Comcast NBC-Universal deal closes

Darn...so much to respond to. First off I would like to thank Jeff for posting a well thought out response absent the personal stuff. It is much easier to have a conversation when all parties are civil. That said, I'm man enough to admit (as I did in the beginning)...I know nothing about the net neutrality...I'm studying the differing definitions...but it would be silly to form an opinion absent the knowledge. It seems like that response has nothing to do with what I've discussed. I'm aware why the FCC exists...maybe not as thoroughly as Jeff...but I know that there are limited frequencies, etc.

My beef with the FCC is not against them handling their stated duties. My beef is with the FCC becoming a governmental censorship agency. This is exactly what they are doing when they force Comcast to provide increased children's programming, etc. They use licenses as censorship tools. One need only look to the history of Howard Stern to see how that works. I would be interested in seeing how others feel about the FCC dictating content versus staying out of that and handling their stated duties (limited frequencies, etc).

I suspect the people with Aamilj's point of view believe it's perfectly ok for one entity to control what you see/hear, as long as that entity is a corporation and not the government. Personally, I don't see any difference between the two. Giving any one entity total control over content will always be a bad thing, no matter what that entity may be.

Jeff and others seem to be making this point. I use this quote to respond to all. First off...simply stated...your suspicion is wrong. I already referred to my belief that monopoly laws should be adhered to. I do have a problem with the government censoring content as discussed above. Don't you?

I would indeed have a problem if there was ONE private or public entity charged with disseminating the news. This simply is not reality. Even after this merger there are plenty of private and public competitors to Comcast. If we got even close to ONE party...then my strict belief in monopoly laws should address that reasonably. I certainly would rather take my chances with monopoly laws finding a fair outcome versus the opinions of the one admitted socialist in the Senate and the Saturday Night Live alum.

As for Jeff's educational post on the FCC (which I sincerely appreciate)... I want to take a moment to note that this discussion might have turned 180 degrees out of phase. I'm the one who supports the FCC's decision to allow the merger along with the multiple bipartisan politicians who have voiced their affirmation of the decision. My disagreement was/is with the socialist and the comedian (and now Jeff) who oppose the FCC's ruling. I want to make it clear on who is and is not denouncing the "government's" decision in this particular case. I point to this as evidence that I'm not always against the government. If they make a good decision, then I will support the good decision.

That the other 'staunch' right wingers on this site (who are all very respected and yet still preach opposing views often) don't come running in to back you up (when they definitely don't remain silent otherwise) is something I find quite interesting.

Tek...you are one of three people on this site who constantly cling to my posts...looking to attack and make it personal. Besides the fact that on this very thread there have been those who "back me up"...the point is who cares? This is a discussion forum. We discuss. I don't "keep score" of who does and does not agree with me/you, etc... Apparently it is important to you to have affirmation of your takes...? This very article was political. Every response, including your own was political (though I admit I did not understand your Egypt comment and what it had to do with this story?). Politics was part of CoasterBuzz, this thread, and many other threads long before I started participating. I note that you rarley make a civil response against my arguments/discussions. you instead do your best to align your "supporters" against me. My point being...I don't care if it is 100-1! If I disagree, I will say so while respecting the rights of the 100 to have their own opinion.

As time goes on here... More and more posters realize that what you've said/implied about me is simply not true. Gonch's quote about patterns in how certain posters respond to those they disagree with was certainly telling. And whether he did so to "back me up" or he hates my guts (as you hope)...the post STILL shines true. I participate in all threads. I doubt you will find one post where I started political discussion. I respond.

I hope that in time you Tek, and the few hold-outs who harbor animosity can learn to respond to the discussion/opinions rather than personalize it. This thread is not about Tek and Aamilj. This thread is about a Comcast Merger.

Besides the fact that on this very thread there have been those who "back me up"...the point is who cares?

Two people saying they don't care isn't the same as backing you. At all. Saying things like people hating your guts, etc. is you making it personal, not me. I don't care for you, and I'll be as vocal about that as I'm allowed to be.

And I've never said your 'take' was wrong. It's your attitude that your opinion matters more than other's opinions, and the fact that you only seem to care about politics on a coaster board that I take issue with. I didn't say in this thread that you shouldn't be discussing what was being discussed, in fact, at first, all I said was in response to your saying you weren't up on Net Neutrality, and I think everyone should educate themselves. It's when you tried to make the thread all about you by saying:

since I'm labeled an underhanded nut-kicking name caller who hates democrats...

