Comments on: Testifying @ FCC @ Stanford http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/testifying-fcc-stanford/ Blog, news, books Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.2 By: Quiz http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/testifying-fcc-stanford/#comment-13192 Mon, 05 May 2008 09:45:49 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html#comment-13192 I don’t believe this will violate any neutrality policies whatsoever. We need this for better business.

]]>
By: George Ou http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/testifying-fcc-stanford/#comment-13191 Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:54:34 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html#comment-13191 To Mr. Peterson,

“So your argument seems to be that regardless of the number of people at any given event who stand on one side or another of a given topic, each specific stance should be given equal airtime. In other words, if there are eleven people in a room and each of them are given equal airtime to speak their minds on a given subject matter, you feel that if ten are of one opinion and one of them another, then the overall debate was unfair because one stance got ten times more airtime than did the other.”

No, it wasn’t just a numerical advantage; it was a time given to individuals advantage. Not only were there mostly people who knew nothing about networking invited to speak, they got more time to speak. Lessig who hardly contributed anything substantive took 26 minutes to give a presentation while I had about 7 minutes with a minute of that interrupted. Lessig spent 8 minutes just answering 2 questions back-to-back from the Chairman while I was prevented from giving even a quick reply.

The fact is that much of the key testimony from Jon Peha and Robb Topolski was just wrong.
http://www.formortals.com/Home/tabid/36/EntryID/11/Default.aspx

And to Feryurself,
I dodged nothing and I satisfied the question from the Commissioner. I have never to this date taken a dime from any cable or telecom company for any political activity. Here is my full disclosure from my last employer CNET Networks http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?page_id=557 as of last month. As Technical Director and Editor at Large at ZDNet, full disclosure was mandatory for employment and I’ve been talking about Net Neutrality since middle of 2006 with no pay from anyone. On the other hand, all the folks from Free Press do get corporate money and they should have been the ones getting the questioning.

]]>
By: M. David Peterson http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/testifying-fcc-stanford/#comment-13190 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:55:41 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html#comment-13190 @bs,

>> @ m. peterson:

>> Very constructive comments.

Thanks! :D

]]>
By: M. David Peterson http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/testifying-fcc-stanford/#comment-13189 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:52:35 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html#comment-13189 @Seth,

>> I heard you. He heard you. That’s obviously not sufficient to change anything in terms of “is” versus “ought”. Now what?

We agree to disagree?

]]>
By: Seth Finkelstein http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/testifying-fcc-stanford/#comment-13188 Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:05:10 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html#comment-13188 I listened to parts of it. This portion is at around time 2:03.

The moderator refers to “someone shouted out a question about this”, talks about compensation “Is anyone receiving any compensation, has your travel here been paid for …” [talks about consulting ... something hard to hear about someone (George?) not having to travel far].

Then: “So everyone is here on their own dime? … George, you’re here own your own dime?”

[Note he's addressing George Ou in specific because of the accusation.]

George Ou: “I drove here. With Richard Bennett.”
(someone else jokes – “We’re taking collections later.”)

Moderator: “OK, I just wanted to get that out of the way.”

It’s clear in context that George Ou is not evading anything, and the moderator is satisfied with the response.

]]>
By: C. Feryurself http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/testifying-fcc-stanford/#comment-13187 Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:33:10 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html#comment-13187 You can see the entire hearing here.

http://www.vontv.net/default.cfm?id=9667&clip=2&type=wmhigh

George identifies his position on the topic before the “heckler” calls out., “Who sent you, Comcast?” Later, someone on the FCC side says, “as someone in the audience asked” and questions panel members on whether they are representing someone other than themselves. He asks George specifically and he only says, “I drove myself here,” not addressing the question about who he might be representing. Probably an oversight butthat probably did not play well with this audience.

Looked carefully and it does NOT look at all like “nearly half the people” in the audience are from Poor News as George states above.

I will say for George he had a tough act to follow, the lady from Christian Coalition was a surprise panelist who got a big cheer from the left-wing crowd. Abandoned by the ISP’s who wouldn’t show put a lot of onus on him as well.

