# "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:** 18\ **Page:** 4
**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, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/61 "2003-02-24T22:01:45Z")
Well, ok, to be fair, that’s what this thread _was_ about. Now it’s about what every other **Reverend Mykeru** thread has been about too. ---
**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, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/62 "2003-02-24T22:02:35Z")
Sauron > [@](#): > > 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. OK, now I know it’s not that you can’t be bothered reading. Now you are just perversely ignoring something because you think it gives you something to bitch about. I said 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. In other words, thanks for the info, unlike Kabbas who was playing this “here’s a word, look it up game”. Again: “Thank you though for trying to post something of substance” Which of those words don’t you understand? ---
**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, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/63 "2003-02-24T22:05:23Z")
**White Lightning** [quote] White Lightning > [@](#): > > Well, ok, to be fair, that’s what this thread was about. Now it’s about what every other Reverend Mykeru thread has been about too. Horseshit. I tried to leave this thread before it became a discussion about the discussion and was greated with accusations of cowardice. Can’t have it both ways. ---
**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, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/64 "2003-02-24T22:09:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reverend Mykeru \* > **I am just appalled at the stupidity and visciousness of this one, both regulars and moderators alike.** I wasn’t being viscious, my dear Reverend. You’d have noticed, trust me. Whether my remark was stupid - well… if you shape up and try something constructive in one of our other fine forums, then it wasn’t stupid of me to try and guide you in the right direction. If you don’t heed the advise, and carry on as you are doing now, your future on this message board will most likely be a short one, in which case my remark wasn’t stupid either. Damn, you just can’t win, can you, Rev? ---
**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, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/65 "2003-02-24T22:17:34Z")
**Reverend Mykeru** , now it’s you that apparently has a problem with reading, or at least with inference and context. Look again at what you’ve posted four times now. “Thank you though for **trying** to post something of substance …” (bolding mine) In other words, **Hamlet** didn’t post anything of substance – he just _tried_ to do so. As I said, I’m certainly not versed in the law, but his posts appear to answer your requests for information. If you therefore determine that’s not of substance – well, that would be a reflection on the initial query, wouldn’t it? It seems to me you took offense at a tone you perceived in **kabbes** ’ post (which may or may not have been justified, frankly). Perhaps I’m wrong, and you’re just this acrimonious on a regular basis. I’ve been to your Web site, and I’ve enjoyed reading some of your writings. I’m trying to get you to tone things down just a bit; you appear to be an excellent addition to this board, and you write well. I’d like to see you stick around. But hey, maybe the SDMB isn’t your cup of tea. No harm, no foul. I’m not trying to pick a fight with you, nor am I looking for something to bitch about. Just trying to pass along some friendly advice. ---
**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, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/66 "2003-02-24T22:30:57Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Reverend Mykeru_ > It would be nice if you could tell me which statement this was. Sure. Here you said: > [@](#): > > 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. You said that the AOL case was not relevant and that the Chicago Reader would not face legal action to reveal a person’s identity since it’s not a content provider. In fact, the case dealt discussed an entity that is not a content provider facing legal action to reveal a person’s identity. You said the distinction was that the case dealt with a content provider so it didn’t apply. The case did not only deal with a content provider. You were wrong. ---
**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, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/67 "2003-02-24T22:36:20Z")
**Sauron** > [@](#): > > Look again at what you’ve posted four times now. “Thank you though for trying to post something of substance …” (bolding mine) While you are using your amazing powers to tell me what I thought, can you pick some lotto numbers for me? No, I meant thank you for the attempt, for even trying, as opposed to the laziness displayed by Kabbas. I did then indicate that although substantial it was also somewhat irrelevant. **Coldfire** > [@](#): > > I wasn’t being viscious, my dear Reverend. You’d have noticed, trust me. Please do tell me, my sweet, sweet Coldfire, why everyone thinks everything is about them. > [@](#): > > Whether my remark was stupid - well… if you shape up and try something constructive in one of our other fine forums, then it wasn’t stupid of me to try and guide you in the right direction. If you don’t heed the advise, and carry on as you are doing now, your future on this message board will most likely be a short one, in which case my remark wasn’t stupid either. Yes sir. In the future I will refrain from having an opinion and/or questioning the reasoning and/or relevency of information. > [@](#): > > Damn, you just can’t win, can you, Rev? Official motto of the Waffen SS? ---
**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, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/68 "2003-02-24T22:42:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reverend Mykeru \* > > While you are using your amazing powers to tell me what I thought, can you pick some lotto numbers for me? I will be happy to, if you can explain to me why someone possessing your vocabulary and obvious erudition can’t write “Thank you though for posting something of substance” instead of “Thank you though for trying to post something of substance.” Surely you can see a difference there. And, as I said, what **Hamlet** provided does seem to be relevant to me. Again, though, I’m not a legal scholar, so I could easily be wrong on that. For Pete’s sake, man, I’m trying to help here. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/69 "2003-02-24T23:13:15Z")
Well, back to the OP, I tried to lure Ed Zotti to post here on the cost of maintaining the Message Board to the READER, but after all the tempers, tantrums, scolding, name-calling, and tongue-sticking-out, I can see why he didn’t. ---
