# "The SDMB is run at a loss" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 23, 2003, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022 "2003-02-23T21:52:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![kabbes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e99b99/32.png) [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/41 "2003-02-24T17:40:34Z")
Melingate is about as well known as it gets on these boards. Your eagerness to tell the Chicago Reader their own business should be tempered by your lack of knowledge of _our own bloody history_. To do otherwise, as you have done here, is arrogance at its absolute worst. Now as regards your overreaction and trigger-hair temper, here is the _entirety_ of my first post to this thread: > [@](#): > > Yeah, well, don’t presume you’ve seen everything on the internet, Reverend. The world is greater than is dreamed of in your philosophy. > > Do a search for “Merlingate” and see what you might find. And for this, you decide to react by calling me “dipshit” and launching a 300-word (count’em) hissy fit. Now - I will make no attempt to deconstruct my 33-word (count’em) post. Because, simply, there is no need. It is _so_ benign, _so_ mild that I am confident that by simply pointing out to the neutral just what it is I said, I have made all the argument that I need. If you read things into a simple tip’o’the wink to board history, then that is _your_ projection, not mine. Similarly I see no need to counter accusation of being a prick, monumental or otherwise. I am quite well known enough here by quite enough people - IRL and otherwise - to know who is being made look foolish by such statements. Here’s a hint: it isn’t me. I suggest that you look elsewhere for your excuse to launch another of your pathetic tirades. This goon ain’t playing. You are boring. pan ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/42 "2003-02-24T18:03:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reverend Mykeru \* > **Unfortunately, or fortunately, I was not born omniscient like some people and forced to walk the earth as does Lucifer in the Book of Job.** God forbid you use that Lexis/Nexis you are so proud of to get an answer before you post an assertion. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reverend Mykeru \* > **Unfortunately, just telling me: \ > Tells me very little and, at best, tells me the state of things circa 1995.** Correct me if I’m wrong, which I’m not, you asked for precedent. Not precedent after a certain time, but precedent. I provided you with a statute that was enacted because of the number of these kinds of suits to prove there were a lot of these suits. How does that not help you? Do you want me to search every district court filing and weed them out for you? Sorry, no dice. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reverend Mykeru \* > **The reference to America Online, Inc. v. Nam Tai Electronics, Inc., is interesting, but not quite salient to the idea of one poster suing another poster for malicious comments. And it has little to do with the functioning of the SDMF. I will try not to be subtle, because this seems to confuse people who are, paradoxically, omniscient unlike me: AOL is a service provider. Not a host of a forum. They have access to people’s legitimate identity because they process payments. I don’t know about you, but I didn’t give the SDMB my credit card number when I registered and there is nothing that prevents people from entering bogus information and using a disposable Hotmail account to register. So the idea that the SDMB or the Chicago Reader would be face legal action to reveal someone’s identity is just silly. If someone tried legal action against the SDMB or the Chicago reader in the same way or for the same reason as they did for AOL they would be fucking barking up the wrong tree.** First, I wish you would read my post before attempting to dispel it. I cited the AOL case for the proposition that it is not just being a defendant in a lawsuit, but also the compliance with subpoenas that will cost a forum provider money to deal with a libel issue. And, if you decided to actually read the case, before shooting off your mouth, you would have read this: > [@](#): > > Following the filing of the complaint, Nam Tai obtained a subpoena duces tecum in California directing Yahoo to disclose its subscriber data on “scovey2.” Based on the information subsequently disclosed by Yahoo, Nam Tai was able to determine that “scovey2” obtained his Internet access through America Online, Inc. (AOL), an online services company that also serves as a portal site to the Internet. Although AOL was challenging the subpoena, it was Yahoo that also had to comply with a subpoena for their information. So now we have established you don’t read my posts, nor the caselaw I cite. Why the hell would I do any more research for you? The fact remains that the Reader has opened itself up to potential litigation by having this message board. Some of it’s policies are meant to try and decrease the likelihood that they will be the subject of potential legal fees in the future. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reverend Mykeru \* > **Secondly, if you did call me a child-raping murderer and I decided to sue, who would I be suing? You. Not the SDMB, not the Chicago reader and trying to get who you are and where to sent the process server based on your SDMB registration would be pointless.** You may want to just sue me, but your lawyer would want somebody with a lot deeper pocket, oh, say, the Chicago Reader. Most of libel cases are taken on a contingency bases, and the lawyer is going to want the deep pockets. And the AOL case I cited shows that they certainly do subpoena the forum provider for information about who I am. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reverend Mykeru \* > **Secondly, it’s not clear that one can sue someone based on comments directed at an internet alias. How calling “Reverend Mykeru” anything at all would affect my employment, my family and my good name is not cut and dried.** Thanks for additionally showing that this area of the law is far from completely settled. Hence, the desire of the Reader to try and limit it’s potential liability. Add to your example, issues regarding the application of the CDA, definitions of “distributor,” and a multitude of other unsettled issues, and I can’t blame the Reader one bit for being cautious. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reverend Mykeru \* > **Nor, of course, does it have jack shit to do with the original issue. Sorry for delving back into reality and the point of the original posting, but it all has nothing to do with one poster calling another a dipshit and deploying the Dream Team.** Well, the oriiginal issue I was dealing with was your unsupported accusations regarding libel issues on a message board. You’re the one who started this little hijack, not I. And I answered to your assertions > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reverend Mykeru \* > \*\*So what we have here is another SDMB bit of moderator stupidity, that leads to bullshit legalistic rationalizations that have nothing to do with the issue, or anything else for that matter, leading to another fine SDMB tempest in a teapot that seems to exist simply so that some posters can flex their big brains while simulanteously exercising the complete irrelevancy that seems to be the cornerstone of their existence in some alternate universe. \*\* Now that we’ve dealt with your little hijack, I’ll attempt to deal with this issue too. Like the libel actions, there are a ton of cases out there dealing with the internet, MP3’s and copyright infringement. Websites that have MP3’s available, as well as those that explain how to do it, are being sued by the music industry. The Chicago Reader, rightfully so, wants to avoid, not just dead-on copyright infringements, but also wants to avoid the appearance that they may be aiding and abetting in any manner, the possibility of infringing on copyrights. It’s their call, not some self-proclaimed expert in copyright law that can’t even be bothered to correctly read posts or to check out cited cases. Calling **manhattan** stupid for closing a thread that might subject the Reader to a lawsuit is one of those Pot…Kettle moments you so love. ---
**Author:** ![Reverend\_Mykeru](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bc79bd/32.png) [@Reverend\_Mykeru](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reverend_Mykeru)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/43 "2003-02-24T18:09:32Z")
**kabbes** Kabbes decides that substantial discussion is not his forte and decides to have a discussion about discussion, mainly centered around my nerve in asking a question and having an opinion rather than acquiescing to the first SDMB regular who pronounces his opinion to be a priori correct in all situations. > [@](#): > > Melingate is about as well known as it gets on these boards. Read: Lazy ass straight doper doesn’t want to do the work to support his own contentions. And so? Did you miss the point yet again? Oh yes, you did. Fancy that. As I said, mere postings on a message board will be treated, without outside confirmation, as mere postings on a message board. > [@](#): > > Your eagerness to tell the Chicago Reader their own business should be tempered by your lack of knowledge of our own bloody history. Sorry. I get to tell you your business. I get to tell the Chicago Reader their business. I get to comment on all sorts of things. It’s called having an opinion, usually an informed one. You should try it sometime. The informed part, not merely just having an opinion. > [@](#): > > To do otherwise, as you have done here, is arrogance at its absolute worst. Nah, arrogance is being a SDMB old-boys network prick when someone merely asks for information. You seem to have confused being a jerk with being awe inspiring. > [@](#): > > Now as regards your overreaction and trigger-hair temper, here is the entirety of my first post to this thread: > > ## quote: > > Yeah, well, don’t presume you’ve seen everything on the internet, Reverend. The world is greater than is dreamed of in your philosophy. > > ## Do a search for “Merlingate” and