]]>
By: C. Feryurself http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/testifying-fcc-stanford/#comment-13186 Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:32:19 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html#comment-13186 You can see the entire hearing here.

http://www.vontv.net/default.cfm?id=9667&clip=2&type=wmhigh

George identifies his position on the topic before the “heckler” calls out., “Who sent you, Comcast?” Later, someone on the FCC side says, “as someone in the audience asked” and questions panel members on whether they are representing someone other than themselves. He asks George specifically and he only says, “I drove myself here,” not addressing the question about who he might be representing. Probably an oversight butthat probably did not play well with this audience.

Looked carefully and it does NOT look at all like “nearly half the people” in the audience are from Poor News as George states above.

I will say for George he had a tough act to follow, the lady from Christian Coalition was a surprise panelist who got a big cheer from the left-wing crowd. Abandoned by the ISP’s who wouldn’t show put a lot of onus on him as well.

]]>
By: bs http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/testifying-fcc-stanford/#comment-13185 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:31:51 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html#comment-13185 @ m. peterson:

Very constructive comments.

@ george ou

I was personally at the hearing, and you didn’t get it half as bad as George Ford did. The problem is that you were at a public hearing. And we public can be unruly.

I heard many comments about the fact that industry representatives chose not to attend. Your side deserted you to the public by failing to stand up for themselves at this hearing. That is why it was so one-sided. I do not think you should have gotten extra time to speak simply because your fellows were so ashamed of themselves they couldn’t bring themselves to show up. I showed up and I only got 90 seconds to speak because you guys ran over.

Personally, I’m trying to read all the coverage I can find to find out more about concrete solutions that have been proposed. And personally, I thought it was very telling to hear about how the networks have been allocated to favor television over internet. The ratio I heard was 98% to 2%. If this is correct, then I have to confess, this is not really the scarce resource it’s made out to be. It’s all bandwidth, right? Is there no way to address that in your view?

I mean, it seems like that’s the tiering we’re all describing already. The cable channels get a ton, and I get a pittance. Now the ISPs want to shave my pittance. That may be a rather simplistic view, but I don’t yet understand that it’s wrong from anyone. And unfortunately, this was not adequately addressed at the hearing.

@ lessig
I really appreciate the additional content you’re making available here for us. It’s really wonderful to see professionals who are not only willing to argue on behalf of the public good, but also to then extend a hand to the public to help us understand these issues. Thanks for your efforts and patience.

]]>
By: Seth Finkelstein http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/testifying-fcc-stanford/#comment-13184 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:19:10 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html#comment-13184 Lessig has at times gotten angry when he’s felt himself under attack by what he views as unprincipled opponents. My point is that it’s overall simply not helpful to finger-wag at someone who is upset from being heckled or smeared. It has the effect of rewarding the tactics of the attacker, by adding to the grief of the target.

At the core, the P2P-throttling is not an especially difficult issue to lay out – there is X capacity, Y users, some uses crowd out others, what to do, what’s fair. There is an enormous amount of noise-making around that basic question, some of which is in very bad-faith (let’s not have an Attack Of The Strawmen here, of “You think EVERY …”, when in fact “I think THIS …”).

Look, this exchange is repeating itself. George Ou is upset, and I’d say for a very understandable reason. You can keep saying that interferes with purely rational argument. I heard you. He heard you. That’s obviously not sufficient to change anything in terms of “is” versus “ought”. Now what?

]]>
By: M. David Peterson http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/testifying-fcc-stanford/#comment-13183 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:07:37 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html#comment-13183 @Seth,

>> (again, saying someone should be saintly in this situation is not really achievable by average people).

I’m not suggesting “saintly” as a requirement for anything. But I’ve read thousands of arguments in my lifetime that didn’t including patronizing those in whom disagreed with their position. Professor Lessig, for example, provides a perfect example of how you can present your argument while at the same time being respectful to those in whom disagree with his opinion. What I am suggesting is that it’s a lot easier to pay attention to someone’s primary argument when it’s not filled with patronizing acts of “self defense.”