So you're right, this thread isn't about us, so stop throwing a pity party and making it about you. Which was where I began to take issue. That others commented that they didn't isn't them coming in to back you up.

Aamilj said:
First off I would like to thank Jeff for posting a well thought out response absent the personal stuff. It is much easier to have a conversation when all parties are civil.

That doesn't give you a free pass from inserting subtle, ad hominem stabs at people. You do it constantly, whether you think you do or not.

I would indeed have a problem if there was ONE private or public entity charged with disseminating the news. This simply is not reality.

It simply is the reality. That was the point of my lecture of scarcity and natural monopolies. Where I live, I have Comcast. I have no alternative that is an apples-to-apples comparison. Wireless coverage is not adequate (or fast enough), and Qwest, the telco, doesn't offer the kind of bandwidth necessary to stream HD at a reasonable rate. No alternative means natural monopoly.

Where I live, I have Comcast. I have no alternative that is an apples-to-apples comparison.

Do you have access to Direct TV, Dish Network? I'm not certain we are arguing apples to apples here?

• I can't think of any deal in history that makes me as uncomfortable as this. Hopefully they won't mess with Nightly News.

I was under the impression(net neutrality aside) that your primary concern was that the nightly news would be affected. Besides the article, this is the direction I've been discussing. I think you've changed course now...? Do you believe that if the NBC News is changed/deleted that you will have lost access to fair/competitive news sources? Could you not switch to ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, radio, Newpapers, PBS, Internet, etc to access news? This is what I'm referring to when I opine that we are not even close to a monolpoly.

That doesn't give you a free pass from inserting subtle, ad hominem stabs at people.

There is nothing subtle about it. Sanders is a socialist and Franken is a comedian. Neither hide it. As for the ad hominem assertion..it is not always fallacious to point out personal characteristics; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.

When John Kerry and other Democrats support the merger while the farthest left of left Senators are the two denouncing it, is it not reasonable to question motives? We have exactly one admitted socialist in the highest levels of Federal government...Bernie Sanders. Al Franken ran as a DFLer who caucuses with democrats.

It is not subtle or unreasonable to point out that the loudest mouthpieces arguing against this merger are as far left as you can get in our Senate. That is the reality. The worries you and others echo about this merger, while perfectly acceptable, are championed by an extreme left position. I disagree with that position.

By the definition of ad hominem that you are using to refute my position, any time somebody denounces Fox News or Rush Limbaugh would parallel. But that is your definition not mine. I believe that personal character/positions are indeed legitimate to gain understanding.

My primary concern? I make an off-the-cuff comment and you take that to be my global manifesto? Uh, ok.

DirecTV does not offer Internet service themselves. When they do, it's typically via the phone company, which is not as fast as cable. It's not the same thing.

I think you need to look up ad hominem. I'm not talking about celebrities here, you can call them whatever names you want. You're also talking out of both sides of your mouth, first saying that leaving out "personal stuff" is good, then that it's legitimate. You can't have it both ways.

Aamilj said:
Could you not switch to ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, radio, Newpapers, PBS, Internet, etc to access news? This is what I'm referring to when I opine that we are not even close to a monopoly.

Isn't that over simplifying the situation? We will keep shrugging our shoulders every time an acquisition like this happens until we are left with one media outlet who also so happens to supply our internet connection. Or not.

My primary concern?

Typically when one makes a statement like this...

• I can't think of any deal in history that makes me as uncomfortable as this.

Followed up immediately with...

• Hopefully they won't mess with Nightly News.

...it might be fair to assume that said author took this quite seriously. If you were not meaning to infer that you were scared that the NBC nightly news would be "messed with" and that you felt this was not very important...I guess I should apologize (?) for misconstruing what it is you find important...?

I make an off-the-cuff comment and you take that to be my global manifesto? Uh, ok.

I did not take those two sentences as "off-the cuff." Particularly since those were the ONLY two sentences you wrote after posting the link. I assumed you meant what you said. If that is not important to you...why say it? I've been arguing that the loss or changing of NBC News is not a big deal...there are plenty of other sources. Do we agree on this point or not?

As for "global manifesto"...? I responded to what you wrote. I'm not a mind-reader. But rest assured that I've no concern or disagreement with what you specifically believe nor do I know, or even think about, what your global perspective is. I was responding to words on a screen.