see what you might find. > > And for this, you decide to react by calling me “dipshit” and launching a 300-word (count’em) hissy fit. Obviously you did not carefully read my first post or any subsequent posts, or just ignored them in order to be a jerk. Whatever gets you off, jackass. > [@](#): > > Now - I will make no attempt to deconstruct my 33-word (count’em) post. Because, simply, there is no need. It is so benign, so mild that I am confident that by simply pointing out to the neutral just what it is I said, I have made all the argument that I need. If you read things into a simple tip’o’the wink to board history, then that is your projection, not mine. I’m sure your response to my simple query, that I presume I have seen everything on the internet because I mentioned I was not aware of a case and asked for information, is “mild” in whatever non-copernican alternat universe you exist in where all celestial bodies revolve around your puckered sphincter. > [@](#): > > Similarly I see no need to counter accusation of being a prick, monumental or otherwise. I am quite well known enough here by quite enough people - IRL and otherwise - to know who is being made look foolish by such statements. Here’s a hint: it isn’t me. Sorry, I go by what I see in real time, not your buddies vouching for you, jack-off. > [@](#): > > I suggest that you look elsewhere for your excuse to launch another of your pathetic tirades. This goon ain’t playing. You are boring. Oh no, another SDMB regular accusing me of all sorts of things for daring to have an opinion and questioning nature. Imagine that. In the Straight Dope. How did that happen? And you are a hair-trigger prick, pompous, pretentious, ignorant and have questionable reading skills and in the future I will pay no notice of the static issuing from your keyboard. Life is too short to have to straighten out another ignorant twat on the SDMB who thinks the length and breadth of his posting bullshit means anything. Especially since your postings, so far, have failed to touch on anything of substance and it seems you will never get around to it. ---
**Author:** ![Reverend\_Mykeru](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bc79bd/32.png) [@Reverend\_Mykeru](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reverend_Mykeru)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/44 "2003-02-24T18:19:21Z")
**Hamlet** > [@](#): > > God forbid you use that Lexis/Nexis you are so proud of to get an answer before you post an assertion. Really, SDMB is covered by Lexus Nexus? > [@](#): > > Now that we’ve dealt with your little hijack, I’ll attempt to deal with this issue too. I understand now: Any disagreement with a SD regular, or attempt to return the topic back to the topic rather than their pompous Joycian free-association is regarded as a “high-jack”. Nah, sorry kids, I’m not doing it this time. I have some site work to do and I’m not interested in having another running fight with dipshits that seem to think being arrogant twits takes precedence over simply supplying information and/or having a modicum of decency and intelligence. You can argue all you want among yourselves, but nothing yet raised has one tiny little iota to do with the OP dealing with a thread being shut down because a question dealing with MP3 ripping was construed to be synonymous with illegal file sharing. It’s odd that on a forum associated with the Straight Dope a mere request for information become yet another chance for regulars to engage in personal attacks, faulty reasoning, poor reading skills, strawmen and another whole host of fallacies. I mean, all the points you are raised are brilliant, insightful, erudite, inspiring and should be sealed in 10 feet of lead-lined blast-proof concrete so that it can belong to the ages, but unfortunately, it’s almost unbelievably irrelevant. Maybe some other time. ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/45 "2003-02-24T18:43:37Z")
**Reverend Mykeru** , God knows I’m not an expert on any form of the law, but it appears to me that **Hamlet** answered your questions and requests for information. To dismiss that information out-of-hand, after you asked for it in the first place, doesn’t reflect well on you, in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Zoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/6de8d8/32.png) [@Zoff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoff)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/46 "2003-02-24T19:17:18Z")
I’ll second what **Sauron** said. You raised some points and **Hamlet** addressed them. All of the sudden, you don’t have the time to answer. Hamlet’s raised some issues of substance. You’re free, of course, to not respond but people are free to make inferences from the refusal. The “I’m more intelligent and don’t suffer fools gladly” posting persona has been done to death and gets tedious. I don’t have a dog in this fight, but you sure don’t come off well **Reverend Mykeru**. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/47 "2003-02-24T19:24:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reverend Mykeru \* > \*\*\*\*Hamlet **Really, SDMB is covered by Lexus Nexus?