]]>
By: M. David Peterson http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/testifying-fcc-stanford/#comment-13182 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:53:20 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html#comment-13182 @George Ou,

>> I did present hard data, so why don’t YOU stop referring to people as “pricks”?

I wasn’t calling you a prick because you didn’t present hard data. I was calling you a prick because you were being one.

>> Despite your name calling, I’m going to refrain from doing it back to you.

Thanks! ;-)

No, in all seriousness, I appreciate the fact that you feel you were being attacked and felt the need to defend yourself. I honestly do. But from the outside looking in, when I read your comments I kept coming across bits and pieces in which you felt the need to question the Grannies intelligence, suggesting it was because they couldn’t grok the subject matter and therefore had no clue what they were talking about. I disagree with that viewpoint. From what I’ve seen the Grannies had showcased the fact that they understood the material being debated quite well, so attempting to use the “You couldn’t possibly understand because you’re just not smart enough.” card was completely out of line.

In this regard, it was hard to see the forest for the trees when it seemed your primary argument was one of patronizing rather than presenting the facts as you saw them.

>> You’re so focused on me attacking the Grannies but I was just telling it as I saw it.

And I’m telling you how I saw it, my point being that it’s a lot easier to understand your argument when that same argument doesn’t make every attempt to patronize your critics. In my experience, those in whom feel the need to patronize their critics do so because they feel their primary argument in and of itself isn’t strong enough to stand on it’s own. So they cloud and confuse the issue with patronizing comments. Whether this is or is not the case with you it’s tough to overcome that impression when it sits at the center of nearly every comment I have seen you make on the matter.

>> As for Larry Lessig, he MISLEAD the public again repeating the lie that Verizon blocked text messages. That’s a fact which you seem to be willing to ignore.

I haven’t ignored any “facts”. I just haven’t given any air time to the specifics of anyones argument for the same reason outlined above.

>> As for that audience, nearly half of them were literally bused in from “Poor Magazine” who came in there to knock anything corporate or seen as corporate.

Wow. You really insist on continuing down this path of class deviation, don’t you. George, stop clouding the damn issue with random side-clutter that has no relation to the argument of Net Neutrality. Just because someone disagrees with your opinion on a subject matter doesn’t mean they are stupid, incompetent, and/or poor and therefore “obviously biased by their hatred towards corporations and/or people who have more money than they do” which is exactly what you are attempting to do.

Quit the bullshit, George. Stop trying to cloud the issue and focus on the primary argument. Otherwise why should anyone pay attention to what you have to say? 90% of it is just random fluff, with a primary focus on using personal attacks justified by playing the “victim” card.

George, you’re not a victim so stop using this as the central focus of your argument.

>> As for this event, let’s stop pretending it was some sort of fair and civilized debate. You had one side getting 10 times the amount of time to speak and everyone that didn’t agree with Lessig and Free Press were essentially outnumbered and weren’t given nearly the same amount of time to speak.

So your argument seems to be that regardless of the number of people at any given event who stand on one side or another of a given topic, each specific stance should be given equal airtime. In other words, if there are eleven people in a room and each of them are given equal airtime to speak their minds on a given subject matter, you feel that if ten are of one opinion and one of them another, then the overall debate was unfair because one stance got ten times more airtime than did the other.

Is this true?

]]>
By: Brian http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/testifying-fcc-stanford/#comment-13181 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:43:37 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html#comment-13181 Thanks for sharing your thoughts on FFC it was a good read, I am loving the blog…finding plenty to read but theres not much work getting done here lol

- Britec – http://www.britec.org.uk
http://www.britec.co.uk

]]>
By: X http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/testifying-fcc-stanford/#comment-13180 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 06:03:02 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html#comment-13180 Apologies for the double post, I got an Internal Server Error the first time, and it didn’t seem to go through. You may remove the duplicity if you please (and perhaps this post).

