An editorial error, as some words were accidentally deleted. I, of course, meant I'll apologize for being a meanie not for calling you a meanie which I never did to that commentator. I did call him or her a coward, a pedantic moron and a neckbeard, which are among the things I'd be apologizing for.

Sorry for any inconvenience.

Good for you. You're an admitted bona-fide slashdot coward. Got a problem with having a modicum of accountability, or something? BTW, thanks for taking the bait. The fact that some AC assholes here had to get all hypocritically high-and-mighty with me for poking fun at an obviously stupid idea just wasn't enough. I wonder if one of y'all are the original AC who proposed the original stupid idea and got your feelings hurt... Hey!! It could be ...YOU!!! But wait -- by that same logic it could have been ...ME!!! And by extension of that principle, for all I know I could be the only one replying to myself throughout this whole thread. Well, except for the guy who posted from his account.

Do you want a medal or something? Sign in and prove it and then I'll apologize for being such a meanie. While you're at it, you can add me to your foes or freaks or whatever if you haven't done so already. Hell, even friends if you're not too prude. Or is that prudent. I obviously don't know the difference between words as evidenced by your next clause (and the final word of my post):

Yeah, I didn't get the memo that making the same spelling error twice in a row totally invalidates everything I wrote. It's not like the correct meaning can't be inferred by context which you obviously did since you posted your insipid correction.

Not that my comment needed superfluous invalidation anyway since its validity was in question by virtue of its very existence. I do, however, find the fact that you find my spelling peccadilloes noteworthy amusing. I can almost see all the orange Cheeto-shit you got all over your patchy neckbeard in your haste to make that observation more than once. Probably not Cheeto® Brand though since they're too expensive for your mom to buy.

Then it's at least in good company with whatever sensibility you possess (or lack, for that matter) that would make you post the comment(s) that you did. For all I know you're the infamous GNAA troll, or the old kombucha guy, or that weirdo who continuously botches the lyrics to the Golden Girls theme song. Hell, you are probably that guy who is making all those perverse comments about becoming aroused by the smell of another poster's anus. As far as I'm concerned, you're all the same except for the rare occurrence where someone has a legitimate need to make AC posts such as when violating an NDA or providing potentially identifying information.

AC's making stupid comments, and non-ACs calling them out and trolling are a venerable tradition within the /. institution. If you don't realize this then you probably lied about your uid range.

Right back atcha, though I doubt you possess the self-awareness or integrity to recognize the sanctimonious hypocrisy of your most eloquent parting jab. At least I know I'm being a moron in this thread and will show a bit of common courtesy by admitting it.

Thanks for the little flamewar, but until you log in with your account so I can apologize for calling you a meanie I'm probably out. Getting a little tired.

BTW, it doesn't matter if you or anyone reads this. I had fun writing it irregardless.

Ohh, you got me in a spelling error. I know the difference you pathetic pedantic moron.

Check this out, AC: My "excellent karma" in the slashdot system states that I've contributed way more than you have since you won't bother to even log in. I've had this account for more than 12 years and have never once left anything but a polite (or at least civil) comment to anyone who logs in. I've seen the shit you've posted, and no I don't mean "you"-you since you are too afraid to be accountable for the comments you leave here. Get an account and log in if you want me to take you seriously. Hell, if the original AC in this subthread had logged in I wouldn't have been such a dick to him or her in the first place because I'd have had a better idea that they were at least somewhat invested in the /. community, therefore deserving a fair investment of my time.

What's your point? You seem to have understood mine well enough.

AC's fallacious assertion:

...was in no way "trying to make [me] aware of [my] error", and in no way better than the comment I made which prompted said reply. To not acknowledge this undermines whatever point you think you made.

Furthermore, I made no error, and there was no inadvertent admission to anything, but I bet that AC felt clever for having made such a comment, so there's that. I know what the both of you are trying to say as both of your comments are trite and predictable, perhaps predictable enough to have been intentionally solicited. But then again, perhaps not since I'm too stupid to do such a thing.

This is /. dude. You must be new here. The only times "actual logical arguments are highly prized" around here is when:

1.they already suit the reader's personal agenda.
or
2. Whatever /. has deemed worthy that particular day.

It's obvious I didn't.

Correction: I was being a dick, not a bratty child.

Which is why it was so pathetically funny, which, in turn, is why I made my original comment in the first place!!

Oh wait, now you're serious. Hey buddy, I got a bridge to sell you...

