It's just a number.

[megabyteme]

how much my views have changed during the past 7 years

Yep, the internets liberalises us all. You don't even notice it happening, but it's inexorable.
Even if you're a dyed in the wool baby-eater like j2k4.

When I first started posting here, he espoused garbage such as means testing for voters but gradual exposure to thoughtful liberals such as JPaul and especially clocker tempered that mean streak and one can now even look upon his recent posts with a modicum of identification.

I think we are all a bit polarized now in that we are all here because we are too poor to go to the movies or buy cds, and the only people rich enough to be conservatives are record and movie execs.

[manker]

Yep, the internets liberalises us all. You don't even notice it happening, but it's inexorable.
Even if you're a dyed in the wool baby-eater like j2k4.

When I first started posting here, he espoused garbage such as means testing for voters but gradual exposure to thoughtful liberals such as JPaul and especially clocker tempered that mean streak and one can now even look upon his recent posts with a modicum of identification.

I think we are all a bit polarized now in that we are all here because we are too poor to go to the movies or buy cds, and the only people rich enough to be conservatives are record and movie execs.

Oh yeah. Some people here talk about file sharing.

My example was specific but I mean it generally.
The internets has a woolly feel.

[megabyteme]

By "wooly" I think you are referring to more of a democratic, people-driven base. That is certainly what makes it great. Unfortunately, the things that make filesharing possible, along with real freedom of speech (except you, Dave...) is VERY threatening to any kind if governing body. The news discussed here is a real indicator of how "free" the internet remains. It gets battered on a daily basis.

[manker]

By "wooly" I think you are referring to more of a democratic, people-driven base. That is certainly what makes it great. Unfortunately, the things that make filesharing possible, along with real freedom of speech (except you, Dave...) is VERY threatening to any kind if governing body. The news discussed here is a real indicator of how "free" the internet remains. It gets battered on a daily basis.

I see what you mean, but I do think you rather over-egg matters.

Gigantic social networking sites remain virtually uncensored, probably due to their sprawl. People can and do talk about what they like, and when they do, it's generally woolly.
I think that when folk are censored, they move to a place where they won't be and talk about what they want there (excepting ).
In this case, capitalism ensures people have alternatives.

The battering you refer to pertains mostly to perceived loss of income, which those slighted will always rail against. This represents a small amount of discourse in the grand internets scheme of things. We remain generally unhindered in the posting pish odyssey.

[mjmacky]

Two numerical values leap out at me.

The first is that it's over seven minutes long and, as such, more than four minutes too long for viewing porpoises.
The second is that it's from 1982, how am I meant to know about stuff from the before time.

Is this like a clever play on words because I'm spinning a yarn and the title of this is 'Porky's'.

Well, for your case, you need only watch the first 2:20 of it. I would recommend letting it linger, but instead I say you just watch the whole frakkin movie.

[manker]

Ooh, that looks horrible. I should have used different parenthesis there.

Also, I'm not watching something made before 1990, it all seems shit.

[megabyteme]

By "wooly" I think you are referring to more of a democratic, people-driven base. That is certainly what makes it great. Unfortunately, the things that make filesharing possible, along with real freedom of speech (except you, Dave...) is VERY threatening to any kind if governing body. The news discussed here is a real indicator of how "free" the internet remains. It gets battered on a daily basis.

I see what you mean, but I do think you rather over-egg matters.

Gigantic social networking sites remain virtually uncensored, probably due to their sprawl. People can and do talk about what they like, and when they do, it's generally woolly.
I think that when folk are censored, they move to a place where they won't be and talk about what they want there (excepting ).
In this case, capitalism ensures people have alternatives.

The battering you refer to pertains mostly to perceived loss of income, which those slighted will always rail against. This represents a small amount of discourse in the grand internets scheme of things. We remain generally unhindered in the posting pish odyssey.

People saying is one thing, rallying together to do something is another. Look at Egypt. Every "free" country in the world looked at the possibility of shutting down the internet in case of "terrorism" at that moment. Laws sprang up allowing for such a "threat". That's battering. As long as people just want to share LOLCats and drunken pics of themselves the governments have no worries. Challenge the powers that be (democracy) and there is a "problem".

[manker]

I see what you mean, but I do think you rather over-egg matters.

Gigantic social networking sites remain virtually uncensored, probably due to their sprawl. People can and do talk about what they like, and when they do, it's generally woolly.
I think that when folk are censored, they move to a place where they won't be and talk about what they want there (excepting ).
In this case, capitalism ensures people have alternatives.

The battering you refer to pertains mostly to perceived loss of income, which those slighted will always rail against. This represents a small amount of discourse in the grand internets scheme of things. We remain generally unhindered in the posting pish odyssey.

People saying is one thing, rallying together to do something is another. Look at Egypt. Every "free" country in the world looked at the possibility of shutting down the internet in case of "terrorism" at that moment. Laws sprang up allowing for such a "threat". That's battering. As long as people just want to share LOLCats and drunken pics of themselves the governments have no worries. Challenge the powers that be (democracy) and there is a "problem".

I don't want to do any of that.
I'm just on a pish posting odyssey. As are, well, saying 99% is to massively over-estimate the numbers of users who want to challenge democracy in any tangible way other than just sounding off.

What I'm saying is that people like me and like you have what is tantamount to absolute freedom to say what we want, up to and including saying that our respective governments suck bawls and to organise peaceful protests. Which happens fairly regularly.

What I think you're saying is that those self-same governments might get a bit twitchy if a group of people start to organise something which isn't legal in their country.

This seems okay to me.

[mjmacky]

Ooh, that looks horrible. I should have used different parenthesis there.

Also, I'm not watching something made before 1990, it all seems shit.

OK Idol, you miserable cunt.

[manker]

Wut, Idol's a big fan of Miami Vice, which was obviously made in the 70s or w.e.