]]>
By: X http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/testifying-fcc-stanford/#comment-13179 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 05:56:08 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html#comment-13179 I agree with the views presented in the talk, they make economic sense both for businesses and consumers. However, I think “volume caps” are a dangerous business practice that can leave ISPs free to jack up the overlimit charges, advertising one lower rate in very large print, and then adding the higher overlimit rate in very fine print. Sure, it is a form of metered access, but is it good for consumers? I say no for this reason. I’m sure no consumer likes the sometimes outrageous overcharges that cell phone companies enforce for going over your minutes.

Another point against this type of metered access is the consumer’s concept of their own consumption. With other commodities, we can accurately judge how much we will need, ie: “I think I’ll only eat X # of apples this month”. We can’t accurately judge how much bandwidth we’ll use over a given period of time, which I think will allow the “tigers” out there to feast on consumer’s wallets, and take advantage of them. Why would this happen?

The main answer is: Lack of Competition. Without adequate competition in the market, companies will be free to jack up prices and encourage low volume caps and high overlimit charges, therefore resulting in a lack of abundance. Consumers will have no choice but take the only offer out there if they want access, which many of us do nowadays. How to fix this? The barriers to entry in the ISP market need to be broken down. One way this can be done is through new technologies. Cables and fiber are expensive to deploy, wireless is not. There have been some progressive initiatives in this area to acquire free wireless internet in some cities, but which are being stifled for strange issues being brought up such as their being used for pornography and other things. That’s a whole other can of worms though. I think that’s a step in the right direction for the market.

In conclusion, if we are to allow metered access, a form of speed regulation in price tiers is the way to go. Consumers benefit from the choice of different speeds with no limit to how much data they push at that speed, companies benefit from more adequate allocation of network resources to those that want or need them. The question of network regulation due to congestion is not due to consumption over time, it’s due to too many people consuming data all at the same time at the highest speed they can push through the pipes until they are clogged.

]]>
By: DB http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/testifying-fcc-stanford/#comment-13178 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:55:11 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html#comment-13178 There is currently a bill working its way through the California legislature (SB 1438) to implement the precise type of non-neutral electricity grid network management that you cautioned against in your presentation:

These “smart grid” technologies include:

“Development and incorporation of demand response, demand-side resources, and energy-efficiency resources.”

“Deployment of smart technologies, including real time, automated, interactive technologies that optimize the physical operation of appliances and consumer devices for metering, communications concerning grid operations and status, and distribution automation.”

The bill’s sponsors have not met the ridiculous burden of proof which you recommend, yet most people recognize that a neutral electricity grid is wasteful and inefficient. Why shouldn’t we embrace new technologies to save energy and ensure better service and lower prices for all?

The bill passed committee with unanimous bipartisan support. Where do you stand?

]]>
By: Chuck McCown http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/testifying-fcc-stanford/#comment-13177 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:01:28 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html#comment-13177 Only choice is telco or cable?
I beg to differ. There are thousands of companies delivering high speed internet (10 Mbps in my case) via high speed wireless. We do it at $29.95 per month. These companies are called WISPs. Don’t think that telco and cable are the only choices, most of the nation is getting blanked with WISP activity.

]]>
By: Interested Bystander http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/testifying-fcc-stanford/#comment-13176 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:06:06 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html#comment-13176 The fundamental problem with a non-neutral internet and metered service as well is the Atificial Monopolies created for communication services in the US. If anyone could provides their own infrastructure and in turn provide service to customers without being blocked by negotiated monopolies at the cit, state and even national level there would be competition.

Noone other then Comcast is allowed to lay cable and provide service in my community and nobody other then AT&T can run local copper. This together with the fact that they are no longer required to share their infrastructure at a reasonable rate allowed them to kill any and all broadband competition. The have become a duopoly that is every bit as flawed as the old Ma Bell was and like any public service monopoly need to either be very strictly regulated to ensure that the Public is best served or their monopolies need to be eliminated by allowing free and unfetered competition. In addition require that contracts all be month to month to prevent the bait and switch vendor lockin that is rampent in the industry and you will finally have a true free market for these services.

