TF Guy! You know what it means

SuperMatt

Elite Member
Vaccinated
PRSI Banned
Posts
2,763
Reaction score
5,695
These F'n guys = the people in charge of the French Open. Again.






Uh, wha? đź‘€

She was willing to pay the fines, to avoid the media out of concern for her own mental health, but evidently that wasn't good enough. I'm guessing since she's the most well paid athlete there, so they threatened her with expulsion, since the monetary fee wasn't going to make her change her mind.

Then the Open talks about the mental well being of players. 🤨

So they want the best players available to draw for the open, one of them will still show just doesn't want to do the press, willingly accepts the fines she knows is coming, so they threaten her not being allowed to other events, so she withdraws.

How is that a win any regard? 🤷‍♀️

For F sake, it's not like she wore a cat suit. :rolleyes:
There are lots of athletes who like the attention. Let them do the interviews. Most people just want to watch the match.

I think her decision to say “F you guys” and go home caught them flat-footed. Now, who is going to watch with the best player not there? Not me.
 

JayMysteri0

Thread Starter
Elite Member
Vaccinated
Posts
3,531
Reaction score
6,932
An angering & sad irony followup to the VP story

61063525_10219637870886239_4404558321474863104_n.jpg


Keep showing your strong side Fox.

It is unclear where exactly this tradition originated; numerous different communities may have independently initiated the memorial gatherings. And some records show that one of the earliest Memorial Day commemorations was organized by a group of formerly enslaved people in Charleston, South Carolina less than a month after the Confederacy surrendered in 1865. Nevertheless, in 1966 the federal government declared Waterloo, New York, the official birthplace of Memorial Day.
Because.

America.
 

P_X

Elite Member
Vaccinated
PRSI Banned
Site Donor
Posts
2,809
Reaction score
5,122
Chuck Woolery.

🤦‍♂️

Maybe bringing up Hitler in a Memorial Day tweet isn't the best way to go.

This is jus a reminder that the 21st century opening avenues to any (famous) person to shout their nonsense into the cyberspace isn't inherently an advancement of human existence.

Reminder, TF Guy is an asshole


Yet, Sharon Osborne was surprised by the heat she got defending him. :rolleyes:
This Piercing guy sounds like a petulant attention whore. The greed of these people is interesting BTW...some of them aren't even (that) obsessively racist, but realize the viewers who stick with them are, so they play along and capitalize on this shit (see Tarson and Limbo). Sharon Osborne really outed herself as being quite a repulsive person too on that ominous Maher interview.

-------
I personally can't give two damns about 99% of athletes' interviews. They are definitely way overpaid and that comes with some ridiculous obligations, but I can't see Roland Garros coming out of this without looking like the bad guys. What I like about Naomi Osaka's persona is this unpretentious idealistic feminine honesty. Any single one of these characteristics would open her up for attacks, but the combination of these along with being a person of color in the sport of old colonialist money makes her an absolute target. I'll be on the lookout how the RG organizers will try to spin this any other way that would make them appear like they cared about their competitors' mental health.
 

JayMysteri0

Thread Starter
Elite Member
Vaccinated
Posts
3,531
Reaction score
6,932

What?

Anyone still believe she's into this bipartisan / keep the filibuster crap?

She's playing everyone, and enjoys getting paid for NOT doing her job!

She's to be trusted about as far as you could kick Susan Collins before she pulls the football out from under you 'Lucy' style.
 

Huntn

Elite Member
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
1,303
Reaction score
1,665

P_X

Elite Member
Vaccinated
PRSI Banned
Site Donor
Posts
2,809
Reaction score
5,122
The shit head thinks he’s so clever, kind of like Donny so he can later say he never suggested shooting up silicon valley. But this goes with the territory of the little shit heads who worship corrupt, self destructive leadership. 🔥 🤬
He's doing this to distract from him being an alleged sexual predator. It's like a person dragging a chair really loudly after they ripped a really loud fart.
 

Alli

Elite Member
Staff member
Vaccinated
Site Donor
Posts
3,145
Reaction score
6,011
I guess they felt they had to do something, and since they are a rainbow normally…..
 