I was not able to extrapolate from those two sentences that your primary concern was that you are not able to get high speed internet access or appropriate high definition service. Had that been your initial response after reading that link, I'm certain I and possibly others might have taken this discussion in a different direction. Perhaps even a more agreeable direction.

I'm not talking about celebrities here, you can call them whatever names you want.

I would consider the only socialist in our Federal government and a Saturday Night Live comedian to be fairly public figures. And nobody called them names anyhow. One is a proud socialist, the other a comedian. But if you believe that labeling public figures parallels the personal insult that goes on around here when some people have difficulty "handling what they perceive is anther's wrong opinions"...then I guess we just do not see eye to eye on this issue.

For the record, I don't mind a bit if you/Tek/Daemon/etc don't like me and feel need to make personal insults in lieu of debating substance. That is not my style, but to each their own. I just don't want to see this type of vitriol directed at me only to then to have myself accused as the one "upsetting the tone." As Gonch said...there is a trend in how these political threads evolve. The only reason I point out those that start getting "angry" with the tone is to defend that unreasonable accusation that I'm at fault later down thread. There is a clear and present trend in which posters tend to become a bit mean and personal when disagreement arises.

We will keep shrugging our shoulders every time an acquisition like this happens until we are left with one media outlet who also so happens to supply our internet connection.

I thought I covered this concern. We have monopoly laws...they should be enforced. Unless they are not enforced, your hypothetical future scenario is moot.

I merely opine that the executives at NBC/Comcast, the FCC, and the majority of our politicians thought this was a legal (and many thought good) merger. The comedian and the socialist were outliers in terms of their opinions on this matter. I'm going to side with the majority opinion. I appreciate, but disagree with those that see it otherwise. There have been times that I've not agreed with the majority opinion (ironically when the judges gave the comedian the election :))...but this time I happen to believe our government and politicians of both parties got this one right.

P.S. I would have to look over all of Jeff's new line of discussion in terms of being stuck with just ONE content provider for some (phone/internet) services. On the surface I'm inclined to agree with that new line of reasoning. But denouncing this merger on the basis that NBC News might be changed, or Comcast will not provide content that specific individuals find reasonable, etc...I'm not buying that line of reasoning...

TLDR

+1, and me too.

I did read the end though, hoping for a point. I can't believe you're reading into my Nightly News comment. I just like the show.

I just hope they let Brian Williams continue on 30 Rock.

TLDR...from the Urban dictionary! I'll admit I was not certain what that meant. But I found these responses pretty funny... Again...these are not my actual responses to anybody in particular...just cutting and pasting what some folks have to say about those that use TLDR... I'll assume that those willing to dish out the retort are capable of handling a little good natured rebuttal... ;)

1. The inability to accept, understand or pay attention to information when not separated by a header.
2. The ability to arbitrarily read 400 small posts but not a long one.
3. A sign of ADD or lack of reading capability.
4. A very cheap response and an indication of lack of wit.
5. 90% of the time: A lie.
6. A desperate attempt at a comeback used by people who just can't think of one.
7. Usually used by people who've been torn apart verbally but want one last attempt at looking witty.
8. Total failure at #7.
7. A sign that, not only is someone too lazy and stupid to read but, clearly, too lazy and stupid to even type out four words indicating such.
9. Collect every "tl,dr" post online, and you'll have a good estimate of the number of lazy idiots on Earth, who currently have Internet access.
10. Should really be:
"Too Lazy, Don't Read."

And yet you 'don't get' Jeff's comments about the personal stabs. "Oh, I'm posting this, but it's not directed at anyone in particular..."

He's talking about your subtle stabs at posters, he wasn't referencing your comments about politicians.

At least I have the balls to admit when I'm talking about you.

I realized something. I realized I was wrong. Let me explain:

I actually don't have a problem with you talking about politics. It's not that that bugs me. It's when you (more often than not) turn a political conversation into a political party argument.

Let's take a looksee at what I mean, and how that applies to the subtle jabs comment Jeff made.

Nightly Network News is about a decade behind the Newspaper Industry in terms of viability. No matter who owns the source, the delivery method is horse and buggy.

I don't know enough about Net Neutraility to comment.

I worry about Universal...as they seem to being doing just fine as is.

