--- Log opened Sat Jun 26 00:00:33 2010
00:28 -!- CRasH180 [~CRasH180@96.5.81.157] has joined #se2600
00:29 -!- CRasH180 [~CRasH180@96.5.81.157] has quit [Changing host]
00:29 -!- CRasH180 [~CRasH180@pdpc/supporter/silver/CRasH180] has joined #se2600
00:29 -!- mode/#se2600 [+o CRasH180] by ChanServ
00:44 -!- epoxy [~epoxt___@68-112-53-229.dhcp.hlrg.nc.charter.com] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
01:38 -!- epoxy [~epoxt___@68-112-53-229.dhcp.hlrg.nc.charter.com] has joined #se2600
02:37 -!- CRasH180 [~CRasH180@pdpc/supporter/silver/CRasH180] has quit [Quit: sleep]
03:32 -!- Peaches1984 [three@c-69-137-80-31.hsd1.tn.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
03:42 -!- epoxy [~epoxt___@68-112-53-229.dhcp.hlrg.nc.charter.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
07:12 -!- dzup [dzup@unaffiliated/dzup] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
07:16 -!- dzup [dzup@unaffiliated/dzup] has joined #se2600
10:12 -!- Dagmar [1000@unaffiliated/dagmar] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
12:27 -!- Peaches1984 [blush@c-69-137-80-31.hsd1.tn.comcast.net] has joined #se2600
12:55 -!- oddball [~oddball@c-76-22-243-130.hsd1.tn.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
13:12 -!- kioskraptor [~makers@wifi.makerslocal.org] has joined #se2600
13:13 -!- oddball [~oddball@c-76-22-243-130.hsd1.tn.comcast.net] has joined #se2600
13:30 <@Corydon76-dig> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMLgEnDGkG4&feature=digest [political]
13:41 -!- NotLarry [~NotLarry@c-76-22-176-23.hsd1.tn.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
14:29 -!- Falun [~richard@75-37-195-222.lightspeed.lsatca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #se2600
16:19 -!- Dagmar [1000@c-98-193-180-167.hsd1.tn.comcast.net] has joined #se2600
16:19 -!- Dagmar [1000@c-98-193-180-167.hsd1.tn.comcast.net] has quit [Changing host]
16:19 -!- Dagmar [1000@unaffiliated/dagmar] has joined #se2600
16:19 -!- mode/#se2600 [+o Dagmar] by ChanServ
16:40 -!- Catonic [~catonic@56-24.9-67.bham.res.rr.com] has joined #se2600
16:40 -!- mode/#se2600 [+o Catonic] by ChanServ
16:53 -!- Catonic [~catonic@56-24.9-67.bham.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: chased]
19:16 <@sdodson> ware: ohmy!
20:07 -!- epoxy [~epoxt___@71-81-9-159.dhcp.hlrg.nc.charter.com] has joined #se2600
20:11 <@sdodson> I hate credit raitings. How on earth is 10% of my available revolving credit considered high?
20:12 <@Corydon76-dig> It's not.  The problem is that isn't not high enough.
20:12 <@Corydon76-dig> s/isn't/it's/
20:12 <@Corydon76-dig> They want you to have debt load
20:16 <@sdodson> According to equifax if i dropped my average revolving credit utilization from 10% to 7% it would improve my score.
20:16 <@sdodson> Though, I guess the percentage of disposable income I have is down considerably due to having a mortgage now.
20:16 <@Dagmar> Remember kids: Your credit report score is not an measure of how well you pay bills... It's an estimate of how much money they'll make off you.
20:17 <@Dagmar> It is a measure of your profitability to the lender.
20:17 <@sdodson> My revolving accounts make nothing off of me other than merchant fees. Which i rack up a lot of for them since i buy everything on credit.
