Log In | Register
33 Comments
PrintFCC screws consumers with faux net neutrality rule
News Type: Opinion — Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:02 PM EDT
advertisement
You've probably heard all sorts of hype about "net neutrality". Big companies want it so they don't have to pay for the bandwidth and infrastructure that will allow them to build new applications that only power users would want to use. The cable and wireless companies oppose it because they don't want to have to bear the costs of developing the infrastructure to make Google and Amazon (and other companies like them) more profitable.
You and I are caught in the middle. Some consumers are "power users" -- bandwidth hogs who have been uploading and downloading large files (often illegally). Local nodes sometimes lock out low-bandwidth users when the bandwidth hogs take charge.
The Internet access providers have been struggling to manage their service loads through various means. One controversial practice was to stop the bandwidth hogs in their tracks, thus allowing the majority of users to continue accessing the Internet at a reasonable pace.
The Federal Communications Commission has once again demonstrated that the American government will place the interests of the few ahead of the interests of the many by proposing a new 'net neutrality' rule that prevents the carriers from blocking bandwidth hogs' activities.
Not only does this Net Favoritism rule make it easier for people to engage in illegal activity (violating intellectual property rights across the board) -- it all but ensures that the rest of us will be charged higher access fees in order to pay for all the new bandwidth that the hogs will want to use.
So-called "Pro Net Neutrality" companies like Google have been lying to the consumer, arguing that Net Neutrality would work for all of us. The truth is that Net Neutrality will simply pave the way for companies like Google to make free use of Internet bandwidth to increase their profits.
Consumers will be hit by double whammies -- we'll have to pay higher access fees to pay for all the new infrastructure Pro Net Neutrality companies are demanding AND we'll have to pay for access to many of those new applications.
Rather than just bundle the cost of infrastructure development into their capital improvements budgets, the Pro Net Neutrality companies want the consumer to pay the bill regardless of whether the consumer would even want to use those applications.
What's funny is that although the Republican Party has not championed the cause of the little guy much over the past couple of years, they do hope to block the FCC rule with legislation.
You should contact your Democratic Senators and Congressmen/women and tell them that you do NOT want to pay for the infrastructure that would increase illegal file sharing and add to the profits of large corporations at the expense of consumers (who would get nothing in return).
Net Neutrality is a lie. It is Net Favoritism and we as consumers need to stand up and say "Hell no! I don't want to pay for it!"
9 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- Michael Martinez's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: FactVine
- Regions: none
- Public Discussion (33)
- FactVine
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
63
10
{"commentId":9629151,"authorDomain":"ned-wise"}
Isn't it funny how all these bills and regulations have reasonable sounding names but actually are quite the opposite when read. i.e. The Patriot Act. Google seems to be the 'Microsoft' of the internet.
{"commentId":9629151,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"ned-wise"}
#1 - Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:54 PM EDT
{"commentId":9629505,"authorDomain":"maverick4877"}
the wife and i are mmo players and refuse to pay more for internet usage.i pay a flat rate for unrestricted access to the net and thats what i expect
{"commentId":9629505,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"maverick4877"}
- 6 votes
#2 - Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:13 PM EDT{"commentId":9630127,"authorDomain":"icexe"}
If we both paid the same at an all-you-can-eat buffet, should I be made to pay more afterward because I ate more than you? I don't think so.
Likewise, if I buy the same level of Internet service as you then I should not be "restricted" or penalized simply because I happen to use it more than you do, simple as that.
What Net Neutrality is all about is that if I pay for a 10Mbit connection then that's what I should be getting. They cannot arbitrarily cut me down to 1Mbit simply because I happen to be using what I paid for more often than the other 10Mbit subscribers.
{"commentId":9630127,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"icexe"}
- 8 votes
#3 - Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:49 PM EDT{"commentId":9643901,"authorDomain":"behindmyscreen"}
no... net neutrality is about not allowing your ISPs to throttle a stream of packets simply because it comes from Hulu, etc.
The regulation lets them throttle and block packets that come from illegal sources... the ISP just needs to prove it if customers bring a law suite.
{"commentId":9643901,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"behindmyscreen"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":9644005,"authorDomain":"axxiz144"}
The regulation lets them throttle and block packets that come from illegal sources... the ISP just needs to prove it if customers bring a law suite.
Completely untrue. The DMCA expressly allows ISPs to block access in any form they see fit -- including dropping packets -- coming from "illegal sources" and gives them immunity when they do it.
{"commentId":9644005,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"axxiz144"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":9630860,"authorDomain":"blaze1024"}
If we both paid the same at an all-you-can-eat buffet, should I be made to pay more afterward because I ate more than you? I don't think so.