** Let’s play a little game, you and I. It’s called **PAY ATTENTION!!!** : Mykeru: OK, maybe I have absolutely no idea what I am talking about. Hamlet: God forbid you use that Lexis/Nexis you are so proud of to get an answer before you post an assertion. Mykeru: Really, SDMB is covered by Lexus Nexus? Hamlet: ::stupefied silence:: You make an assertion that the Chicago Reader should not fear lawsuits, and I point out that they, and others like them, can and have been, sued. A point that, rather than pleading ignorance, you could have found after 10 minutes on Lexis/Nexis, as I did. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reverend Mykeru \* > **I understand now: Any disagreement with a SD regular, or attempt to return the topic back to the topic rather than their pompous Joycian free-association is regarded as a “high-jack”.** Is it time for you to hop up on that crucifix already? I thought you might wait a couple pages, but let me know how the view is up there. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reverend Mykeru \* > **Nah, sorry kids, I’m not doing it this time. I have some site work to do and I’m not interested in having another running fight with dipshits that seem to think being arrogant twits takes precedence over simply supplying information and/or having a modicum of decency and intelligence.** So you want to add coward to your repertoire of condescending asshole. Good for you. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reverend Mykeru \* > **You can argue all you want among yourselves, but nothing yet raised has one tiny little iota to do with the OP dealing with a thread being shut down because a question dealing with MP3 ripping was construed to be synonymous with illegal file sharing.** And you can, and obviously have, ignored my points regarding the threats of legal costs that the Reader might have to incur. But don’t worry, I’m getting used to my “supplying information” and “intelligence” being overlooked by yourself. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reverend Mykeru \* > \*\*It’s odd that on a forum associated with the Straight Dope a mere request for information become yet another chance for regulars to engage in personal attacks, faulty reasoning, poor reading skills, strawmen and another whole host of fallacies. I mean, all the points you are raised are brilliant, insightful, erudite, inspiring and should be sealed in 10 feet of lead-lined blast-proof concrete so that it can belong to the ages, but unfortunately, it’s almost unbelievably irrelevant. \*\*You asked for information about precedence and threats of lawsuits. I gave you the same. And you throw a hissy fit, insulting me. Yeah, I think I’ve got you figured out. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reverend Mykeru \*\*\*Maybe some other time. \*\* When you come back, bring pie. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/48 "2003-02-24T20:09:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > **But free alternative weeklies generally aren’t rolling in money, no matter how ad-filled their pages are** You’d be surprised. It’s a growth market in the industry. ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/49 "2003-02-24T20:13:12Z")
You people have it all wrong. You were supposed to show that the good **Rev** is right. What kind of research are you pulling here, showing that a man of the cloth was misinformed? No wonder he needed to climb up on that cross. Although it seems that the good **Reverend Mykeru** is cultivating the “abrasive know-it-all” type persona here at the SDMB. He reminds me of that poster we used to have around here who had an obsession with Japanese animation, only not so dumb. What was that guy’s name, anyway? ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/50 "2003-02-24T20:29:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Biggirl \* > \*\*Although it seems that the good **Reverend Mykeru** is cultivating the “abrasive know-it-all” type persona here at the SDMB. He reminds me of that poster we used to have around here who had an obsession with Japanese animation, only not so dumb. What was that guy’s name, anyway? \*\* **Chas\_E**. And, IIRC he wasn’t obsessed with the animation as such, he was obsessed with the _fans_ of Japanese animation in a negative way (“They’re OUT TO GET ME and I hate them all!”). Plus, didn’t he have secret proof that The Transformers were actually created in someone’s basement by some “hippy” buddies of his but he couldn’t show us proof 'cause then all the evil Anime fans would invade his hippie pal’s privacy? (I think he was also the one who said George W. Bush had a secret mind-control accent.) Fenris ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/51 "2003-02-24T20:37:54Z")
That’s the guy **Fenris**! ---
