Aside from flat refusal, does the court have even some sort of tortured, bizarro-world explanation of why the 'change lists' are routinely provided to 4 publishers; but nobody else, not even the NYT when they pressed for them?
Yes, the broader issue is "Exactly WTF do you mean we don't already have every last bit of our legal code, congressional and caselaw, under fine-grained revision control and change tracking?"; but that's a vaguely modern thing (by 'modern' I mean 'mid 1970s'; but I understand that the court is full of shrivelled reactionaries who don't understand technology). The 'Supply vital documents pertaining to the law of the land only to 4 privileged parties because reasons' part of the story would be equally indefensible back when clay tablets were the cutting edge of legal recordkeeping... Seriously guys, what, I don't even...
The "bot" is just a regex for "Scalia".
Seems to be an expertly synthesised, Legal version of Papal Infallibility.
Its unfortunate for me that when I see BoingBoing and silent content changes my mind immediately goes back to the Violet Blue unpublishing incident. http://boingboing.net/2008/07/01/that-violet-blue-thi.html
You have this knack of putting what I'm thinking into words often better than I would, and saving me the trouble.
Also, this reminds me of the way @beschizza appropriated some dude's art without attribution, then added it after I asked who did it without any response in the thread.
Wow. So glad I don't know you IRL.
Indeed, in real life, you might feel a social obligation to apologize for saying something untrue about me. Please just evict me from your head.
Similarly, I find it hard to imagine anyone trolling me as viciously in person as you managed in the boob thread.
Then again, you did display an impressive aptitude for it.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.