Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How Many People Behind One Account?

damn_registrars (1103043) writes | about 5 years ago

User Journal 32

This is not a call against multiple people using one account. If you want to share your username and password with others, go right ahead. You have your reasons. It has been stated before that there are more than one person using the red4man troll account. They manage to achieve a fair degree of consistency between themselves in a lot of what they do.This is not a call against multiple people using one account. If you want to share your username and password with others, go right ahead. You have your reasons. It has been stated before that there are more than one person using the red4man troll account. They manage to achieve a fair degree of consistency between themselves in a lot of what they do.

I now find myself pondering if there may be more than one person using the smitty_one_each account. Note that I am not accusing smitty of being a troll; however I am wondering if there is really only one. The variation in degree of insight between his posts leaves me wondering. Sometimes you can count on smitty for a reasonable discussion (which is why he is on my friends list) and other times he just wants to cite the new conservative dictionary.

cancel ×

32 comments

Hmmmm (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 5 years ago | (#28541163)

I did change the password on the account, though one cannot disprove the possibility of having been hacked.
There haven't been any "where did that come from?" posts, however.
That said: what is your specific problem with the research and thought behind Goldberg's book?
I submit that there has be a demonstrable shift since Wilson away from 50 States United towards A United State.
Goldberg, for example, led me on a quest to figure out where that "Other" Bill of Rights came from: http://slashdot.org/~smitty_one_each/journal/196922 [slashdot.org]
These ideas are not bad in themselves. Other than completely blowing by the Aricle 5 [usconstitution.net] and Amendment 10 [usconstitution.net] , that is.
However, these crucial discussions don't happen without a book like LF to kick-start it.
What you get instead is a regression from a thinking, egalitarian society to a flock of sheep shepherded by the Anointed [amazon.com] , and programs that are unsustainable, e.g. Social Security, Medicaid, and whatever train wreck single-payer system the Congress of Imaginary Legislation [powerlineblog.com] should care to excrete.
So, again: is your derision towards LF substantial, or are you just pooh-poohing valid counter-arguments, sir?

Re:Hmmmm (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | about 5 years ago | (#28543011)

<i>That said: what is your specific problem with the research and thought behind Goldberg's book?</i>

That question has already been answered. Just because the National Socialists had the word "socialist" in their name doesn't mean they are anything but the opposite of socialists.

Similarly, the DDR was not what you'd call democratic, despite the name.

Goldberg's other arguments are just as stupid, and you really have to know NOTHING to let them get by you.

Therefore, trying to explain the problem with Goldberg's book is wasted on you. The book's only purpose is help to identify the ignorant among us.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 5 years ago | (#28545529)

OK, it sounds like you're playing a terminology game. Got it.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | about 5 years ago | (#28546735)

OK, it sounds like you're playing a terminology game. Got it.

Nice troll. Subtle, it ain't.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | about 5 years ago | (#28553311)

You're a joke. Not your argument. Your argument is just stupid. But YOU are a joke.

You don't even know enough to detect bullshit.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 5 years ago | (#28553759)

I'm reasonably well read in topics like the Constitution and history. While the Right seems sheepish more than a small amount of the time, the really mind-bending up-is-the-new-down stuff seems to come from the Left.
Your tone seems that of the comic book villain at the climax, who realizes that the forces of good which he'd thought slain still have some fight remaining. Out of ammo, he's left to rant "Stupid FOOLS!" and vary that theme as he plays the get-away card.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | about 5 years ago | (#28553857)

There's nothing left for you but mockery. You're not well-read. You read only stuff that reinforces your world view.

For shits and grins, go to a law library and read up on some real scholarly analysis of the 10th Amendment. Conclusion: it's unnecessary, was added as an afterthought, and nobody takes it seriously. For good reason. The only people making any noise about the 10th Amendment are those just as ignorant as you.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 5 years ago | (#28554255)

I think you will find that Agent Smith blew away [slashdot.org] his entire facade about two weeks ago, and he has been mocking us (since before that actually). I admit to having some admiration for his style. He knows how to incite a riot while remaining on the side lines. I took his advice and stopped taking him seriously quite some time ago. But I still love him. Real class act. Ignorant he is not. Sly is a better term I think.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 5 years ago | (#28556553)

Conclusion: it's unnecessary, was added as an afterthought, and nobody takes it seriously. For good reason. The only people making any noise about the 10th Amendment are those just as ignorant as you.

