You people are beginning to piss me off!

You know, there are a few opinionated articles which just cry out for someone to set them straight.

Unfortunately, these articles seem to be (increasingly) grounded in websites which require that the respondents adhere to strict rules of identification.

It's not enough that we have to identify ourselves, we also have to identify the blog website with which we  re associated.   These folks want not only to know who you are, but what Blog Site you support!  Why the HELL do they need this information .. to the point where you are forbidden to post  a comment without giving up your blog site?

Are they looking for personal blogs which oppose their political viewpoints?  And when they identify these people .. what will they do with that information?

*BTW .. as far as I can tell, if you don't  have a blog .. you can't enter a comment!*

Well, hell, every body who know me knows that I'm a easy-going kind of guy.  I don't mind giving out more information about my personal identity than would ordinarily seem to be reasonable just to justify the fact that I have an opinion.

(Sorry,  urping all over my keyboard here ... they need my WEBSITE to justify my comment?)

Personally, I think it's bizarre that some folks are so hoity-toity that they need to be assured their commenters have an actual WEBSITE (read: blog?) before they will accept a comment.

Why would my opinion be more legitimate if I have a website, than if I did not?

Oh, just TRY to enter a comment on these websites if you don't have a BLOG!
The curious thing is ... I only bump into this certification process when my comment is going to be  something like:  "Hey, wait a minute now, this is all bullshit!"

In other words, I encounter this strict requirement to identify my websites where I strongly disagree with their printed opinions; which is to say, "Liberal" websites.   "Conservative" websites don't seem to impose this "tracking" requirement nearly as frequently.

Conservative websites don't seem to give a shit who you are or where you are coming from.  They just take whomever you are at face value.   Are they less fearful

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed this bizarre requirement from Liber websites?

What the HELL is "Net Neutrality"

The FCC Just Voted to Regulate the Internet Like a Utility - Hit &; Run : Reason.com:

In a 3-2 vote today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to radically overhaul the way Internet service is regulated. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and the commission’s two Democratic commissioners voted to move forward with the rules. The agency’s two GOP-appointed commissioners opposed them.

"Net Neutrality"

"Obvious Reasons"

I've watched this dialogue, and have NO idea what the issues really are.

Am I "The Only One" who doesn't understand the issues?

It seems to me that somewhere there must be a "Net Neutrality For Dummies" primer which gets past the jargon and actually describes the effect of one side of the dialogue vs the other.

And BTW ... what ARE the dialogue, the positions, and the roots of the controversy?

For myself, I just want to take advantage of the data-streaming provided by ... I don't know, Comcast?

That's my IP  (Internet Provider ... thank you for defining that small piece of jargon!)
... and I also like that I can stream movies, besides email.

Is that the crux of the controversy?  Is one "availability" (Broadband Streaming of Videos) contesting with another "availability"  (Email?)

Surely there's somebody who understands the issues, and can define them in terms which are not jargon-filled.

Someone?

Any one?