Yahoo’s “Unusual Activity Detected” Reported by Jack Ferm

Yahoo’s “Unusual Activity Detected” Reported by Jack Ferm Why is yahoo so archaic in their internet browsing capabilities, that when you receive an email your access is blocked for up to 48 hours isn’t that the reason to have a yahoo email account? To send and receive emails? Yahoo is without doubt the worst email account to hold, often down and in need of a complete overhauling. Yet it has the easiest format and is user friendly, but only when it is working… which is perhaps 2 out of 7 days in any given week. I suppose if you don’t use email Yahoo would be a good email provider! My own experience with Yahoo has been anything but satisfactory. Try to find a phone number to complain to or a tech to help with your problems is like searching for a hair pin in the pacific ocean. They are practically non existent; no they are in fact non existent. However there is a tech support team out of India that for a charge will attempt to assist Yahoo users. The only draw back is the language barrier; their English is so broken it’s like attempting to communicate with a frog. On second thought communication with a frog might be easier. What I receive after only one email is: Unusual Activity Detected, To protect you, your account has been suspended from sending, saving, and receiving mail for up to 48 hours So Yahoo users like me are limited to use yahoo one time a day. I ask, how is Yahoo protecting me by denying me access to my own email? Yahoo We love you, we just don’t like your lack of professionalism!

Reader Supported News V. Justice Antonin Scalia: Reported By Jack Ferm

If I seem to have issues with the media it’s because the 4^th estate is not doing its job. What do we get from the media; mainly propaganda in the form of news fabrication, distortion, slanting and censorship.

Why do we buy into this nonsense? Why do we allow it? Are we not entitled to expect more from the guardians of our democracy?

Readers Supported News is an arm of the Liberal left, or as they are endearingly referred to by the conservative right, the gun control freaks.

Note: Readers Supported News was established through infighting for control that destroyed the original concept “Truthout” another liberal copy content media!

Would Truthout have censored reader comments?

Most opinions offered on the liberal blogs like RSN lack insight and intelligent through, they are ramblings in a dismissive culture. Yet RSN which is not really a media source but rather a duplicator of content, with some original thought sparingly portrayed, has its own agenda. That of promoting the Liberal view, “whatever that is: as even the liberal mind is devoid of such latent knowledge.

A sampling of some of the comments not censored by RSN show that their readers lack all discernment of reality. They lack that Perspicacity of thought and knowledge in their attempt at a decisive discourse.

As one commenter stated of Justice Scalia:

“Of course his wife doesn't want him "hanging around the house". What woman in her right mind would? However
I also don't want him to continue "hanging around" the Supreme Court.
So she'll have to take him back. She married him after all.”

This comment received 27 thumbs up!

And another commenter said:

"Scalia - a proponent of the idea that the Constitution must be interpreted using the meaning of its text at the time it was written..."

This means then that, at best, the only arms people are allowed to "bear" are the muzzle-loading weapons available at the time the Constitution was written since no one envisioned the semi-automatic pistols of today or the fully automatic assault rifles that are the darlings of the NRA.”

This comment received 14 thumbs up!

And in response to the foregoing comment:

“I like your argument. It's more rationale than arguing that the founders intended any and every weapon to be legal.”

This comment received 8 thumbs up!

Readers Supported News (RSN) uses censorship to control the comment board. Have an opinion, if it makes no logical sense, it’s allowed. Intellectual dishonesty is the reason many are liberals in the first instance.

When Justice Scalia made public his dissatisfaction with the Obamacare ruling he made some very factual and astute observations, for example Justice Scalia commented that Roberts, (also a conservative), sided with the nine-member court's four liberals in upholding the constitutionality of Obama's healthcare law,….

Scalia correctly joined in a sharply worded dissent on the day of the June 28 ruling and added to his criticism on Sunday.

“A central provision of the law is the "individual mandate" that most Americans obtain health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty. The ruling found that this penalty "may reasonably be characterized as a tax" and thus would be constitutionally permissible under the power of Congress to impose taxes.

Scalia said "There is no way to regard this penalty as a tax. ... In order to save the constitutionality, you cannot give the text a meaning it will not bear,"…

"You don't interpret a penalty to be a pig. It can't be a pig."

In other words, as intelligence would dictate, you can not make a fine a tax anymore then you can make a tax a pig!

To devout Liberals, Scalia, due to his factual comment came under attack. These widget brained intellectually impaired morons took issue with his comments. And Reader supported News came to their rescues by censoring intelligent negative feedback. 

Yes the left also engages in censorship, did anyone believe the left was immune from such a control tactic. If you have an intelligent comment take it somewhere else, and in this author’s opinion don’t bother to read their “comments” As for the duplicated content it will always be available at the source.

Liberals, those gun control fanatics, and Obama apologists have a site of their own and every month they request from their readers contributions of $30,000 so they can censor which comments they choose to allow…RSN claims to have 250,000 readers yet they have a problem every month achieving their goal of only $30,000 dollars!

Thirty thousand dollars is only $0.12 cents per reader, If they really have that many?

I will leave you with the following:

Why have a site for discussions… when the discussions are only allowed to be one sided? Isn’t that censorship?

The RSN Staff was asked for comment…they declined to comment.