The socialist and the comedian are the two most worried politicians about this merger. I'm guessing this must be generally a "good" thing!

I'd be worried if I anchored a show on MSNBC. I can't imagine that "loss-leader" is a concept Comcast accepts as sound business strategy.

You know what's interesting? People in general had nothing to say about 80% of this post. Heck, I agreed with 80% of this post. It's the whole subtle jab you threw in there, because of your compulsion to get stuff started and then victimize yourself.

The socialist and the comedian are the two most worried politicians about this merger. I'm guessing this must be generally a "good" thing!

This is where you got it started in this thread. Most people have just overlooked you lately because you haven't been making political party line comments. Not sure if you realize it (but I'm sure you probably do even if you deny knowing), but when you say things like that, it's insulting to some people. You're now oh so subtly suggesting that people that agree that Net Neutrality is a bad thing must obviously be going along with 'fringe' politicians, one a lowly comedian and one a self described socialist. So that's saying that anyone who agrees with them, even though you haven't done anything to educate yourself on the matter, are no different than those people you're in the same sentence bashing.

But I'm sure you don't get that either.

But thats what Jeff and Brandon both latched on to. Heck, I let it slide. They obviously were put off by it.

But you couldn't stop there. Because you can't get rid of that compulsion to cause controversy on here.

No, you then came out of left field. Yeah, Jeff made the comment about you being "exceptionally good at underhandedly calling people names and kicking others in the nuts". News Flash, Einstein, he was talking about the subtle jabs you were taking at the rest of us, not Franken and the Socialist.

And Brandon never said or implied that you were a democrat hater, he simply said you were going against the grain seemingly because of party affiliation. So then you turned it into some attack on you.

"Oh, woe is me, they're calling me names and saying I'm a democrat hater! I always get treated this way every time I make political party arguments! Woe is me!"

Well, actually, you made a decent post, but because of that compulsion, you just had to come back and add the other long post that I stopped reading about a third of the way in. Heck, I didn't read all of Jeff's comments back, but he seems to have refrained from any personal jabs. But you, well, now everyone hates you again because you don't agree with the supposed status quo here. Because you're always getting attacked! Oh My!

Hey, at least I took the opportunity then to tell you the truth. You want to make accusations, expect people to correct you when you're wrong. And that's not saying the opinion you have was wrong, but the accusations that everyone hates you because you're a democrat hater is wrong.

Then after people stopped paying attention to you again, you had to come back yet again where you have to make jabs at others and claim the victim again! Oh drats! That Tek, DJ, and Jeff are REALLY BEING MEAN TO ME, YOU GUYS!

Then you blablablaed your way into this:

For the record, I don't mind a bit if you/Tek/Daemon/etc don't like me and feel need to make personal insults in lieu of debating substance.

We were debating substance, you had to make your insults and then act like we were the guilty party.

That is not my style, but to each their own

LOL...

I just don't want to see this type of vitriol directed at me only to then to have myself accused as the one "upsetting the tone."

And this comes back to the compulsion. This is Jeff's site. If you don't want this vitriol directed at you and then be accused (Oh poor Aamilj!) of being the one upsetting the tone, you have a choice, then, don't you? Maybe you'll even be smart enough to know where I'm going with this, but your obsession/compulsion here isn't going to let you stop posting here, we all know that.

As Gonch said...there is a trend in how these political threads evolve. The only reason I point out those that start getting "angry" with the tone is to defend that unreasonable accusation that I'm at fault later down thread.

The accusation comes after you make it a party line argument. That's how these things tend to evolve. People disagree but still discuss it, but then you come in and insult a party line opposite of yours, and you don't understand why people who are of that party line (I'm not, but the way, as I'm not a registered Democrat) are put off by you. When you insult a whole group of people, expect the members of that group or people that at that moment are relating to a subject that you're attributing to a party full of fringe cases to be kind of ticked. Its just how the world works.

There is a clear and present trend in which posters tend to become a bit mean and personal when disagreement arises.

And yet it tends to go that way towards you more often than not. Wonder why? Not that it matters. You've got a compulsion, it's not going away, and sadly, neither are you.

