"I can see preferring to tweak that system…"

"They're basically just preserving the internet as it is right now…"

Well, I obviously can't comment about the people you know, so I'll take your word for it, but even they - the comparatively knowledgeable minority - could not have known the details until now. The bottom line is that we're all just along for the ride now, and we'll see how it plays out over the next 5, 10, 20 years.

Do you really think most of the people rejoicing have made a study of the materials released earlier today? I don't, especially based on the fact that they were already unabashedly in favor of the rules before they were passed, which proves they weren't too concerned with the details in the first place.

How does linking to a press release dated TODAY have anything to do with my complaint about the regs not being published before the vote??

What I meant was, we’re going find out how the new regs work
out. That’s unknowable at the moment.

"I suppose I would concede that such a break with normal procedure would have been "better", but I do not know that it was absolutely necessary."

Yes. And fully warranted given the amount of clamoring for this particular set of regs to be released. It should have happened and the complaints about it not happening are justified.

It is not unprecedented for the FCC to release unusually significant regs for public scrutiny prior to voting on them. One instance of this was in 2007 and one of the voices calling for the break from normal procedures at that time was none other than Sen. Obama.

Even if all the new regs are the best thing since sliced bread, the fact is that 99.9% of the people rejoicing over this vote haven't read them.

You initiated our exchange with a silly comment. I'm more than happy to be done with it. Cheers.

1) It can be necessary in some cases.
2) I don't think it's a good idea to cater to those with such a low threshold for being offended.

A man opens the classified ads and sees the following:

No, that wouldn't really be a good example at all.

I'm not sure it rises to the level of "objection." Like I said, I just don't see the sense in dropping a perfectly good, inoffensive word in favor of a less specific word.

Yes. Yes I do.

Why not have the word be as specific as possible for situations when the context isn't there?

Again, I agree. Specificity is preferable.

I tend to agree, but it fits with the overall societal trend towards trying to achieve gender neutrality/equality.

Elizabeth's treatment of Lisa disgusts me as much as anything else they've done. Truly awful.