20:25 -!- juice_ [1000@67.48.16.165] has joined #se2600
20:26 -!- juice_ is now known as juice
20:26 -!- mode/#se2600 [+o juice] by ChanServ
20:32 <@ware> sdodson: wassa
20:33 <@sdodson> ware: you said muh name
20:41 -!- epoxy [~epoxt___@71-81-9-159.dhcp.hlrg.nc.charter.com] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
20:50 -!- rattle [~rattle@208.87.107.12] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
20:52 -!- epoxy [~lsthree@68-112-53-229.dhcp.hlrg.nc.charter.com] has joined #se2600
20:59 -!- fie [~fie@72-48-68-254.dyn.grandenetworks.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
21:04 -!- fie [~fie@72-48-68-254.dyn.grandenetworks.net] has joined #se2600
21:07 -!- fie [~fie@72-48-68-254.dyn.grandenetworks.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:14 -!- epoxy [~lsthree@68-112-53-229.dhcp.hlrg.nc.charter.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
21:20 -!- fie [~fie@72-48-68-254.dyn.grandenetworks.net] has joined #se2600
22:02 -!- Dolemite [~scott@99-2-142-130.lightspeed.nsvltn.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
22:02 -!- Dolemite [~scott@99-2-142-130.lightspeed.nsvltn.sbcglobal.net] has joined #se2600
22:07 -!- Dolemite [~scott@99-2-142-130.lightspeed.nsvltn.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
22:26 <@Dagmar> http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/06/copyright-elephant-in-middle-of-glee.html
22:26 <@Dagmar> A lawsuit of a million dollars or so against the Glee kids would be AWESOME
22:28 <@Dagmar> OH SHIT
22:28 <@Dagmar> Nah
22:28 <@Dagmar> Surely I can't be the only person who's noticed this
22:28 <@Dagmar> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000106----000-.html
22:28 <@Dagmar> Subsection 6.
22:28 <@Dagmar> "in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. "
22:30 <@Dagmar> That would appear to leave analog broadcasts as umm... not covered.
22:33 <@Corydon76-dig> Dagmar: right, "the analog hole"
22:33 <@Corydon76-dig> Analog radio broadcasts are considered to be promotional
22:37 <@Dagmar> This, to me, would seem to indicate that possible these radio stations could simply tell ASCAP to go fuck themselves and no pay any fees at all
22:37 <@Dagmar> ...seein' as how they're now (rightfully, IMHO) trying to fuck radio broadcasters over like they did webcasters.
22:38 <@Dagmar> It would also mean most nightclubs could take the random ASCAP auditor that comes by, hand him a free drink and tell him to STFU.
22:38 <@Corydon76-dig> Nightclubs aren't broadcasting over analog
22:39 <@Dagmar> ASCAP hit (mind you, I think these people are bastards, so hey hey it's all lols here) up Hollywood Disco over near JJ's for a *pornographic* sum in back fees over music played by the DJ
22:40 <@Dagmar> They're not broadcasting digitally.
22:40 <@sdodson> Dagmar: you should become an author
22:40 <@Corydon76-dig> They're not broadcasting at all
22:40 <@Dagmar> They are, however, _performing_ the work
22:40 <@Dagmar> ...by ASCAPs rather deranged measure of that word
22:41 <@Corydon76-dig> Right, publicly
22:41 <@Dagmar> Seems like in their haste to fuck webcasters, they may have chopped off their noses to spite their misshapen, chud-like faces.
22:42 <@sdodson> I was being serious fwiw.
22:42 <@Corydon76-dig> But that's included under paragraph (4)
22:43 <@Dagmar> Nope.  "musical" is not "sound recording".
22:43 <@Corydon76-dig> It's a "musical work"
22:44 <@Dagmar> The law needs to define what a "musical" work is, then
22:44 <@Dagmar> ...because 4 & 5 are "audiovisual", not "just audio"
22:44 <@Corydon76-dig> Section (6) was designed to fuck over satellite radio, not webcasters
22:45 <@Dagmar> Well, it was used to fuck over webcasters.
22:45 <@Dagmar> ...and ASCAP hasn't yet given up fucking over radio
22:45 <@Corydon76-dig> You're misreading.  See that the sentence has two "and" conjunctions
22:45 <@Corydon76-dig> so the second "and" refers only to movies
22:46 <@Corydon76-dig> "movies and other audiovisual..."
22:46 -!- epoxy [~lsthree@68-112-53-229.dhcp.hlrg.nc.charter.com] has joined #se2600
22:46 <@Corydon76-dig> err, "motion pictures and other audiovisual works"
22:46 <@Dagmar> What's audio about "literary".
