Brian Kemper
@bwkemper.bsky.social
Attorney, father, Peloton addict, writer, and Eternal Keeper of the Final Word
Check out my novel "Everything Can Change" available on Amazon.
Check out my novel "Everything Can Change" available on Amazon.
It was from me when I explained that their solution of having the FCC revoke NBC's "satellite uplink" could not be done because the FCC had no authority to do so.
The reason you can't see it is because you follow me and because I am blocked from that post, so you are you (at least in this feed) ...
The reason you can't see it is because you follow me and because I am blocked from that post, so you are you (at least in this feed) ...
December 1, 2025 at 4:06 PM
It was from me when I explained that their solution of having the FCC revoke NBC's "satellite uplink" could not be done because the FCC had no authority to do so.
The reason you can't see it is because you follow me and because I am blocked from that post, so you are you (at least in this feed) ...
The reason you can't see it is because you follow me and because I am blocked from that post, so you are you (at least in this feed) ...
It wasn't in the original post. It was in a later post when I said that the FCC authority for the broadcast licencses were not over the satellite transmission but rather the transmission by the station to the viewers.
December 1, 2025 at 4:02 PM
It wasn't in the original post. It was in a later post when I said that the FCC authority for the broadcast licencses were not over the satellite transmission but rather the transmission by the station to the viewers.
No, it was not and you're the one "sidestepping."
The issue that you replied to was about the "sycohantic coverage" of journalists on "Trump's side."
You provided a solution that related to broadcast licenses ("All stations have licenses."). Those licenses are with the stations and only ....
The issue that you replied to was about the "sycohantic coverage" of journalists on "Trump's side."
You provided a solution that related to broadcast licenses ("All stations have licenses."). Those licenses are with the stations and only ....
December 1, 2025 at 2:44 PM
No, it was not and you're the one "sidestepping."
The issue that you replied to was about the "sycohantic coverage" of journalists on "Trump's side."
You provided a solution that related to broadcast licenses ("All stations have licenses."). Those licenses are with the stations and only ....
The issue that you replied to was about the "sycohantic coverage" of journalists on "Trump's side."
You provided a solution that related to broadcast licenses ("All stations have licenses."). Those licenses are with the stations and only ....
is not the satellite transmissions the NBC that provides the signals to the stations.
It's why the license is with the stations and not the parent company or the network NBC.
It's why the license is with the stations and not the parent company or the network NBC.
December 1, 2025 at 2:39 PM
is not the satellite transmissions the NBC that provides the signals to the stations.
It's why the license is with the stations and not the parent company or the network NBC.
It's why the license is with the stations and not the parent company or the network NBC.
to what is transmitted over the radiowave frequencies from the stations to them viewers.
December 1, 2025 at 2:29 PM
to what is transmitted over the radiowave frequencies from the stations to them viewers.
Context absolutely matters. And it's what your later attempts at justifying your response fails -- because you ignored the context of the post you were quoting.
It's why you were still commenting on a post that was about an American news anchor interviewing an American politician.
And how ...
It's why you were still commenting on a post that was about an American news anchor interviewing an American politician.
And how ...
December 1, 2025 at 2:06 PM
Context absolutely matters. And it's what your later attempts at justifying your response fails -- because you ignored the context of the post you were quoting.
It's why you were still commenting on a post that was about an American news anchor interviewing an American politician.
And how ...
It's why you were still commenting on a post that was about an American news anchor interviewing an American politician.
And how ...
Yep.
He screenshotted the post, but failed to screenshot what the post's words were commenting about.
The post wasn't made in a vacuum, despite their attempt to portray it as such.
He screenshotted the post, but failed to screenshot what the post's words were commenting about.
The post wasn't made in a vacuum, despite their attempt to portray it as such.
December 1, 2025 at 1:45 PM
Yep.
He screenshotted the post, but failed to screenshot what the post's words were commenting about.
The post wasn't made in a vacuum, despite their attempt to portray it as such.
He screenshotted the post, but failed to screenshot what the post's words were commenting about.
