Don't understand how these can be offered here? Your a scrub and anyone selling or buying accounts from here is like eating where you shit.
You should be banned for having multiple accounts

BUMP: Have a feeling people aren't sure about what this is and how good of a deal.
Research it guys

sent due to you being the only request for a free copy lmao enjoy

https://www.matchtvplus.org/

They charge 1 YEAR $216.00 and aren't even accepting new clients at the moment

I'm charging $100 for the top package with everything including PPV,WWENetwork,EverySports Channels and so much more...

How do I have so many accounts to sell at such a discount? Well i'm a re-seller and when you do enough sales you earn credits towards extra slots and when your a A+ seller you get Diamond privileges.

All you need is a ROKU and you are good to go

I am willing to give 1 vouch account but will only allow access on that one for a 24 hour period and they must be a trusted member here.

Mach tv plus offers a great variety of channels for the whole family. SD and HD channels included along with special events, fights and concerts.

Special Events:

NBA, NFL Sunday Ticket HD

HD channels:


NFL Sunday Ticket 1, NFL Sunday Ticket 2, NFL Sunday Ticket 3, NFL Sunday Ticket 4, NFL Sunday Ticket 5, A&E, ABC, CBS, CBS 2, CNN, ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPN Deportes, ESPN USA, FOX, FOX Sport 1, FOX Sport 2, FX, FX Latino, History en Español, NAT GEO WILD Latino, NBA League Pass 1, NBA TV, NFL Network, SKY Sports 1, SKY Sports 2, SKY Sports 3, SKY Sports 4, SKY Sports F1, Sony Latino, SYFY, TLC, TLC Latino, UFC Night, Universal Channel Latino, Univision Deportes, USA Network, Velocity, VEVO Hits, VEVO Hits 2, VEVO Hits 3


Channels:


ABC, ABC HD, CBS HD, CBS HD 2, CBS SD, CBS Sport Network, CNBC, FOX, FOX HD, FOX Puerto Rico, NBC, NBC Sports, TBS Puerto Rico, TBS USA



Spanish Channels:

A&E Latino, Animal Planet Latino, Azteca America, BEIN Sports, BEIN Sports Español, CNN en Español, Discovery Channel en Español, Discovery Channel en Español 2, Discovery Channel Latino, Discovery Familia, Discovery HD Theater Latino, Discovery SCI Latino,, Disney XD Latino, ESPN Deportes HD, FORO TV, FOX Puerto Rico, FOX Sports en Español, FX Latino, Galavision, GOL TV, HBO Latino, History Channel Latino, Infinito Latino, Investigacion Discovery Latino, MAX Latino, MUN2, NAT GEO WILD Latino, NAT GEO Mundo, Sony HD Latino, TBS Puerto Rico, Teleformula, Telefutura, Telemundo Este, Telemundo Puerto Rico, Telemundo West, TLC Latino, TruTV, TruTV Latino, TVE Internacional America, Unimas, Universal Channel Latino, Univision, Univision Deportes 2, Univision Deportes 2 SD, Univision Deportes HD, Univision Deportes SD, Univision Novelas, Univision Puerto Rico, Univision USA, Univision West, WAPA America, WAPA Puerto Rico, Warner Channel.


Sport Channels:

NFL Red Zone, NBC NFL Sunday Night Football, NFL Sunday Ticket 1, NFL Sunday Ticket 2, NFL Sunday Ticket 3, NFL Sunday Ticket 4, NFL Sunday Ticket 5, NFL Sunday Ticket 6, NFL Sunday Ticket 7, NFL Sunday Ticket 8, NFL Sunday Ticket 9, BEIN Sports, BEIN Sports Español, Benfica TV, CBS HD, CBS HD 2, CBS SD, CBS Sports Network, ESPN 2 HD, ESPN 2 SD, ESPN Deportes, ESPN HD, ESPN News HD, ESPN SD, ESPN U, ESPN USA HD, FOX, FOX HD, FOX Sports HD, FOX Sports SD, FOX Sports 2 HD, FOX Sports 2 SD, FOX Sports En Español, GOL TV, GOLF USA, MLB Network, NBA League Pass 1, NBA League Pass 1 HD, NBA League Pass 2, NBA League Pass 3, NBA League Pass 4, NBA TV HD, NBA TV SD, NBC SD, NBC Sports, NBX Sports, NFL Network HD, NFL Network SD, NHL Network HD, SKY Sports 1, SKY Sports 2, SKY Sports 3, SKY Sports 4, SKY Sports F1, SPOR TV1, SPOR TV2, SPOR TV3, SUN Sports, TBS USA, Tennis Channel, The Fight Network, TNT NBA, UFC Network, UFC Night, UFC SD, Univision Deportes 2, Univision Deportes 2 SD, Univision Deportes HD, Univision Deportes SD.


