Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Why in America? (Score 1) 115

by Jane Q. Public (#47432747) Attached to: Amazon Seeks US Exemption To Test Delivery Drones

Sure, if you separate the word Aircraft in to "Air" and "Craft" you might be able to argue that one of the words could mean a manned vehicle.

It isn't my idea. It was the judge's reasoning about the intent of Congress when they wrote the law. Which is, in fact, pretty clear.

Even if you discount his reasoning about what Congress meant by "aircraft", the word "navigable" is not ambiguous at all: in this context it means passages that can be navigated by person-carrying vehicles.

Comment: Re:Yay big government! (Score 1) 283

Then by your own logic the GOP is ... pissing off women, young voters, anybody who believe the US isn't by law a Christian antion, recent immigrants

Yes. What's your point?

What I stated was that the Democrats (who have been in power) have been pissing off more people lately. And it's true. Which means that the largest voting block is going to be GOP plus all those independents who are pissed off at Obama's unconstitutional government... and there are a LOT of those.

What I didn't say -- but just because I didn't say it, you don't get to assume the opposite -- is that I think it's sad that the backlash against the Dems is likely to mean big wins for the GOP.

This is all implied by the other fact I mentioned: the largest voting block now, for the first time in the last century or so, is "independents" at 40% of the voting population. People are jumping off both the Democratic and Republican bandwagon in droves. Because BOTH of the 2 big parties are full of shit, but in (mostly) different ways.

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 393

Further, as I meant to point out above:

It is not reasonable or logical to say in one sentence that it is "obvious" that I don't believe my statements are baseless, and then just a short time later accuse me of deliberately lying. The two are mutually exclusive.

But then, as I have said many times here: logic does not seem to be your strong suit. Harassment and false statements seem to be more your style. Evidence: the posts you have been making the last few weeks.

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 393

Link to the exchange with that admission, because it sounds like you're talking to imaginary voices again.

Right here:

obviously you don't think your accusations are baseless

So by this statement you have admitted that you have been asking me to publicly say something I don't believe is true. Simple logic, man. (Which is a discipline you do not seem to understand very thoroughly, given what you have been writing.)

Jane, I've been defending people like you for years, insisting that you're not knowingly lying. I've insisted that you're spreading misinformation not because you're dishonest but because you're unable to overcome your honest cognitive biases (Morton's demon). But because Jane/Lonny is pathologically lying about facts as simple as his own gender, it's possible that Jane/Lonny is knowingly spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.

You don't know what my "cognitive biases" are, because you are filtering things through your own. And that is pretty obvious, right here, for everybody to read.

First you try to make it all about you, then you claim your delusions about me (which I have repeatedly corrected) are facts. Are you SURE you know even the first thing at all about libel law?

It is pretty easy to show, even on your own blog, that while I have been wrong at times, I have used logic and logical arguments, while your arguments have demonstrated straw-man, ad-hominem, "moving the goalposts", and other logical fallacies to the point of utter ridiculousness. For someone who insists on "D4" arguments on his blog, why have you failed to make them yourself?

I repeat, yet again, for how many times now I have lost count: your opinion of me is not excuse for the claims you have been making. You have been trying to claim that your opinion (if it even is your genuine opinion... I have reason to doubt that) is actually fact, when it is not. Your sense of "offense" over my words -- again, even if real -- do not excuse your own behavior.

I am just amazed that you don't seem to get that. What's the matter? Did you lose your job or something?

Comment: Re:Why in America? (Score 3, Interesting) 115

by Jane Q. Public (#47432419) Attached to: Amazon Seeks US Exemption To Test Delivery Drones

That's actually what's going on.

I doubt that very much. This bears repeating, for about the fifth time recently here on Slashdot:

A Federal NTSB judge has ruled that Congress did not give the FAA authority over small low-altitude drones, commercial or otherwise. The Federal law explicitly gives the FAA authority over "aircraft" in "navigable airways", which are by definition routes used by planes that carry people. These are usually high-altitude except for areas near airports and heliports. Further, "aircraft" (because of the "craft" part) means a vehicle that carries people. So there are at least two different passages in the law that very clearly limit FAA authority to commonly-traveled airways and people-carrying aircraft within them.