Having read http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Constitution-Akhil-Reed-Amar/dp/1400062624 [amazon.com] , I can report that your opinion is mostly jacked.
It is necessary for the maintenance of Federalism.
It was essential for the ratification of the Constitution in the first place.
"nobody takes it seriously" is semi-accurate, as it has languished, especially since the Progressives came along.

The only people making any noise about the 10th Amendment are those just as ignorant as you.

Oh, come on, Mr. Madoff. I know you're a swell guy and stuff, but I'd just like to see some paper trail to back up your claims. Often, when you get into a serious conversation and meet with ad hominem and bluster it is a Giant Red Flag that the person on the other end of the deal is setting you up for sodomy. But you wouldn't do that to me, would you, Mr. Madoff? I can trust you, can't I?

Re:Hmmmm (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | about 5 years ago | (#28559049)

Obviously you missed the part where he presumably explained that the amendment is redundant. It's not necessary for anything, except to provide another point on which to laugh and point at you.

Paper trails are irrelevant. You can't read them anyway, and I laugh just as much without providing one.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 5 years ago | (#28560151)

I, for one, love you and your l'etat c'est moi style of argumentation.
Possibly I'm brainwashed, having sworn to support and defend the document in a rather formal manner something like a dozen times in my life.
It's certainly true that "We the People" have been collectively asleep at the switch since Woodrow Wilson.
Whether or not it's too late to do anything about the progressively stolen milkshake remains to be seen. Those that hate America are going to find themselves under increasing, non-violent, principled* pressure to live up to the ideals contained in the Constitution, not these imported fancies with proven sucktacular track records. Maybe it doesn't matter, and we'll all go down in flames, and you can roast a hot dog over our corpses while enjoying a good belly laugh. Stay tuned.


*IOW, directly contradicting your sig.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | about 5 years ago | (#28562351)

This fool thinks I'm arguing! Too funny. He doesn't know the difference between an argument and a mocking.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 5 years ago | (#28566611)

I had thought your diaper full, but I can load-shed your replies as though from ACs if that will save us both time.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | about 5 years ago | (#28568613)

That post was not entertaining. Dance, fool!

Re:Hmmmm (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 5 years ago | (#28559273)

Damn, man! You must think we're all made of money. The way you pimp that freakin' amazon, I hope they supplied you with one of these [wordpress.com] , with a chauffeur, youknow, one of them smiley guys with the big teeth. Since you're all up on this constitution thing, does it permit the government to maintain a standing army when congress hasn't actually declared war on anybody? Much less use that army for domestic purposes? I mean WWII has been officially terminated, right? Or are we still fighting World War I?

Re:Hmmmm (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 5 years ago | (#28559903)

Don't take my word for it: http://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html [usconstitution.net]

Re:Hmmmm (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 5 years ago | (#28560289)

Ah, very good. Then it seems that 1878 law against using it for domestic purposes, what's it called? Kama-posse something, posse comicus act, or whatever, is actually unconstitutional and should be written in as an amendment, kinda like prohibition against some drugs. You are against an unconstitutional prohibition, right?

Re:Hmmmm (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 5 years ago | (#28566567)

Do you think posse comitatus is unconstitutional, and, if so, why?

Re:Hmmmm (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 5 years ago | (#28572625)

My bad! You're absolutely right. I had read some stupid wiki that wrongly mentions a limit on the government, when upon reading the act itself, it appears to be congress simply reasserting it's constitutional authority that it alone possesses, in response to local officials or generals trying to use the military for the same thing...I believe...unless there's some hidden article that lets the prez do what he wants... Anyway, it appears that congress can use the military for domestic purposes or even possibly authorize the president if it so desires. You win this round...but I'll be baaaack HAHAHHAHAhahaha.....*

Re:Hmmmm (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 5 years ago | (#28574307)

We didn't go deeply into it, but from my Naval War College course, the big deal has to do with who is the HMFIC.
National Guard troops work for the Governor. If they get nationalized, they come under US Army OPCON.
Who foots the bill for the troops is the other sticky wicket.
Regular Army units can be detailed to work within a state, e.g. for disaster relief, but they're almost certain to fall under OPCON of a state National Guard commander, and ultimately, the governor.
These are all fine points and minutia to the militia. However, these pointy-headed politicians will fight savagely over them, because the stakes are so small.