**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, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/70 "2003-02-24T23:26:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by \*\*C K Dexter Haven \*\*\* > …I can see why he didn’t. Thanks for ruining another worthy OP, **Reverend Mykeru**. ---
**Author:** ![Green\_Bean](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/green_bean/32/1760_2.png) [@Green\_Bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Green_Bean)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/71 "2003-02-24T23:33:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reverend Mykeru \* > \*\*Official motto of the Waffen SS? \*\* Why don’t you do a search on “Gaudere’s Law?” ---
**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, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/72 "2003-02-24T23:39:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reverend Mykeru \* > \*\*\*\*Hamlet **My goodness. You postively can’t be bothered reading, can you?** Once upon a time, a person said: 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. That person was you. Then, shortly after that in an effort to deal with the issue, I ask you to clarify your **point** and, rather than a response, I get more insults. The bald-face hypocrisy you display is simply astounding. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reverend Mykeru \* > \*\*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. \*\ ***Manhattan** explained that, in a vast majority of cases, the information provided to respond to the question would be used to violate copyrights. He also went so far as to say there are plenty of other places to find out the information. All in a civil manner, without the personal attacks you so love. Seemed like a pretty good response to me. It is completely possible to create MP3’s without violating copyrights, but, again, as manhattan said, that is a small minority. The answering the question would necessarily give information about how to circumvent copyrights. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reverend Mykeru \* > **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.** You want me to explain it AGAIN, after you’ve ignored the explanation 2 times already? Going for a trifecta? I’ll repost exactly what I said last time you asked: \*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 directingYahoo 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?* ``` Do you get it now? The part about Yahoo, the host of the message board, having to respond to a subpoena. Has it sunk in yet? Again, your intellectual dishonesty and stupidity amaze me. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reverend Mykeru \* > \*\* > 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? \*\* You raised the issue of libel, dumbshit, not I. I answered your specific concerns, and now you have the gall to ask me what it has to do with IPR? Good God man, I can appreciate a bit of namecalling and teasing, it makes these threads more interesting. But to say I’m not addressing the OP when I respond to some of your wrong assertions is mind-boggling. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/73 "2003-02-25T00:59:32Z")
OK, bored now. If somebody who knows what s/he is talking about would like to email me the information I’d be much obliged. Can’t say as I see too much more coming out of this thread and I can’t think of a way to wrest it back from the hijacker. Thanks to those who offered information that was on-topic. ---
**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 25, 2003, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/74 "2003-02-25T01:18:49Z")
Did I mention that publishing can be insanely profitable? ---
**Author:** ![Marcus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85e7bf/32.png) [@Marcus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marcus)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/75 "2003-02-25T12:58:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Green Bean \* > \*\*Why don’t you do a search on “Gaudere’s Law?” \*\* Um, Godwin’s Law. ---
**Author:** ![kabbes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e99b99/32.png) [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/76 "2003-02-25T14:34:29Z")
Oh, do beware, **Marcus** , simply suggesting somebody searches for something. You’ll get accused of being lazy and a dipshit, not to mention the fact that if the individual can’t _find_ what you are talking about, you’ll also be accused of making the whole thing up. As far as our newest attention whore is concerned: I can’t help feeling that this angry-boy-lost, under siege mentality _has_ to be an act. Nobody can be _that_ angry with the world. Any time anybody says anything to him whatsoever that cannot unequivocably be called supportive, he blows up. It doesn’t matter if it is a vaguely sarcastic comment, a bare posting of facts or a really very friendly suggestion that he might consider being a bit nicer. It’s all bad. Can you imagine really being like that? In real life? “Train ticket please sir.” “WHAT DO YOU MEAN? Dipshit. Attacking me like that. You train nazis are a clique of masturbatory pricks!” or “Excuse me, can you tell me where the toilets are?” “What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you suggesting that I don’t know? OTHER places ALSO have toilets, you know. It IS possible to know about toilets without ever having BEEN here before!” No way - you wouldn’t last one day. One small piece of advice **Reverend** : if you don’t want people to think of you an an insufferable know-it-all with a superiority complex who can’t bear being wrong then don’t start lecturing people as soon as you meet them. It simply doesn’t sit well. If you choose to set yourself up as grand poobah of the internet - which is definitely the perception you’ve given _me_ - don’t be surprised when people are a little sarcastic when you prove your knowledge deficient. Mr. Angry might be funny for a while, but people never like him. pan ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/77 "2003-02-25T14:39:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Otto \* > \*\*OK, bored now. > > If somebody who knows what s/he is talking about would like to email me the information I’d be much obliged. Can’t say as I see too much more coming out of this thread and I can’t think of a way to wrest it back from the hijacker. Thanks to those who offered information that was on-topic. \*\* Make a new thread in ATMB. Then maybe Zotti will make an appearance. ---
**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 25, 2003, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022/78 "2003-02-25T19:00:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by **Green Bean** /\*\*Marcus \*\*\* > Um, Godwin’s Law. Don’t wanna go [there](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2994519#post2994519). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-is-run-at-a-loss/157022.md?page=3)