Documentaries:

Animal Planet HD, Animal Planet Latino, BBC America, Discovery Channel Español, Discovery Channel 2 Español, Discovery Channel Latino, Discovery Channel USA, Discovery Familia, Discovery HD Theater Latino, Discovery SCI Latino, Food Network HD, G4 Tech TV, History Channel 2, History Channel, History Channel Latino, History Channel en Español, Infinito Latino, Investigacion Discovery SD, NAT GEO Mundo, NAT GEO Wild Latino, National Geographic USA, SCI Discovery Science, TLC HD, TLC Latino, Travel Channel, Velocity HD


Entertainment:

A&E HD, A&E Latino, AMC, Animal Planet HD, Animal Planet Latino, BBC America, Bravo, Discovery Channel Español, Discovery Channel 2 Español, Discovery Channel Latino, Discovery Channel USA, Discovery Familia, Discovery HD Theater Latino, Discovery SCI, Latino, E!, Food Network HD, FX HD, FX Latino HD, G4 Tech TV, Hallmark Channel, HGTV, History Channel 2, History HD En Español, Infinito Latino, Investigacion Discovery, Investigacion Discovery Latino, NAT GEO Mundo, National Geographic USA, SCI Discovery Science, Sony HD Latino, Spike, SYFY HD, TBS USA, Telemundo East, Telemundo West, TLC HD, TLC HD Latino, TNT, Travel Channel, TruTV, Universal Channel HD Latino, USA Network, Velocity HD, WAPA America, WAPA Puerto Rico, Warner Channel.


Kids Channels:

Baby First TV, Boomerang, Cartoon Network, CBeebies, Discovery Familia, Discovery Kids Español, Disney Channel, Disney XD, Disney XD Latino, HBO Family, Nick JR, Nick Toons, Nickelodeon

Music Channels:

VEVO Hits, VEVO Hits 2, VEVO Hits 3, VH1


International Channels:

AIJAZEERA America, Benfica, FOX Puerto Rico, Nederlan 1-6, SKY SPORT 1-4, SKY SPORT F1, SPORT TV 1-3, TBS Puerto Rico, Telemundo Puerto Rico, TNT Puerto Rico, Travel Channel, TV Chile, TVE International America, Univision Puerto Rico, WAPA Puerto Rico.

Movie Channels:

5 STAR MAX, Action MAX, AMC, Bravo, CineMax, Encore Action, Encore Love, Encore Suspense, FX Latino, HBO, HBO 2, HBO West, HBO Comedy, HBO Family, HBO Latino HD, HBO Signature, Max Latino, MoreMax, ShowTime, ShowTime Beyond, ShowTime Extreme, ShowTime ShowCase, Sony DC, Spike, Starz, Starz Cinema, Starz Comedy, Starz Edge, SYFY HD, TMN The Movie Channel, TMN The Movie Channel XTRA, TNT, Universal Channel HD Latino, USA Network, Warner Channel & many more.

I can vouch for Melvster we have done multiple transaction at higher prices with no hiccups if that helps at all that is.

Sorry man if I had the coin currently I would help you out

Since this would be a relatively benign upgrade in the protocol that most people would accept, all it would really take is updating the version number in the protocol.... sort of like the IPv4 vs. IPv6 issue.  That would require an update of the clients, but it wouldn't be too bad.

The main issue is that at least for awhile the network would be forked like what happened with the 0.3.10 update, where users running the older software would not be able to recognize the newer blocks, but the older blocks (and transactions) would be recognized for awhile.  Doing a shift of that nature would end up having the majority of the network "voting" with their CPU processors, where the largest number of hashes would decide if the change is accepted or not.  It doesn't have to be "everybody", but those left behind on the smaller network would be quickly "forced" to make the switch.

If we do make such a switch, I hope it is done thoughtfully and other "bugs" in the protocol are strongly looked at as well.

