Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

My mechanic said and Obama agrees that..Follow

#1 Feb 18 2014 at 6:39 PM Rating: Default
**
539 posts
FCC should make ISPs common carreiers ( as they were just a moment ago ).

I am not sure if it is because Obama can't actually do much that he actually sided with $not_business, but I will take it anyway.

Can I get a small woop woop?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#2 Feb 18 2014 at 6:40 PM Rating: Good
******
43,460 posts
No, you can't.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Feb 18 2014 at 6:42 PM Rating: Default
**
539 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
No, you can't.


Do you really want to see a grown man cry?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#4 Feb 18 2014 at 6:55 PM Rating: Good
******
30,639 posts
angrymnk wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
No, you can't.


Do you really want to see a grown man cry?


Yes, please.
#5 Feb 18 2014 at 7:02 PM Rating: Default
**
539 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
No, you can't.


Do you really want to see a grown man cry?


Yes, please.


Yall so mean yo. I can't take this anymore.

*wrist*
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#6 Feb 19 2014 at 3:57 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
It's as dumb an idea in this thread as it was in the other thread. Changing the words used doesn't change the fact that trying to define ISPs as public utilities in order to get around the whole "not a common carrier" parts of the rulings against NN is like swatting a fly with a baseball bat. It's the wrong solution to a problem that isn't really a problem in the first place.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#7 Feb 19 2014 at 4:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,230 posts
The ISPs themselves don't want to be classed as common carriers because they'll have to divest their content production divisions if they do.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#8 Feb 19 2014 at 5:54 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Catwho wrote:
The ISPs themselves don't want to be classed as common carriers because they'll have to divest their content production divisions if they do.


I doubt that's really it. I'd be shocked if they aren't separate corporate entities already, for more or less the exact legal reason of elimination of conflict of interest issues. Companies do this all the time (or are required to do so by some legal action) and they don't have to be named common carriers for this to happen. Simple anti trust rules already do this.

I really do think that the whole net neutrality thing is more of a bait and switch deal. It's claimed to be needed to address some kind of unfair competition practices, but as I stated, existing anti-trust laws already do that. The real reason (IMHO) is that some people just want more government regulation on industries. Sounds silly, but there it is. The folks in government derive their **** sizes based on how large a domain of things their department controls, and there's a segment of the population that has some kind of security blanket thing with increased government control. They just are scared of the "free market", and thus imagine all sorts of terrible things that it could do, and no amount of showing them that it's not happening will talk them down from this belief.

Honestly, when I look at the proposals for net neutrality, my usual response is "why do people think this is needed?". And when I look at the near hysteria engaged in by proponents, I kinda can't help by conclude that it's not, but that if you scare enough people about something, they'll just blindly allow you to do whatever the **** you want. There is zero need for what they are proposing. Zip. Zero. Nada. The only thing it accomplishes is to impose unnecessary regulation on an industry that has an amazing track record of massively positive outcomes in the absence of oppressive government regulation.

I don't think the goal of those pursuing net neutrality is really to damage the internet, or reduce its usefulness and "free" nature. I just honestly believe that most people don't know better and are being talked into supporting something that will ultimately hurt them in the long run. It's like rallying grade school kids to support a cause in opposition to doing homework or taking those high stress tests. That might sound great to the kids in school, but they aren't really better off if they win that one, are they? I kinda see this the same way.

Edited, Feb 19th 2014 3:54pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#9 Feb 19 2014 at 9:04 PM Rating: Decent
**
539 posts
gbaji wrote:
Catwho wrote:
The ISPs themselves don't want to be classed as common carriers because they'll have to divest their content production divisions if they do.


I doubt that's really it. I'd be shocked if they aren't separate corporate entities already, for more or less the exact legal reason of elimination of conflict of interest issues. Companies do this all the time (or are required to do so by some legal action) and they don't have to be named common carriers for this to happen. Simple anti trust rules already do this.

