Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On 23:48 20 Nov 2021, bitrex said:
On 11/20/2021 6:41 PM, Pamela wrote:
On 23:02 20 Nov 2021, bitrex said:
On 11/20/2021 4:33 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 15:07:31 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net
wrote:
14 hours a day of opinion pieces is a lot cheaper than
maintaining foreign news bureaus, too.
The BBC manages to somehow do both! It\'s amazing what you can do
with limitless cash extorted from the public under the threat of
imprisonment, it seems.
The real crime with American media is they almost universally
expect you to pay to watch/read it, instead of the reverse.
I wanted to watch the Red Sox lose to the Astros and it\'s never
been harder to just watch a game than it is now, it\'s all
paywalled to hell and gone with a few captive providers and who
would ever pay them for a subscription.
Fox was carrying it online and they give you a free 1 hour trial
so I watched it for an hour and then just repasted the link to the
free trial in a Chrome incognito window thinking \"no way this is
gonna work\" and it worked fine, what a bunch of dumb-dumbs.
You could probably just write a script to automate that and get
infinite sports TV until they figure it out.
I haven\'t used them for a while but you might still be able to
stream Fox TV with these links. Also other U.S. channels too.
http://watchnewslive.tv.fox
http://livenewsnow.com/featured/fox-news.html
Looks like those are for Fox News (ick), but in the US they have a
number of other channels that carry live sports etc. that you can
only watch online if you have like a cable TV provider login, or
subscribe to one of those online service like Hulu, Fubo, Sling,
YouTubeTV, and probably pay some additional monthly fee, I haven\'t
checked.
The sites offer other live U.S. channels too. I used Fox in the links
because that what you mentioned.
On 23:48 20 Nov 2021, bitrex said:
On 11/20/2021 6:41 PM, Pamela wrote:
On 23:02 20 Nov 2021, bitrex said:
On 11/20/2021 4:33 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 15:07:31 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net
wrote:
14 hours a day of opinion pieces is a lot cheaper than
maintaining foreign news bureaus, too.
The BBC manages to somehow do both! It\'s amazing what you can do
with limitless cash extorted from the public under the threat of
imprisonment, it seems.
The real crime with American media is they almost universally
expect you to pay to watch/read it, instead of the reverse.
I wanted to watch the Red Sox lose to the Astros and it\'s never
been harder to just watch a game than it is now, it\'s all
paywalled to hell and gone with a few captive providers and who
would ever pay them for a subscription.
Fox was carrying it online and they give you a free 1 hour trial
so I watched it for an hour and then just repasted the link to the
free trial in a Chrome incognito window thinking \"no way this is
gonna work\" and it worked fine, what a bunch of dumb-dumbs.
You could probably just write a script to automate that and get
infinite sports TV until they figure it out.
I haven\'t used them for a while but you might still be able to
stream Fox TV with these links. Also other U.S. channels too.
http://watchnewslive.tv.fox
http://livenewsnow.com/featured/fox-news.html
Looks like those are for Fox News (ick), but in the US they have a
number of other channels that carry live sports etc. that you can
only watch online if you have like a cable TV provider login, or
subscribe to one of those online service like Hulu, Fubo, Sling,
YouTubeTV, and probably pay some additional monthly fee, I haven\'t
checked.
The sites offer other live U.S. channels too. I used Fox in the links
because that what you mentioned.
bitrex = RAVING LUNATIC wrote:
=======================
Opinions are protected speech here.
** ROTFL - not when it is a serious defamation of a person.
But the statement \"he is a white supremacist\" is an opinion.
** A defamatory one.
It imputes nothing further anyone can agree on,
** Utter garbage - it has several clear and very negative meanings.
So do the terms \"communist\" and \"cultural Marxist\", but it doesn\'t
matter. I\'m not surprised you can\'t see the corollary, though.
definitely not \"the clear
imputation was that Kyle deserved to go to jail for life.\" Huh?
** It was a clear jury instruction by implication.
Vote to acquit and you are letting a vile, white racist and murderer go free.
Some as saying EXACTLY that RIGHT NOW !!!
===================================
Some say, life here, began out there...far across the Universe...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hrd767Xzfk
** LOL - I win - yet again.
bitrex = RAVING LUNATIC wrote:
=======================
Opinions are protected speech here.
** ROTFL - not when it is a serious defamation of a person.
But the statement \"he is a white supremacist\" is an opinion.