Not so, I only really come around here any more to stoke the fires from time to time. The fact that you think this place is deserving of some level of education says more about whatever delusional world you live in because, unlike you, I haven't proposed any level of exclusivity to this site, and nor, by implication of such, have I suggested to be a member of said exclusive class. It's a website about (recently moreso) arbitrary stuff where people are often coarse with one another, but in no way suggests or demands any level of intelligence or education. It's pretty pathetic if you think you're special by virtue of visiting this site, which is a logical inference from your statements.

All too often someone comes up with some stupid idea around here, or seriously parrots some tired idea (*cough* beowulf cluster, raspberry pi, 3d printing, year of the linux desktop, etc. et al., ad nauseam) in a cliche fashion that would make for a nice in-joke if not for the lack of self-awareness of said person kowtowing to the /. groupthink. Without an occasional flamewar such as this one, we all are in danger of becoming /. yes-men, allowing the site to control our thoughts and ideas rather than the other way around. I hope I drove some people away for a few months because when they come back they'll hopefully be in a better position to see all the BS around here.

  The difference between me and other harsh AC comments is that I at least have the courtesy to everyone else here to log in and post under my username when I stir the shit-soup, unlike you.

No, it's more on the level of an underhanded complement, such as: "If you're gullible enough to buy into this self-evidently stupid idea then it's highly unlikely any attempt at persuasion to the contrary will be met with any consideration, therefore I won't bother since we're only on a website talking about another website". The "complement" part here is in being generous by suggesting the party to which this statement is directed would be literate enough to read it. The "underhanded" part is in the fact that that party probably wouldn't.

Or perhaps a less harsh way of saying "you're such a god damned idiot it's a bloody miracle you haven't choked to death on your own drool" which goes for most AC comments, including yours.

From the metagovernment FAQ:

All right, first of all, in general, the open-source projects that tend to succeed are the ones with a well-defined empowered leadership or even a BDFL, not the ones that are left to twist and contort at the whims of every user who wants to fork the whole project at, say, 80% completion due to some otherwise minor disagreement. We've seen this countless times in the open source world, and it's proven to not be a very good model for maintaining a software project, let alone a government.

Also, governed by websites? Who are the people implementing these websites? Are the sites prone to the problem of fracturing and forking? This would be a major problem since they seem to be an integral part of this whole idea.

That's just the first issue of many I have with this particular metagovernment idea. Honestly I think it's pretty self-evident from reading the FAQ, let alone the rest of the site, to see why this idea is doomed from the get-go. If you poke around the metagov't site and read some, not forgetting the discussion pages, it becomes clear that the idea is already falling victim to its own ideals by becoming convoluted to the point of being contradictory in its own implementation. Failure is being built into the system.

Here's a link to that FAQ again Scroll down for this little tidbit:

What if one community decides the laws in a neighboring community are decadant/uncivil/unjust/whatever, and create laws that supersede the neighbors' laws? There then seems to be a major problem with jurisdiction and enforcement. Keep in mind the idea of what a "community" is is necessarily and arbitrarily mutable since any person or group can choose to form a new community with its own governance at any time and for whatever reason.

Then there's the Scoring System Here is an example of a core idea so self-evidently stupid that if a person thinks it's a good idea then it's unlikely they would be able to understand the reasons why it's not until they personally watch it fail.

That's the joke, which tends to expire January 2.

Wrong. Self-evidently stupid ideas do not require *any* arguments against them, intelligent or otherwise, such as the one I'm making right now TO the one I'm making now.

Wrong. I am, however, too stupid to argue with you, which is self-evident from the previous part of this comment.

Although implied in my previous statement I'll go ahead and explicitly state: William Golding's "Lord of the Flies" should also be on the list of books everyone should read.

Bwaaaaaahaaaaaahaaaaaaaahaaaaahaaahaaahahahaa!! That's rich. Thanks for giving me literally the best laugh I've had all year. If you can't see the glaring and obvious problems with that proposal I don't know what to tell you. I won't bother to explain because you won't understand anyway

You can take your reddit circle-jerk form of governance to your reddit hivemind island y'all are trying to create and see how it works out there before inflicting it on the rest of us. It'll make Lord of the Flies look like a veritable utopia.

On second thought, I'd like to participate in this idea in a way you can understand: For this proposal, I bestow upon thee one downvote. It is my only regret than I may not bequeath more downvotes in this matter.

Don't worry, I'll mod it for you.

one word: Mooninites

It should be up to the airlines whether or not allowing voice calls would cater to their passengers, but airlines should have leeway on how they enforce their policy, such as being able to forcibly disembark a passenger immediately upon violating a voice-call prohibition.

Imagine the implications of an autism vaccine.

In some dystopian near-future, the company will produce a clause in the TOS that stipulates this "virtual baby" you speak of can be "adopted" by other "parents" for a nominal "fee".