Sure, everyone who is unable to switch off his brain and cheer for the good guys
is a troll.
If a store owner is on record that he considers sales tax a
stupid idea dangerous to his business, does that mean that as a customer you are
forthwith entitled not to pay him sales tax? It is not like he has a way to opt
out of the system that is imposed on him by legislation. Why should he be
forced to shoulder all bad consequences alone because he is on record
for stating that there are bad consequences?
One would expect that a
readership that has read enough material from Groklaw for becoming fandom would
have reasonable education to at least tell the three categories law makers, law
judgers, and law subjects apart, rather than just "cool guys" and "bad guys",
apologies, "trolls".
I have to say that in spite of being chosen from
laypersons, the jury does a much more impressive job of trying to understand
what this case is about than the average presumably computer-savvy commenter
here.
I don't see that a system makes sense where they have to do this job,
but they are giving it a more in-depth examination than one could have expected.
Whether they are able to draw the right conclusions is a different gamble, but
I can't see that asking for a new jury would meet much sympathy with an appeals
court. They are doing an admirably thorough job given the ridiculous situation
the law system places them in.
In any way, the posting guidelines say "stay
polite and ignore trolls", so if the contents of a post are
beyond your understanding, it is totally legitimate to ignore it while feeling
morally superior and a member of the good guys. No need to contribute derisive
remarks not addressing any point. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|