Virgil Abt
@abtnatural.bsky.social
Credential-less bozo who somehow briefly got on Joshua's LawSky list. PACER pay-pig since it was 7 cents/page. Knitting theorist. Ancient UNIX and Lisp hackery. Knows the T cycle count for every Z-80 instruction.
The first comma sounds wrong to me when the conjunction is "And" too.
Billy, pipe down and get in the car.
And Mother, please don't wear that tiara tonight. We're just going to a Wendy's.
Billy, pipe down and get in the car.
And Mother, please don't wear that tiara tonight. We're just going to a Wendy's.
November 10, 2025 at 12:54 PM
The first comma sounds wrong to me when the conjunction is "And" too.
Billy, pipe down and get in the car.
And Mother, please don't wear that tiara tonight. We're just going to a Wendy's.
Billy, pipe down and get in the car.
And Mother, please don't wear that tiara tonight. We're just going to a Wendy's.
Isn’t it a time-unlimited stay pending the CoA ruling, plus a 48-hr additional stay?
November 8, 2025 at 2:41 AM
Isn’t it a time-unlimited stay pending the CoA ruling, plus a 48-hr additional stay?
Are we looking at the same administrative subpoena upthread? It's seeking "information on customer behind archive.today", but it's "TO: Tucows.com, Co.", and all the "YOU"s are Tucows.
You'd contact the site's operator and make a request, like a normal person. (There's an "ask me" button right on the home page.) Not subpoena the registrar compelling production of all information about the registrant, like a fucking cop, ensuring there will never be any cooperation from the site.
November 6, 2025 at 6:24 PM
Are we looking at the same administrative subpoena upthread? It's seeking "information on customer behind archive.today", but it's "TO: Tucows.com, Co.", and all the "YOU"s are Tucows.
Arrrgh,
In DNS parlance, the registrant is the "domain owner", who pays a fee to a *registrar to register the domain. In the case of archive.org, the Internet Archive is the registrant and EasyDNS is the registrar.
In DNS parlance, the registrant is the "domain owner", who pays a fee to a *registrar to register the domain. In the case of archive.org, the Internet Archive is the registrant and EasyDNS is the registrar.
November 6, 2025 at 6:15 PM
Arrrgh,
In DNS parlance, the registrant is the "domain owner", who pays a fee to a *registrar to register the domain. In the case of archive.org, the Internet Archive is the registrant and EasyDNS is the registrar.
In DNS parlance, the registrant is the "domain owner", who pays a fee to a *registrar to register the domain. In the case of archive.org, the Internet Archive is the registrant and EasyDNS is the registrar.
In DNS parlance, the registrant is the "domain owner", who pays a fee to a registrant to register the domain. In the case of archive.org, the Internet Archive is the registrant and EasyDNS is the registrar.
www.icann.org/registrants
www.icann.org/registrants
Information for Domain Name Registrants - ICANN
www.icann.org
November 6, 2025 at 6:13 PM
In DNS parlance, the registrant is the "domain owner", who pays a fee to a registrant to register the domain. In the case of archive.org, the Internet Archive is the registrant and EasyDNS is the registrar.
www.icann.org/registrants
www.icann.org/registrants
Right, it's asking TuCows, the registrar, to turn over all information it has about its customer, the registrant, Archive.is.
This would only be a step toward friendly communication with the registrant if the domain in question were long expired or dormant with no known way to reach the registrant.
This would only be a step toward friendly communication with the registrant if the domain in question were long expired or dormant with no known way to reach the registrant.
November 6, 2025 at 6:09 PM
Right, it's asking TuCows, the registrar, to turn over all information it has about its customer, the registrant, Archive.is.
This would only be a step toward friendly communication with the registrant if the domain in question were long expired or dormant with no known way to reach the registrant.
This would only be a step toward friendly communication with the registrant if the domain in question were long expired or dormant with no known way to reach the registrant.
ugh, *registrar (one of those two-letter errors that can cause big confusion)
November 6, 2025 at 5:55 PM
ugh, *registrar (one of those two-letter errors that can cause big confusion)
Are the pair of affidavits you're thinking of sworn by people at EasyDNS (the archive.org registrant) or people at the Internet Archive?
November 6, 2025 at 5:51 PM
Are the pair of affidavits you're thinking of sworn by people at EasyDNS (the archive.org registrant) or people at the Internet Archive?
That request is directed to the registrar, Tucows, and good for them for not complying and instead sharing it with their customer.
November 6, 2025 at 5:33 PM
That request is directed to the registrar, Tucows, and good for them for not complying and instead sharing it with their customer.
Isn't it obvious that the operator of achive.is is either:
(a) someone you can reach through the "ask me" button at archive.is; or
(b) someone who will never swear an affidavit for you.
Either way, there's no point in the subpoena if you just want to authenticate a record.
(a) someone you can reach through the "ask me" button at archive.is; or
(b) someone who will never swear an affidavit for you.
Either way, there's no point in the subpoena if you just want to authenticate a record.
