[dorknexus]

Quote

Use of the gov domain is restricted to governments entities. According to GSA guidelines, this includes U.S. Governmental departments, programs, and agencies on the federal level; federally recognized tribes (referred to by the GSA as Native Sovereign Nations, which must use the suffix -NSN.gov); State governmental entities and programs; cities and townships represented by an elected body of officials; counties and parishes represented by an elected body of officials; and U.S. territories.

The only thing governmental about BART is that it is a state funded program. Not really representative of the "Man."

This post has been edited by Dark_Nexus: 16 August 2011 - 02:14 PM

[lordofduct]

again that is your interpretation of the words organization and agency. The words them self do not define any level of favored intentions.

The organization of KKK members in the south were a terrifying sight for the mostly poverty struck blacks in the area.

Michael, an agent of God, was sent forth to protect the town from the brutals.


It's context my friend, context that is measuring the intent of these words. It's the "[US] government" in "[US] government organization" which holds the emotional queue (note US is in brackets as it is mostly implied contextually when referring to a San Francisco authority). This was our point from the get go, if you want an effective title, use effective language. Don't assume we 'feel' the same way about a word that you do, furthermore don't perpetuate the 'feelings' attached to words. The words lose there meaning that way and then we end up having to invent new words to replace them. Think bias, prejudice, irony, and many others that have lost their actual meaning because enough people attached contextual meaning to it that now people can't help but apply that context to the words when they hear them.

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 16 August 2011 - 02:15 PM

[NotarySojac]

lordofduct, on 16 August 2011 - 02:14 PM, said:

again that is your interpretation of the words organization and agency. The words them self do not define any level of favored intentions.

The organization of KKK members in the south were a terrifying sight for the mostly poverty struck blacks in the area.

Michael, an agent of God, was sent forth to protect the town from the brutals.


It's context my friend, context that is measuring the intent of these words. It's the "[US] government" in "[US] government organization" which holds the emotional queue (note US is in brackets as it is mostly implied contextually when referring to a San Francisco authority). This was our point from the get go, if you want an effective title, use effective language. Don't assume we 'feel' the same way about a word that you do, furthermore don't perpetuate the 'feelings' attached to words. The words lose there meaning that way and then we end up having to invent new words to replace them. Think bias, prejudice, irony, and many others that have lost their actual meaning because enough people attached contextual meaning to it that now people can't help but apply that context to the words when they hear them.

I have to disagree on this point. The NSA organization sounds marginally less threatening than the NSA agency. And I wouldn't call the KKK an "organization" unless I was racist. They'd be a "terrorist group" and agency wouldn't really apply. You're mixing apples with oranges. Find me an agency (not individual agent) that doesn't sound less threatening by referring to them as an organization.

Dark_Nexus, on 16 August 2011 - 02:10 PM, said:

Quote

Use of the gov domain is restricted to governments entities. According to GSA guidelines, this includes U.S. Governmental departments, programs, and agencies on the federal level; federally recognized tribes (referred to by the GSA as Native Sovereign Nations, which must use the suffix -NSN.gov); State governmental entities and programs; cities and townships represented by an elected body of officials; counties and parishes represented by an elected body of officials; and U.S. territories.

The only thing governmental about BART is that it is a state funded program. Not really representative of the "Man."

It only looks and smells like a duck, but in fact isn't a duck?

[dorknexus]

Well fuck by that logic there are few entities in America that aren't government affiliates.
Are we going to keep arguing semantics or are we going to move onto something more substantial?

[ishkabible]

i wont argue with your subjective and unrelated opinion but i will point out this

Quote

NSA agency

National Secularist Agency agency
National Secularist Agency organization

those both sound wrong to me...just a thought

[NotarySojac]

Dark_Nexus, on 16 August 2011 - 02:30 PM, said:

Well fuck by that logic there are few entities in America that aren't government affiliates.
Are we going to keep arguing semantics or are we going to move onto something more substantial?

You're right, we've got to sort out the 'Agency' vs 'Organization' issue before we tackle luxury issues of "who's that shooting our citizens and disrupting assembly."

Quote

National Secularist Agency agency
National Secularist Agency organization

those both sound wrong to me...just a thought

I suppose if I attack your well documented spell check reliance, I still will have chosen a bad example agency.

This post has been edited by NotarySojac: 16 August 2011 - 02:37 PM

[dorknexus]

Quote

I have to disagree on this point. The NSA organization sounds marginally less threatening than the NSA agency. And I wouldn't call the KKK an "organization" unless I was racist.

Both of these are retarded because it's called the National Security Agency. They are an Agent of the government, as in they make decisions as if they were an arm of the National government, as in they are government agents.

Acknowledging that something is an organization doesn't mean you support them. You are arguing semantics and meanwhile you seem to have no idea about wtf the semantics of what you argue actually are.

Even wikipedia will admit:

Quote

Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as The Klan, is the name of three distinct past and present far-right[6][7][8][9] organizations in the United States

Guess they are going to have to change their name to WhitePowerPedia.

This post has been edited by Dark_Nexus: 16 August 2011 - 02:41 PM

[NotarySojac]

Dark_Nexus, on 16 August 2011 - 02:39 PM, said:

Quote

I have to disagree on this point. The NSA organization sounds marginally less threatening than the NSA agency. And I wouldn't call the KKK an "organization" unless I was racist.

Both of these are retarded because it's called the National Security Agency. They are an Agent of the government, as in they make decisions as if they were an arm of the National government, as in they are government agents.

Acknowledging that something is an organization doesn't mean you support them. You are arguing semantics and meanwhile you seem to have no idea about wtf the semantics of what you argue actually are.