I really do think that the whole net neutrality thing is more of a bait and switch deal. It's claimed to be needed to address some kind of unfair competition practices, but as I stated, existing anti-trust laws already do that. The real reason (IMHO) is that some people just want more government regulation on industries. Sounds silly, but there it is. The folks in government derive their **** sizes based on how large a domain of things their department controls, and there's a segment of the population that has some kind of security blanket thing with increased government control. They just are scared of the "free market", and thus imagine all sorts of terrible things that it could do, and no amount of showing them that it's not happening will talk them down from this belief.

Honestly, when I look at the proposals for net neutrality, my usual response is "why do people think this is needed?". And when I look at the near hysteria engaged in by proponents, I kinda can't help by conclude that it's not, but that if you scare enough people about something, they'll just blindly allow you to do whatever the **** you want. There is zero need for what they are proposing. Zip. Zero. Nada. The only thing it accomplishes is to impose unnecessary regulation on an industry that has an amazing track record of massively positive outcomes in the absence of oppressive government regulation.

I don't think the goal of those pursuing net neutrality is really to damage the internet, or reduce its usefulness and "free" nature. I just honestly believe that most people don't know better and are being talked into supporting something that will ultimately hurt them in the long run. It's like rallying grade school kids to support a cause in opposition to doing homework or taking those high stress tests. That might sound great to the kids in school, but they aren't really better off if they win that one, are they? I kinda see this the same way.

Edited, Feb 19th 2014 3:54pm by gbaji


Sure it is not needed. It is not like Cumcast blocked, throttled bittorrent and then lied about doing so.

Let us all pretend companies act in our own best interest. Hell, let us all just join hands together and sing kumbaya. You are as bad as the guy on the radio today that there is zero, zilch, nada proof of Putin killing his (political and otherwise) enemies.

Edited, Feb 19th 2014 10:04pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#10 Feb 19 2014 at 10:24 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
They do act in our interests. I'm not going to argue that Comcast's PR on this was great, but the fact is I have no problem with them throttling bittorrents. The alternative is massively increasing the amount they have to charge all their customers. I really think you don't get that. By keeping bandwidth hogs from consuming all the bandwidth on their network, they allow the rest of our internet use to work faster with the same amount of hardware. If they didn't do this, you'd either have **** slow performance or you'd have to pay like twice what you do for your internet.

There's no free lunch here. The problem with large scale peer to peer hosting (like bittorrent) is that it causes a large volume of traffic from/to sources that aren't normally revenue sources. As I mentioned in the other thread, there are semi-complex agreements by all parties involved at all layers of the internet to manage traffic and ensure that it's paid for by those using it most. So big hosting services charge lots of money for their clients to provide their services. This money is then distributed to adjacent network owners. There's a vast amount of traffic tracking that goes on to determine who pays who, but it all requires that most traffic originate from some business with an agreement for hosting content with one of the players in the game.


The home user gets a nearly free ride in all of this normally. The cost of a basic connection gives them access to a huge network, 99.99999999% of which neither they, nor any other home user, paid for. Again, that's not really free. It requires all sorts of hosting costs and traffic fees between the big players. But peer to peer breaks this model. I suppose the alternative is to just throttle everyone, or go back to the old days with total bandwidth limits. That would shut down bittorrent in a hurry. They're trying to come up with the least harmful and expensive way to resolve this. Crying and acting like a spoiled kid isn't particularly helpful

Edited, Feb 19th 2014 8:25pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#11 Feb 19 2014 at 10:44 PM Rating: Decent
**
539 posts
gbaji wrote:
They do act in our interests. I'm not going to argue that Comcast's PR on this was great, but the fact is I have no problem with them throttling bittorrents. The alternative is massively increasing the amount they have to charge all their customers. I really think you don't get that. By keeping bandwidth hogs from consuming all the bandwidth on their network, they allow the rest of our internet use to work faster with the same amount of hardware. If they didn't do this, you'd either have **** slow performance or you'd have to pay like twice what you do for your internet.