The court ruling has been stayed pending appeal, but the FAA has tried to regulate everything it could get its hands on before it is (almost surely) smacked down by the appeals court. I say almost surely because the "authority granted by Congress" argument is strong and the judge made his case pretty clearly.

My guess is that these companies are (quite intelligently) betting on the FAA losing in appeals court.

Comment: Re:Yay big government! (Score 1, Offtopic) 283

But the people calling for low taxes are, by and large, far-right nutjobs

Nonsense. The people calling for lower taxes today are right-wingers AND independents... who today make up the largest voting block, at 40%.

Sorry, but Obama, Pelosi, Clinton, et al. have been driving away voters in droves. If the Democrats came even close to beating out Republicans and Independents in the 2014 elections, I'll be amazed.

You can only piss people off for so long, before they fight back. A concept Obama doesn't seem to understand.

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 393

Again, obviously you can't recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that.

This would be funny if it weren't such utter bullshit. We JUST had an exchange about that, and you admitted that my comments weren't "baseless". But now you make the same accusation again. Which is it? What are you trying to claim?

You're a ... if you're really a man named Lonny Eachus posing as a woman on the internet.

I am a person using a pseudonym, just as you are. I am no more a liar than you are. From the evidence, in fact, I'd guess I'm a good bit less of one.

You're strongly implying that Jane isn't Lonny Eachus

Are you SURE that's what I was implying there? I suggest reading what my words actually say again, and in what context. You seem to have had a lot of trouble interpreting words using their plain meanings, and NOT assuming false meanings that you have made up in your head. I feel I can safely say that, since you have demonstrated it about, oh, maybe 100 times now. As a very rough guess.

lying about your own gender is lying.

You haven't been able to demonstrate even one instance of my actually lying. So stuff it up there where the sun doesn't shine, as they say.

If you're actually a woman, then you're not lying about your own gender. If you state clearly, on your honor and for the record, that you're not a man named Lonny Eachus, then I'll accept that Jane Q. Public isn't Lonny Eachus.

I have absolutely no motivation to make any such statement. Who I am, or why I chose the pseudonym I did, ARE NONE OF YOUR GODDAMNED BUSINESS. Get that through your head. I don't owe you a goddamned thing. And you don't have any kind of "right" to make my life miserable until I do what you say.


Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 393

The third thing I am going to say about this is:

And your claim that using a pseudonym constitutes "lying" is just plain ridiculous. I repeat: pseudonyms are a time-honored tradition. You use one yourself.

The fact that you have repeatedly (and utterly) failed to demonstrate what you have written you are trying to demonstrate, would seem to indicate that your purposes are not actually what you claim them to be.

I have very strong reason to believe that your entire purpose here is simply to attempt to commit character assassination in a place you KNOW will show on Internet searches and elsewhere. There is a name for that.

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 393

Let's be clear about this:

You have repeatedly and publicly accused me of being a pathological liar, and you have more recently accused me of making libelous statements about "you and your colleagues". In order for that to be true, you would have to show at the very least that I knew, or reasonably should have known, that the things I wrote -- not quotes or things other people wrote -- were untrue.

You have not done so. I have made mistakes, but I have not lied and do not lie about this.

Take your false accusations and go away. I mean it. You seem to have a screw loose somewhere and you have been making that a real problem for me. I have no reason to voluntarily put up with your crap. I have responded in self-defense only... and look at how many times you have caused me to do that.

You have been wasting my valuable time, attempting to besmirch my name, and committing other foul deeds. LEAVE. GO AWAY.

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 393

I asked you where I -- *I* as in me -- claimed that something was a lie or fraudulent, where it wasn't actually a lie or fraudulent.

Once again, you have posted a whole slew of things that do not meet these criteria. In order to do that, you would have to SHOW that it wasn't actually a lie or a fraud.

Instead, what you have posted was a bunch of things I -- and other people -- said that you haven't shown to be lies or fraudulent.

In some cases, you even posted as examples cases of me asking you elsewhere to show where I lied. And you hadn't. And if you have a problem with other people I have quoted, you will have to take it up with them. I am not responsible for their statements.

