As the second dot com boom hove into view, journalist and self-confessed "arrogant little shit" Paul Carr decided he wanted in. Armed with several years of insider knowledge, very little money and a new suit, he and a motley band of believers took a running jump into the internet. Nothing could go wrong. Well, not much. Paul's …
Noo Meeja Hoor
I remember this site. I used the ugly chav girl on the front of the page as my MSN pic for a while.
I didn't realise that the Evening Stantard could be so gulli- oh wait.
Andrew Gilligan is a regular contributor. Explains a lot.
host me this, host me that
As a web host, we've had legal issues in the past, and due to the way British law works, it's advised that upon receiving any kind of genuine legal threat, that you take immediate action and take down the site in question until the matter is resolved between the two parties.
This now forms the basis of our AUP.
PS, a mirror of the original site appears to be here: http://www.guarana.org/totc/
A terrorist blows up a car containing Tony Blair and his disciples Jacqui Smith, Blunkett etc. You are on the jury. The man pleads innocent, says he's not a terrorist, he's a patriot but otherwise admits he blew the car up.
Would you find him guilty?
@host me this, host me that
As a web host... The correct handling of the issue should be:
1. Receive report from complainant.
2. Take down offending material immediately.
3. Contact the owner/repondee for the material and ask them what you'd like them to-do.
4. The respondee can either choose to leave the content down, or provide a statement refuting the complainants complains and request resurrection of the material.
5. It is then up-to the complainant to take an alternative course of complaint (eg courts, police, etc).
You people commenting on the positions of hosting companies are exactly the types of chavs this article and the book and the think of the children website poke fun at. Commenttards.
where as you held true to the books title and brought nothing to the [comment] party?
Guilty of what?
"A terrorist blows up a car containing Tony Blair and his disciples Jacqui Smith, Blunkett etc. You are on the jury. The man pleads innocent, says he's not a terrorist, he's a patriot but otherwise admits he blew the car up.
Would you find him guilty?"
Hypothetically speaking, what the fuck has that got to do with anything ?
I suppose I can see where you're going, if I squint hard enough and pretend like I'm really fucking stupid, but even then you appear to be : a) confusing an actual act with a misconstruction of a satire as an incitement to an act, which would actually be quite funny in this context if it didn't suggest a certain amount of mental dysfunction on your part, and b) an enormous spunk bubble.
Anyone who looks like John Cleese's love child...
...is going to end up in a kafkaesque situation at some point.
(cue "And did those feet in ancient time..." followed by Women's Institute applause clip)
The Friday Thing
= one time stomping ground of Ms Sarah Bee.
...what a small world Laaahn'n Meeja is, eh?.
Off topic by a rotation in quaternion space
"A terrorist blows up a car containing Tony Blair and his disciples Jacqui Smith, Blunkett etc. You are on the jury. The man pleads innocent, says he's not a terrorist, he's a patriot but otherwise admits he blew the car up. Would you find him guilty?"
Not if he did it with a Hellfire missile released from a Predator Drone, m'lord.
re: Hypothetical question
He's lying and therefore guilty. Only furrinners can be patriots. They can be Scotch, Irish republicans (located in NI) or Yanks. Occasionally, miscellaneous shady-looking Eastern Europeans can claim be patriots, but really they are just warlord mass murderers, or thieves.
Mine's the one with "WWJBD?" on the back.
"A terrorist blows up a car"
1: He's a terrorist; we established that by word 2.
2: He's committed a crime; we established that by word 6.
What was the question again? Oh yeah, guilty of what? Murder? Yup. Treason? Possibly. Act of Terror? Most likely, cos you told us he was a terrorist.
I suspect you were building a huge strawman so you could reveal a superb gotcha. Sorry, but that inevitably fails.
"What was the question again? Oh yeah, guilty of what? Murder? Yup. Treason? Possibly. Act of Terror? Most likely, cos you told us he was a terrorist."
What if Blair is Bin Laden and the terrorist that blows him up is British secret police? Or Blair is Ceausescu and you are Romanian? Or it's Hussein not Blair? What then?
You realize that the flip side of this discussion is a crime in the UK. Under the very same nanny behaviour shown by this officer, we cannot discuss the flip side of this without falling foul of the same law or worse.
I asked a hypothetical question that has two answers and yet only one of those answers can be freely discussed in the UK. Don't you think there's a problem there?
Can't think of a good title...
"What if Blair is Bin Laden and the terrorist that blows him up is British secret police? Or Blair is Ceausescu and you are Romanian? Or it's Hussein not Blair? What then?"
Well, blowing someone up's always a crime, Ceausescu and Bin Laden should be taken in for trial. I suppose for Hussein it would be grave violation than anything, he's dead you know 8-)
"You realize that the flip side of this discussion is a crime in the UK. Under the very same nanny behaviour shown by this officer, we cannot discuss the flip side of this without falling foul of the same law or worse."
Yep, I'm glad I don't live in Britain. It's absurd that they can just pull down a page with no oversight or particular recourse. The US isn't *much* better, but at least a bit less 1984'esque.
Everything nice and good, but lets remember:
"If the interpreter was the type of baying, inbred, placard-waving, tabloid-reading fucking moron that the site was parodying in the first place."
That seems to be the majority of the people online, methinks.
re: Hypothetical question
What an odd hypothesis, here's another;
A monkey shits in the forest, can you smell it?
Back to the article:-
>"We want the law changed to make it illegal to murder children and bury them in woodland."
Whilst murdering children is obviously illegal, it is actually legal to bury dead people in your own woodland, or your back garden. Even under the patio.
So perhaps changing the law to make woodland burials illegal would help convince child murderers that their proposed corpse disposal is unacceptable, and a tad insanitary.
They don't understand human nature...
...because now I want to host a mirror, just to spite these nutters.
My own website...
...was shut down by BT Internet for "inflamatory" (but 100% true) comments about my old employer. No court order, no telephone call, no letter, nothing. I just found out that my website had been closed down, my email access revoked. And the buggers are still charging me for internet access, 21 months on, and they haven't responded to my letters for a refund and apology. I have heard nothing from BT Internet, and this is after a letter to the chairman demanding an explanation.
Theres more on my own web page at http://www.paullee.com/computers/index.php - read the first bullet point and follow the link.
If Jonathan Swift had made his Modest Proposal today, I'm sure it would have faced a takedown notice or two as well.
No need to create your own website, though. Just join a Facebook Group! ;)
- Vid Hubble 'scope scans 200000 ton CHUNKY CRUMBLE ENIGMA
- Google offers up its own Googlers in cloud channel chumship trawl
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Interview Global Warming IS REAL, argues sceptic mathematician - it just isn't THERMAGEDDON
- Apple to grieving sons: NO, you cannot have access to your dead mum's iPad