Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

[Bagger]

Originally Posted by KevK

The bill is not any different than the sweeping powers the government already has during a national emergency. They can sieze the airwaves, railroads, airports, airlines, busses and they can order AT&T to make the phone system only available to government agencies and to dissconnect everybody else from it (this was almost done about 20 years ago when Calif has the last big quake). They can order traffic off every interstate in the country.
So what is different here?

Nothing is different from what I can tell.

The other thing I don't see different lately is people posting a thread with an invalid claim, something that has been refuted before, but you see the claim in a thread title again, in bold, so that it gets read by anyone looking at the board, even if they don't read the thread itself.

This thread's claim has been made before.... and just think of all the repeated 'Death Squad' or 'Losing Freedom'titles you've seen.

[delusianne]

Originally Posted by Bagger

Nothing is different from what I can tell.

The other thing I don't see different lately is people posting a thread with an invalid claim, something that has been refuted before, but you see the claim in a thread title again, in bold, so that it gets read by anyone looking at the board, even if they don't read the thread itself.

This thread's claim has been made before.... and just think of all the repeated 'Death Squad' or 'Losing Freedom'titles you've seen.

yep...

the misleading thread titles are the ones that drive me crazy for precisely this reason. I think more people than not DONT read the content let alone cross-check it. But they swallow whole the most preposterous thread titles. I sometimes wonder, did the title-twisters subconsciously pick up this cynical technique from Faux, wnd and the rest, or did they come up with it themselves?