Internet "Bill of Rights" proposed by anti-SOPA lawmakers

[Tygerstrike]

The whole proposed bill has so many loop holes I cant even begin to list/explain them all. The one that scares me the most is #5. What if something you have created does harm when that was not the intended result? Does that mean Uncle Sam gets to slap silver bracellets on you?

 

[Guest]

no. 9 is in contradiction of what and why people use the internet in the first place.

--unless thats there way of phrasing "you have the right to use the internet without being wire tapped".

in the end regulating the intern is rediculus in concept and a waste of efforts and resources to enforce. the internet is the new tv and I'll watch what ever the hell I want to watch, downloading and uploading are irrelevant to that purpose, since now everyone is essentially able to make a "channel" people must now not compete just against a select few, but against everyone." the sooner people accept that fact, then they can processed to create a means to adapt it in a productive manner.

 

[wiyosaya]

You have it wrong. The comma in the middle of the unnecessary clause has thrown you -- "...the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..." -- and is the reason that it appears to be even more incorrect with the extra comma.


Hmmmm...

Sorry, I disagree. However, your assertion that there should be a comma after "We" has no basis in historical fact. The original document does not have a comma. Have a look at page one of the historical document found here - http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_downloads.html

However, feel free to suggest to the US Archives that the English, more specifically, the punctuation, in the original constitution is incorrect and that the historical document should be changed.

 

[PinothyJ]

Sorry, I disagree. However, your assertion that there should be a comma after "We" has no basis in historical fact. The original document does not have a comma. Have a look at page one of the historical document found here - http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_downloads.html

However, feel free to suggest to the US Archives that the English, more specifically, the punctuation, in the original constitution is incorrect and that the historical document should be changed.

What does that even mean: "no basis in historical fact." It is irreverent whether it is in the original document as I was never disputing that, I AM saying that the absence of the comma makes that sentence grammatically incorrect.

I just want to make sure that you are aware that the English language existed for centuries before the Yanks decided to have a tanty and make a mess of all of it.


At the end of the day it is incorrect and all Americans should be embarrassed...

 

[wiyosaya]

What does that even mean: "no basis in historical fact." It is irreverent whether it is in the original document as I was never disputing that, I AM saying that the absence of the comma makes that sentence grammatically incorrect.

I just want to make sure that you are aware that the English language existed for centuries before the Yanks decided to have a tanty and make a mess of all of it.


At the end of the day it is incorrect and all Americans should be embarrassed...

So your true reason comes out.

Do yourself a favor before you embarrass yourself any more. Put the entire preamble of the constitution into a grammar checker and run a check on it. My apologies, but you will find grammar checkers do not flag it as incorrect, except, of course, for the British spelling of defence since it sounds like you are not a US citizen.

So, just in case you still are unsure, here is the entire preamble -

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There's nothing wrong with the punctuation, and, might I remind you, it was written by a BRIT!

 

[PinothyJ]

So your true reason comes out.

Do yourself a favor before you embarrass yourself any more. Put the entire preamble of the constitution into a grammar checker and run a check on it. My apologies, but you will find grammar checkers do not flag it as incorrect, except, of course, for the British spelling of defence since it sounds like you are not a US citizen.

So, just in case you still are unsure, here is the entire preamble -

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There's nothing wrong with the punctuation, and, might I remind you, it was written by a BRIT!

You have to be kidding me -_-. "the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union" is an appositive, parenthetical phrase and thus requires a comma on each end to signify as such (except where there would be a conflict of punctuation).


Honestly…

 

[wiyosaya]

You have to be kidding me -_-. "the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union" is an appositive, parenthetical phrase and thus requires a comma on each end to signify as such (except where there would be a conflict of punctuation).


Honestly…

I'm not arguing this with you. I am sorry that you are unable to recognize a list of items that are all properly separated by commas. If you really want to learn what is disputed as potentially improper English, search the net for it, its there. However, this "appositive" argument is not. You have a good sense that there is something wrong, however, the consensus is that the "appositive" argument is not what is wrong. But feel free, if it makes you feel better, to continue to profess your English mastership if you'd like. I'm through discussing this with you.

Perhaps if those Birts who have not yet gotten over the fact that the US is no longer a British colony got over the fact that the US is no longer a British colony (it has been 230+ years now, come on, and forget you not, the US saved the Brits A$$ in WWII) they would also figure out that there are some masters of the English language that live in the US. And besides, it was written by people who were British citizens (or subjects, your choice of words) at the time. A lot of things have come out of the US including the computer you are using to profess that you are a master of the English language. Had the US remained a British colony, the world might still be groveling at the feet of "kings". Is that what you would prefer to where the world is now?

 

[PinothyJ]

I'm not arguing this with you. I am sorry that you are unable to recognize a list of items that are all properly separated by commas. If you really want to learn what is disputed as potentially improper English, search the net for it, its there. However, this "appositive" argument is not. You have a good sense that there is something wrong, however, the consensus is that the "appositive" argument is not what is wrong. But feel free, if it makes you feel better, to continue to profess your English mastership if you'd like. I'm through discussing this with you.

Perhaps if those Birts who have not yet gotten over the fact that the US is no longer a British colony got over the fact that the US is no longer a British colony (it has been 230+ years now, come on, and forget you not, the US saved the Brits A$$ in WWII) they would also figure out that there are some masters of the English language that live in the US. And besides, it was written by people who were British citizens (or subjects, your choice of words) at the time. A lot of things have come out of the US including the computer you are using to profess that you are a master of the English language. Had the US remained a British colony, the world might still be groveling at the feet of "kings". Is that what you would prefer to where the world is now?

If you are talking about the Germans than you a wildly mistaken as it was Stalin who is responsible for their cut down in power, not the US (also, Godwin's law).

You are wrong: unless you can prove "We the People of the United States" is in ANY way correct than you have no case. The list you speak of (how is that even relevant?) starts AFTER the section if the sentence in question.


Also, your final paragraph is elitist, ignorant and downright offensive, and does nothing to illustrates your point (if anything, it paints a picture of your polarisation)...