Once this occurs customers will be free to deal with issues such as content throtling/blocking and bandwidth limits/caps by voting with their feet/dollars by changing suppliers. This is what will drive infrastructure buildout and improvement by allowing those who do to offer a superior product and reap the benefits from doing so. At present there is no incentive for the entrenched monopolies to do much beyond setting up more and more barriers to switching providers.

]]>
By: Stephen Fitch http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/testifying-fcc-stanford/#comment-13175 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:09:25 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html#comment-13175 It seems free market capitalism is lost from the USA – there really is no choice – only Telco or Cable.

It would seem the USA has lost its way leading capitalist innovation.

A sad state of affairs.

]]>
By: George Ou http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/testifying-fcc-stanford/#comment-13174 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:27:00 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html#comment-13174 To Mr. Peterson,

I did present hard data, so why don’t YOU stop referring to people as “pricks”? Despite your name calling, I’m going to refrain from doing it back to you.

I presented all the data here
http://www.formortals.com/Home/tabid/36/EntryID/3/Default.aspx
That has my presentation and my letter to the FCC.

You’re so focused on me attacking the Grannies but I was just telling it as I saw it. Those old ladies attacked me as soon as I spoke my name on the panel and they attacked me personally outside after the event. I’d never met these ladies in my life and I had never said a single nasty word to them.

As for that audience, nearly half of them were literally bused in from “Poor Magazine” who came in there to knock anything corporate or seen as corporate.

As for the media, they failed to pick up on Larry Lessig’s support for the need on “bandwidth commitments” AKA “volume caps” AKA “metered pricing” and they were fooled by Larry’s subtle wording. The Grannies here are still insisting that Free Press and Larry Lessig are against metered pricing when they’re saying they think metered pricing is a better alternative. It’s 100% obvious they’re not picking up on the subtle support for metered pricing and they’re slamming me when I’m the one that’s actually in support of their position which is against all forms of metered pricing. So it’s quite obvious we’re dealing with people playing with less than a full deck of cards in the intellect department.

As for Larry Lessig, he MISLEAD the public again repeating the lie that Verizon blocked text messages. That’s a fact which you seem to be willing to ignore.

As for Jon Peha, Richard Bennett and I took him to task for knowing little or nothing about P2P or BitTorrent. The man’s testimony was so filled with errors that he was plastered when Richard and I corrected him before and after the panel.

As for this event, let’s stop pretending it was some sort of fair and civilized debate. You had one side getting 10 times the amount of time to speak and everyone that didn’t agree with Lessig and Free Press were essentially outnumbered and weren’t given nearly the same amount of time to speak.

George Ou
http://www.formortals.com

]]>
By: Seth Finkelstein http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/testifying-fcc-stanford/#comment-13173 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:12:11 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html#comment-13173 FYI, for George Ou’s presentation material, follow the links he has on his 4/19 blog post at:

http://www.lanarchitect.net/

(this should not be taken as an endorsement of all that’s written in said blog post)

]]>
By: Seth Finkelstein http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/testifying-fcc-stanford/#comment-13172 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:52:46 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html#comment-13172 “Raging Grannies” doesn’t have “a cause”, except perhaps in a very general sense of that term. Do a e.g. Google News search for their name, and read their blog on Yahoo, and you’ll see they show up on a bunch of hot topics, garnering media attention. The key thing to realize is that these people are not interested in the specifics of any issue. It is not that they lack the raw intelligence to comprehend it – but, bluntly, they don’t care and they aren’t going to listen. The most charitable description of these types is “performers”. There are some common less-charitable descriptions.

Now, if you’re going to say that liberal/intellectual codes of conduct require someone to try to patiently reason with a PR flack, I would say you’re mistaken. One thing an activist has to learn to be effective is when you’re wasting your time and energy with a person who is just there to make political attacks. These kinds of people do exist, that’s reality.

