UI & SpaceO

[qe2eqe]

sorry but usa owns internet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN

besides, what part about civil suits over web sites, with examples, don't you understand?

[the broken]

if the US had control over the internet pirate sites like in Russia could be closed down, as they dont and fall under jurisdiction of other countries the US does not own the internet

the us can put pressure on other countries but not control the internet like in  this case where the us put on pressure and the country does something about it

case closed 

[blakranger51]

"in order to oversee a number of Internet-related tasks previously performed directly on behalf of the U.S. government by other organizations, notably the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority IANA."

When you learn basic reading comprehension, which you hopefully will in a few years, you will understand that the above statement does not mean that the US Government does these things, but that it has other companies do them for it, mainly because that way it can be objective instead of biased. You will also likely learn soon, and this may come as a shocker, that "Wikipedia" is not considered a liable source by almost anyone who is in a position to be making that judgment.

"...rest of the Board.

THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT OWN THE INTERNET.

There are currently three..."

Also from the same article (10/1/08 at 6:31 PM EST)

Another NetTard neutralized. Ahh the weakness of a wikipedia-backed argument.

[qe2eqe]

No poop.
I'm just saying, via hyperbole, in response to your invalid( criticism of an earlier point, usa does have undue influence. If it wasn't an issue, other countries wouldn't have any gripes about it.

"Two recently issued reports portray the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) as a bureaucracy that enables cyber criminals."

"ICANN is formally a private nonprofit California corporation created, in response to a summoning by U.S. government officials."

"Only DoC (and, in one special set of cases, NSI or registrars) currently has the power to hold ICANN accountable. NSI currently has no incentive to use its limited power, and DoC has nothing to complain of so long as ICANN is executing the instructions set out in the White Paper."

*invalid because:
ncd.gov

"In light of the path already taken by the law, it is clear that many commercial Web sites will be subject to accessibility requirements"

*and also because you don't need to control intertubes to lay law on a company.

---no longer responding to you on this thread.

[blakranger51]

---no longer responding to you on this thread.

Because you've lost the foothold for your argument, and the rest is all crumbling down around you. And, now, everyone can see the wizard behind that enormous head, and they see that you're just another stupid kid who thinks he's all that, and really is nothing but an insignificant prick on this colossal world of ours.

Oh, and the whole 'I'm not going to talk so you can't beat me haha' thing doesn't really work, anywhere.

[qe2eqe]

New York Times (a somewhat credible source?):

A simple search of published court decisions shows that Wikipedia is frequently cited by judges around the country, involving serious issues and the bizarre — such as a 2005 tax case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals concerning the definition of “beverage” that involved hundreds of thousands of dollars, and, just this week, a case in Federal District Court in Florida that involved the term “booty music” as played during a wet T-shirt contest.

p.s., I just can't help myself... but 'ad hominem' is... the entirety of your last post talking about weak arguments

[Jan`go Vhett]

   I thought you weren't responding anymore?

[qe2eqe]

blak is a good troll.

[blakranger51]

Judges such as "Judge Joe Brown" and "Judge Judy"

  this is fun!