There's no free lunch here. The problem with large scale peer to peer hosting (like bittorrent) is that it causes a large volume of traffic from/to sources that aren't normally revenue sources. As I mentioned in the other thread, there are semi-complex agreements by all parties involved at all layers of the internet to manage traffic and ensure that it's paid for by those using it most. So big hosting services charge lots of money for their clients to provide their services. This money is then distributed to adjacent network owners. There's a vast amount of traffic tracking that goes on to determine who pays who, but it all requires that most traffic originate from some business with an agreement for hosting content with one of the players in the game.


The home user gets a nearly free ride in all of this normally. The cost of a basic connection gives them access to a huge network, 99.99999999% of which neither they, nor any other home user, paid for. Again, that's not really free. It requires all sorts of hosting costs and traffic fees between the big players. But peer to peer breaks this model. I suppose the alternative is to just throttle everyone, or go back to the old days with total bandwidth limits. That would shut down bittorrent in a hurry. They're trying to come up with the least harmful and expensive way to resolve this. Crying and acting like a spoiled kid isn't particularly helpful

Edited, Feb 19th 2014 8:25pm by gbaji


Listen you, (google edit ) person of limited brain capacity, anything is *potentially* a bandwidth hog. The only relevant factor is: THE USER ALREADY PAID FOR IT REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT IS BEING USED FOR. If the comcast does not like it being used for something, then it shouldn't have all those pretty commercials that say *high quality video, online games, music and everything interwebz you can possibly want and or need at speeds $provably_wrong_number.

It is not up to comcast, it is up to the user. That is what the common carrier piece is about.

And no it wouldn't shut the internet down; just like with other utilities, people would adjust their habits accordingly and not, for example, waste water.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#12 Feb 19 2014 at 11:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
True that. Comcast says I have 300 gb a month before they throttle or charge me more or whatever*. If I want to use those 300 gb all in one hour by downloading the entire Girls Gone Wild catalog then that's a dumb decision on my part and the rest of my month will suck but there's zero excuse for Comcast to pre-emptively throttle me during my 300 gb period just because they detect that I'm using Bittorrent.


*In reality, they don't enforce this except in a few select areas but that's on them, not me.

Edited, Feb 19th 2014 11:04pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Feb 19 2014 at 11:07 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,460 posts
You could just download a 20mb clip and play it on repeat for a few hours and get the same effect.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#14 Feb 19 2014 at 11:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm true to Joe Francis's vision.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 Feb 20 2014 at 7:11 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,683 posts
I'm gonna have to get my car serviced so I can get me some of this mechanically advice.

For the most part though he's of the mind that I pay for and receive the agreed upon services.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#16 Feb 20 2014 at 10:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If I want to use those 300 gb all in one hour by downloading the entire Girls Gone Wild catalog then that's a dumb decision on my part and the rest of my month will suck
I want your download speeds.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#17 Feb 20 2014 at 2:06 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
1,970 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
If I want to use those 300 gb all in one hour by downloading the entire Girls Gone Wild catalog then that's a dumb decision on my part and the rest of my month will suck
I want your download speeds.

I want to know why it would be a dumb decision.

lolgaxe wrote:
You could just download a 20mb clip and play it on repeat for a few hoursseconds and get the same effect.

O.K., maybe this is why.
____________________________
One of my opinions is worth three of your facts.

#18 Feb 20 2014 at 2:17 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,207 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
You could just download a 20mb clip and play it on repeat for a few hours and get the same effect.


You could just download a gif and get the same effect while saving even more bandwidth. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#19 Feb 20 2014 at 3:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
You could just download a 20mb clip and play it on repeat for a few hours and get the same effect.


You could just download a gif find a girlfriend and get the same effect while saving even more bandwidth. Smiley: schooled
Parents' basement, something, something...

Edited, Feb 20th 2014 1:01pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#20 Feb 20 2014 at 3:06 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,207 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
You could just download a 20mb clip and play it on repeat for a few hours and get the same effect.