22:46 <@Corydon76-dig> Right, exactly
22:47 <@Dagmar> Hell, I like I care.
22:47 <@Dagmar> Fuck ASCAP.
22:47 <@Dagmar> Fuck them right in the brown-eye.
22:47 <@Corydon76-dig> Literary isn't audiovisual, which makes it clear that "and other audiovisual" refers only to the preceding "motion pictures", not the whole list
22:48 <@Dagmar> This crap with claiming Creative Commons want to destroy copyright is hypocritcal as well as morally bankrupt.
22:48 <@Dagmar> Copyrights are supposed to expire.
22:48 <@Corydon76-dig> Who is claiming that about CC?
22:49 <@Dagmar> It's very clear that ASCAP doesn't want them to, ever, and along with Disney has worked hard to eliminiate any of that "escaping" into the public domain
22:49 <@Dagmar> Corydon76-dig: ASCAP.
22:49 <@Corydon76-dig> Heh
22:49 <@Dagmar> http://www.zeropaid.com/news/89494/ascap-declares-war-on-free-culture/
22:49 <@Dagmar> "The free culture movement is abuzz today over news that ASCAP has requested their members to fight organizations like Creative Commons, Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier Foundation over what it claims as an effort to undermine copyright."
22:50 <@Corydon76-dig> It's their advocacy arm, trying to ensure they have a reason to continue to exist into the next century
22:50 <@Dagmar> Doesn't matter.
22:51 <@Dagmar> *They* are the ones trying to break copyright and turn into a never-ending "we own all your shit" law
22:51 <@Corydon76-dig> Many ASCAP members couldn't give a crap what ASCAP advocates, except when it comes to their own works
22:51 <@Dagmar> Did you see http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/06/copyright-elephant-in-middle-of-glee.html ?
22:51 <@Dagmar> They make a *really* good point.
22:51 <@Dagmar> Something is completely fucked if you can lower the boom on high school kids in a play like that
22:52 <@Dagmar> Nevermind that Glee is a TV show
22:53 <@Corydon76-dig> That talks about potential liability without ever checking whether the TV show producers actually licensed the works in question
22:53 <@Dagmar> Disclaimer: I woulnd't give two shits about htis except out of self-defense
22:53 <@Corydon76-dig> It's a blog by someone who probably should know better
22:53 <@Dagmar> Corydon76-dig: No, the TV producers are already cleared
22:53 <@Dagmar> They're not talking about the fucking TV producers.
22:53 <@Dagmar> They're talking about the kids in the story.
22:54 <@Corydon76-dig> Heh, never watched "Glee"
22:54 <@Dagmar> If they were real, lawyers would already be taking the family dog out to be turned into wallets.
22:54 <@Dagmar> Their parents would have to re-mortage their homes, except for the token "underprivileged" kid, who would be selling his ass for twenties at the truck stop.
22:56 <@Corydon76-dig> Dunno, it's rather silly to be going down that hypothetical...
22:57 <@Dagmar> It's not _that_ hypothetical.
22:57 <@Dagmar> It just hasn't happened yet because they know it would be suicidally bad press.
22:57 <@Dagmar> Fucking suing a bunch of drama students for music used in a school play?  Jesus christ that would not go down well
22:57 -!- epoxy [~lsthree@68-112-53-229.dhcp.hlrg.nc.charter.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
22:58 <@Corydon76-dig> Yes, but a TV show won't tackle an issue that cannot be resolved in 60 minutes
22:58 <@sdodson> http://blog.lastinfirstout.net/2010/06/sunoracle-finally-announces-zfs-data.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LastInFirstOut+%28Last+In%2C+First+Out%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
22:58 <@Dagmar> Rememebr, these are the people who on most days have no problems telling people that even if they don't play any ASCAP-handled music at all, they'll still demand payment
22:58 <@Corydon76-dig> Dagmar: yes, but they can be laughed out of court on that
22:59 <@Dagmar> Doesn't matter.  I have seen them do it.