You love me! You really love me! (0, Troll)

Red4man (1347635) | about 5 years ago | (#28541349)

Dumbass. Stop being weird. And be nice to your sister, or you're grounded for a week. DON'T LOOK AT ME THAT WAY YOUNG MAN, I'M SERIOUS!

Re:You love me! You really love me! (1)

Jimmy_Slimmy (1499943) | about 5 years ago | (#28542977)

Now, Red, don't be so hard on the boy.  He tries. And it is good to ask questions.

Even I ask questions.  Like, gee, Red, how many names do you post under?

Red?

Red?

Are you there, Red?  Someone?  Anyone?

Re:You love me! You really love me! (1)

jimmy_thlimmy (1589325) | about 5 years ago | (#28543273)

I know, I thould really jutht give him some wet sloppy kithes like to do and then thtart thucking him off like you do.

Ath far ath your other quethtion, thweetie, I guess the answer ith wouldn't you like to know how many throwaway accountth we hath.
Does your ath hurt from getting is pounded nightly? Does it? Jimmy? Jimmy? Jimmy?

Re:You love me! You really love me! (1)

Jimmy_Slimmy (1499943) | about 5 years ago | (#28543401)

My, what a BIG number you have!  Can I cut and paste it?

1589325

There.  Does that feel good?  I hope so.

dumbath.

Re:You love me! You really love me! (1)

jimmy_thlimmy (1589325) | about 5 years ago | (#28543543)

Of courthe, thweetie, you know I'm much bigger than you. It'th why you love me so much, cause I can rub your prothtate. You know it feelth good, thweetie. Just a little deeper. Oh? Did you feel that in your tiny little ath? I jutht hit it and I thtill have another 2 inches.

Thit. Well, at leatht I can get it halfway down your throat. I know how you love that.

Pass the popcorn, please... (1)

Abreu (173023) | about 5 years ago | (#28542857)

No offense meant, damn_registrars, but reading your journal is getting more and more interesting all the time...

Re:Pass the popcorn, please... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 5 years ago | (#28543521)

No offense meant, damn_registrars

None taken. You have to try a lot harder than that to offend me.

reading your journal is getting more and more interesting all the time

I'd love to know what aspect of my journal entries you are referring to, and what you mean by interesting.

Re:Pass the popcorn, please... (2, Insightful)

Abreu (173023) | about 5 years ago | (#28547829)

Basically I find your struggle against slashdot trolls funny... kinda like the dutch boy putting his finger on the hole in the dam

Re:Pass the popcorn, please... (1)

pudge_confirmer (1504761) | about 5 years ago | (#28548977)

Hey, Abreu, I notice by a google search that a dumbass did for me, that you probably follow sports, like that dumbass pudge.

Or are you really pudge?

But your point about dutch boys putting their finger in a dyke is well taken. Although I am not against that, on principle.

<disclaimer>  the preceding was not meant to offend the sensibilities of any sentient being, but was only LART bait put out for dumbasses, and should be taken in that context  </disclaimer> 

Re:Pass the popcorn, please... (1)

Red4man (1347635) | about 5 years ago | (#28549787)

Hey, Abreu, I notice by a google search that a dumbass did for me,
Thanks for admitting your sock puppet, dumbass.

By the way, did you know that there's loads of people with the surname of Abreu in Venezuela? GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND, YOU DAMN KIDS.

My lawn. Off it, motherfucker.

Re:Pass the popcorn, please... (1)

Jimmy_Slimmy (1499943) | about 5 years ago | (#28544715)

Hey!  A new voice is heard from!

Hi, I'm James, but I go by Jimmy.  Abreu, such a nice name.  What does it mean?

--
Yo quiero mezcal. Damelo, por favor.

Re:Pass the popcorn, please... (1)

Red4man (1347635) | about 5 years ago | (#28546863)

This will be helpful. [lmgtfy.com]
Lazy dumbass.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...