**Author:** ![Reverend\_Mykeru](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bc79bd/32.png) [@Reverend\_Mykeru](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reverend_Mykeru)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/52 "2003-02-24T20:52:06Z")
My word: Becoming a Straight Dope regular means never having to read. Or just read the words you like and form whatever little sentence your hearts desire. I did say, to Hamlet: > [@](#): > > Thank you though for trying to post something of substance rather than being an obscurantist whistle-dick like kabbes, who is obviously privey to information not suitable for those who are not the elect, have not signed in blood and have not snatched the pebble from the old blind guy’s hand. And then directed my comments specifically at **kabbes** , and then a bunch of Straight Dopes cluster me because **Sauron** > [@](#): > > Hamlet answered your questions and requests for information. To dismiss that information out-of-hand, after you asked for it in the first place, doesn’t reflect well on you, in my opinion. And you are of the opinion that your opinion matters to me? Maybe, just maybe after you learn to read and distinguish proper nouns. \*\* Zoff\*\* > [@](#): > > ]I’ll second what Sauron said. You raised some points and Hamlet addressed them. Which means “I’m not going to actually bother reading the thread and just go by what Sauron said”. And Hamlet addressed them? No shit. See above. I thanked Hamlet for given some substance, but then, considering the OP from which this thread was drawn (Rules are rules because of legal considerations therefore a mod can close a thread about MP3 ripping based on Intellectual Property Right considerations that have nothing to do with what the poster was talking about). It may well be that some people have sued other people based on conversations in forums. They may have also sure the provider. They may have lathered themselves in butter and slide down a hill covered in Saran Wrap too. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the irrelevant IPR issues raised in the OP thread. Again, I thanked Hamlet for his information but, again, on reflection this has absolutely not a goddamn thing to do with the issue. > [@](#): > > All of the sudden, you don’t have the time to answer. Hamlet’s raised some issues of substance. You’re free, of course, to not respond but people are free to make inferences from the refusal. Odd. I thanked Hamlet for at least providing something of substance. Again, on reflection what all this has to do with a moderator shutting down a thread because he perceived non-existent Intellectual Property Right issues is beyond me. And you are right. I don’t have the time, because it’s irrelevant to the OP. Incidentally, after reading some of your comments I have made an inference as well: That you don’t have the time to read enough to get the back story to understand what you are commenting on in the first place. > [@](#): > > The “I’m more intelligent and don’t suffer fools gladly” posting persona has been done to death and gets tedious. I don’t have a dog in this fight, but you sure don’t come off well Reverend Mykeru. I guess I don’t to people who find relevancy suspect. **Hamlet** > [@](#): > > Let’s play a little game, you and I. It’s called PAY ATTENTION!!!: This from people free-associating freely. > [@](#): > > Mykeru: OK, maybe I have absolutely no idea what I am talking about. > Hamlet: God forbid you use that Lexis/Nexis you are so proud of to get an answer before you post an assertion. > Mykeru: Really, SDMB is covered by Lexus Nexus? > Hamlet: ::stupefied silence:: > You make an assertion that the Chicago Reader should not fear lawsuits, and I point out that they, and others like them, can and have been, sued. A point that, rather than pleading ignorance, you could have found after 10 minutes on Lexis/Nexis, as I did. You don’t really need me here if you are just going to make up dialogue, do you? As I said, fear of lawsuits, subpoenas and roving bands of mimes may be a legitimate concern. Certainly no one wants the Chicago Reader taken down because someone called someone else a pederastic goat fondler. Given. None of those concerns, however, has one goddamn fucking thing to do with **a moderator shutting down a thread claiming “rules are rules” because he wrongly interpreted a discussion about MP3 ripping as tantamount to condoning IPR violations.** For the sake of brevity, the aforementioned bold text with hereforto be referred to as “the point”. I mean, we can have a discussion about bad lawsuits, our litigious society, and people suing McDonalds because they spilled coffee on their crotch. It could be fun. It could be informative. It, however doesn’t have anything to do with **the point**. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## Originally posted by Reverend Mykeru I understand now: Any disagreement with a SD regular, or attempt to return the topic back to the topic rather than their pompous Joycian free-association is regarded as a “high-jack”. > > Is it time for you to hop up on that crucifix already? I thought you might wait a couple pages, but let me know how the view is up there. Yet another Dope wants to have a discussion about the discussion rather than a discussion about **the point** and then accuses me of highjacking. Doper ploy #35. Collect the whole set. > [@](#): > > So you want to add coward to your repertoire of condescending asshole. Good for you. Yes, you have me there. I am yellow. I shiver and curl up into the fetal position at the thought of either having an irrelevant conversation about the conversation or a conversation about issues that have nothing to do with **the point**. > [@](#): > > And you can, and obviously have, ignored my points regarding the threats of legal costs that the Reader might have to incur. But don’t worry, I’m getting used to my “supplying information” and “intelligence” being overlooked by yourself. Yes, yes I did. I completely ignored your points about the legal costs that the reader might have to incur, because the cases and hypotheticals you cited (now, follow your own advice here and pay attention. No, don’t just read that while you are thinking of something else to say. Really and truly pay attention. In fact, stick with me here. Let’s treated this as sort of a guided meditation exercise. Are you ready? breath in, breath out, go to your happy place and now read the following) have nothing to do with **the point** , which as we already know, has to do with **a moderator shutting down a thread claiming “rules are rules” because he wrongly interpreted a discussion about MP3 ripping as tantamount to condoning IPR violations.** > [@](#): > > You asked for information about precedence and threats of lawsuits. I gave you the same. And you throw a hissy fit, insulting me. Yeah, I think I’ve got you figured out. Yes, another Doper that begins with a snotty comment and then is all confused when people react to it. I will again thank you from the bottom of my heart for the interesting information you provided. I really appreciate it. It is just so damn nice of you. I am forever in your debt. Too bad it has nothing to do with (come on, everyone now) **the point**. > [@](#): > > When you come back, bring pie. Doper cliche in-joke that passes for cleverness. ---
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/53 "2003-02-24T21:05:53Z")
Yo, Mykeru? Try to read one of the other forums for a while. You seem to have a rather unhealthy fascination with this one, and it’s not doing you a lot of good. As it is, your behaviour is being discussed by the staff. Just saying. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/54 "2003-02-24T21:32:16Z")
“Intellectual dishonesty” is a term that gets thrown around way too often, but thank you for providing us with an example. In your most recent post you backtrack on your other posts, and decide, unitlaterally, what your point really was. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reverend Mykeru \*\*\* > As I said, fear of lawsuits, subpoenas and roving bands of mimes may be a legitimate concern. Certainly no one wants the Chicago Reader taken down because someone called someone else a pederastic goat fondler. > > Given.\*\* Oh, see, I missed it. My bad. I thought when you said: > [@](#): > > So the idea that the SDMB or the Chicago Reader would be face legal action to reveal someone’s identity is just silly. If someone tried legal action against the SDMB or the Chicago reader in the same way or for the same reason as they did for AOL they would be fucking barking up the wrong tree. and > [@](#): > > He was suing the posters, not the provider. Apples and Oranges there. Again, it is a case of a business seeking suit, not posters suing each other for calling each other dipshits. How this means that a forum has any complicity is beyond me. and > [@](#): > > They can sue away. Nothing to do with the SDMB or the Chicago reader and should they try to get my name off the SDMB they are going to be sadly confused. In any case, the first thing they would do is not harrass the Chicogo reader, they would check internic registrations anyway. you were saying exactly the opposite of what you are now saying is given. Color me confused by what passes for “logic” in your head. But, let’s put all this acrimony aside and deal with **the point** , you now claim you were making the entire time, because, I am still a tad bit confused by it. If I understand you correctly, you now concede that the Chicago Reader is, and should be, concerned with potential lawsuits. In response to that concern, the Chicago Reader takes a very cautious approach regarding potential copyright infringements. I fully support that policy. I’m still not sure where you stand on it. Are you upset because of the policy itself, or because you disagree with **manhattan’s** closing the thread based on that policy. If you are going to now make **a point** , you might want to make it clear, and support it with more than insipid namecalling. ---
