Dan
@prog-r0k.bsky.social
Sentient ice cream cone. Amateur law understander. Introvert. I like the 'idea' of other people. Named after Buster Scruggs' horse, also an alter ego of Ken Shabby
I'm having difficulties imagining Sisyphus happy
Ice cream is a feeling
I'm having difficulties imagining Sisyphus happy
Ice cream is a feeling
And he blocked me before you guys, lol
November 27, 2025 at 2:47 AM
And he blocked me before you guys, lol
Even did the "you made me so mad, I added you to multiple lists!" thing.
November 26, 2025 at 9:11 PM
Even did the "you made me so mad, I added you to multiple lists!" thing.
Aidan doesn't seem to have much interest in doing anything more than name-calling and insisting people are wrong about the law, and then deflecting like crazy when he's proven wrong.
He seems very insecure.
He seems very insecure.
November 26, 2025 at 8:17 PM
Aidan doesn't seem to have much interest in doing anything more than name-calling and insisting people are wrong about the law, and then deflecting like crazy when he's proven wrong.
He seems very insecure.
He seems very insecure.
Aidan keeps deflecting because Aidan knows he's wrong.
November 26, 2025 at 8:09 PM
Aidan keeps deflecting because Aidan knows he's wrong.
And thus your problem comprehending what the word "unless" means.
Your failure in that regard doesn't negate the point being made, no matter how you may wish otherwise.
Your failure in that regard doesn't negate the point being made, no matter how you may wish otherwise.
November 26, 2025 at 7:13 PM
And thus your problem comprehending what the word "unless" means.
Your failure in that regard doesn't negate the point being made, no matter how you may wish otherwise.
Your failure in that regard doesn't negate the point being made, no matter how you may wish otherwise.
Weird how he makes sense and you...mostly just rant
November 26, 2025 at 7:11 PM
Weird how he makes sense and you...mostly just rant
Conditionals and hypotheticals make Aidan cranky
November 26, 2025 at 7:10 PM
Conditionals and hypotheticals make Aidan cranky
Coming from someone who has repeatedly misread the thread, apparently has issues processing conditional statements, and claimed the SPEECH Act is irrelevant, your attempt at criticism reads more like projection.
Maybe if you tried removing your head from your ass, things would improve for you?
Maybe if you tried removing your head from your ass, things would improve for you?
November 26, 2025 at 7:03 PM
Coming from someone who has repeatedly misread the thread, apparently has issues processing conditional statements, and claimed the SPEECH Act is irrelevant, your attempt at criticism reads more like projection.
Maybe if you tried removing your head from your ass, things would improve for you?
Maybe if you tried removing your head from your ass, things would improve for you?
This, however, is laughably wrong. Because it does matter. It's the same reason why JK Rowling limits her defamation lawsuit threats to people in the UK.
November 26, 2025 at 6:52 PM
This, however, is laughably wrong. Because it does matter. It's the same reason why JK Rowling limits her defamation lawsuit threats to people in the UK.
So your constant condescension and insults towards people correctly pointing out that the SPEECH Act would negate foreign judgements if they run afoul of the first amendment is what? You exercising your right to be a douchbag?
The fact is, you're trying to correct people who aren't wrong.
The fact is, you're trying to correct people who aren't wrong.
November 26, 2025 at 6:44 PM
So your constant condescension and insults towards people correctly pointing out that the SPEECH Act would negate foreign judgements if they run afoul of the first amendment is what? You exercising your right to be a douchbag?
The fact is, you're trying to correct people who aren't wrong.
The fact is, you're trying to correct people who aren't wrong.
It's very special that you think that answers the question of how a foreign court could enforce a judgement that would violate the SPEECH Act.
None of them do, of course, but you keep doubling down on pretending Irish defamation judgements are automatically enforceable in the US. It's weird.
None of them do, of course, but you keep doubling down on pretending Irish defamation judgements are automatically enforceable in the US. It's weird.
November 26, 2025 at 6:25 PM
It's very special that you think that answers the question of how a foreign court could enforce a judgement that would violate the SPEECH Act.
None of them do, of course, but you keep doubling down on pretending Irish defamation judgements are automatically enforceable in the US. It's weird.
None of them do, of course, but you keep doubling down on pretending Irish defamation judgements are automatically enforceable in the US. It's weird.
Because you don't have an answer.
November 26, 2025 at 6:21 PM
Because you don't have an answer.
This is a weird way of admitting you don't actually know what you're talking about.
"There's a bunch of very good reasons" - And they are?
How does an Irish court enforce its judgement against a company's US assets if the judgement would violate the SPEECH Act?
"There's a bunch of very good reasons" - And they are?
How does an Irish court enforce its judgement against a company's US assets if the judgement would violate the SPEECH Act?
November 26, 2025 at 6:17 PM
This is a weird way of admitting you don't actually know what you're talking about.
"There's a bunch of very good reasons" - And they are?
How does an Irish court enforce its judgement against a company's US assets if the judgement would violate the SPEECH Act?
"There's a bunch of very good reasons" - And they are?
How does an Irish court enforce its judgement against a company's US assets if the judgement would violate the SPEECH Act?
Clues by Sam - Nov 26th 2025 (Medium)
Less than 10 minutes
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
Less than 10 minutes
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
November 26, 2025 at 3:53 PM
Clues by Sam - Nov 26th 2025 (Medium)
Less than 10 minutes
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
Less than 10 minutes
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
Strands #633
“All aboard!”
🔵🔵🔵🔵
🟡🔵
“All aboard!”
🔵🔵🔵🔵
🟡🔵
November 26, 2025 at 3:43 PM
Strands #633
“All aboard!”
🔵🔵🔵🔵
🟡🔵
“All aboard!”
🔵🔵🔵🔵
🟡🔵
November 26, 2025 at 6:53 AM
Wordle 1,621 4/6
⬛⬛🟨⬛⬛
⬛🟩⬛⬛⬛
⬛🟩⬛⬛🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
⬛⬛🟨⬛⬛
⬛🟩⬛⬛⬛
⬛🟩⬛⬛🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
November 26, 2025 at 6:18 AM
Wordle 1,621 4/6
⬛⬛🟨⬛⬛
⬛🟩⬛⬛⬛
⬛🟩⬛⬛🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
⬛⬛🟨⬛⬛
⬛🟩⬛⬛⬛
⬛🟩⬛⬛🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
You've gone from "you'll be paid in exposure!" to "why is that one free, but not this one" and then finished off with "piracy happens, deal with it"
It sounds suspiciously like you're trying to justify piracy
It sounds suspiciously like you're trying to justify piracy
November 26, 2025 at 1:53 AM
You've gone from "you'll be paid in exposure!" to "why is that one free, but not this one" and then finished off with "piracy happens, deal with it"
It sounds suspiciously like you're trying to justify piracy
It sounds suspiciously like you're trying to justify piracy
No one said anything about not advertising
November 26, 2025 at 1:45 AM
No one said anything about not advertising
You can't pay bills with exposure
November 26, 2025 at 1:39 AM
You can't pay bills with exposure