a subscriber base of only ~500k.

Maybe you're right.......maybe for the sake of efficiency. The government helps expand broadband internet, and private companies like Verizon Fios, Spectrum, Comcast, or other new startups merely "lease" the infrastructure.

 

Because that's why Prodigy was cheap...........its over public phone lines, subsidized by the government.

 

Guess you couldn't figure that one out...........what'd you think Prodigy built the line out to your house directly to their location?

 

But, my point still remains, lots of people will gladly save those $30 in the private market to get the free government internet.

[54212 432]

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

Bauk-bauk-bauk

 

Chickenshit won't give out his full legal name but wants everyone else to. 

[jehurey 3,231]

Just now, DynamiteCop! said:

Someone give me Jerry's full name. 

Ooooooooooooooh..............looks like I'll get to test that Red Flag law.

[54212 432]

1 minute ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Someone give me Jerry's full name. 

 

Then  sign him up for all kinds of rank shit but have it "mistakenly" sent to all his neighbors' homes so they think he's a furry pedophile into German scat porn. 

[DynamiteCop 2,086]

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

Ooooooooooooooh..............looks like I'll get to test that Red Flag law.

Thank you for immediately highlighting its catastrophic flaw. It's like I can make you say things that get you to fuck up.  

[Remij 4,680]

2 minutes ago, jehurey said:

It doesn't have to be 100% of all websites, just the major ones controlled by companies who would LOVE to absolve themselves of the legal liability.

 

Google, Facebook, Twitter, any corporate owned websites that is a publicly traded company who opinions are not affiliated with the users to come and comment within the website.

 

They'd sign up for that system in a heartbeat.

I think and agree that the users of those platforms should be entitled to enjoy and use them free of harassment.  However I think it should be the responsibility of those service providers to maintain that privacy and provide users with the ability to remove themselves from those people as well as removing those harmful users from the platform themselves.  I don't think that we should police each other and hold each other in check.  Just like I don't think people should exact their own sense of justice on others.  There's a proper way to do things.

 

People have the right to express their own views and opinions.  As horrible as some of them may be.  Just like in real life a regular person can't legally enforce another person to not say shitty things, so should be the case online.  I think the providers of these spaces should encourage the type of behavior they want for their platforms and enforce the rules.

 

The internet is so much more than just those platforms.  There's too much at stake to remove anonymity imo.

[54212 432]

1 minute ago, DynamiteCop! said:

It's like I can make you say things that get you to fuck up.  

 

In fairness to Jer he does that regularly just by opening his mouth.

[jehurey 3,231]

Just now, DynamiteCop! said:

Thank you for immediately highlighting its catastrophic flaw. It's like I can make you say things that get you to fuck up.  

Nope, the law is working exactly as intended.

You are aware that you have made threatening remarks, and have alluded to you potentially using your gun on people that you perceive as a thread.

 

And you typed those very words here on this website, which can be screenshotted and shown to authorities.

 

You know this...........therefore, you shut your clam up. The very definition of deterrence.

 

That's the law working, as intended.

[DynamiteCop 2,086]

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

Nope, the law is working exactly as intended.

You are aware that you have made threatening remarks, and have alluded to you potentially using your gun on people that you perceive as a thread.

 

And you typed those very words here on this website, which can be screenshotted and shown to authorities.

 

You know this...........therefore, you shut your clam up. The very definition of deterrence.

 

That's the law working, as intended.

You need to be more careful of who you threaten. 

[jehurey 3,231]

2 minutes ago, Saucer said:

 

Then  sign him up for all kinds of rank shit but have it "mistakenly" sent to all his neighbors' homes so they think he's a furry pedophile into German scat porn. 

That's how somebody signed me up for that Tea Party newsletter I always keep talking about.

 

I like how the best you guys can devise sound like pranks from 11 year old kids.

 

You have no idea how..........."appropriate" that is.

[jehurey 3,231]

Just now, DynamiteCop! said:

You need to be more careful of who you threaten. 

You're right, they might take my guns.

 

And apparently..............me explaining a law to you.............is considered a threat to you.

 

The impression I get is that you want to SKIRT THAT LAW???????? That is troubling.

[DynamiteCop 2,086]

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

You're right, they might take my guns.

 

And apparently..............me explaining a law to you.............is considered a threat to you.

 

The impression I get is that you want to SKIRT THAT LAW???????? That is troubling.

Making erroneous threats to abuse something and try to get someone's constitutional rights taken away by intentionally skewing what they're saying is a quick way to find yourself in a very bad situation. 

[jehurey 3,231]

5 minutes ago, Remij_ said:

People have the right to express their own views and opinions.  As horrible as some of them may be.  Just like in real life a regular person can't legally enforce another person to not say shitty things, so should be the case online.  I think the providers of these spaces should encourage the type of behavior they want for their platforms and enforce the rules.
 

But, you're misunderstand our American first amendment.

 

The GOVERNMENT can't do anything to you, for what you say or express.

 

But you are not free from consequences in the open public. You can get fired, you can be shamed, people can talk and trash you publicly. With the exception of libel and slander, its fair game.

 

We face public pressure every day when we walk outside. And that pressure is created by society, as a whole.

 

The internet is not another plane of existence. You should genuinely consider a major internet website to be the same as "walking outside"

 

If you wouldn't do it outside, then don't do it on the internet, or we can see your face.

[jehurey 3,231]

2 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Making erroneous threats to abuse something and try to get someone's constitutional rights taken away by intentionally skewing what they're saying is a quick way to find yourself in a very bad situation. 

No.........you have made threats before..........and you have alluded to saying that you would use your guns before.

 

Those are observable facts.

 

I'm not responsible for the things you type here............you are.

 

Take responsibility for yourself. Any grown adult shouldn't take that as anything other than good ole fashioned common sense.

Edited September 1, 2019 by jehurey

[54212 432]

14 minutes ago, jehurey said:

Because that's why Prodigy was cheap...........its over public phone lines, subsidized by the government.

 

In the case of the Bay Area, AT&T owned the phone lines and still does. 

[DynamiteCop 2,086]

Just now, jehurey said:

No.........you have made threats before..........and you have alluded to saying that you would use your guns before.

 

Those are observable facts.

 

I'm not responsible for the things you type here............you are.

 

Take responsibility.

I wouldn't push this, not this time. 

[jehurey 3,231]

1 minute ago, Saucer said:

 

In the case of the Bay Area, AT&T owned the phone lines and still does. 

But its rates are heavily regulated by the government because its classified as a public utility.

 

We have already reach that point with the internet. It should've been classified as a public utility a loooong time ago. Entire industries and public communication channels used by the public, en masse, should make it a public utility.

 

Leaving such an important form of communication infrastructure in the hands of private industry is absolutely idiotic, and one of the reasons this country is falling behind other countries.

[jehurey 3,231]

3 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

I wouldn't push this, not this time. 

Are you threatening me?

 

Me telling you to take responsibility for yourself?

 

And that was right around the time you were ASKING for my name, because it appears as if you are intending to find me???????????