Not a single person TYPING IN ALL CAPS AND SCREAMING ABOUT THE LIBS!

Perhaps even they’ve reached their limits on the current surreality scale.

Go Fox yourself Bill-O!

Because it’s a conversation, not a soapbox. If your comments are sufficiently scintillating, readers will follow your links.

They will? How can they? They can’t follow a link they don’t see.

I don’t get it. If you have a logical explanation, it hasn’t been explained adequately. Saying that users will click on links they never see seems especially fallacious.

I don’t see the harm in allowing the link more than once, and there’s a clear disadvantage to not doing so.

If I were promoting my own web site, and especially if I were doing so without contributing anything new to the conversation, I could see the point behind your complaint. But I’m not guilty of either.

That said, you obviously have the right to set whatever parameters on posting that you like, no matter how arbitrary or meaningless. I admit, I wish it was possible for you to explain the policy in a way that made sense. But even though it seems not be, I will refrain from linking to the same URL more than once.

I think we,re talking at cross purposes, probably due to my first clumsy comment…

I just meant to say that I felt O’Reilly was getting caught up arguing for what he felt was right, i.e. that the recipients of the stolen emails were in the wrong as much as the original hacker, and that he seemed unable to accept that they weren’t therefore culpable under US law.
At the same time, he himself seems all to ready to accuse his fellow Americans of not loving their country if they question either the laws/policies/actions of the US state, or HIS own idea of what is right for the US.

I may be wrong…

Oh, hold on, there’s a knock at my do

Aw, man. Now I need a drink. This is all Bill O’Reilly’s fault…

You don’t think if Fox News received an email that showed a massive conspiracy among the presidential candidates, we wouldn’t put it on there air? You’re darn right we would.

Yes, and on Fox News, the headline would read Barack Obama Involved in Massive Conspiracy.

Totally agree. I don’t consider myself a part of either the right or the left, but political discourse in this country has devolved into such ignorance and ad-hominem nonsense, I am ashamed for both sides.
Between the right putting douches like this on TV, and the left living in a fantasyland of nonissues like the “torture” the three-squares-a-day-for-the-first-time-in-their-lives treatment detainees are receiving, I just don’t even listen anymore.
I plan to not encourage either of those bastards by voting for them.

The bully mentality that finds O’Reilly appealing or logical is found in folks who like bullying better than anything. They’ll get around to defending this toxic windbag here as soon as they tire of that thread. That’s assuming they don’t get distracted, say, by spotting something like a blog on kidnapped victims of trafficking who they can damn for being sluts, on the way over here.

Yeah. What a douche.

He doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and his opinion can’t override someone who actually is in the field and knows the law. No matter how many different analogies he comes up with. He may want things like that, but that’s not what the law actually is.

> It’s sort of like the person who enters a house
> without permission but the front door is open, is
> it breaking and entering or just trespassing?

If the door is standing open, maybe just trespassing. But if they have to push it a little bit, it’s breaking and entering. Really!

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=98&bold=

Suffice to say that experts agree it’s quite illegal to pretend to be someone else for the purpose of accessing their private email without permission, even if that person has easy-to-guess security questions.