I'm mostly annoyed because I spent time going over the academic history of FCC regulation of electronic media, and for what? When he did respond, with issues of censorship, it's like he ignored all the reasons I outlined that the FCC has exercised its jurisdiction, with the backing of the courts.

djDaemon said:
Yeah, the "traffic shaping" issue is what concerns me most. I recognize that ISPs need to "shape" or manage their traffic to a certain extent. However, that shouldn't be done on a site-by-site or data type basis, as it seems has been the case where "shaping" has been going on up to now (throttling torrents, for example).

Well, traffic shaping in itself can be used for good or evil (like most technologies). And "data type" is exactly where traffic shaping can be MOST useful. For instance, video chat is FAR more sensitive to latency (time for a data packet to move from machine A to machine B) and jitter (change in latency) than bittorrent, so prioritizing VC traffic based on that metric would make sense.

But then we're right back to the issue of how you prioritize. Do you just prioritize ALL VC traffic? Do you favor your paid customers?

The best solution, IMHO, is indeed the "dumb pipe", but there ARE valid arguments in favor of traffic shaping.

With some new routers, though, you can set your own QoS/traffic shaping (though limited in technical details) through your router's configuration page. With my Linksys I can do some basic application and data type filtering to give priority to certain applications/data.

Of course, routers are probably not well enough equipped to do ALL of the traffic shaping/QoS managing for the traffic that some of us would put through our connection, but I don't think it would be much of a stretch to get from where we are right now to having routers that can handle managing QoS/data type filtering for even the heaviest of users.

If the "dumb pipe" has enough capacity to handle it, it should be no more than a "dumb pipe." Let us do the filtering and QoSing at our ends.

Do you really need to do your own qos'ing?

I'm smart enough not to run a 2,000-client BitTorrent session while trying to do a video chat. But I can't tell my neighbor to shut down his P2P client while I am video chatting with my Mom. And even if we both have DSL so that our streams run separately back to our ISP, once the traffic gets to the ISP, it gets streamed together (hopefully onto a much faster pipe) for the trip out to the Internet backbone.

Only the ISP is in a position to do the traffic shaping, and some of that traffic shaping is vital to the function of the network. Trust me; my department has been an effective ISP for roughly 3,000 users for the past 14 years and we have learned that without traffic limits, some users will take every available bit slot, to the impediment of everybody else. We worked backwards, shaping traffic first, then ultimately imposing rate caps. Which, by the way, is the only sensible way to measure data. Measuring total byte transfer is silly and ignores the real source of scarcity in the network, which is not total quantity, but instantaneous capacity.

Some ISPs already do caching for popular web data, and Verizon is taking things a step further on their mobile network, actually resizing images and re-encoding video for their mobile network. Someone mentioned YouTube being slow on Verizon...most likely it is not because Verizon is throttling it in favor of VCast, but because Verizon is re-encoding the video (almost) on-the-fly so that they can send fewer bytes to your device. After all, if your screen is 640x480 pixels it makes no sense for you to download a 960x720 movie. With a computer, the ISP doesn't know you have a small screen. But when the client is a phone, it makes sense to take that 960x720 WebM video and convert it to 640x480 H.264 that will require less transfer, and will play more efficiently on your phone. Verizon is also caching and re-compressing images, and they are very careful to say that they are doing all of this based on the *type* of data regardless of the source.

Now if you are a data purist you can argue that what Verizon is doing means that what you download from their network is not the same as what you asked for from the server. But assuming it is done as they describe, it is unlikely that you will actually argue that it is an evil thing they are doing...seamlessly reducing your traffic from ALL sources. But if they were to set priorities so that you couldn't get video from YouTibe and had to go through their premium VCAST service instead...that would be evil. And the fact that source filtering and traffic optimization are exactly the same process makes it that much harder to craft meaningful rules on Net Neutrality.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

    /X\        _      *** Respect rides. They do not respect you. ***
   /XXX\      /X\     /X\_      _     /X\__      _     _        _____
  /XXXXX\    /XXX\   /XXXX\_   /X\   /XXXXX\    /X\   /X\      /XXXXX
_/XXXXXXX\__/XXXXX\/XXXXXXXX\_/XXX\_/XXXXXXX\__/XXX\_/XXX\_/\_/XXXXXX

maXairMike said:
With some new routers, though, you can set your own QoS/traffic shaping (though limited in technical details) through your router's configuration page. With my Linksys I can do some basic application and data type filtering to give priority to certain applications/data.