Even wikipedia will admit:

Quote

Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as The Klan, is the name of three distinct past and present far-right[6][7][8][9] organizations in the United States

Guess they are going to have to change their name to WhitePowerPedia.

I was totally joking about preferring to discuss my word choice in the title. I think this is equally trivial if not more. Racist, childish, bratty people say things on Wikipedia all the time. Usually the obvious stuff get's taken down, but there are instances where Wikipedia can be used as a sounding board for someone's personal opinion on a matter. Also, I think the guy who played Cosmo Kramer on Seinfeld owns that domain already. He plans to use it as an encyclopedia of how America was 200 years ago.

This post has been edited by NotarySojac: 16 August 2011 - 02:57 PM

[modi123_1]

I am still confused how distrupted their ability to assemble is linked in. Here are pictures... of the people assembling.... in the train station. Infront of about sixty reporters. Just because they couldn't tweet about the lulz of the protest there's a problem?



cite1



cite2

Oh, and am I supposed to get wound up when the local LEOs shoot someone too, or can that slide off like water on a duck?

[dorknexus]

Quote

Racist, childish, bratty people say things on Wikipedia all the time.

Wait what? What was racist about their description about the KKK?

[NotarySojac]

modi123_1, on 16 August 2011 - 02:52 PM, said:

I am still confused how distrupted their ability to assemble is linked in.

Really? The motivation for disabling the communications was to interfere with the protest. The motivation, not the failure/success of the duck-like agency, is what's salient here.

This post has been edited by NotarySojac: 16 August 2011 - 03:03 PM

[lordofduct]

NotarySojac, on 16 August 2011 - 09:26 PM, said:

lordofduct, on 16 August 2011 - 02:14 PM, said:

again that is your interpretation of the words organization and agency. The words them self do not define any level of favored intentions.

The organization of KKK members in the south were a terrifying sight for the mostly poverty struck blacks in the area.

Michael, an agent of God, was sent forth to protect the town from the brutals.


It's context my friend, context that is measuring the intent of these words. It's the "[US] government" in "[US] government organization" which holds the emotional queue (note US is in brackets as it is mostly implied contextually when referring to a San Francisco authority). This was our point from the get go, if you want an effective title, use effective language. Don't assume we 'feel' the same way about a word that you do, furthermore don't perpetuate the 'feelings' attached to words. The words lose there meaning that way and then we end up having to invent new words to replace them. Think bias, prejudice, irony, and many others that have lost their actual meaning because enough people attached contextual meaning to it that now people can't help but apply that context to the words when they hear them.

I have to disagree on this point. The NSA organization sounds marginally less threatening than the NSA agency. And I wouldn't call the KKK an "organization" unless I was racist. They'd be a "terrorist group" and agency wouldn't really apply. You're mixing apples with oranges. Find me an agency (not individual agent) that doesn't sound less threatening by referring to them as an organization.

I have to disagree with you.

NSA agency is just redundant, like ATM machine would be redundant. And the marginally less threatening feeling about 'organization' is based on your bias and interpretation of it.

Calling the KKK an organization is semantically accurate, and doing so is not racist. The fact you think it's racist is the contextual emotion you've attached to the word which is the subject matter... that being the KKK. Organization is not offensive, the KKK is.

They could be a 'terrorist group' as well, that's just applying more adjectives. Note that 'terrorist group' could be replaced with 'terrorist organization'. It's just like I can say Adolf Hitler is a man (Godwin's Law) or I can say Adolf Hitler is a terrible man. Calling him a man is not prejudicial in any sense.

The fact that you attempted to straw man me into looking like a racist by saying you would only call the KKK an 'organization' if you were a racist is rather offensive. Low blow in the discussion. Can you not handle this discussion or something?



EDIT: note I hadn't read everyone else's posts yet when writing this. Was on my drive home from work. So yes I repeated something already pointed out.

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 16 August 2011 - 03:13 PM

[dorknexus]

The motivation of them doing that was so that other non-peaceful protesters didn't show up and start disrupting transit service and crawling on top of their trains. Nobody's rights were violated. They peacefully (arguably) assembled and said what they had to say. Whether or not they could tweet about it is not protected by the constitution. Not to mention I think the constitution only protects grievances against congress and the national government. BART is neither.

[NotarySojac]

Dark_Nexus, on 16 August 2011 - 03:02 PM, said:

Quote

Racist, childish, bratty people say things on Wikipedia all the time.

Wait what? What was racist about their description about the KKK?

it should read

Quote

...is the name of three distinct past and present right-wing terrorist[6][7][8][9] groups in the United States...

If you're a racist, you probably try to keep the word terrorist as far down the page as possible, even though, that's what the KKK are, a terrorist group. Americans, even racists, don't like being labeled terrorists. Ask your self how you would define "KKK". I doubt you would go with the much more friendly "far right organization" phrase, but this whole line of discussion is completely irrelevant to the thread topic.

This post has been edited by NotarySojac: 16 August 2011 - 03:12 PM

[dorknexus]

it's not irrelevant because it proves you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

Not all of the instances of the KKK were terrorists. Not all of the KKK members were engaging in terrorist activities. In fact, most of them probably weren't. So to call them terrorists is a broad generalization and it's also very subjective and emotionally charged in this context. Organization is a fine descriptor as it is more neutral and probably more accurate in all honestly.

Most KKK members were also devoutly christian so I guess we should go modify the Christianity article to read "Christianity is a terrorist organization..." except that would be a gross, subjective, emotionally charged descriptor of an entire organization based on the shitty behavior of a few individuals.

This post has been edited by Dark_Nexus: 16 August 2011 - 03:23 PM