22:59 <@Dagmar> I have seen them take a restaurant to court over canned music playing in the overheads
22:59 <@Dagmar> ...when all of it was indie
22:59 <@Corydon76-dig> It's perfectly legal to demand payment for whatever you like
22:59 <@Dagmar> No, it's not.   Not when you had nothing to do with it
22:59 <@Corydon76-dig> Doesn't mean they'll be paid
23:00 <@Dagmar> That's called "robbery".
23:00 <@Dagmar> ...and sometimes "fraud".
23:00 <@Corydon76-dig> No, it's only criminal if you threaten to do something illegal if they fail to pay
23:00 <@Dagmar> If I were to go print up a bunch of invoices for use of the letter "e" and send them off to 100 newspapers, I'd probably get a few checks, but I'd definitely get a few cops on my doorstep
23:01 <@Dagmar> No, it's fraud.
23:01 <@Dagmar> A lack of threats doesn't mean anything.
23:01 <@sdodson> cops!
23:01 <@Dagmar> "Pretending" someone owes you something you don't and demanding payment based on that falsehood is enough to land you in jail.
23:01 <@Corydon76-dig> Dagmar: under what law?
23:02 <@Dagmar> *fraud*
23:02 <@Corydon76-dig> That's a nice word, but it's not a law
23:02 <@Dagmar> Main fraud, wire fraud, whatever you like
23:02 <@Dagmar> er Mail fraud
23:02 <@sdodson> Clearly a very important word as it had asterisks around it.
23:02 <@Corydon76-dig> Otherwise, companies would go to jail for sending mixed up invoices
23:03 <@Dagmar> 'Since fucking when is _fraud_ not illegal?
23:03 <@Dagmar> Why the fuck are we throwing Madoff in jail again?
23:03 <@sdodson> how's it fraud then?
23:03 <@Corydon76-dig> I think you're confused as to what fraud actually is
23:03 <@Dagmar> Yes, fraud is defined as an intentional deceoption.
23:03 <@Corydon76-dig> Legal definition
23:03 <@Corydon76-dig> Not dictionary
23:03 <@Dagmar> So don't give me this patronizing "I think you're confused" shit.
23:04 <@Dagmar> Yes, that's the fucking legal definition.
23:04 <@Corydon76-dig> Show me
23:04 -!- epoxy [~lsthree@68-112-53-229.dhcp.hlrg.nc.charter.com] has joined #se2600
23:04 <@Dagmar> That's why they throw people in jail for coming up with the oh-so-brilliant "send thousands of phony invoices out to small companies" scam
23:04 <@sdodson> Wait, how's that patronizing?
23:04 <@sdodson> not to divert attention away from fraud
23:05 -!- sdodson changed the topic of #se2600 to: it's hot outside
23:05 <@Dagmar> They're just stupid enough to think "this isn't illegal"
23:05 <@Dagmar> ...although most are just stupid enough to think no one will ever notice.
23:05 <@Dagmar> Hell, this is an easy one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud
23:06 <@Corydon76-dig> Wikipedia is now a legal dictionary?
23:06 <@Dagmar> You own domains.  You probably remember a few of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_billing going out
23:07 <@Corydon76-dig> Second paragraph:  "varies by legal jurisdiction"
23:07 <@Dagmar> You forget that I'm completely willing to say "I don't really give that much of a fuck WHAT you think" if you expect me to waste an hour wading through U.S.C. because you want to argue what color the fucking sky is.
23:07 <@Dagmar> Playing "devil's advocate" doesn't make you smarter--it generally just makes you a dick
23:08 <@Corydon76-dig> Dagmar: Well, the feeling is mutual
23:08 <@Dagmar> Hell, if it's not illegal then I guess I'll bring it up at the next 1st Friday as a way to raise funds for PN
23:08 <@Dagmar> I'm sure everyone will love hearing you're okay with it since it's not illegal.
23:09 <@Corydon76-dig> Dagmar: if you're suggesting it, I expect some account of how you believe it will be successful
23:09 <@Dagmar> You said it's legal.
23:09 <@Corydon76-dig> and I never said I was okay with it.  I said it wasn't illegal.
