Quake3World

YourGrandpa wrote:

losCHUNK wrote:That's not cherry picking, cherry picking is when you take part of a quote to remove it from context, without including anything else.

Trans disassembled the quote in its entirety.

A comment's true meaning is in it's entirety. If you argue pieces of a comment without considering the other content, you are cherry picking.

Nope. It's when you take the most useful piece of information from a sentence and use it, discarding everything else (like bad cherries). Trans discarded nothing, he addressed it all.

YourGrandpa wrote:I upset you enough to put it there and keep it there, doofus. Figure that out.

How do you figure I was upset? Could I not have been motivated by amusement? Hey, I figured it out!

LOL, "keep it there". Watch out, Q3W, one of these days I'm going to really unleash an epic sig on your unready eyes! But for now, it's more important that I remind Gwamps of how stupid he is. Sacrifices must be made.

losCHUNK wrote: Nope. It's when you take the most useful piece of information from a sentence and use it, discarding everything else (like bad cherries). Trans discarded nothing, he addressed it all.

He didn't address everything. He selectively addressed pieces of my comment without consideration for the content in it's entirety. It happens in almost every discussion anyone has here. Everyone wants to be right all the time. Just like you're doing now. You've determined we no longer disagree on the original topic. Now you must change the discussion to disagree about something else in hopes you can eventually be right.

Sad...

Transient wrote:How do you figure I was upset? Could I not have been motivated by amusement? Hey, I figured it out!

LOL, "keep it there". Watch out, Q3W, one of these days I'm going to really unleash an epic sig on your unready eyes! But for now, it's more important that I remind Gwamps of how stupid he is. Sacrifices must be made.

LOL, what a goofy twat.

Maybe you can't be okay.

YourGrandpa wrote:

losCHUNK wrote: Nope. It's when you take the most useful piece of information from a sentence and use it, discarding everything else (like bad cherries). Trans discarded nothing, he addressed it all.

He didn't address everything. He selectively addressed pieces of my comment without consideration for the content in it's entirety. It happens in almost every discussion anyone has here. Everyone wants to be right all the time. Just like you're doing now. You've determined we no longer disagree on the original topic. Now you must change the discussion to disagree about something else in hopes you can eventually be right.

Sad...

Behave, if anything you cherry picked your own quote to dig yourself out the hole.

YourGrandpa wrote:

Eraser wrote:Cherry picking? Don't flatter yourself. That post was shown to be bullshit in its entirety, not just parts of it

Yes, cherry picking..

You focus on.
"Comcast (one of the largest internet service providers) says they will not throttle legal content."

Ignore.
"Repealing net neutrality sounds like a bad deal all around."

Then pretend my comment somehow insinuates I believe Comcast's claim.

When in fact I actually said.
"But all you need is one detractor like Comcast"

Fuck you.

Now back to the unedited quote

YourGrandpa wrote:Comcast (one of the largest internet service providers) says they will not throttle legal content. So if AT&T decides they are going to throttle specific content, everyone moves to Comcast. Repealing net neutrality sounds like a bad deal all around. But all you need is on detractor like Comcast and suddenly repealing net neutrality doesn't mean a thing.

You used Comcasts claim for an arguement about a detractor that everyone will move to. You're saying Comcast is the detractor by giving them as the example. The bit about net neutrality is just a tag line.

YourGrandpa wrote:Everyone wants to be right all the time.

Bam.

losCHUNK wrote:You used Comcasts claim for an arguement about a detractor that everyone will move to. You're saying Comcast is the detractor by giving them as the example. The bit about net neutrality is just a tag line.

I used Comcast's claim as an example of what any company "like Comcast" might do to take customers away from the competition. The urgency to disagree with me has turned my comment into something else.

Transient wrote:

YourGrandpa wrote:Everyone wants to be right all the time.

Bam.

Just when you thought Trannypants couldn't get more upset.

Dude you're fucking hilarious.

YourGrandpa wrote:

losCHUNK wrote:You used Comcasts claim for an arguement about a detractor that everyone will move to. You're saying Comcast is the detractor by giving them as the example. The bit about net neutrality is just a tag line.

I used Comcast's claim as an example of what any company "like Comcast" might do to take customers away from the competition. The urgency to disagree with me has turned my comment into something else.

That's not what you said, you cherry picked again

...one detractor like Comcast...

That's what you said.

Keep digging up boyo, it's so convincing.

Transient wrote:Dude you're fucking hilarious.

I know.

losCHUNK wrote:That's not what you said, you cherry picked again

...one detractor like Comcast...

That's what you said.

Keep digging up boyo, it's so convincing.

This is what I said...

"Comcast (one of the largest internet service providers) says they will not throttle legal content. So if AT&T decides they are going to throttle specific content, everyone moves to Comcast. Repealing net neutrality sounds like a bad deal all around. But all you need is one detractor like Comcast and suddenly repealing net neutrality doesn't mean a thing."

