Whenever any website announces an "exciting upgrade", it usually means they're in the process of screwing up whatever was good about the site before, in favor of whatever their pointy-haired bosses think will make a better business model.
As a noncommercial organization, they should have put their site up at godhatesfags.org instead of the
If they're nonprofit, a
If it's a truly personal domain, not intended for a commercial purpose, then a
I'm always trying (with limited success) to get people at work to use RFC-compliant dummy addresses when testing inputs to Web forms where an e-mail address must be supplied. Some "marketing types" absolutely insist on using "email@example.com" all the time, even though that's not one of the compliant dummy addresses. Personally, I always use addresses in the
Or maybe it'll even have a PR0N site in it...
I worked for Softdisk back when they were publishing a diskmagazine in the early 1990s named Gamer's Edge, featuring games authored by co-workers of mine who went on to be pretty notable (including John Carmack and John Romero). I seem to recall somebody was threatening to sue the company over the name by claiming ownership of the word "Edge", which seemed rather crackpotted. It must have been the same guy as in this case. It reminds me of Leo Stoller, who claimed to own various words including "Stealth" until bankruptcy caused him to be stripped of whatever alleged rights he might have had.
The kid in War Games started with altering grades... and proceeded to Global Thermonuclear War!
In Massachusetts in 2009, can calling somebody "gay" really be considered defamatory, given that it's a state that allows gay marriage?
These days, lots of cell phones, iPod-like devices, and so on are capable of sending and receiving e-mail, so it's not such a big stretch after all. It's still a really stupid search/seizure, anyway.
There was a time when the ruling clique of Wikipedia would ban anybody who dared to link to that site.
"I have five dollars for each of you." -- Bernhard Goetz