**Author:** ![Reverend\_Mykeru](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bc79bd/32.png) [@Reverend\_Mykeru](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reverend_Mykeru)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/55 "2003-02-24T21:48:40Z")
**Hamlet** > [@](#): > > you might want to make it clear, and support it with more than insipid namecalling. You mean like Kabbas’ initial response to my question? > [@](#): > > Coldfire > > Yo, Mykeru? Try to read one of the other forums for a while. You seem to have a rather unhealthy fascination with this one, and it’s not doing you a lot of good. As it is, your behaviour is being discussed by the staff. > > Just saying. I am just appalled at the stupidity and visciousness of this one, both regulars and moderators alike. I will remind you that the origin of this whole discussion came from a moderator shutting down a thread because he thought it indicated illegal activity, apparently not having the sense to differentiate between MP3 ripping for persona use and file sharing, which lead to an equally irrelevant discussion of legal considerations of libel action which has jack shit to do with IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) issues, even if there were IPR issues, which there are not. And then some SDMB regulars get nasty with me because they I simply voice the opinion that it is all just stupidity drift from irrelevancy to irrelevancy. You can discuss all you want. Apparently you are the only ones allowed to. ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/56 "2003-02-24T21:49:56Z")
**Reverend Mykeru** , I seriously doubt my opinion means much to you, just as yours doesn’t mean much to me. It’s just common courtesy to acknowledge the effort when someone has provided you with information you requested, even if that information doesn’t appear to support your argument. No big deal. Just sayin’, is all. ---
**Author:** ![Zoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/6de8d8/32.png) [@Zoff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoff)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/57 "2003-02-24T21:54:36Z")
Reverend, you made a statement that was proven wrong. You can argue it’s a tangent but you don’t own the thread. You were wrong and are engaging in increasingly petty posts in an attempt to avoid conceding that you’re wrong. Threads meander from topic to topic. You were simply wrong about something. It happens. Don’t try to hide by claiming everybody’s stupid or vicious. You were wrong and lashed out instead of dealing with it in a constructive manner. Your opinion of me is noted. Another little data point for you is that I’m perfectly content to sit back and watch you act like an ass. The list of people who think you’re clever is: you. Keep it up, I believe the Pit should always have at least one thread with a melt-down on page one at all times. ---
**Author:** ![Reverend\_Mykeru](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bc79bd/32.png) [@Reverend\_Mykeru](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reverend_Mykeru)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/58 "2003-02-24T21:55:36Z")
**Hamlet** > [@](#): > > In response to that concern, the Chicago Reader takes a very cautious approach regarding potential copyright infringements. I fully support that policy. I’m still not sure where you stand on it. Are you upset because of the policy itself, or because you disagree with manhattan’s closing the thread based on that policy. My goodness. You postively can’t be bothered reading, can you? Please explain the following: How a discussion about MP3 ripping and/or creating CDs for personal use becomes a discussion about file sharing and intellectual property rights? The two are not synonymous, regardless of what the Chicago Reader “policy” is. Please support whatever contention you may make not with possibilities, but with necessary and sufficient reason for assuming MP3 creation necessarily involves IPR violations. As I said. I make Mp3s for personal use in much the same way I used to make tapes off recordings. Please explain how an example of legal action against AOL to acquire the identity of a poster has anything to do with doing the same in this forum. I’m sorry, but it might involve reading where I write about how trying to get an identity off a forum is not the same as from a provider. Please explain the connection between the libel cases you cited and IPR issues. Or does everything fall under the rubric of “lawsuits” with no discrimination at all? ---
**Author:** ![White\_Lightning](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@White\_Lightning](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/White_Lightning)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/59 "2003-02-24T21:55:55Z")
At any rate, what this thread is _actually_ about is how much money it costs the Reader day-to-day to run the SDMB, and has only tangentially to do with why the thread it links to was closed. In fact, there’s already a [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=165082) for discussing that. Just for, you know, reference purposes. ---
**Author:** ![Reverend\_Mykeru](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bc79bd/32.png) [@Reverend\_Mykeru](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reverend_Mykeru)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/60 "2003-02-24T21:57:47Z")
**Zoff** > [@](#): > > Reverend, you made a statement that was proven wrong. Oh, ok, if you say so. It would be nice if you could tell me which statement this was. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022.md?page=4)