Considering the substantial overhead in the current protocol, the few extra bytes for additional precision in the transactions is irrelevant and shouldn't even be an issue here, particularly if some of those overhead issues were cleaned up with a tighter protocol.

I don't see a graceful hand-off though, which would be the issue.  The main issue is that the "new" transactions that would have the extended precision data would be rejected by older clients on the first block that has one of these "new" precision transactions incorporated into that block.

I already did:  http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=506.0

I've given this issue more than a little thought, and it is something that could have some more effort put into it.  A related concept is how you can keep "sub-nets" of some sort synched with each other if they weren't directly linked to the main internet with a presumption of ping times less than 1 second.  This could include 3rd world countries where Bitcoins could be shared on a thumb drive and shared by SneakerNet or between LANs that might have their external connections severed due to natural/man-made disasters (including war or civil unrest like what happened this month in Egypt).

Making the Bitcoin protocol a bit more robust to deal with this issue could be useful, particularly if it is going to be used as a cash-like currency.

On this point, I strongly disagree.  When the "anti-spam" limit of 0.01 BTC was first put in to stop petty transactions, the value of 0.01 BTC was about a 20th of a cent.  That still allowed experimentation with microtransaction concepts with Bitcoins.... which now is mostly impossible.

The problem is that the protocol doesn't have any mechanism to adjust if the value of Bitcoins appreciates relative to other currencies, and I don't know of a reasonable way to make that happen either.

Right now, the "official client" that almost everybody has puts in a minimum transaction fee of 0.01 BTC if you attempt to send less than 0.01 BTC.  In effect, this is the absolute hard minimum transaction that can be sent using the reference implementation of the software.  Instead of being a trivial amount, that is now worth at least $0.01 dollars and is likely to go up.  Assuming the current rate of deflation of Bitcoins continues, that may soon be worth $0.10 dollars, and I can see that within a year or two as high as a dollar in value for 0.01 BTC.

This is a problem, and it could be a big one.  Yes, a patch can be done to solve this "problem" and alternate implementations of the software can be used to "solve" the issue too so it isn't as big of a deal as it would seem, but you can't use the current software to send those smaller amounts.  Miners may or may not accept these smaller transactions, but it is a client-side user interface issue and a presumption that shouldn't have been put into the client-side software in the first place.

The client user interface needs to have full control over transaction fees.... both for what that node will pay to initiate a transaction as well as what fees it will accept if it "wins" a block.  Burying this all in the source code on some high minded presumption of what you think the value of Bitcoins ought to be is pure bunk and something that ought not be there.  If somebody like lzsaver wants to refuse to deal with petty amounts less than 0.01 BTC when he is mining, that is his privilege... but it shouldn't be forced upon the community in an artificial manner as it is right now where this is the absolute minimum transaction which can take place.

Acceptance or rejection of a transaction belongs with the miners and I'm fine with that.  My issue is the presumptions put into the clients that are commonly spread throughout the community.  If it doesn't get changed, it will spawn a bunch of "alternative clients" that will put in the necessary changes.

Then again, that may be a good thing if the current reference implementation is simply abandoned.  If so, may it rest in peace, but that is a completely different topic here.  Giving developers a strong reason to fork Bitcoin could be useful.

0.001 USD is called a mill.  It did find some use early on in the history of America, and it still can be found in American gasoline refilling stations (where the gasoline price shows an additional 9 mills per gallon).  It also applies to taxes where sometimes taxation rates are set in terms of a number of mills per thousand dollars of value.

Considering that the penny is now threatened with extinction due to inflation, it is obviously a seldom used denomination.  If the dollar ever went deflationary again over a prolonged period of time it might be used again, but that wouldn't happen as long as the Federal Reserve Bank is in charge of monetary policy in relation to the U.S. Dollar.

While the big jumps were by single actors, I would argue that doesn't tell the whole story.  Mt. Gox does represent the bulk of the community and it has been impressive in terms of how many people are participating.  Generally I've been watching how many users are involved, and it typically has been about 50-80 people with orders on the market at any given time (the operator of Mt. Gox could give a definitive response for the exact number).  There are also other "lurkers" like myself who stay out of the market at the moment.