Meaning, if you have a company with the position Comcast claims to have and competition (AT&T) that disagrees, all you need is one detractor in the marketplace with Comcast's proclaimed business model to change the way the competition is doing business.

Nothing more, nothing less.

If you have competition. If.

YourGrandpa wrote:

losCHUNK wrote:You used Comcasts claim for an arguement about a detractor that everyone will move to. You're saying Comcast is the detractor by giving them as the example. The bit about net neutrality is just a tag line.

I used Comcast's claim as an example of what any company "like Comcast" might do to take customers away from the competition. The urgency to disagree with me has turned my comment into something else.

It's just a very naive view. Comcast has been fighting title II and net neutrality all the way and now that it's about to repealed, they are already backpedaling on their promises. It's typical for the market. Comcast wont be the last to show their true face.
Also, for there to be fair competition, customers need to be well informed to make a good choice of provider. The telcos do everything to obscure their policies. Most people don't understand the implications of not having net neutrality laws.

How is me not believing Comcast naive?

Do you pay bills? You know the stipulation of your cell phone plan. You know what your health insurance covers. You know the interest rate on your credit cards. You know what your cable bill includes. You know your current internet plan. Why would you think people wouldn't understand and make conscious decisions about non net neutral internet plans?

I dunno about you guys but the last 4 places I've lived there has always been two reasonably priced choices for internet. 50Mbit cable or 5Mbit DSL. Sure there is competition..but not really, right?

shaft wrote:I dunno about you guys but the last 4 places I've lived there has always been two reasonably priced choices for internet. 50Mbit cable or 5Mbit DSL. Sure there is competition..but not really, right?

That's been the case at the last three places I've lived too. Cable or barely sufficient DSL. I'm stuck with Comcast at the moment, I wish I could switch over to RCN here in Chicago, but my building was wired by Comcast, so RCN isn't available.

shaft wrote:I dunno about you guys but the last 4 places I've lived there has always been two reasonably priced choices for internet. 50Mbit cable or 5Mbit DSL. Sure there is competition..but not really, right?

I live in a major city. Central. Where we should have "every" telecom available.

We have 2 options. (Not counting shit like hughesnet or other BS garbage internet options)
Cox
AT&T

Cox is moving gig fiber in with 500 megs in place now.
AT&T caps out at 48 megs, in 5% of the city. The rest is 24 or less.


Thankfully COX is mostly awesome. But thats how it is for most people. Even in "major cities". Telecoms have shit wrapped up in nice little bows where they can and cant lay lines. Theres all kinds of state legislation that keeps this shit happening.

Telecom is a joke. Even WITH net neutrality like, theres already tons of monopoly bullshit behind the scenes. Theres a reason you dont see ATT and VERIZON and other companys side by side in a lot of areas. Places where X company owns the copper, they've managed to not allow fiber and cable companys in the door. Its really a giant mess. Theres a few states that its not as bad, like California, but MOST states have some sort of bullshit agreement back from the bell telecom days when they did the splits dividing the countrys states up. Its a giant fucking mess. The things you learn working in corporate telecom. Jesus.


We're so fucked if they can do whatever they want. Soooo fucked.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/09/fcc ... zon-shill/

Gizmodo has obtained video of Pai trying to roast himself at the Federal Communications Bar Assocation's annual event, including a pre-recorded skit where an actual Verizon executive (senior VP Kathy Grillo) talks about wanting to "brainwash and groom a Verizon puppet" to become the FCC chairman, with Pai responding that it sounds like an "awesome" idea.

Seriously, fuck this guy and his giant coffee mug.

RIP


Anyone watch the hearing? what a joke.

well that didn't go well. i just wonder how this cancer is going to affect the rest of the world

ToxicBug wrote:Everything You Need To Know About Why Net Neutrality Is A Terrible Idea

Yeah that article reads like a utopian vision of what ISP's will do when net neutrality is gone.
Besides, I have no real beef with Google trying to improve the quality of their services as it doesn't actively degrade the quality of other services.

ToxicBug wrote:Everything You Need To Know About Why Net Neutrality Is A Terrible Idea

this is the point where this guy lost me:

And what better way to stifle competition in the market, than have these smaller companies subject to a bevy of regulations you’re free of.

he throws out the scary word 'regulation' without explanation of what that actually means because as we all know regulation was invented by Satan in order to reverse 1776 and take away everyone's guns and make us all commies

ffs

Eraser wrote:

ToxicBug wrote:Everything You Need To Know About Why Net Neutrality Is A Terrible Idea

Yeah that article reads like a utopian vision of what ISP's will do when net neutrality is gone.
Besides, I have no real beef with Google trying to improve the quality of their services as it doesn't actively degrade the quality of other services.

I agree, there has to be some sort of middle ground between all the apocalyptical net neutrality proponents and articles like his. I guess we'll see where it goes.