The post wasn't made in a vacuum, despite their attempt to portray it as such.
You're literally quoting a post whose words about context of the an American news anchor interviewing an American politician on an American station.
You may screenshot their words but you can't separate them from the context in which they were made. They were specifically addressing that issue.
You may screenshot their words but you can't separate them from the context in which they were made. They were specifically addressing that issue.
December 1, 2025 at 1:41 PM
You're literally quoting a post whose words about context of the an American news anchor interviewing an American politician on an American station.
You may screenshot their words but you can't separate them from the context in which they were made. They were specifically addressing that issue.
You may screenshot their words but you can't separate them from the context in which they were made. They were specifically addressing that issue.
I'd also add that a quote-post is a "comment" on someone else's post just as much as a reply is.
You're still expressing your opinion on that post regardless of the form you use.
You're still expressing your opinion on that post regardless of the form you use.
December 1, 2025 at 1:34 PM
I'd also add that a quote-post is a "comment" on someone else's post just as much as a reply is.
You're still expressing your opinion on that post regardless of the form you use.
You're still expressing your opinion on that post regardless of the form you use.
You should be more specific with your words because you commented "there is no such thing" and cited Irish law in a reply. Your original post was about an American story with an American media person but you didn't cite Irish law until your reply.
Learn to "play" better.
Learn to "play" better.
December 1, 2025 at 1:30 PM
You should be more specific with your words because you commented "there is no such thing" and cited Irish law in a reply. Your original post was about an American story with an American media person but you didn't cite Irish law until your reply.
Learn to "play" better.
Learn to "play" better.
Look at the time stamps, Sparky. 1:18 pm and 1:24 pm.
I admitted people did question it.
The first being 10 minutes before you said I wouldn't admit I was wrong.
I admitted people did question it.
The first being 10 minutes before you said I wouldn't admit I was wrong.
November 26, 2025 at 7:02 PM
Look at the time stamps, Sparky. 1:18 pm and 1:24 pm.
I admitted people did question it.
The first being 10 minutes before you said I wouldn't admit I was wrong.
I admitted people did question it.
The first being 10 minutes before you said I wouldn't admit I was wrong.
I mean, you're completely ignoring the last skeet on that post that expressly talks about enforceability over US assets.
November 26, 2025 at 6:42 PM
I mean, you're completely ignoring the last skeet on that post that expressly talks about enforceability over US assets.
That is absolutely what happened.
That screenshot shows it, as do these.
I'd say it's obvious to everyone but you, but I'm fairly certain it's obvious to you as well.
That screenshot shows it, as do these.
I'd say it's obvious to everyone but you, but I'm fairly certain it's obvious to you as well.
November 26, 2025 at 6:40 PM
That is absolutely what happened.
That screenshot shows it, as do these.
I'd say it's obvious to everyone but you, but I'm fairly certain it's obvious to you as well.
That screenshot shows it, as do these.
I'd say it's obvious to everyone but you, but I'm fairly certain it's obvious to you as well.
Note that by admitting that I hadn't see every thread, I was acknowledging that I could be wrong.
November 26, 2025 at 6:33 PM
Note that by admitting that I hadn't see every thread, I was acknowledging that I could be wrong.
yes, you posted that screenshot before.
And as I told you then, there were additional posts by others thereafter that made it clear they are talking about a hypo. Context, remember?
And you responded to such hypos.
Like these.
And as I told you then, there were additional posts by others thereafter that made it clear they are talking about a hypo. Context, remember?
And you responded to such hypos.
Like these.
November 26, 2025 at 6:20 PM
yes, you posted that screenshot before.
And as I told you then, there were additional posts by others thereafter that made it clear they are talking about a hypo. Context, remember?
And you responded to such hypos.
Like these.
And as I told you then, there were additional posts by others thereafter that made it clear they are talking about a hypo. Context, remember?
And you responded to such hypos.
Like these.
It wasn't a "high horse."
It was the topic that you engaged with directly when you claimed that people were wrong in their assertions that were absolutely about this topic.