23:09 <@Dagmar> I doubt I'll have to even sell people on the success rate, seeing as how cheap it is to print and mail invoices.
23:09 <@Corydon76-dig> I'm not okay with everything that is legal.
23:10 <@Corydon76-dig> Hell, it's clear from your rants here that even you aren't okay with everything that is legal.
23:10 <@Dagmar> If you're going to float an argument that billing fraud is legal, then at least have the balls to stand behind it
23:10 <@Corydon76-dig> And similarly, you're okay with certain things that are illegal
23:10 <@Corydon76-dig> I didn't say billing fraud was legal
23:11 <@Corydon76-dig> Read what I said again
23:12 <@Corydon76-dig> I said you're within your rights to demand payment for whatever you like, as long as you don't promise to do something illegal if they fail to pay
23:12 <@Corydon76-dig> In the case of domain fraud, the promise is to illegal rescind their domains
23:13 <@Corydon76-dig> And Fraud includes intent.  So if you believe that they owe you money, that's not intent
23:14 <@Corydon76-dig> If ASCAP believes they're owed money, it's not illegal for them to bill somebody
23:14 <@Dagmar> Not so.
23:14 <@Dagmar> Not in the case I cited
23:15 <@Corydon76-dig> You'd have to show that they knew ASCAP was not owed money
23:15 <@Corydon76-dig> That's the burden of proof, on the prosecutor
23:16 <@Corydon76-dig> Now, if ASCAP negotiated a lower rate for a company, in return for a minimum fee per period, then they were owed money, whether ASCAP music was performed or not.
23:17 <@Corydon76-dig> and given that that's a common agreement, it's an innocent mistake
23:17 <@Corydon76-dig> If you believe that that's not the case, why is it that no prosecutor who is hungry for cases to bring down massive companies, has yet to go after them?
23:19 <@Corydon76-dig> Either all the prosecutors are in bed with ASCAP, or you're mistaken about the law.
23:19 <@Corydon76-dig> But we all know what position you're going to take, don't we?
23:20 <@Dagmar> The one backed by _reality_.
23:21 <@Dagmar> So you can just stuff your argument
23:21 <@Corydon76-dig> Ah, so all prosecutors are in bed with ASCAP.  Right.
23:21 <@Dagmar> Small mexican restaurant goes sued by ASCAP for completely fraudulent reasons
23:21 <@Dagmar> Standard large company bullying bullshit, and they do it regularly
23:21 <@Dagmar> Talk to a restaurant manager
23:22 <@Corydon76-dig> and you want Nashville 2600, a small corporation, to try that, too?
23:23 <@Dagmar> You say it's perfectly legal
23:23 <@Dagmar> Well, if it's legal then by all means let's go with it and start sending out fraudulent invoices.
23:24 <@Corydon76-dig> Without the proof of knowledge that ASCAP knew that they were not entitled to it, yes, it's legal.  Immoral, unethical, horrible, a tragedy, but legal.
23:24 <@Dagmar> Proof, schmoof.
23:24 <@Corydon76-dig> I suggest you tell a judge that sometime, and see how well it goes over with him or her
23:25 <@Dagmar> You try telling a judge that fraud is legal, first.
23:25 <@Corydon76-dig> I never said fraud was legal.
23:25 <@Dagmar> You made it pretty fucking clear.
23:26 <@Corydon76-dig> No, I used words that did not constitute fraud
23:26 <@Dagmar> "<Corydon76-dig> No, it's only criminal if you threaten to do something illegal if they fail to pay"
23:26 <@Dagmar> ...which is also wholly nonsense.
23:26 <@Corydon76-dig> You seem to want to conflate my choice of words with fraud.
23:26 <@Corydon76-dig> You'll have to prove that
23:26 <@Dagmar> You seem to want to act like a nitpicky forum troll
23:26 <@Corydon76-dig> Pot, meet kettle.
23:26 <@Dagmar> *I* was talking about fraud.
23:27 <@Dagmar> I argued that fraud is quite illegal
23:27 <@Dagmar> You demanded I cite a specific law against fraud.,
23:27 <@Corydon76-dig> No, you were talking about what ASCAP was doing, which was just short of fraud
23:27 <@Dagmar> You sir, said something fucking stupid.