FAIL. You have utterly and completely failed to show that I have made false statements of ANY kind, much less the libelous kind.

Time to go away.

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 393

Are you denying that you're accusing me and my colleagues of fraudulent bullshit lies

Show us all where I have accused people of outright lying, where I don't have good reason to believe that it is, in fact, a lie.

I have certainly disagreed with some things. But where have I accused anyone of specific lies that aren't actually lies?

I would be interested to know. It isn't wrong to accuse someone of lies, if in fact I have good reason to believe they are lying. That's called "telling the truth".

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 393

Again, my motivation is wanting you to stop baselessly and libelously accusing me and my colleagues of fraudulent bullshit lies while pathologically lying about facts as simple as your own gender.

Not only is this statement false, if you know anything at all about tort law you should reasonably know it to be false. This would be hilarious if it were not such an alarming public accusation. Even when I was wrong (which was not as often as you imply), my comments were far from "baseless", and I have not libeled you or any of your "colleagues".

Do you even know what libel IS? Evidence strongly suggests not. You think you are mimicking my own behavior but I assure you, there are some very large differences.

I see no reason to further reply to your ranting. I tire of having had to constantly defend myself against your emotional and irrational tirades.

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 393

My behavior is that of someone who's tired of debunking baseless and libelous accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies from Lonny Eachus, who is dishonestly posing as a woman named Jane Q. Public. This shouldn't be hard for Lonny to understand:

So... you are saying your rather blatant, repeated attempts at character assassination are due to your sense of insult to scientific objectivity? Why do you not see the obvious hypocrisy in this?

You posted your comment as a reply to something that had absolutely nothing to do with any of that, which suggests yet again that reason is a lie. You have been stalking my comments for the singular purpose of insulting me and trying to damage my character. The evidence is overwhelming that you are harassing me for personal reasons, nothing more and nothing less.

You have been doing this to the extent that it is damaging my ability to participate here on Slashdot. And you are doing it for reasons you have already admitted were personal (and rather strongly implied it yet again just above). In fact your claims to discredit me have repeatedly stepped far beyond the bounds of any pretense at scientific objectivity or integrity, so scientific integrity logically cannot be the true reason. Not that I think you have been very logical anyway.

The evidence says either the excuse you give above is untrue, or you simply don't understand the motivations of your own actions.

Comment: Re:Jane is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 393

I thought you were saying it was false that Jane is Lonny Eachus. Will you say that now? Just state clearly, on your honor and for the record, that you aren't a man named Lonny Eachus. Otherwise...

Why would you think that? I didn't give you any reason to think that was what I was saying. But then, we already know you have a tendency to claim people said things they didn't actually say. I've demonstrated it many times.

Will you say that now? Just state clearly, on your honor and for the record, that you aren't a man named Lonny Eachus. Otherwise...

Why would I do that? Because you are pestering me about my identity (nobody else is)? Is that justification? I don't think so.

I use the name I use for reasons of my own. Those reasons are none of your damned business. I don't owe you anything.

Further, the use of pseudonyms are a time-honored tradition, and you have been quite deliberately stepping on my ability to try to function normally in this SOCIAL forum, for entirely personal reasons of your own. That is not reasonable behavior.

"Don't misunderstand. I'm no homophobe. But I can't stand flamers. If he wants to be that way, he can have surgery." [Lonny Eachus, 2010-07-16]

And I already explained it to you more than once now that you assigned a meaning of your own to those words that didn't actually exist when I wrote them. That's your problem (and it DOES seem to be a problem), but your failure to understand is not my problem, except to the extent you have been making it my problem. YOUR claim about those words in fact turned out to be a "sexist stereotype"... exactly the thing you accused me of.

You just don't seem to get it, and I am pretty goddamned tired of you trying to make that my problem.

And again you make it clear that your issue with me is personal, and apparently based on some kind of slight that you have wholly imagined, or perhaps invented. Yet again, that is not my problem, except to the extent that you have been making it a problem. And I repeat: it is a genuine cause of concern for me that you don't see that. In my opinion, your behavior has been that of a dangerously obsessed person.

An optimist believes we live in the best world possible; a pessimist fears this is true.