** A defamatory one.
It imputes nothing further anyone can agree on,
** Utter garbage - it has several clear and very negative meanings.
So do the terms \"communist\" and \"cultural Marxist\", but it doesn\'t
matter. I\'m not surprised you can\'t see the corollary, though.
definitely not \"the clear
imputation was that Kyle deserved to go to jail for life.\" Huh?
** It was a clear jury instruction by implication.
Vote to acquit and you are letting a vile, white racist and murderer go free.
Some as saying EXACTLY that RIGHT NOW !!!
===================================
Some say, life here, began out there...far across the Universe...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hrd767Xzfk
** LOL - I win - yet again.
On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:27:06 PM UTC+11, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
I have no idea if a defamation suit could be successful.
** So what should you do?
In the US it mostly hinges on whether Rittenhouse has become a public figure,
** Bullshit, public figures are MORE likely to suffer from defamation and Kyle is NOT one.
On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:27:06 PM UTC+11, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
I have no idea if a defamation suit could be successful.
** So what should you do?
In the US it mostly hinges on whether Rittenhouse has become a public figure,
** Bullshit, public figures are MORE likely to suffer from defamation and Kyle is NOT one.
bitrex = RAVING LUNATIC wrote:
===========================
An organization that called him a \"murderer\" instead of \"alleged
murderer\" he might have a case against, but the terms \"domestic
terrorist\" and \"white supremacist\" aren\'t well-defined.
** Don\'t matter.
The terms aren\'t well-defined.
Anyway, the court system tends to deal with what was actually said, not
what anyone \"imputed.\"
** What a fucking, pig ignorant idea.
In any defamation case the WHOLE issue revolves around \" defamatory imputations\".
What the words implied about the defamed party in the minds of others.
Look it up - fuckhead.
With respect to claims that can be shown to be true, or false.
** That is a problem for the defamer - to prove their claim is true.
Truth is a defense in defamation law.
bitrex = RAVING LUNATIC wrote:
===========================
An organization that called him a \"murderer\" instead of \"alleged
murderer\" he might have a case against, but the terms \"domestic
terrorist\" and \"white supremacist\" aren\'t well-defined.
** Don\'t matter.
The terms aren\'t well-defined.
Anyway, the court system tends to deal with what was actually said, not
what anyone \"imputed.\"
** What a fucking, pig ignorant idea.
In any defamation case the WHOLE issue revolves around \" defamatory imputations\".
What the words implied about the defamed party in the minds of others.
Look it up - fuckhead.
With respect to claims that can be shown to be true, or false.
** That is a problem for the defamer - to prove their claim is true.
Truth is a defense in defamation law.
bitrex = RAVING LUNATIC wrote:
===========================
An organization that called him a \"murderer\" instead of \"alleged
murderer\" he might have a case against, but the terms \"domestic
terrorist\" and \"white supremacist\" aren\'t well-defined.
** Don\'t matter.
The terms aren\'t well-defined.
Anyway, the court system tends to deal with what was actually said, not
what anyone \"imputed.\"
** What a fucking, pig ignorant idea.
In any defamation case the WHOLE issue revolves around \" defamatory imputations\".
What the words implied about the defamed party in the minds of others.
Look it up - fuckhead.
With respect to claims that can be shown to be true, or false.
** That is a problem for the defamer - to prove their claim is true.
Truth is a defense in defamation law.
On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 5:56:13 PM UTC-8, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:27:06 PM UTC+11, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
I have no idea if a defamation suit could be successful.
** So what should you do?
I think they should try.
In the US it mostly hinges on whether Rittenhouse has become a public figure,
** Bullshit, public figures are MORE likely to suffer from defamation and Kyle is NOT one.
I\'d say he isn\'t too. But, the defendants will pose he is because he talked to the press after the incident. I hope the slanderers are not successful, but it is theoretically a possibility.
I don\'t know why the law is as it is, I just know it is. In effect, it is much easier to get away with slandering a public figure than a private one in the US.
On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 5:56:13 PM UTC-8, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:27:06 PM UTC+11, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
I have no idea if a defamation suit could be successful.
** So what should you do?
I think they should try.
In the US it mostly hinges on whether Rittenhouse has become a public figure,
** Bullshit, public figures are MORE likely to suffer from defamation and Kyle is NOT one.
I\'d say he isn\'t too. But, the defendants will pose he is because he talked to the press after the incident. I hope the slanderers are not successful, but it is theoretically a possibility.