Likewise, if I buy the same level of Internet service as you then I should not be "restricted" or penalized simply because I happen to use it more than you do, simple as that.
What Net Neutrality is all about is that if I pay for a 10Mbit connection then that's what I should be getting. They cannot arbitrarily cut me down to 1Mbit simply because I happen to be using what I paid for more often than the other 10Mbit subscribers.
That was so well said that I had to repeat it for you. I pay big bucks for a synchronous 50 Mbps connection. If I so choose I have every right to max out that connection 24-7. If they don't want me to max out my connection then don't offer me a damn 50 Mbps connection.
{"commentId":9630860,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"blaze1024"}
- 7 votes
#4 - Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:38 PM EDT{"commentId":9631230,"authorDomain":"axxiz144"}
Big companies want it so they don't have to pay for the bandwidth and infrastructure that will allow them to build new applications that only power users would want to use. The cable and wireless companies oppose it because they don't want to have to bear the costs of developing the infrastructure to make Google and Amazon (and other companies like them) more profitable.
Michael, we're not stupid. You're either incredibly gullible or you're a paid shill.
ISPs sell bandwidth as "unlimited" at a certain speed. This means they have a responsibility to build out the bandwidth to accomodate all of the customers they take money from. If I run an all-you-can-eat buffet, I pray for skinny people, but if I take money from a busload of fat people, that's my problem. As the business owner, my choices are to refuse that busload of fat people or start charging alacarte.
That is, unless you're Comcast... then you can just hire a lobbyist and push the government to fix your bad business model. That's akin to having an all-you-can-eat buffet, but only allowing people to get two plates. It's a lie. It's false advertising.
Net Neutrality is a lie. It is Net Favoritism and we as consumers need to stand up and say "Hell no! I don't want to pay for it!"
You're wrong, plain and simple. It is NOT "net favoritism", it is the prohibition of "net favoritism".
{"commentId":9631230,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"axxiz144"}
- 6 votes
#5 - Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:02 PM EDT{"commentId":9631475,"authorDomain":"mightyblogger"}
What you may not be aware of is how AT&T, Verizon and other broadband providers want to redefine high speed internet to mean 256 kbps. That means you lose you actual high speed connection or pay business rates for home use while still sharing a connection with your neighbors.
This is closely tied to Net Neutrality. They want tiers of internet and to charge different rates for each tier. In Japan with Jcom, home users get 120mbs up and down speed for under $50 a month. The United States is already behind other democratic nations and many 3rd world nations when it comes to speed and pricing.
Don't let the broadband providers get away with this.
Next on their agenda will be locking in your content, so you can use video or search outside of their immediate network. This is really why they want to fight net neutrality, they want to charge you for the type of content you use...
This is corporatism run amuck. You, me and your parents will lose out of this doesn't pass.
{"commentId":9631475,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"mightyblogger"}
- 7 votes
#6 - Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:23 PM EDT{"commentId":9631508,"authorDomain":"mightyblogger"}
{"commentId":9631583,"authorDomain":"michael-martinez"}
It takes some pretty selfish people to demand that I and millions of other Internet users subsidize their Internet activity. Few people can eat more than a specific amount of food at an all-you-can-eat buffet, so the other diners are not really subsidizing heavy eaters in the least.
Where Net Neutrality is concerned, however, the vast majority of Internet users have no intention or desire or need to use up the gobs of bandwidth that heavy users demand. And since many of us have experienced Internet congestion, we have no incentive to encourage more.
There is nothing neutral about Net Neutrality -- it only favors a very small number of people at the expense of the majority.
{"commentId":9631583,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"michael-martinez"}
- 1 vote
#7 - Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:33 PM EDT{"commentId":9633006,"authorDomain":"icexe"}
Then that's the ISP's problem for selling bandwidth that their infrastructure cannot support. By all means, offer only 256K connections if your infrastructure cannot support more, but don't advertise 10Mbit, charge a premium for it and then penalize me when I try to use what I paid for.
{"commentId":9633006,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"icexe"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":9633380,"authorDomain":"axxiz144"}
It takes some pretty selfish people to demand that I and millions of other Internet users subsidize their Internet activity.
Fail. This has nothing to do with "subsidizing" at all. This has to do with a company delivering what they sell. If they sell "unlimited", then that's what they deliver. Otherwise, don't sell it as "unlimited".
There is nothing neutral about Net Neutrality -- it only favors a very small number of people at the expense of the majority.
It makes it impossible for companies like Comcast to invisibly deprioritize packets based on who is paying them extra. That favors everyone.
