Too controversial for Adequacy

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.

Poll

Votes: 21

Too controversial for Adequacy

Author:

PotatoError

Topic:

Diaries

Posted:

Jan 18, 2002

Comments:

So the site that promotes controversy regardless of topic. But there is one topic and one topic alone which is just too controvesial.

More diaries by PotatoError

	Hackers: Misunderstood
	To all you Windows Criminals
	The financial time bomb
	A big HI! from Linuz Zealot
	Linux Zealot Tells a Story
	Why the GNU licence is a good thing
	Why copying copyrighted music isnt wrong.
	Okay I'll pay for music
	Poz techie seeks same. T-count above 10000.
	Human behaviour - my thinking on it
	Patenting of hyperlinks
	Question
	The little things
	What is god?
	awww
	Iraq, Israel, Palestine and Afghanistan
	The consequences of Determinism
	I think nuclear weapons are good
	What IS adequacy all about????
	Where are we going?
	Secret World Conspiricy Revealed!!!
	Diary Entry 24/05/02
	The Internet - where is it heading?
	Terrifying and Shocking news
	w0w I must be 1337 h4X0r
	An Introduction to Online Gaming
	Why Al-Qeada isn't responsible for the WTC
	Linux Zealot - My thoughts about him
	How many Adequacy members are there?
	Why Internet Piracy is Moral
	Trees and Grass. Two more lies of society.
	Why US bombs should be banned
	The Hunt for God
	My vacation to America and what I found there
	Are you an Enemy Combatant?
	Rock vs Pop
	Why we should make all guns illegal
	Invasion: America
	One Year since 9/11 and Americans haven't changed

No, its nothing to do with racism. Nothing to do with Nationalism. Neither is it to do with sexism or any other form of discrimination. Its not to do with mindless violence or explicit sex or even negativeness towards Adequacy itself. No all these things arent controversial enough to be editted from adequacy.

The one thing which will be editted on adequacy is..... Stating negative views about the music industry.

Wooooaaa solid! Took me just two months to find it :) and now you may all 3xp1oi7 it.

	Nonsense. (5.00 / 2) (#1)
	by em on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 03:46:16 PM PST

	I myself have written several Adequacy stories attacking the music industry. --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	so.. (none / 0) (#2)
	by PotatoError on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 03:55:16 PM PST

	what was wrong with mine? oh and did you remember to vote? <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Isn't it obvious yet? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
	by iat on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 04:10:34 PM PST

	The one thing which will be editted on adequacy is..... Stating negative views about the music industry. So, you've finally figured it out. You've spotted that servers and bandwidth don't grow on trees and realised that Adequacy needs a large, rich and powerful organisation to pump money into it. Congratulations, you've worked out our hidden secret. While everyone else was accusing us of being in Microsoft's pockets, you've seen through that little smokescreen and deduced who our real corporate paymasters are. Give yourself a pat on the back, but please don't tell anyone else about this shocking revelation. Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

	wow (none / 0) (#8)
	by PotatoError on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 06:16:36 PM PST

	thanks :D <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	You expect too much (1.00 / 1) (#4)
	by SpaceGhoti on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 04:34:47 PM PST

	I managed a First Post (I was flattered) pointing out that the excessive use of editorial powers made the article unreadable. I wasn't nasty or sarcastic, and I didn't even resort to name-calling (although I confess to calling him an Editor). However, my comment got zeroed anyway. Apparently, criticizing an Editor (even constructive criticism) is also too controversial for Adequacy. However, there's another point here. It isn't that you've espoused any views that I disagree with. It isn't that you haven't done your homework. It's that you have a marked preference for sadonecrobestiality. Learn to relax, man. A troll's true colors.

	Piss and moan (5.00 / 1) (#5)
	by osm on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 04:46:22 PM PST

	Your post was deleted because it was an obvious troll. In fact, YOU are a troll, spaghetti. You're damn lucky we let ANYTHING you write stay up. All you do is harrass our female readers and piss and moan about how unfairly you're treated here, as if anyone really gives a shit. Yet, like an abused dog, you keep coming back for more. I suggest you pipe down and thank God we let you visit this site. You're getting ever closer to being banned permanently.

	That's the part that outrages me so. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
	by elenchos on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 07:26:45 PM PST

	We are the only news and discussion site on the Internet that can claim more than 50% female readership, and boors like this want to drive them all away. I'm surprised the other readers don't band together against these nasty boys for the common good. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	Oh no, not THAT! (1.00 / 1) (#14)
	by SpaceGhoti on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 10:45:29 PM PST

	Goodness, you certainly put me in my place! I cower in fear of your godlike retribution! Look! See? A distinct quiver in my left knee! It can truly be said that I have the fear of osm in me. You're just jealous because you're not creative enough to keep up with me. A troll's true colors.

	Sure, spaghetti (none / 0) (#16)
	by osm on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 11:03:20 PM PST

	You're just jealous because you're not creative enough to keep up with me. Wow! Very good! You actually wrote something amusing. Too bad it was unintentional. Of course, I'm just kidding. All of us editor types have been in awe of your remarkable creativity since you arrived here. Because it takes SO MUCH imagination to yell and cry like a spoiled child.

	Dear "osm" Sir, (none / 0) (#17)
	by gcsb on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 11:17:37 PM PST

	Can't we all just get along? We are all brothers brothers after all. You seem to have some sort off filter in place, can you explain how it works? I am very curious... Kinds Regards, gcsb. Sig is under re-construction...do not panic.