I don\'t know why the law is as it is, I just know it is. In effect, it is much easier to get away with slandering a public figure than a private one in the US.
On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 5:56:13 PM UTC-8, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 12:27:06 PM UTC+11, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
I have no idea if a defamation suit could be successful.
** So what should you do?
I think they should try.
In the US it mostly hinges on whether Rittenhouse has become a public figure,
** Bullshit, public figures are MORE likely to suffer from defamation and Kyle is NOT one.
I\'d say he isn\'t too. But, the defendants will pose he is because he talked to the press after the incident. I hope the slanderers are not successful, but it is theoretically a possibility.
I don\'t know why the law is as it is, I just know it is. In effect, it is much easier to get away with slandering a public figure than a private one in the US.
I have no idea if a defamation suit could be successful.
** So what should you do?
I think they should try.
In the US it mostly hinges on whether Rittenhouse has become a public figure,
** Bullshit, public figures are MORE likely to suffer from defamation and Kyle is NOT one.
I\'d say he isn\'t too. But, the defendants will pose he is because he talked to the press after the incident.
I don\'t know why the law is as it is, I just know it is.
In effect, it is much easier to get away with slandering a public figure than a private one in the US.
I have no idea if a defamation suit could be successful.
** So what should you do?
I think they should try.
In the US it mostly hinges on whether Rittenhouse has become a public figure,
** Bullshit, public figures are MORE likely to suffer from defamation and Kyle is NOT one.
I\'d say he isn\'t too. But, the defendants will pose he is because he talked to the press after the incident.
I don\'t know why the law is as it is, I just know it is.
In effect, it is much easier to get away with slandering a public figure than a private one in the US.
On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 11:08:59 AM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
bitrex = RAVING LUNATIC wrote:
===========================
An organization that called him a \"murderer\" instead of \"alleged
murderer\" he might have a case against, but the terms \"domestic
terrorist\" and \"white supremacist\" aren\'t well-defined.
** Don\'t matter.
The terms aren\'t well-defined.
Anyway, the court system tends to deal with what was actually said, not
what anyone \"imputed.\"
** What a fucking, pig ignorant idea.
In any defamation case the WHOLE issue revolves around \" defamatory imputations\".
What the words implied about the defamed party in the minds of others.
Look it up - fuckhead.
With respect to claims that can be shown to be true, or false.
** That is a problem for the defamer - to prove their claim is true.
Truth is a defense in defamation law.
Not necessarily, \"The greater the truth, the greater the libel\". It you are revealing stuff that doesn\'t need to be public knowledge, something that is true brings the defamed person into greater ridicule and contempt than any false claim could.
snipped the rest of Phil being pig-ignorant
On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 11:08:59 AM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
bitrex = RAVING LUNATIC wrote:
===========================
An organization that called him a \"murderer\" instead of \"alleged
murderer\" he might have a case against, but the terms \"domestic
terrorist\" and \"white supremacist\" aren\'t well-defined.
** Don\'t matter.
The terms aren\'t well-defined.
Anyway, the court system tends to deal with what was actually said, not
what anyone \"imputed.\"
** What a fucking, pig ignorant idea.
In any defamation case the WHOLE issue revolves around \" defamatory imputations\".
What the words implied about the defamed party in the minds of others.
Look it up - fuckhead.
With respect to claims that can be shown to be true, or false.
** That is a problem for the defamer - to prove their claim is true.
Truth is a defense in defamation law.
Not necessarily, \"The greater the truth, the greater the libel\". It you are revealing stuff that doesn\'t need to be public knowledge, something that is true brings the defamed person into greater ridicule and contempt than any false claim could.
snipped the rest of Phil being pig-ignorant
** That is a problem for the defamer - to prove their claim is true.
Truth is a defense in defamation law.
Not necessarily, \"The greater the truth, the greater the libel\".
** That is a problem for the defamer - to prove their claim is true.
Truth is a defense in defamation law.
Not necessarily, \"The greater the truth, the greater the libel\".
I don\'t know why the law is as it is, I just know it is.
In effect, it is much easier to get away with slandering a public figure than a private one in the US.
** Politicians expect to be disliked by some or many and have to cop it.
But that has nothing to do with *defaming* them with deliberate lies.
** That is a problem for the defamer - to prove their claim is true.
Truth is a defense in defamation law.
Not necessarily, \"The greater the truth, the greater the libel\".