You could just download a gif find a girlfriend and get the same effect while saving even more bandwidth. Smiley: schooled
Parents' basement, something, something...

Edited, Feb 20th 2014 1:01pm by someproteinguy


Problem is it's a crawlspace not a basement. No normal girl wants to be on their back or stomach the first time they're in there. Smiley: bah
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#21 Feb 20 2014 at 3:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
Smiley: disappointed

Normal girls are boring anyway; need to find some freaky gamer chick. Smiley: nod
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#22 Feb 20 2014 at 3:35 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,207 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Smiley: disappointed

Normal girls are boring anyway; need to find some freaky gamer chick. Smiley: nod


How will I get them out of their basement?
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#23 Feb 20 2014 at 3:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Smiley: disappointed

Normal girls are boring anyway; need to find some freaky gamer chick. Smiley: nod


How will I get them out of their basement?
Kids these days... Smiley: oyvey

You can go with duct tape and chloroform, maybe a catapult or some kind of pulley system if you're not into heavy lifting. Best case they've been down there so long it'll be easy to get the parents to give you a hand; worst case you just move in to her place and tell your parents to send you money and hot pockets in the mail.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#24 Feb 20 2014 at 3:47 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,207 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Smiley: disappointed

Normal girls are boring anyway; need to find some freaky gamer chick. Smiley: nod


How will I get them out of their basement?
Kids these days... Smiley: oyvey

You can go with duct tape and chloroform, maybe a catapult or some kind of pulley system if you're not into heavy lifting. Best case they've been down there so long it'll be easy to get the parents to give you a hand; worst case you just move in to her place and tell your parents to send you money and hot pockets in the mail.


You've truly earned that Guru title, unlike that Jophiel who just wastes his bandwidth. Smiley: nod
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#25 Feb 20 2014 at 3:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,625 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Smiley: disappointed

Normal girls are boring anyway; need to find some freaky gamer chick. Smiley: nod


How will I get them out of their basement?
Kids these days... Smiley: oyvey

You can go with duct tape and chloroform, maybe a catapult or some kind of pulley system if you're not into heavy lifting. Best case they've been down there so long it'll be easy to get the parents to give you a hand; worst case you just move in to her place and tell your parents to send you money and hot pockets in the mail.


You've truly earned that Guru title, unlike that Jophiel who just wastes his bandwidth. Smiley: nod
Anything for a fellow gamer. Smiley: thumbsup

Best of luck with your new love, be sure to post pics. Smiley: wink
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#26 Feb 20 2014 at 3:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,187 posts
Preferably blurry pics.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#27 Feb 20 2014 at 4:08 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Leave your thumb on the lens, that's my advice.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#28 Feb 20 2014 at 4:10 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,207 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Leave your thumb on the lens, that's my advice.


What am I trying to do, a selfie?
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#29 Feb 20 2014 at 4:12 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
We just want a picture of your primary sexual partner, that's all.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#30 Feb 20 2014 at 5:15 PM Rating: Good
******
43,460 posts
Chloroform isn't as effective as diethyl ether, anyway.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#31 Feb 20 2014 at 8:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Yeah, I'm a sucker. Sue me.

angrymnk wrote:
Listen you, (google edit ) person of limited brain capacity, anything is *potentially* a bandwidth hog. The only relevant factor is: THE USER ALREADY PAID FOR IT REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT IS BEING USED FOR.


What is it you think the user has already paid for? The end users monthly payments barely pay for the cost to lay the **** wires to his house over the expected lifetime of those wires. That's great if all you want to do is connect to services hosted directly on your own ISPs network. You, as a home user, do not pay a freaking dime for the bandwidth used to host AWS's customers, or any of a dozen other hosting services out there. You don't pay for the backbones. You don't pay for the cables run across various oceans, which have to constantly be re-run because the one we ran 5 years ago isn't close to sufficient to manage the requests for bandwidth.