	Second Post (none / 0) (#7)
	by eMan on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 05:14:07 PM PST

	I had a fun second post openly mocking the editing of the article [by using [[lots] of][square[brackets]]], which I wrote to see if it would get deleted even though it wasn't a troll. And it did! That was good fun. Maybe this one will get deleted too, though I shouldn't make a habit out of it. By the way, PotatoError, there was nothing wrong with your article. As elenchos pointed out, it was just kind of regurgitated, and the editing made it a bit more fun to read. It still ended up far from stellar though.

	fair enough (none / 0) (#9)
	by PotatoError on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 06:18:57 PM PST

	it was quite cool how he managed to insert words in the right places to turn the whole articles meaning around. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	you should be grateful... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
	by otak on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 05:03:22 PM PST

	Please don't try claiming that your article was edited because criticism of the recording industry is 'too controversial'. It is entirely reasonable that the editors don't extend their fondness for controversy to articles that: are advocating criminal activity. are badly written. are grossly factually inaccurate. Since your article seems to have been all three, you should be glad that it was published at all.

	you make a good point (1.00 / 1) (#10)
	by PotatoError on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 06:24:57 PM PST

	oh yes you do. apart from the advocating criminal activity and the factually inaccurate bit which I didnt do. oh no i didnt. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	lies (none / 0) (#19)
	by otak on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 11:27:38 AM PST

	apart from the advocating criminal activity and the factually inaccurate bit which I didnt do. oh no i didnt. Yes you did. Your article was a defence of file-sharing software against the RIAA's attempts to sue it off the Internet. You were trying to persuade your audience of the legitimacy of software which has the primary purpose of infringing copyright. You were claiming that criminal activity is not criminal, which is the same thing as advocating it. As for 'factually inaccurate', you claimed that because file-sharing software has a (theoretical) legitimate use there are no grounds for the law to restrict its distribution. This is clearly rubbish. Cars have a legitimate use, and they can also be very dangerous, so society restricts and licenses them. Weapons, drugs, electrical equipment - all of these things are useful but hazardous, and they are available only to those who have proven themselves trustworthy. (Actually, I'm pretty sure that licensing will be the direction taken by legislators. I'm sure everyone can see the utility in AOL or Time-Warner being able to deliver content through their own branded file-sharers. On the other hand almost no-one wants file-sharing in the hands of a bunch of smelly hackers and crooks. The answer is a strict policy of software licensing. elenchos made pretty much the same point in this article) cheers, otak.

	the problems with your argument (none / 0) (#20)
	by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 12:38:20 PM PST

	"Your article was a defence of file-sharing software against the RIAA's attempts to sue it off the Internet." In court would you say that the defense team for the file sharing clients are criminals? Im defending something which hasnt even been made illegal (yet?). "You were trying to persuade your audience of the legitimacy of software which has the primary purpose of infringing copyright" The software has no purpose other than allowing users to share files. It is the users responsibility to use it legally - they know the law and if they break the law then THEY should be punished not the manufacturers of the software. "Cars have a legitimate use, and they can also be very dangerous, so society restricts and licenses them" Yes society restricts the USERS of cars - not the MANUFACTURERS of cars. If someone joyrides they dont go and blame the manufacturers of building a vehicle which has criminal uses. Same with Weapons, drugs and electrical equipment. The manufacturers cannot be blamed if their tool is used illegally by a criminal. Obviously if the tool has only a criminal use then yes, you can sue the manufacturers for aiding criminal activity. But if the tool (like in the case of file sharing programs and firearms) has many legal uses as well then NO you shouldnt be able to blame the manufacturers let alone sue them. Look at firearms, how many criminals use those for illegal activities? From a logical point of view you have to ask whether firearms are indeed criminal tools. A firearm's possible illegal functions outnumber its legal ones but I dont see you calling for firearm manufacturers to be sued for being criminals - in fact firearm manufacturing is a big industry in america and is encouraged. Im not having a go at you or anything. I also originally thought file sharing programs were illegal tools - until non-criminal people pointed out to me the many legal abilities of them and then I changed my opinion that the program was criminal to an opinion that its many of the users who are criminals. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	PotatoError - the only good one (1.00 / 2) (#12)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 08:17:14 PM PST

	All of this hubbub (and elenchos rewriting your good article), plus the comments you have posted on other articles, have led me to make a statement: You are one of the truly rare educated people on this site. While elenchos and others try to chain you in, you continue to strive toward the pushing of your own opinions. You have the guts to keep saying what you do, even while being insulted, harangued, and censured. Your articles are well thought out, unlike most of the dreck that passes for news on this site. Keep it up. -zekesulastin@yahoo.com AIM SN: Ezekiel Sulastin

	Dear Mr. 'Zeke' Sir, (5.00 / 2) (#13)
	by gcsb on Fri Jan 18th, 2002 at 08:44:04 PM PST

	Please save your brown-nosing, suck-up posts for when you are talking to pre-teen girls on AIM, as I am sure you are want to do. Despite your Biblical name, I suspect that you are a heathen of epic proportions. I suggest that you accept the Lord Jesus Christ into your heart now before the influence of Satan destroys your life. Best Regards, gcsb. Sig is under re-construction...do not panic.

	Truly rare educated people (none / 0) (#18)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 05:09:38 AM PST

	You have the manner and affect of a serious hardcore quake user. Are you one? If so, why don't you just slink back to whatever pathetic, John Carmack worshipping Ultimate Bulletin Board you came from. I'm sure that there are many more of these "rare, educated people" there. No doubt they all agree with your views in every way, just like PotatoError does.

	Whats wrong with Quake? (none / 0) (#21)
	by PotatoError on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 01:09:07 PM PST

	Omg! first, im not rare. second, im not educated. third, John Carmack is a God. (heh heh) fifth, Quake is good. I cant play it though because a certain nasty firewall is burning all my IPX and UDP packets when they try and get through. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.