4 ms·
clearly, you haven’t tried reading it. Jesus Christ, it’s like talking to a brick wall. The amount of effort I’ve spent replying to you is more than was neces
by dijit 11mo ago
clearly, you haven’t tried reading it.
Jesus Christ, it’s like talking to a brick wall.
The amount of effort I’ve spent replying to you is more than was necessary to understand the entire fucking text.
Every statement is very clear what they’re saying, don’t record what you don’t need, how do you define what you need, make sure personal information can be deleted, what constitutes personal information.
It’s really really really fucking easy, like dude; you’re halfway through a sentence you know exactly what they’re getting at. You finish it anyway in case there’s an exception or something, and it’s never the case that there is.
Whatever… you believe whatever the fuck you wanna believe don’t call me a fucking liar though you cunt.
- dpark 11mo agoAt no point did I say the law was very difficult to read. I said that your claim that it should take 20 minutes to read is absurd. That the other replies to you said basically the same should clue you in that this is not realistic for others even if it were realistic for you. > don’t call me a fucking liar though you cunt. You could have easily just walked your claim back and said “Okay, 20 minutes is an exaggeration but it’s not a hard law to read”. Instead you repeatedly doubled down and backed yourself into a corner where the only possible options are that you are an ultra speed reader at 10x normal pace or you are a liar. Not my problem if you don’t like those options.