George Ou is annoyed at them because they hassled him and they’re obviously “performers”. That’s the answer to the “Why?” (again, saying someone should be saintly in this situation is not really achievable by average people).

]]>
By: M. David Peterson http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/testifying-fcc-stanford/#comment-13171 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:23:52 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html#comment-13171 >>>> Look up this group if you doubt my characterization of them. They’re not exactly advocates of rational informed debate.

>> /me is researching…

I guess maybe I’m missing something, because the only thing I have come across is examples of women who — while obviously passionate (that’s not a bad thing!) — believe in their cause and are willing to go out on a limb to bring notice to what they believe in. The questions that keep popping into my head with all of this is,

> Why are they so passionate about their cause?

> Why is George Ou continually patronizing them?

From the outside looking in, my immediate impression is not “You know, George has got a point.” and instead “Wow, he really is an arrogant prick.” Maybe my impressions are wrong, but that’s the way things appear, which leads me to the same two questions from above.

Why?

]]>
By: M. David Peterson http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/testifying-fcc-stanford/#comment-13170 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:52:23 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html#comment-13170 @Seth,

>> I’d say to cut George Ou some slack, being that the Raging Grannies did indeed heckle him during his presentation, are unapologetic about it…

It’s tough to cut George any slack when he continues to cut-down the intelligence of everyone who disagrees with or contends directly against his viewpoint. It would be one thing if it was a single remark. Though still not justified, at least it could be seen as a one off rant, as opposed to a true representation of his character. Unfortunately, he has continued on throughout most of his follow-up posts to cut down the Grannies at every opportunity,

e.g. >> It’s easy to miss for someone like yourself when you have your mind made up and your instructions to shout me down on first contact.

e.g. >> But it’s obvious that Lessig’s words right on the top of this page in this blog entry is beyond your comprehension.

e.g. >> I guess the grannies can’t help themselves from being brainwashed on this matter,

My point is that it’s difficult to take his comments seriously when he continually uses the “Well, I wouldn’t expect you to understand because your simply not intelligent enough.” card as his defense.

@George Ou,

If at all possible, please present your views in a format that doesn’t use contention and/or slander and/or derogatory comments and/or statements pertaining to other peoples intelligence as the backbone of your argument. Something similar to,

“I believe that X is a [good|bad] thing because of Y+. Here is some additional information you can use to better understand my position.”

… would be really helpful in better understanding your overall stance, something that is difficult to understand when it’s clouded with trash talk about other peoples intelligence and/or intent.

>> It’s extremely frustrating to do activism on your own, and to be confronted with political attackers who simply throw mud and hope something sticks.

Fair enough. I can certainly understand the frustration in this regard.

>> Look up this group if you doubt my characterization of them. They’re not exactly advocates of rational informed debate.

/me is researching…

]]>
By: Seth Finkelstein http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/testifying-fcc-stanford/#comment-13169 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:27:51 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html#comment-13169 I’d say to cut George Ou some slack, being that the Raging Grannies did indeed heckle him during his presentation, are unapologetic about it, and are obviously bandwagon-jumpers (tedious anti-strawman: All statements converting this to some form of “Huh, you think ALL PEOPLE WHO …” are categorically denied – I claim THESE PEOPLE ARE, got it?).

It’s extremely frustrating to do activism on your own, and to be confronted with political attackers who simply throw mud and hope something sticks. Look up this group if you doubt my characterization of them. They’re not exactly advocates of rational informed debate.

]]>
By: M. David Peterson http://www.lessig.org/2008/04/testifying-fcc-stanford/#comment-13168 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 05:07:51 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2008/04/testifying_fcc_stanford.html#comment-13168 @George Ou,

You really are an arrogant prick. Regardless of whether or not I agree or disagree with your points, your ongoing comments such as,

“so that it goes over the heads of his mindless followers like the Raging Grannies.”

… suggest you are of the obvious belief that you are far superior to any one and everyone who doesn’t agree with your view point.

Do you honestly believe that people will respond to you with respect when you continually showcase the fact that you have none for them?

]]>