{"commentId":9633380,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"axxiz144"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":9642380,"authorDomain":"KateInGreensboro"}
There is nothing neutral about Net Neutrality -- it only favors a very small number of people at the expense of the majority.
Fail. You didn't convince me.
{"commentId":9642380,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"KateInGreensboro"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":9632832,"authorDomain":"bubbaburke"}
Everyone is so worried.
If my internet cost is too high I will change to another provider or cancel all together. When the price is back to what I'll pay I will sign back up. Good old competition.
If you say the internet is a right----come back to earth, you live in the US, say that to someone in Africa.
If you say the internet is essential---reset your priorities.
This is not a big deal people.
{"commentId":9632832,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"bubbaburke"}
- 1 vote
#8 - Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:11 PM EDT{"commentId":9633484,"authorDomain":"puckishpixie"}
It's a big deal when we're behind the developed world. You can't boost an economy by having a second rate exchange mechanism and everything is done on the net now.
You know this net neutrality bill is a good thing when AT&T, Comcast, and Time Warner are all spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to stop it. When was the last time any of those companies gave a freaking flying *$%# about you?
{"commentId":9633484,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"puckishpixie"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":9642408,"authorDomain":"KateInGreensboro"}
You know this net neutrality bill is a good thing when AT&T, Comcast, and Time Warner are all spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to stop it. When was the last time any of those companies gave a freaking flying *$%# about you?
Bingo!
{"commentId":9642408,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"KateInGreensboro"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":9633492,"authorDomain":"michael-martinez"}
You can't have "good old competition" in a market that's regulated to prevent natural market forces from having an economic impact.
The majority of consumers have no idea of what Net Neutrality entails. The majority of the people commenting here clearly have no idea of where the nonsense came from in the first place. It was proposed for the benefit of companies that didn't want to pay for the infrastructure improvements they need to develop new applications.
The bandwidth hogging that a few users who violated Internet service providers' terms of service engaged in wasn't anticipated. It simply became the crucible of the latest fabrication of lies and propaganda that have fueled Net Favoritism.
There is no neutrality in a system where only a few people's bad behavior is subsidized by the majority -- who are not given any say in the matter.
Play your silly games on your own dime. I'm not interested in paying for your pleasure.
{"commentId":9633492,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"michael-martinez"}
- 1 vote
#9 - Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:13 PM EDT{"commentId":9633613,"authorDomain":"axxiz144"}
You can't have "good old competition" in a market that's regulated to prevent natural market forces from having an economic impact.
So the stock market has no competition? The Airlines? The airwaves? Our food production? Labor markets? Housing markets? Transportation? Power utilities? All of these are regulated; all of these are competitive.
The majority of consumers have no idea of what Net Neutrality entails
Hence people like you who attempt to blatantly lie to them.
The majority of the people commenting here clearly have no idea of where the nonsense came from in the first place.
Ah yea, go ahead and attack the people instead of the argument... because you can't attack the argument.
It was proposed for the benefit of companies that didn't want to pay for the infrastructure improvements they need to develop new applications.
It was proposed to stop companies like Comcast from silently downgrading services they don't like. These companies have no problem advertising "unlimited high speed" service. They do seem to have a problem building out the network required to deliver it though.
There is no neutrality in a system where only a few people's bad behavior is subsidized by the majority -- who are not given any say in the matter.
THEN DON'T ADVERTISE YOUR PRODUCT AS UNLIMITED!!!
Play your silly games on your own dime. I'm not interested in paying for your pleasure.
No, you're interested in spreading corporate lies. Please, go ahead and try to refute any of the assertions I've made. I've got no problem swatting down your bull@!$%#.
{"commentId":9633613,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"axxiz144"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":9634663,"authorDomain":"michael-martinez"}
Azzix wrote: "Ah yea, go ahead and attack the people instead of the argument... because you can't attack the argument."
I see you want to be ironic.
Look, the facts are simple. Bandwidth hogs don't need a free ride from the rest of us. Google and Amazon don't need for you and me to pick up the tab on infrastructure costs for applications they haven't developed yet.
Now, it's free country -- you're allowed to be stupid and ask the government to make it easy for us to pay higher access fees so that Google and Amazon can make more money.'
I prefer to be more reasonable: I don't want to pay for bandwidth I don't need or intend to use.
{"commentId":9634663,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"michael-martinez"}
- 1 vote
#10 - Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:33 AM EDT{"commentId":9635041,"authorDomain":"axxiz144"}
Look, the facts are simple. Bandwidth hogs don't need a free ride from the rest of us. Google and Amazon don't need for you and me to pick up the tab on infrastructure costs for applications they haven't developed yet.