That only applies for your link, which is the "last mile" (or "first mile" depending on your perspective). Like Dave said, you can just as easily simply shut down your file transfer when you fire up a video chat or Halo Reach session, but if your ISP hasn't provisioned themselves well, you'll still be impacted by all the merging traffic at the backbone.

It comes down to this (for me): blocking content, bad. Modifying content, marginal. Limited prioritization based on the demands of the application, possibly acceptable. Throttling in the face of limited resources, perfectly acceptable within reason (bet that surprises some people :) )

I know that it is largely dependent upon the main cable/fiber capacity to/from the ISP to the rest of the 'net (for lack of better description right now), but most ISPs and telcos should have stuff that can handle that kind of constant data stream from its users by now. Plus with all the other things you can connect just in your living room, maybe you have traffic you don't want to stop, but you need to slow it down/lessen its impact while you stream a movie on your TV or BluRay player. Or you have an update for a device that you want to be able to finish after a show, but it will hard-reset automatically before said show is done at its current speed, but will take an extra hour or more if you wait until after the show? Throttle back that traffic on your router so that it resets when you want it to.

Maybe I'm more OCD/controlling of what I want coming through at what time than most, but I can think of at least a few reasons I would prioritize my own traffic through my router or other tools.

(actually, that was a rhetorical question. I fully understand if you have a big enough network, or if you are a gamer, or if someone else on your network is...my point was that you can do all of that you want and it doesn't fix the need to do traffic shaping at the ISP level)

And while most ISPs have massive capacity, none has the capacity to allow all of their customers to run continuously at their full rated bandwidth simultaneously. The pipe isn't that big. Lucky for them, it doesn't have to be.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

    /X\        _      *** Respect rides. They do not respect you. ***
   /XXX\      /X\     /X\_      _     /X\__      _     _        _____
  /XXXXX\    /XXX\   /XXXX\_   /X\   /XXXXX\    /X\   /X\      /XXXXX
_/XXXXXXX\__/XXXXX\/XXXXXXXX\_/XXX\_/XXXXXXX\__/XXX\_/XXX\_/\_/XXXXXX

I've been goaded into Tek's sandbox where respect is measured by "ball" size. As such...I want everybody to note that it was not I who started this "tone" change. That falls to Tek. If Jeff does not like this style of posting, he will now be able to clearly and factually ascertain exactly who and where this tone change occurred. I am merely a responder, not an initiator. I personally prefer civility and subtlety...but since this more direct attack has been unleashed upon me...I will respond in kind. Who could blame a man who has had his ball size questioned? ;)

It's when you (more often than not) turn a political conversation into a political party argument.

I've done no such thing. But it is not atypical for you make stuff up out of thin air Tek.

Fact check...I agreed with John Kerry and the FCC. I typically am not politically prone to agree with government entities or John Kerry. This time I did. There was no dig at any PARTY. I made a "dig" (if you believe labeling them by their own monikers qualifies as a dig) at one socialist and one comedian in the Senate.

At least I have the balls to admit when I'm talking about you.

I think I get this one...at least before your next backtrack. Subtle stabs are BAD, uncalled for, uncivil. But show your BIG Balls and admit you hate/dislike another poster...well then that is perfectly acceptable.

While I could see how the meek might take issue with either rebuttal style...I tend to side with the one that at least demonstrates an inkling of cleverness. But I could see how others might prefer TLDR...

I see you quoted my post. I still have no idea what the subtle jab is that has you offended. If you elaborate, then maybe conversation could ensue. I wasn't attempting to be subtle. I was just posting an unfiltered opinion. In fact, 180 degree opposite of what you describe. I would think a tough guy poster like you with the "balls' to tell it like it is...would appreciate that post for its concise directness.

You're now oh so subtly suggesting that people that agree that Net Neutrality is a bad thing must obviously be going along with 'fringe' politicians, one a lowly comedian and one a self described socialist.

Now Tek...since you've made it clear that you would prefer me be direct with you...you are either dumb or lying with this quote. I mean what else could we label somebody who just took the time to quote my words...

• I don't know enough about Net Neutraility to comment

...and now wants to make an argument that I know or care about what anybody thinks about the subject.

For the record, the original link had NOTHING about net neutrality. One poster made a quick response about not liking the merger because "net neutrality" was not included. I made a quick response to that poster so he/she/everybody would understand that any comments I make were not about net neutrality. I did not want that poster to feel my responses were directed at him/her. That poster seems to have gotten that. ;)

But here you are Tek...on page three trying to link me to net neutrality. In fact using it as your entire basis to show I mythically/subtly was taking a stab at ANYBODY who held a position on that issue.