23:27 <@Dagmar> Deal with itl.
23:27 <@Corydon76-dig> Just short of fraud != fraud
23:27 <@Corydon76-dig> just short of fraud == legal
23:28 <@Dagmar> "<Corydon76-dig> It's perfectly legal to demand payment for whatever you like" <-- your exact words.
23:28 <@Dagmar> That is entirely untrue, and generally constitutes fraud.
23:28 <@Dagmar> Period.
23:28 <@Corydon76-dig> That's not entirely untrue
23:28 <@Dagmar> Bullshit.
23:28 <@Corydon76-dig> You even contradicted yourself just there.
23:29 <@Dagmar> ...and you wonder why people don't respect you.
23:29 <@Corydon76-dig> You said "entirely untrue and generally constitutes fraud".
23:29 <@Dagmar> You make idiot trollish arguments.
23:29 <@Dagmar> ...and then expect people to take you seriously.
23:30 <@Corydon76-dig> No, I study information about law, to be sure that I take actions that are compliant
23:30 <@Dagmar> Idiot trollish arguments, just so you can feel good about playing devils advocate.
23:30 <@Dagmar> It's fucking unproductive.
23:30 <@Corydon76-dig> Pot, meet kettle
23:30 <@Corydon76-dig> Dagmar, how old are you, again?
23:31 <@Dagmar> Fucking older than you, clearly.
23:31 <@Corydon76-dig> and you're working as a NOC monkey
23:31 <@Corydon76-dig> For barely more than minimum wage, an hourly position
23:31 <@Dagmar> Yes, because largely I am sick of dealing with dimwitted people's inability to pay attention long enough to keep themselves from catching on fire.
23:32 <@Corydon76-dig> I'm on salary, a senior programmer, and I get to work from home
23:32 <@Dagmar> ...and it's quite a bit more than minimum wage, thanks.
23:32 <@Dagmar> ...and you still don't know that fraud is illegal.
23:32 <@Corydon76-dig> No, I know that fraud is illegal
23:33 <@Corydon76-dig> But despite citing wikipedia articles, you clearly don't comprehend all the points of fraud.
23:34 <@Dagmar> Right.
23:34 <@Dagmar> Enough.
23:34 <@Corydon76-dig> You need all of the points to constitute fraud, and without all of the points, it's not fraud.
23:34 <@Dagmar> Stick with things you know, like sucking dicks.
23:35 <@Corydon76-dig> Yes, I know that, too
23:35 <@Corydon76-dig> You can ask Peaches how good I am at it.
23:36 <@Corydon76-dig> Or coil.
23:36 <@Corydon76-dig> But don't ask oddball.  He doesn't know.
23:36 <@coil> ?
23:37 <@coil> you didn't make me cum though
23:37 <@coil> although that was the first time some guy has sucked my dick
23:37 <@coil> so it was awkard.
23:39 <@Dagmar> Pathetic devil's advocate bullshit gets you into the ignore bucket with sdodson
23:49 <@Dagmar> ...and for the record, when the fucking ASCAP rep says "We don't care if you play ASCAP records or not.  We'll still sue you for licencing fees to play them." it's fucking fraud.
23:50 <@Dagmar> If there's a problem with that, you really, really don't want to condescend to me again.
23:50 <@Corydon76-dig> sdodson: am I in your ignore bucket?
23:51 <@Corydon76-dig> Oh, wait, you mean you'll put me in your ignore bucket?  Is that a threat?
23:51 <@Corydon76-dig> I think a lot of people would consider that a privilege, actually
23:52 <@Corydon76-dig> While I respect your technical knowlege, Dagmar, when it comes to politics and issues, you're our resident wacko.
23:54 <@Corydon76-dig> I'm really not sure anybody takes you seriously, although we sometimes will try to argue a point, when it sounds like you might actually be reasonable.  Don't know why we ever think that you might be, because you prove us wrong every time.
23:55 <@Corydon76-dig> So, given respect on the technical part, are you interested in giving a technical, non-issues talk at PhreakNIC 14?
--- Log closed Sun Jun 27 00:00:33 2010