ttfitz

It's been a while since I've sold anything with them, but the link from Techmate is how I did it. I didn't have anything particularly pricey, though.

When you sell books to them, you have the option to get "paid" in trade credit (which has limited usage, I believe). Does that count?

Don't know why anyone might want to meet me, but I'll be there for the weekend, drop me a PM if you want to say hello.

Good looking book, Sharon! I opened this thread because I thought I needed a copy, but when I looked at my list I found I already own one. Silly me! Too bad, too, since that's a price I would probably bite on. Good luck!

I'm sure Conan would welcome your suggestions.

what places? Fort Benning Fort Bragg Fort A.P. Hill Fort Hood Camp Pendleton Edmund Pettus Bridge Stonewall Jackson High School Robert E. Lee High School Lee Highway Jefferson Davis Highway (okay, perhaps didn't "kill American soldiers", but still) Among others. It's a really long list.

Yeah, I know what you mean. In the comments section of the story I was reading, people kept asking the questions I can't wrap my head around - what kind of person says those kind of things, and what kind of person believes it?

Around here, always bet the over. And if kav or Roy is involved, the way over.

Earlier today, I had no idea what you two were talking about. I've got to get out more.

You would. You must have seen that picture of me that @Domo Arigato posted in the Paypal thread...

Nobody rides for free, amirite?

That looks like my place - if I got rid of a bunch of stuff and cleaned up a bit.

I'm just grateful you've got my back, buddy!

That's my head.

Wrong. Reasons? Well, let's see:

Nah, it just seemed a good latching on point, as it was an example that was brought up that wouldn't run afoul of prohibited subjects around here.

Making it sound as though he deserved to be banned by adding the @ttfitz stamp of approval to Twitter's WRONG decision. In fact, the reason Twitter 'settled' and REINSTATED HIS ACCOUNT was because Twitter WAS IN THE WRONG. Minor detail. And since Twitter reinstated him that was an admittance on their part that he WASN'T POSTING MISINFORMATION. Minor detail. I never said I didn't have a bias against the ridiculous and patently false information the man posted on his Twitter account. And, to be 100% clear, I also didn't say he "deserved" to be banned, just that the decision to do so wasn't surprising, given that. As for your "minor details", they are merely your supposition, and not actual "details." All Twitter admitted to in settling (not sure why you put that in quotes, that is literally what happened) was that they decided it wasn't worth continuing the lawsuit - with speculation being that they decided to do so based on an email by a single individual from their company who disagreed with the decision.

A lot of times in these situations, there tends to be some degree of contradictory behavior. Buzz doesn't want to make his special BBQ for people who hate wild bunnies. Bunny Haters complain, "He should make his special BBQ for everyone!" and his friends say it's his right to decide who he serves. But if the Bunny Haters tell everyone Buzz is a bunny lover and don't go to his BBQ, his friends say, "You're trying to cancel Buzz!" Paypal makes a decision on what sort of things they wanted their service to support. People cancel their Paypal accounts because they disagree with that decision. How is one different from the other?

He's not banned. He's reinstated meaning he was found NOT to be in the wrong. Or does the attention to detail only go in one direction? Apparently, because I didn't say he was currently banned, I said he "got banned." Which he did - that's the reason for the lawsuit, right? And once again, he wasn't "found" to be anything. Twitter decided to settle and reinstate his account.

First off, he didn't "win" - which implies that a judge or jury found in his favor. Twitter decided to settle, and yes, speculation is that an email from one Twitter employee saying “The points you’re raising should not be an issue at all” was the reason they decided to settle, but I can't find anything definitive about it. Seeing the kind of completely false information he's been spreading, though, it doesn't surprise me he got banned.

Yeah, no. If you had read a little further in that Wikipedia article you quoted, you would have seen this: "Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the good faith removal or moderation of third-party material they deem 'obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.'" Some good advice here, though.

I might be wrong ( @jaybuck43 ?) but I think if section 230 is gone, "censorship" (put in quotes, since technically only the government can censor) would go up. Platforms would be responsible for the content posted, and would be more likely to remove content they think could cause them grief.

I was certain my webcam was off....

Bid on 3 items, was the "underbidder" on all three. Haven't won anything at MCS in a while.