Quote:
If the comcast does not like it being used for something, then it shouldn't have all those pretty commercials that say *high quality video, online games, music and everything interwebz you can possibly want and or need at speeds $provably_wrong_number.


Um... Comcast makes their network faster for you by not allowing a handful of knuckleheads to drag the performance into the dirt. That's the part you don't seem to be able to grasp. Paid "official" hosted content is one thing, because the money for the bandwidth trickles around all the networks that are affected. Peer to peer stuff isn't. That guy two doors down who's downloading terrabytes of torrents and then hosting them for anyone on the net who wants them is going to kill your network performance, and he's not paying any more money than you are. Comcast has to either throttle that action *or* increase the cost to all its home users so as to have sufficient bandwidth for anyone who wants to do peer hosting at their home (or put hard caps on total usage I suppose).

Quote:
It is not up to comcast, it is up to the user. That is what the common carrier piece is about.


Huh? That doesn't even make sense. The common carrier bit means that they'd come under additional regulations. That's it. It specifically means that they can't refuse to do business with anyone for any reason and must provide access to whatever services the government decides are necessary in their role as a "public utility".

The irony is that making them a common carrier, not only wont affect their ability to throttle content based on type and/or location, but arguably would give them more power to do so. If, as a common carrier, they are required to provide a certain level of performance to all users for a reasonable fee, then failing to take action against those who abuse the network and deny other users that performance level would be something they'd actually be required by law to do something about.

I'll point out again, that those pushing this don't really care about your freedom to do what you want on the internet. Quite the opposite. They just want to regulate it more. That's the ultimate agenda here. Just a lot of people don't realize it.

Quote:
And no it wouldn't shut the internet down; just like with other utilities, people would adjust their habits accordingly and not, for example, waste water.


Wrong. It will no longer just be a matter of discretion versus public relations on the part of a private ISP. It'll be law. You get that in places (like where I live) where droughts happen, they pass laws limiting how much water you can use, what days you can water you lawn, fine you if you use too much, etc. What do you think will happen to bittorrents if ISP were made into utilities? Instead of just risking being throttled, they would be subject to fines and possibly even jail for disrupting a public service. I'm assuming that's not really what you want.

Seriously. Engage the ol noggin for once. What you're screaming about would accomplish the exact opposite of what you claim you want it for.

Edited, Feb 20th 2014 6:53pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#32 Feb 20 2014 at 8:52 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,460 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm a sucker.
Not really the s-word most associate with you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#33 Feb 21 2014 at 7:25 AM Rating: Decent
**
539 posts


Seriously. Engage the ol noggin for once. What you're screaming about would accomplish the exact opposite of what you claim you want it for.

***

No. I think I saw the issue you can't seem to get over: regulation. You come with a default conclusion that all regulation is bad. That wild wild west will benefit everyone. It won't. It will benefit the companies. Not the end users. Since I am the end user, I tend to side with me. I am biased like that.

But coming back to the regulation, It is not always bad. I will even go as far as to say that when we have an effective oligopoly, regulation will benefit the the majority of consumers b. Like i said before, the ISPs have their choice: update their infrastructure, so that they deliver on what they promise, or they will be regulated.

Incidentally, do you know how that infrastructure got into place to begin with?

Gbaji, you are on the wrong side here. As a society we have the right to change the rules of the game if they see as bad, unfair, or just plan stupid. In the case of ISPs, I am willing to say society is mostly in a rare agreement. It is time to change the rules.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#34 Feb 21 2014 at 7:48 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,683 posts
angrymnk wrote:


Seriously. Engage the ol noggin for once. What you're screaming about would accomplish the exact opposite of what you claim you want it for.

***

No. I think I saw the issue you can't seem to get over: regulation. You come with a default conclusion that all regulation is bad. That wild wild west will benefit everyone.
Smiley: nod Exceptionally predictable, he is.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 43 All times are in CDT
Aethien, ElneClare, Xsarus, Anonymous Guests (40)