Like this one.
Because that was the topic being discussed. It wasn't that they shouldn't have settled.
Why the fuck ...
It was the topic that you engaged with directly when you claimed that people were wrong in their assertions that were absolutely about this topic.
Like this one.
Because that was the topic being discussed. It wasn't that they shouldn't have settled.
Why the fuck ...
November 26, 2025 at 5:54 PM
It wasn't a "high horse."
It was the topic that you engaged with directly when you claimed that people were wrong in their assertions that were absolutely about this topic.
Like this one.
Because that was the topic being discussed. It wasn't that they shouldn't have settled.
Why the fuck ...
It was the topic that you engaged with directly when you claimed that people were wrong in their assertions that were absolutely about this topic.
Like this one.
Because that was the topic being discussed. It wasn't that they shouldn't have settled.
Why the fuck ...
Says the guy who had done everything he can to distract from the simple fact that he engaged with skeets that explicitly stated they were based on the hypo.
Like this one:
Like this one:
November 26, 2025 at 5:52 PM
Says the guy who had done everything he can to distract from the simple fact that he engaged with skeets that explicitly stated they were based on the hypo.
Like this one:
Like this one:
The skeets can’t get much clearer and everyone else discerned that.
November 26, 2025 at 5:37 PM
The skeets can’t get much clearer and everyone else discerned that.
I mean, you do understand that the two screenshots were two parts of the same reply thread, right?
I broke them up to make them legible.
I broke them up to make them legible.
November 26, 2025 at 5:20 PM
I mean, you do understand that the two screenshots were two parts of the same reply thread, right?
I broke them up to make them legible.
I broke them up to make them legible.
Oh my God, you're thick.
I was responding to your skeet re: the threat of defamation, which I didn't make. Caldin did.
Which means the joke was his, not mine.
I was responding to your skeet re: the threat of defamation, which I didn't make. Caldin did.
Which means the joke was his, not mine.
November 26, 2025 at 5:11 PM
Oh my God, you're thick.
I was responding to your skeet re: the threat of defamation, which I didn't make. Caldin did.
Which means the joke was his, not mine.
I was responding to your skeet re: the threat of defamation, which I didn't make. Caldin did.
Which means the joke was his, not mine.
Again, you're focusing on a sole skeet outside the context of the entire thread.
Including your responses to skeets that were absolutely and solely about US assets.
Including your responses to skeets that were absolutely and solely about US assets.
November 26, 2025 at 5:09 PM
Again, you're focusing on a sole skeet outside the context of the entire thread.
Including your responses to skeets that were absolutely and solely about US assets.
Including your responses to skeets that were absolutely and solely about US assets.
FFS, he has already. He said you were lying about what my skeet said.
Keep up.
Keep up.
November 26, 2025 at 4:57 PM
FFS, he has already. He said you were lying about what my skeet said.
Keep up.
Keep up.
And again, that skeet was part of a thread that was addressing the hypo of a defendant with US assets and the fact that US law won't permit enforcement of foreign awards that would violate 1A.
Because US courts doing that would violate 1A.
Because US courts doing that would violate 1A.
November 26, 2025 at 4:47 PM
And again, that skeet was part of a thread that was addressing the hypo of a defendant with US assets and the fact that US law won't permit enforcement of foreign awards that would violate 1A.
Because US courts doing that would violate 1A.
Because US courts doing that would violate 1A.
enforceability.
In fact, I specifically stated that the issue was about recovering an award with clear indication that there was more to come (and there was), and you screenshotted a portion re: jurisdiction.
In fact, I specifically stated that the issue was about recovering an award with clear indication that there was more to come (and there was), and you screenshotted a portion re: jurisdiction.
November 26, 2025 at 4:40 PM
enforceability.
In fact, I specifically stated that the issue was about recovering an award with clear indication that there was more to come (and there was), and you screenshotted a portion re: jurisdiction.
In fact, I specifically stated that the issue was about recovering an award with clear indication that there was more to come (and there was), and you screenshotted a portion re: jurisdiction.