What is interesting is that I've been spending most of my time also watching the Ruble market on btcex.com, where actions on Mt. Gox are typically reflected on those markets too.  Sometimes there is a bit of a lag, such as how the WMZ market is a bit below the Mt. Gox price, but I wouldn't bet on it staying that way for too long.  Hint:  If you can change Liberty Reserve for Web Money, now would be a good time to do just that and get some Bitcoins for cheap from that particular market.

The Ruble has long ago passed parity, but the current exchange rate is roughly settled down at what Mt. Gox has if you converted Dollars to Rubles on the ForEx market.  While it doesn't have the volume of Mt. Gox, I would say that this is a good indicator of what other traders elsewhere think of the value of Bitcoins.

The value of a Bitcoin is going up because those with Bitcoins don't want to sell them for cheap.  It is certainly a genuine auction market where the supply of Bitcoins is limited, but the supply of other currencies is plentiful.  If there were piles of Bitcoins burning holes in people's pockets, they would be put onto the market at this time.  Anybody who has either purchased or mined a Bitcoin could at any time put in a bid for a lower amount.  The real issue is why that isn't happening, thus pushing the market up.  Those who purchased Bitcoins for smaller values in the past certainly could use this opportunity for some "profit taking" into Dollars/FRNs.

I think this is a good point, so far as the issues about how the time interval has been selected.  We really don't know how large Bitcoin is going to get, and my personal guess is that it will be considerably larger in terms of the number of people involved than is even using Bitcoin at the present time.

I know it is discouraging that ordinary folks can no longer realistically be able to mine Bitcoins using an ordinary computer, and expect to "discover" Bitcoins in a short interval.  I've expressed concerns about this very issue in the past and it went upon deaf ears then.  I've since learned a bit more about the Bitcoin architecture and realize that it is a difficult to intractable problem except for mining pools and other strategies to apportion out at least some Bitcoins to those who want to participate.

On the whole, Bitcoin does a substantially better job of verifying transactions than the Federal Reserve does for check transactions, or for that matter even ATM transactions.  While check kiting is much, much harder to do now than it was in the past, it still can be done, as can the reverse in terms of banks holding money for seemingly impossible periods of time (up to a week or more) when somebody screws up.  Knowing that a transaction will generally be "confirmed" with 5-6 blocks incorporating that transaction in a hour is to me a pretty good result, if you consider the alternatives that exist elsewhere in the banking community.

Most retailers, I would believe, would be ecstatic to know that a retail transaction was completely confirmed as theirs within an hour or less, particularly that "charge-backs" could never happen after that.  Even if you have to wait a half hour for the next block (because of random events happening) it still isn't the end of the world.

The worst part, as mentioned earlier, is what happens when mining activity drops off considerably.  I've argued that the re-adjustment algorithm needs to be modified somewhat, and that is the achilles heel of Bitcoin, as it could have some more generalized adjustment algorithm that isn't so coarse.  It does stops certain kinds of attacks by being that coarse, which I won't go into now but that is something to consider if you want to complain about the readjustment interval.

There are only, on average, about 1 transaction every 10 minutes.  That is six confirmations in an hour which is the hard time limit before a transaction is confirmed.  Let's assume the attackers are real lucky and get twice that many blocks as they are doubling the generation rate.... hence only two attacks would be possible in an hour.  Maybe a few more than that by "double spending" on each block, but you would also have to "win" all of those blocks too.

BTW, attempts to double spend coins would be ignored once the "attack" is over with likely a bunch of competing chains floating around the network temporarily while nodes are analyzing the transactions, but once the double spending filters are applied to the transactions the double spending transactions and blocks associated with those transactions will be culled... as if the attack never happened in the first place.

It would essentially be wasted CPU effort and even the bitcoins "earned" by winning a block would be discarded too.  It is as pointless of an attack as I've ever seen proposed.

These guys certainly show a lack of understanding here about the Bitcoin protocols.  The issue here isn't gaining temporary control of a majority of the CPU power of the network, the issue is gaining control of a majority of the network over a prolonged period of time.

More importantly, there is a mistaken notion here that transactions are "irreversible".  If you are engaged in gaming Bitcoins, transactions are indeed reversible and any attempt to double spend will be wiped out upon verification by the trusted nodes on the network.  BTW, CPU power alone isn't sufficient but also having the transactions verified by the various nodes including those who aren't necessarily even providing CPU power but rather merely network bandwidth.  If you can't get the majority of the nodes to accept your blocks & transactions, it is a wasted transaction even if you have a huge amount of CPU bandwidth being thrown at the issue.