Thomas Veil

Elite Member
Staff member
Vaccinated
Posts
2,143
Reaction score
4,244
I told you this guy was a smug little prick


Now, before you get all optimistic, let me mention that he was not wearing the face mask when he lit it.
 

JayMysteri0

Thread Starter
Elite Member
Vaccinated
Posts
3,531
Reaction score
6,932
Not a TF Guy, but again a WTF?!

The U.S. Supreme Court divided along unusual lines Thursday to reverse the conviction of a police sergeant who used his police car computer to access and then sell a license plate number in exchange for $5,000.

The vote was 6-to-3, with the court's newest justice, Amy Coney Barrett, writing the majority opinion for herself, liberal Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan and conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. The dissenters were Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts.

At issue was the interpretation of the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a federal law that makes it a crime for an individual to "exceed authorized access to a computer" in order to obtain information he is "not entitled so to obtain."

You make your own decision on this one.
 

SuperMatt

Elite Member
Vaccinated
PRSI Banned
Posts
2,763
Reaction score
5,695
Not a TF Guy, but again a WTF?!




You make your own decision on this one.
I can understand this if I consider the following example:

You have access to a certain shared folder. Somebody puts something in there that they shouldn’t. You download it and sell it to a newspaper and expose something they don’t want exposed. You might be breaking some rules at the company, but you didn’t hack into something; it was in a folder the company gave you access to. It sounds to me like they prosecuted this officer under the wrong law. IMHO, a failure by the prosecutor.

The officer definitely abused his position, but he didn’t hack a computer system. He was authorized to access it… he just used the authorized information for a purpose he shouldn’t have used it for.
 

JayMysteri0

Thread Starter
Elite Member
Vaccinated
Posts
3,531
Reaction score
6,932
I can understand this if I consider the following example:

You have access to a certain shared folder. Somebody puts something in there that they shouldn’t. You download it and sell it to a newspaper and expose something they don’t want exposed. You might be breaking some rules at the company, but you didn’t hack into something; it was in a folder the company gave you access to. It sounds to me like they prosecuted this officer under the wrong law. IMHO, a failure by the prosecutor.

The officer definitely abused his position, but he didn’t hack a computer system. He was authorized to access it… he just used the authorized information for a purpose he shouldn’t have used it for.
I unfortunately have to agree with Thomas in this issue. FFS. It's clear because of the context. He wasn't making Facebook posts, the reasoning for his use on the targeted computer was an illegal use. I get arguing the language, but it misses the point of the actual charge.
 

SuperMatt

Elite Member
Vaccinated
PRSI Banned
Posts
2,763
Reaction score
5,695
I unfortunately have to agree with Thomas in this issue. FFS. It's clear because of the context. He wasn't making Facebook posts, the reasoning for his use on the targeted computer was an illegal use. I get arguing the language, but it misses the point of the actual charge.
I think he broke the law for sure, just not this law. However, I wonder if my view of “authorized access” as somebody who has worked in IT is different than the original intent of the 1986 law.… or if the opinion of justices that don’t understand IT might not know that there are “permissions“ on files. There’s no question a cop is authorized to access license plate data for his job. He wasn’t authorized to sell it though.

Thomas is usually a strict textualist. Not in this case, because the exact text: this guy didn’t “exceed authorized access”, or get something he wasn’t “entitled to obtain.” It feels to me like he’s ruling on the law the way he WANTS it to be written, not the way it actually is written. This guy didn’t break the law by looking up the license plate. He broke the law by selling it… which is not breaking THIS law….. IMHO.
 

JayMysteri0

Thread Starter
Elite Member
Vaccinated
Posts
3,531
Reaction score
6,932
Someone who's been bucking for their place here, since they realized their own self importance with a new democrat administration


Seriously FUCK THIS FUCKING guy, and the cosplaying curtsy sidekick who rides with him.

The democrats adherence to a set of rules that republicans will gladly discard when it's convenient is what's going to motivate progressives & PoC to completely abandon them once & for all.


Already a small percentage of politicians can obstruct anything being done in congress for the benefit of the country, but hey let's feign concern about partisanship.

E3NLG7uWEAUO8nf
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom