Simple fix: clue 'em to Slashdot.

... enjoyed by Blu-ray over DVD presages the inevitable success of 4K. Oh, wait ...

We should behead Zuckerberg and see if they carry that.

... but there's a certain economic gravity to the weightless experience.

Well, no, I simply feel it is courteous to provide a response to clarify my position and acknowledge another's post. Of course, your specious assertions also demanded a response, lest they be construed as the last word on the subject.

Of course, you appear to feel differently about proper conduct, assuming an air of insulting superiority to reinforce insubstantial contentions and give the impression yours is the final word on the matter. You should be apprised of the fact that this behavior does nothing but portray you as a pompous, self-impressed twit.

It has apparently escaped your notice that you argued giving a signed piece of paper to someone essentially transferred your right of identity to them, so that they might "... do anything I could do."

In the case of the Twitter accounts, the authors of the tweets usurped the identity of the actual account holder. They did not state, "This post was made by Comic Con on the behalf of so-and-so." They impersonated the account holder.

Black's Law Dictionary's definition of identity: http://thelawdictionary.org/identity/

I don't need to further assert what is demonstrable, legal fact. A signature is not an identity, it is nothing more than a legal instrument. Period.

By the way, you seem to conflate a signature with identity. They are not the same thing. When you empower someone to act in your behalf, with a signature, they must do so under their own identity. To assume your identity is still a prosecutable malfeasance. If you conspire with them toward that end, you may be prosecuted, as well.

... we need to address the blasphemy of secret courts. This is the greater stain on the legacy of the Founding Fathers.