November 6, 2025 at 5:31 PM
Isn't it obvious that the operator of achive.is is either:
(a) someone you can reach through the "ask me" button at archive.is; or
(b) someone who will never swear an affidavit for you.
Either way, there's no point in the subpoena if you just want to authenticate a record.
(a) someone you can reach through the "ask me" button at archive.is; or
(b) someone who will never swear an affidavit for you.
Either way, there's no point in the subpoena if you just want to authenticate a record.
You'd contact the site's operator and make a request, like a normal person. (There's an "ask me" button right on the home page.) Not subpoena the registrar compelling production of all information about the registrant, like a fucking cop, ensuring there will never be any cooperation from the site.
November 6, 2025 at 5:22 PM
You'd contact the site's operator and make a request, like a normal person. (There's an "ask me" button right on the home page.) Not subpoena the registrar compelling production of all information about the registrant, like a fucking cop, ensuring there will never be any cooperation from the site.
Yes, and that’s good, but neither of those are in the post. And I think the fame of the one org, the obscurity of the other, and the misleading name all add up to the better headline being “Head of breakaway Anglican sect …”, with the org’s chosen name relegated to the subhed.
October 27, 2025 at 5:05 PM
Yes, and that’s good, but neither of those are in the post. And I think the fame of the one org, the obscurity of the other, and the misleading name all add up to the better headline being “Head of breakaway Anglican sect …”, with the org’s chosen name relegated to the subhed.
Update:
In the case of the TRO application re: White House destruction, which was oddly free-floating from any complaint identifying a claim, the clerk's office has now entered its long-winded version of "What even is this?".
www.courtlistener.com/docket/71734...
www.courtlistener.com/docket/71734...
October 24, 2025 at 9:36 PM
Update:
Reposted by Virgil Abt
In the case of the TRO application re: White House destruction, which was oddly free-floating from any complaint identifying a claim, the clerk's office has now entered its long-winded version of "What even is this?".
www.courtlistener.com/docket/71734...
www.courtlistener.com/docket/71734...
October 24, 2025 at 6:16 PM
In the case of the TRO application re: White House destruction, which was oddly free-floating from any complaint identifying a claim, the clerk's office has now entered its long-winded version of "What even is this?".
www.courtlistener.com/docket/71734...
www.courtlistener.com/docket/71734...
In the case of the TRO application re: White House destruction, which was oddly free-floating from any complaint identifying a claim, the clerk's office has now entered its long-winded version of "What even is this?".
www.courtlistener.com/docket/71734...
www.courtlistener.com/docket/71734...
October 24, 2025 at 6:16 PM
In the case of the TRO application re: White House destruction, which was oddly free-floating from any complaint identifying a claim, the clerk's office has now entered its long-winded version of "What even is this?".
www.courtlistener.com/docket/71734...
www.courtlistener.com/docket/71734...
Don't know what else was said, but from the image I'd guess she's just saying that current marriages wouldn't be invalidated, not that the Court wouldn't allow states to stop allowing new (never-relied-on) same-sex marriages.
October 24, 2025 at 2:01 AM
Don't know what else was said, but from the image I'd guess she's just saying that current marriages wouldn't be invalidated, not that the Court wouldn't allow states to stop allowing new (never-relied-on) same-sex marriages.
I actually don't agree that it's too late. But the application seemed pretty bogus in other ways.
They are seeking injunction of "destroying any portion of the White House". Because there are considerable remaining portions and POTUS has already recently expanded the amount of house destruction he says he'll stop at, I don't think this is moot at all.
October 24, 2025 at 1:06 AM
I actually don't agree that it's too late. But the application seemed pretty bogus in other ways.
Did he say whether this still applies?
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
October 24, 2025 at 1:05 AM
Did he say whether this still applies?
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Yeah, it really should be right in the skeet that this is not actually the thing that everyone has always thought of as "the Anglican Church in North America".
October 24, 2025 at 12:05 AM
Yeah, it really should be right in the skeet that this is not actually the thing that everyone has always thought of as "the Anglican Church in North America".
But at least the "Kirk Anus Tweet" Skeet is real, and enjoyable on its own.
bsky.app/profile/kevi...
bsky.app/profile/kevi...
I am told the Charlie Kirk Anus Tweet is fake, I repeat, fake
October 23, 2025 at 11:16 PM
But at least the "Kirk Anus Tweet" Skeet is real, and enjoyable on its own.
bsky.app/profile/kevi...
bsky.app/profile/kevi...
Is there really such a thing as "a Wisconsin 7th Circuit seat"? I thought you were referring to some state court, but I guess you mean a seat on the U.S.C.A. circuit that oversees three states, to which a Wisconsonite has been nominated?
Is there a statute designating this seat a Wisconsin seat?
Is there a statute designating this seat a Wisconsin seat?
October 23, 2025 at 10:44 PM
Is there really such a thing as "a Wisconsin 7th Circuit seat"? I thought you were referring to some state court, but I guess you mean a seat on the U.S.C.A. circuit that oversees three states, to which a Wisconsonite has been nominated?
Is there a statute designating this seat a Wisconsin seat?
Is there a statute designating this seat a Wisconsin seat?