I made a real point about a dishonest poster, and someone thought is was necessary to attempt to censor me.

Well, when he claimed that "taking someone's education away and forcing them to be blue collar" when preventing student from getting student loans, I have to say I was insulted.

And rightly so I think. My education involved no student loans. I suspect there is a significant amount of the audience that is in the same boat.

So, again, when I saw him claiming something that many of the readers know to be false, and then to see it so highly moderated when his central point is just wrong, I was again insulted.

So, I spoke, and apparently, someone thought it was a "troll". Well, my point was valid, so that's not it. Was it the language?

Well, adults speak here. Sometimes, when confronting others who are engaging in dishonesty, we say things with sharp points on them. Modding someone down for that is a misuse of your points and you should be ashamed.

In short, I said something that is 100% correct, in a tone that expressed my appropriate distaste for a case of misrepresentation, and you felt it was necessary to, what, punish me? Pretend you're my mom and chastise me for naughty language?

HOW DARE YOU?

There's a REAL point here, that your ham handed moderation ignores.

MANY MANY COLLEGE GRADUATES HAVE NEVER HAD A STUDENT LOAN, AND IT IS NEITHER IMPOSSIBLE NOR PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT TO BE ONE OF SAID GRAUDATES.

Which OP presumes is not possible when he incorrectly claims "taking someone's education away and forcing them to be blue collar" is the result of not having student loans.

He was wrong.

And so was your moderation, and your attempt to censor me.

"It's still denying a person the same opportunity based on their personal choices, which in my mind is in the same league as denying a person a student loan on the basis of religion (another personal choice). "

Religion isn't agianst the law.

Seems to me to be a pretty big difference, I suppose for the purpose of making your point, you chose to ignore it.

"People should not be judged by what they choose to do with their own bodies, only actions as they relate to other people."

They chose not to follow the eligibility guidelines.

How is that different than saying "Sorry, you needed 4 Advanced Placement classes for this scholarship, but you only took one. You made a choice not to make yourself eligible".

It's not different, and I don't really think any of your points hold up.

Somehow, Verizon has done the impossible, it has developed a way to sign people up for onerous contracts without their realizing it.

THAT is why this is so serious, it used to be you could just say "No, I'll use a different carrier" and go on about your business. NO LONGER!

Ah, the good old days, when I was responsible for the contracts I signed and the agreements contained within...

GOD DAMN YOU VERIZON! WHY!!!

"Because of course taking someone's education away"

What, it's impossible to go to community college, then pay the rest yourself? What kind of crap is this?

Nobody is taking anyone's education away, why are you using hyperbolic stupidity that borders lying to prove your "point"(which isn't much of a point even if you weren't making shit up).

"More seriously though: they should be listened to because then you can point out the flaws in their position."

My point was that their position is flawed in its face.

You can listen beyond an obviously flawed premise, I'm not diplomatic enough to waste time pretending I give a crap what people who are obviously wrong are arguing about.

I guess I consider my time more valuable than you do yours.

What, that some places are more sensitive to criticism than others?

I doubt anyone was making that argument on the playground.

Or do you mean your perception that he was arguing about the relative merits of one country vs another, a perception which is clearly faulty to anyone with playground level reading comprehension (which you seem to lack).

The saddest part is that the argument your extraordinarily poor reading comprehension caused you to misapply was stolen from an earlier post, verbatim.

"But what it does mean is that we took a land from indigenous people who had it first"

So what? What does having it first have to do with anything,just being on it doesn't convey ownership, the law is pretty clear on that and always has been.

You people always harp on about this crap with the unstated assumption that people who generally didn't recognize ownership and were pretty mobile were the original owners just by virtue of being there, which is just bullshit.

"Sounds like they should have fought back"

Ok, I get it now, you're ignorant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars

Nah, they didn't fight back.

LOL @ U thinking you have valuable input.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818a.htm

'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will
obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.'

'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and
kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the
rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind
me, come and kill him.'

So, what do you have to gain from pretending the charter of Hamas, the party that rules "Palestine" with an iron fist, isn't the defacto constitution of the country?

It must suck for you to win on the letter and TOTALLY GET DESTROYED on the spirit.

Nice burn, with facts no less.

And of course, we'll see no Mea Culpa from the peanut gallery, who only minutes ago was hellbent on ejaculating his opinion everywhere.

"In addition, what if this actually interferes with an emergency call?"

Oh no, what if we get DIRTY!

Seriously, I hate this argument. It really adds nothing to the conversation and smacks of Republican "what about the children" alarmism.

You really polluted your point with that, and I really don't mean to flame, but I chafe when people try to use edge cases like you have for no real purpose whatsoever.

"but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a bit in there that allows AT&T to amend certain parts without negating the whole thing. "

The way I understand it, any substantive changes (this would be one) allow both parties a chance to terminate for a given period of time.

The language of the contract really has no way to overcome this, it's a very important part of contract law.

"Plus, if the consumer terminates early, they'll be hit with a termination fee to cover at least part of the subsidy. "

No, the same law voids the termination fee, as it was part of the contract. You pay nothing.

"If you do leave, where will you go to? You realise other networks are likely to follow suit?"

You're kidding right?

Do you have any idea how much money a company would make if they could use unlimited data as leverage to pry the iPhone away from AT&T?

There's a reason they went to unlimited data in the first place, not too long ago it didn't exist.

I suppose you foresee a future of Compuserve/AOL type per minute billing for the internet too?

I love it. I really do.

And despite the fact that many would argue that any censorship is wrong, the distasteful part of these initiatives, the part that really cannot tolerate debate, is the lack of transparency.

I don't care for censorship, but I'm willing to listen if you say it's necessary. I'll probably tell you to screw, but I'll at least listen.

However, if you don't even bother to solicit opinion, or make yourself accountable to scrutiny, that's unacceptable, in a way that any normal, well adjusted individual would immediately recognize.

So all you get is screw, and no, I really won't listen, thanks, get out.

"First of all, you cannot train folks to multitask because humans are incapable of doing it. "

The research says we're not very good at it, at least not good enough to justify doing it at work.

It doesn't say we are "incapable" of doing it.

I'll never understand how you people can take something so simply stated and obvious, and completely misrepresent it as you have here.

I have to conclude that you're either not bright enough to read for comprehension, or you enjoy actively distorting reality for the purpose of making a point.