BTW, this is one of the reasons why changed in 0.3.16 were such a big deal because it did change some of what the "ordinary nodes" were doing with some of the blocks and packets, rejecting certain transactions because of "unusual" data.

This kind of "attack" does point out that folks who are shipping physical merchandise ought to set up perhaps some sort of policy of requiring perhaps a few more than just six confirmations, as that is the real scam here.  In the attempt to double-spend, the attacker is trying to fool somebody into thinking they have legitimately received payment when in fact they haven't received any bitcoins at all.  When the attack fails, the "accounts" or at least who has what bitcoins will be a settled issue.

From the article:


Assuming that they are trying to get physical merchandise from somebody where it is being sent to a physical address of some kind as their way of being able to gain money from this scam.  By double spending, the attacker is assuming that they are going to be receiving the merchandise in spite of the merchant not receiving payment.  When the merchant realizes that the transaction is invalid (you don't even need to be reading the forums to notice that fact... contrary to what was said in the article earlier) they are going to either withhold shipment (and announce a strange set of blocks on the forums if they are thinking clearly or at least saying WTF happened to my transaction!) or they can then notify the shipping agent they are using that some sort of fraud was going on with the package and "request" that the package be returned or discarded and not sent to the addressee.  Either way, the scammer isn't going to get the merchandise and at worst is only wasting somebody's time or forcing a merchant to lose some money.

Furthermore, fraud can certainly be prosecuted under current laws.  Nothing new even needs to be passed in terms of going after these scammers legally in most countries and jurisdictions.  This is indeed very much within the legal definition of fraud and can be proven in court and certainly explained to law enforcement as if a "check" bounced and that payment failed or some other similar kind of explanation until you have to get inside of a court room.  You might be able to attack the validity of Bitcoins as a payment method, but certainly the fact that something of value was transmitted in exchange for something else of value, but then that "something" (in this bitcoins) was not in fact actually transferred would be considered fraud.  I would also argue that typically a judge in this situation would recognize Bitcoins as a valid payment method, at least if you can get somebody to explain what exactly is Bitcoins in simple terms that can be told to a jury without getting into the gritty details.  That both parties thought Bitcoins had value is the only legal question that would have to be asked in this case.

Some idiot presuming that the court system will stay away from you merely because you are using Bitcoins may have cold hard reality facing down upon themselves.  It isn't that this could be illegal, I'm suggesting that an attack of this nature would be illegal already and in fact is.  If you want chapter and verse, at least specify jurisdiction if you want me to give you an answer.  I can think of several laws this would violate and in at least America nearly a dozen law enforcement agencies who would all have jurisdiction too in any given town depending on what was sold and how it was shipped.

It is possible that somebody really thinking this through might set up dead drop mailboxes and have other ways to launder the merchandise, but we aren't talking check kiting here that can take a day or two and up to a couple of weeks to detect.

In short, the author of this piece is completely clueless about Bitcoins and doesn't know what he is talking about.  A good try, and certainly there are ways to scam Bitcoins from people who are unsuspecting, but trying to do that through an attack on the system in the nature described is not only a waste of time, but dangerous to do even from a legal standpoint where the risk on the ROI is far greater than even presumed as with potential criminal penalties and loss of liberty are enough to make this a negative ROI... at least with this method.  If you are going to scam, scam at least with "legitimate" transactions with something like a Ponzi scheme.

The issue of money laundering via Bitcoins is something real, but that is confusing a criticism of Bitcoins with a legal protection of some weird and perverse kind.  Just because trade in cocoa beans may or may not be legal in a jurisdiction doesn't stop a trade transaction using cocoa beans from being illegal for other reasons too.

The other issues listed in this article have been amply debunked in earlier postings on this thread and deserve no further analysis as they are equally faulty.

Sad thing is, based upon personal experience by living in countries other than America that had an economic melt-down by far worse than anything America is currently facing... that life will continue and go on as usual.

I lived through the late 1970's and remember the double-digit inflation coupled with high unemployment (aka the "stagflation" of the Ford/Carter years).  My family and my neighbors got along just fine in that situation, although they did complain about what was happening and put Ronald Reagan into the White House.  It wasn't just the good looks of that former President of the Screen Actors Guild that convinced people he was ready for higher office.