The facts ARE simple; they just are not what you present them to be. Google and Amazon buy their bandwidth and their infrastructure and pay their own costs. Both have invested billions in their infrastructure. They could use a hundred times their current bandwidth and still not affect us one whit because we simply don't use the same pipes that they do.
you're allowed to be stupid and ask the government to make it easy for us to pay higher access fees so that Google and Amazon can make more money.'
Please explain how Google or Amazon's actions cause us to pay even one extra cent in our bandwidth costs? I'd like to hear something from you other than rhetoric. Maybe you might try refuting what I've said rather than talking past me with all new bull@!$%#.
{"commentId":9635041,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"axxiz144"}
- 7 votes
{"commentId":9640577,"authorDomain":"arad"}
{"commentId":9641195,"authorDomain":"puckishpixie"}
{"commentId":9641523,"authorDomain":"minos"}
You've got it slightly backwards. Net Neutrality isn't so much about the quality of service between you and your ISP, but about preventing your ISP from prioritizing traffic from certain sites to its customers. The ISPs want to charge sites for that preferential treatment. Of course, any site that doesn't pay the fee is de-prioritized by default.
The point of enforcing net neutrality is to prevent ISPs from extorting new or small sites who want to build an audience among that ISP's users. Net neutrality doesn't require additional infrastructure from the ISPs; in fact, the extra infrastructure would be needed for the pay-for-priority system they desire. The real reason the ISPs oppose net neutrality is because they want to milk the content providers alongside their customers.
{"commentId":9641523,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"minos"}
- 2 votes
#13 - Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:46 PM EDT{"commentId":9641552,"authorDomain":"michael-martinez"}
"Please explain how Google or Amazon's actions cause us to pay even one extra cent in our bandwidth costs?"
You need to study the history of the whole Net Neutrality propaganda campaign. That a small number of high bandwidth-using consumers (mostly people participating in illegal torrent streaming) find some benefit in the pro-Net Neutrality arguments doesn't mean it arose as a consumer issue.
The core conflict is between large application providers like Google and Amazon (who need more bandwidth and communications processing power than is now available to develop new applications) and the telecoms, who would have to provide those resources. The telecoms want those companies to pay for the building out of the infrastructure. Those companies want consumers like you and me to pay for the build out through higher access fees.
Gullible consumers have listened to the propaganda coming from the developers without looking at their expenses. You would effectively be subsidizing the construction of a network you wouldn't even be able to use -- these "future applications" are targeted for the government and enterprise markets.
Only an idiot would want to support Net Neutrality because there is nothing neutral about it.
{"commentId":9641552,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"michael-martinez"}
- 1 vote
#14 - Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:47 PM EDT{"commentId":9642573,"authorDomain":"KateInGreensboro"}
Only an idiot would want to support Net Neutrality because there is nothing neutral about it.
Do you really want to insult everyone who disagrees with you? That's a lot of people, a lot of educated, informed people who have studied the issue.
{"commentId":9642573,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"KateInGreensboro"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":9643440,"authorDomain":"axxiz144"}
I see you open #14 with a promising start -- my quote asking you to explain how consumers will pay even one extra cent because of Google or Amazon.
Then you go on to start a whole bunch of bull@!$%# propaganda. You never explain how costs will rise.
The core conflict is between large application providers like Google and Amazon (who need more bandwidth and communications processing power than is now available to develop new applications) and the telecoms, who would have to provide those resources
Thats a flat lie. Google and Amazon pay for their own infrastructure and bandwidth. They buy their datacenters, they purchase the rights to dark fiber. If they use a commercial ISPs bandwidth, they pay for it like any other customer. Nobody gets a free ride on the Internet.
The telecoms want those companies to pay for the building out of the infrastructure. Those companies want consumers like you and me to pay for the build out through higher access fees.
Once again, please explain how a telecom would have to put in even one extra switch, router, mux, T3, T1, node, hub, fiberline, amp or even hire an extra CSR because of Google or Amazon.
If you can't answer this simple question -- and we both know you can't -- then kindly shut the hell up.
{"commentId":9643440,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"axxiz144"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":9644320,"authorDomain":"michael-martinez"}
{"commentId":9644627,"authorDomain":"axxiz144"}
Wrong. Google and Amazon have to use the telecoms' resources just like everyone else. Here is a primer on the issues from 2006:
Um, not wrong. If and when Google and Amazon use an ISPs bandwidth, they pay for it just like anyone else. In general though, they don't. They have built out their own networks and take all network requests straight from their datacenters to the MAE interconnects where they transit the last mile to the requestor on the telecom network.
That last mile network is the one we as subscribers pay for. So, fail.
