As seen on wikien-l, scroll to the bottom here.


And, oh yeah, Ron Paul for president.

Once again, Byrne's penchant for shock jocking gets used against him out of context, lol. If you following that link to Overstock the ""miind control" is a hotlink to Cade Metz's Premalot piece on El Reg.

Pretty funny, but for folks whose job it is, or who's living depends on, things involving the stock market that Byrne has been shock jocking in the media for years now, its great fodder to continue the "Byrne is Crazy" game.

The commissioner of the SEC isn't crazy or full of baloney, and there's testimony in congress to prove it.

To the casual passerby's, like when I saw his shockjocking on Bloomberg for the first time, they just dont get it. Why is this guy talking like that? He's a CEO. They're stuffy 55 year old white guys who read their lines off laywer briefings. My baloney theory? Like Howard Stern, he's trying to get your attention. About something that 99% of the world could care less about. Not easy to do, and he has taken the "Shocking Soundbite" road. I doubt that tactic sometimes, but his success (well,not on the Education lobby side, lol) on the Wall Street side of his antics is proving his shocking to be effective.

It sure got Gary all wound up, his blog is a daily homage to Byrne for 2 years. That is a creepy strategy if I ever saw one. Read Weiss's blog, folks. Compare it to Byrne's (in complete context) writings, or Judds ASM site. One's fulll of name calling and the others are full of cold hard numbers and facts.

But that's neither here nor there as for WP abuse goes. Whether Gary's socking was on Rutabagas or Elbow Bondage, his Sybil Show - it started off to plug a book, it's always about the $, isn't it - just went on and on, and started again when warned about it. Whether he was valiantly fighting off "meatpuppets" from people who read Register-type scandal articles on the web does not make it right, just like JzG's admin "style" does not mean tha guy should be an admin either.

Byrne's a W-R member and a WP'ian. Let's let him defend the soundbite if he's inclined. I don't think this would be his first rodeo with what you've put forward, Quentin.

Freedom is a good thing.

Heh, not only is it on Wikien-l, but a brilliant attorney on foundation-l (George Herbert) has declared it libel.

Good troll attempt, George, but it's only successful if you get the right people to bite! SueSue, FloFlo, and JimJim didn't have anything to say about that. Better luck next time.

"Libel?"

It's a subjective description, not an assertion of substantial fact. I can say the New York Times is an instrument of mind control, and I'd be just as correct.

Firstly, this is a clear violation of WP:NLT. Secondly, you can't libel Wikipedia, only individual editors or members of any overall body with the power to influence content. The latter, of course, doesn't exist.

Wikipedia is a Massive Mind Fuque Online Role-Playing Game (MMFnord).

That's not everyone's favorite George William Herbert, is it? Someone should teach him about "opinion" and how it does not need to be qualified by an explicit statement of "This is my opinion only:" to be considered thusly under law.

But I'm sure it gained at least a couple of Loyalty Brownies.

Well, it could theoretically be construed as saying "WMF has created a mind control device and wants to conquer the world!". That would be libel (although only technically; you'd still get laughed out of court).

Wikipedians know the power of stealing bad connotations. It's why they insist on using terms like "wikistalking"; no matter how much you say "No no, it doesn't mean actual stalking", the connotation of evilness sticks.

Main Entry: 1li·bel
Pronunciation: \ˈlī-bəl\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, written declaration, from Anglo-French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book
Date: 14th century

1 a: a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought barchaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone

2 a: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1): a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2): defamation of a person by written or representational means (3): the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4): the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel



I was very much appreciative of the fact that The Webster Dictionary was first in my search; not WP. Libel is not "libel" if the accusation can be proven to be true.

There are, ergo, no remedies for WP, save for an agonizing trial in which case, they would be exposed and that would not help NYB's legal career. I still think he had better get out of WP, if he ever wants to "make partner."

Any takers?

In many ways, NYB strikes me as a more "efficient" Giano. Not rocking the boat as much, but he doesn't seem to be keen to toe the cabal line without question. Notwithstanding the general travesty that was the Giano witch-burning ArbCom case, he was the only one in a lot of clauses to say "I don't see this. I'm opposing."

He has a license to practice law and I dare say that the court of the Crimson Giano farce, will not look good on his resume. He simply got into the wrong car. The problem is...he keeps making the same mistake over and over, again, nicht vahr?

That is enough to lose said license. He is now practicing in a different type of non-courtroom.