Please don't mistake this as saying there aren't problems, as there clearly are.  I am expecting something more like the Arab Oil Embargo of the mid 1970's or something of that nature to hit again with high inflation and higher unemployment.  Then again I said almost three years ago that an Obama Presidency would be nearly identical to the Carter administration in terms of policies and the end result with the economy.  So far he hasn't disappointed me with that assessment either.  Obamacare was an interesting wrinkle that isn't the same, but otherwise the economic policies are roughly similar.  Obama is also greying with his hair just as fast... proving to me that the guy can't delegate.

Still, what would be a horrible economy for America and people thinking it is the end of the world would be still the envy of the rest of the world for the most part.  Not unless the U.S. economy got as bad as what happened in Zimbabwe would anybody really start to panic with widespread unrest.  I think in that case the end-result of what happened with the Weimar Republic would be a better template to compare.  That didn't do to well for the rest of the world and it would be ugly to see what an American version of THAT would become.

What the breaking point for the U.S. Dollar would be, I can't say right now, but I do think there is some more room for playing around.  In terms of a world reserve currency, I don't see anybody stepping up to the plate offering anything better as both the Yuan, Euro, Pound, and Ruble are all equally weak in their own way and unfortunately also tied too closely to the Dollar to let the Dollar drop out of sight.

+2

I want to thank everybody for their feedback on this issue.  I've been hesitant to get involved on the bitcoin.it wiki mainly because I don't want to seem like intruding into somebody else's project without at least discussing the issues first and knowing where they were coming from.  If that is going to be at least the new place that can be used to document the protocol, I'm encouraged by the thought and will try to move over the rest of the information on the Doku wiki that is applicable.

I believe that once this protocol is fully documented, it will be a great benefit to the community as a whole in ways that are not seen at the moment.

It depends.  I'd consider strongly supporting a group like Team FredNet if they were to start taking donations.  For those not aware of this group, it is one of the teams of the Google Lunar X-Prize competition that uses mostly volunteers and "open source design" principles to build a vehicle that they are hoping will land on the Moon to win a multi-million dollar prize if they can get there first.  There are a few other groups like Copenhagen Suborbitals that also are very much deserving of financial support and can certainly use some help... where the money would be relatively well spent and have some huge payback.

In terms of dumping money into the fiscal black holes called national space agencies, I'd just as soon start donating money directly to Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, or Donald Trump.  RKK Energia is making a profit on its own without Russian taxpayers having to foot most of the bill, so I'm curious what other agency is being talked about here?  Donating to NASA?  Fat chance.  I'd rather see that agency disbanded completely as it is a total waste of tax dollars to keep that agency going at the moment.  It may have been useful to America at one time, but it isn't any more.

Technical analysis has been showing the price of bitcoins was going up anyway and some good reasons to think that would be the case.

There certainly is some strong inflation going on right now in regards to Bitcoins, because demand is outstripping supply.  Postings here are irrelevant, other than to note that the overall trend is to be that the value of Bitcoins relative to the dollar is just going to go up.  Speculation about when parity (aka 1 BTC == 1 USD) has happened even before this thread was started.

Claiming this thread has the kind of influence suggested is like saying you had control of the Sun when it came up over the horizon this morning.  Your mass and possibly the mass of the things you own might have had a small impact upon that happening, but it is a minor and on a practical level an insignificant impact upon that happening.

When your speech crosses the line of being at the expense of somebody else, you have crossed the line.  Yes, I realize this is a small thing, but small things become big things.  I'm just asking you to grow up a bit, but perhaps I'm hanging around a bunch of kids here who don't give a damn.  So be it.

BTW, this is a personal attack, regardless of how you are trying to disguise this as a joke.  It is also a relatively new participant on this forum who is the blunt end of the joke, which only makes this worse.  If you are so clueless as to not notice that, you and those on this forum are simply in a hopeless situation.

It isn't about silencing speech here in terms of stopping the spread of an idea, it is about showing some respect to others... something I'm not seeing on this thread.  The fact that you are now (admittedly lightly) turning your attack against me only goes to show that is an issue.  What I'm attacking is that this humor has gone past the point of simply a crude joke which isn't really discussing anything of substance at all.

If the concept is flawed, there will be no execution of the idea.  That is what I'm suggesting.