You see Tek, unlike you and others on this site, I have the "balls" to admit when I am not educated on a subject. I let those that know better do the educating....which ironically why I gave Jeff props on his FCC education and chose not to respond. It is also why I have said NOTHING about net neutrality. I will read from those who know about the subject on here and other places before I would ever make a comment about it. I would not want to be caught talking about Egypt on a thread discussing Comcast for example. But you have an opinion ON EVERYTHING! I don't think you mean to. But in your honorable attempts to protect your friends, and not so honorable attempt to personalize those you hate (i.e. me)...you can't help but make a comment...even when it is clear it does not involve you and you are not up to task for the conversation at hand. Sometimes knowing when not to comment is as important as when you do.

For you this forum is personal. It is about friendships/etc. For me it is about words on a screen. I'm here for information about rides, I'm here to help those that have Disney/California questions, and when you guys START a political thread...I love responding to those words. We approach it differently.

But I'm sure you don't get that either

Do you realize how stupid/funny this comment is in the REAL WORLD? You just spent paragraphs trying to define my position on net neutrality, which I don't know enough about...and let YOU and everybody know from post one. You just made crap up...yet you think you've scored a debate point on something you are either too stupid to understand or or lying about.

This is your affinity to personalize everything shining through. Not EVERYBODY hates me. This thread demonstrates that...but even if your delusions were factually correct...so what.

The truth is that there are those that agree with a lot of what I say. There are those that are secretly happy to see somebody on here be just as direct as you/daemon/Jeff are with YOUR political takes. To "get along" with you and all those supposed agreeing friends you constantly worry about Tek...those that disagree with Jeff et al can have a differing opinion, but they need to keep it toned down for your liking. I don't tone it down. I don't need you to like me. You are a dot on a screen that I will never meet. Eventually you (which you've tried before) will get mad when my tone parallels your own vitriol and seek to have me banned. Jeff will be in a bad mood one day and do it. You've already admitted he has done it before. Deep down you/Jeff and everybody know I am only throwing back in your face exactly the TONE you guys initiate. It is not the tone that bothers you. It is the fact that I disagree with a lot/most of what you have to say and take the time to point out why I think you are wrong...and often it leaves you looking silly (see Pippen story and evolution for example). Just because some who disagree with you/Jeff/daemon bite their tongues to "get along" and like this site for much more than our bimonthly political takes...does not mean they don;t silently appreciate somebody defending the opposing opinion with as much vigor as you guys dish out.

Maybe you'll even be smart enough to know where I'm going with this

As stated before I even read this sentence. I'm indeed smart enough to know how the likes of you and Jeff work. When you are unable to hang with an intellectual discussion you get mad and threaten bans/censorship. That is because this is personal for you. Rather than take it as dots on a screen, you let disagreement frustrate you. In your frustration you do stupid stuff like try to convince readers that I give two craps about net neutrality. When called upon your lies/stupidity...you become more frustrated to the point that your only recourse is to take your ball and go home. It is your sandbox...if you want to make crap up and pretend you know what you are talking about...go for it. Their are a lot of posters that see this in you Tek...even if they would never have the "balls" to say it to you.

There are three choices. Ban me...up your game/smarts...ignore me! I've found option three works best. When the few mentioned posters stay out of the political conversations, both sides of the spectrum get along just fine. It is just those of you with the "know-it-all" complex that seem frustrated and angry time and time again.

Conclusion:

My participation in this thread was quick and simple. It was about Jeff's worries about the NBC News. He has since ran away from that position. So much so that I am laughed at for even reading and quoting his very own words. Once the NBC new monopoly myth was blown out of the water...you guys have switched arguments to net neutrality. Nobody mentioned it in the article. The comedian and the socialist said NOTHING about net neutrality. Their worries, like Jeff's were content driven. Now that Jeff, you and EVERYBODY seems to agree with me, that there are no monopoly concerns with ANY content...it could have and should have ended there.

But that can't be for some of you...you have to show your "balls." You can't leave it and accept Aamilj was probably right. Since you hate him so much you have to make crap up about net neutrality and define a position that is not even there.

Since you appreciate straight forward honesty Tek...your whole BS post is pathetic! ;)