Interestingly enough, the How Stuff Works article you linked to is pretty good. It does a good job of presenting both sides of the argument.
{"commentId":9644627,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"axxiz144"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":9641607,"authorDomain":"michael-martinez"}
"You've got it slightly backwards. Net Neutrality isn't so much about the quality of service between you and your ISP, but about preventing your ISP from prioritizing traffic from certain sites to its customers. The ISPs want to charge sites for that preferential treatment. Of course, any site that doesn't pay the fee is de-prioritized by default."
No, you just don't know what the score is, although I have explained it several times and several ways in this discussion.
Net Neutrality offers nothing but higher access fees to consumers.
{"commentId":9641607,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"michael-martinez"}
- 1 vote
#15 - Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:49 PM EDT{"commentId":9643544,"authorDomain":"axxiz144"}
{"commentId":9644780,"authorDomain":"axxiz144"}
So you deleted my comment because you can't refute it? Wow... prepare for suspension of your mod privs pal. I guess you never bothered to read the rules of this place.
My comment in no way violated the Code of Honor. Perhaps you should read it.
Do not delete comments based on disagreement; remove only comments that grossly violate the Code of Honor or the User Agreement.
My original post. I haven't edited a single word of it, becase nothing in it violates the CoH:
No, you just don't know what the score is, although I have explained it several times and several ways in this discussion.
Bull@!$%#. You haven't explained anything. You've just offered repetitions of the same tired lies you started this scam with. But please, please go ahead, explain something.
I'm a net engineer, I've worked with the Internet since it was called "Arpanet". I'm intimately aware of the physical, logical and economic touchpoints of the 'net. I used to own an ISP and designed the physical network for said ISP. You're so ignorant about the subject you could be a poster child for the word ignorant.
Net Neutrality offers nothing but higher access fees to consumers.
For the third time, please back up this assertion with evidence.
{"commentId":9644780,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"axxiz144"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":9642660,"authorDomain":"behindmyscreen"}
{"commentId":9643418,"authorDomain":"arad"}
{"commentId":9643695,"authorDomain":"KateInGreensboro"}
This should be marked as News OPINION. I have reported it as such. As classified it is woefully inaccurate, at best.
{"commentId":9643695,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"KateInGreensboro"}
- 3 votes
#18 - Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:20 PM EDT{"commentId":9643800,"authorDomain":"behindmyscreen"}
{"commentId":9644081,"authorDomain":"axxiz144"}
{"commentId":9644242,"authorDomain":"KateInGreensboro"}
{"commentId":9644864,"authorDomain":"axxiz144"}
{"commentId":9644364,"authorDomain":"michael-martinez"}
I have reclassified the article as News Opinion. I have also, once again, posted more information (citing another source).
I cannot change the fact that several of you have no idea of what you are talking about.
I can, however, and shall continue to delete flames. If you want to disagree with me in this discussion, please do so in a civil manner.
{"commentId":9644364,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"michael-martinez"}
- 1 vote
#19 - Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:47 PM EDT{"commentId":9644517,"authorDomain":"arad"}
{"commentId":9644777,"authorDomain":"KateInGreensboro"}
Michael - fine - show additional sources which share your view. Be advised, however, that deleting every comment which states, correctly, that your understanding of net neutrality is not consistant with the vast majority of Americans' understanding of the issue does nothing to further discussion. Maybe where you come from shutting down discussion is the way things are done; it's the opposite in my world.
Don't worry about me; I'll move along now.
{"commentId":9644777,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"KateInGreensboro"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":9644944,"authorDomain":"axxiz144"}
{"commentId":9644887,"authorDomain":"behindmyscreen"}
{"commentId":9644937,"authorDomain":"michael-martinez"}
I understand that the majority of people in America -- having been lied to for so long -- have no clear understanding of what is really at stake in Net Neutrality. That, however, does not excuse the childish attacks so many people posted here.
I'm quite familiar with the unprofessional, "wild west" shoot-em-up attitude that prevails in so many comments here on Newsvine. That doesn't mean I'm going to allow that kind of nonsense in comments on my own articles.
I've had my fill of flame wars. It's a shame that cannot be said of others who have posted in this discussion.
{"commentId":9644937,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"michael-martinez"}
- 1 vote
#21 - Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:10 PM EDT{"commentId":9644968,"authorDomain":"michael-martinez"}
Clearly, since the attacks are continuing, it's best to just close the comments. Complain to the admins if you wish.
{"commentId":9644968,"threadId":"682376","contentId":"3297616","authorDomain":"michael-martinez"}
- 1 vote
#22 - Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:11 PM EDT
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
