It must really suck to make what you thought was a good point, only to have it eviscerated like your just was.
As to this
"but try finding it in a rural area that isn't a huge agricultural region. I live in an area..."
I don't know how you'd know whether it was available around you or not seeing as how you didn't know it was available AT ALL til GP just educated you. Don't try and lie and pretend you did. And frankly, no one cares about your anecdotal evidence.
"Guess I expect to much of people to read links off of an article they obviously haven't seen before. Just keep modding them redundant because people are lazy."
It gets modded redundant because you keep posting it.
From Dictionary.com "redundant -adjective 1. characterized by verbosity or unnecessary repetition in expressing ideas;"
So that's why you're wrong about that.
Also, I'd reread your article. It doesn't say what you think it does.
* Application Platform - Java
* Platform / Operating System - Apple OS X
* Data Download Speed - EDGE (Up to 144 Kbps) and 802.11b, g and n WiFi (Up to 100 Mbps)
* Network Compatibility - GSM 850, 900, 1800, 1900"
That covers every type of GSM network that I am aware of. So, what's your point?
"Except, it isn't. Less fuel economic cars get raped. It isn't just about everyone driving SUVs, but think of the poor family that cannot afford anything then that clunker from the 1980s. They are not getting the same mileage as the rich guy who decided to either "save" money or be more eco-friendly with his Hybrid. The cost of a hybrid is significantly more in some cases then its all fuel counterpart. So, in this case, the poorer are paying for the roads, while the richer are using less fuel and therefore paying less taxes, even if they are driving more."
And you don't think this is offset by the number of well-off people driving SUV's while the less well-off drive old econoboxes? I do. I'll wager it's more than offset, and if you were honest, you'd admit I'm right.
"Also, things other then cars run on fuel. These people are also paying for the roads. Gas powered lawn mowers burn on the same fuel. I don't think there are many mowers that are running down streets, especially if they are the walk-behind kind. Generators can run on fuel"
This is a pittance, don't try to pretend otherwise. It's nothing compared to what cars use, and I can't see the validity of considering it when talking about gas taxes.
So, apart from the bad example and the insignificant exception, do you have a real argument? As it stands, it sounds very much like you picking a position and trying very hard to find reasons to support it.
"but I suspect it comes from unions having better contracts with better benefits, and then the general public getting pissed when unions fight to keep what they have."
If you really believe that is why unions are disliked, then you need to resign your position immediately due to overwhelming ignorance/naivety. As a representative of the union, you should have a much better handle on the perceptions of those in the community regarding unions, and not rely on your obviously biased opinion.
"The NCAA acknowledges that there are First Amendment protections afforded to journalists who have been issued press credentials, without enumerating them"
That is why you are wrong. This is in no way a 1st amendment case despite what you and others seem to think. The individual did not have his speech regulated, he had his conduct regulated, as is the NCAA's right, which was agreed to by the individual involved. They said "you cannot do X" which he promptly did. This is no more a first amendment case than someone taking a dump in the sink and getting thrown out is a first amendment case.
You're an imbecile. Feel free to accuse me of an ad-hominem.
You've repeatedly screamed about "1st amendment" yet have provided NO meaningful arguments and failed to refute those that others have posted. You have attempted to deflect criticism of your points by shouting "FALLACY!!!" while failing to clarify exactly what fallacies you see, thereby closing down discussion of whether they are fallacies at all.
You are wrong. The courts have ruled on cases like this several time before, and there is NO 1st amendment question, there is YOU insisting that you're more lucid than everyone else and regurgitating first year rhetoric concepts (that you mangle badly and misuse) while completely failing to posit an argument more advanced than "YES HUH!!!".
The NCAA is a private actor, which said NOTHING about this fellow's ability to disseminate information about their event (that THEY own, not the participating Universities) and only addressed his ability to do it from a specified location. This has NOTHING to do with the 1st, and repeatedly bellowing "YES HUH!!! DOES TOO!!! FALLACY!!!!DOUBLE FALLACY!!!" makes you seem all the more obstinate and ignorant.
"The NCAA does not own any events or the content of those events"
This is when I decided to post in response. Why? Because you're completely wrong. The NCAA owns virtually ALL of the college championship tournaments (INCLUDING the College World Series, which this is about) with the notable exception of the BCS championship game.
I don't know why you think you know what you're talking about, but you're wrong. As to the specifics of the story, your opinion changes a bit when you realize they asked him to leave an event THEY OWN. This isn't about state sponsored blah blah spiel or 1st amendment rights or other ridiculous assertions, it is about the OWNERS of an event enforcing their standards for participation in an event THEY OWN.
"I submit that it is an open question. You may indeed be right, but I tend to fall on the other side of the argument."
Considering that there is no legitimate reason for you to "fall on the other side of the argument" I am forced to question your qualifications for forming an intelligent opinion.
You've essentially "fallen on the other side" of an argument with no legitimate other side. Whether you submit that it's an open question or not changes nothing.
"The court has made a ruling. As the case now stands, it is currently ILLEGAL."
The court has granted an injunction.
"A preliminary injunction, or an interlocutory injunction, is a provisional remedy granted to restrain activity on a temporary basis until the court can make a final decision after trial."
In this case the activity being restrained is MAKING THE TAPS ILLEGAL.
Look at it THIS way, you're wrong.
"You obviously do not understand."
No, I understand perfectly. YOU clearly have no idea about how the law works whatsoever.
The taps are not illegal. The inunction prevents that from becoming the law until the appeal settled.
"A history of consensual relationships does not have any merit to a sexual harassment case."
I don't mean to stick up for Jhon, as he seems to be digging a reasonably large hole for himself, but this is a faulty assessment of the situation.
It has long been established that an individual in power cannot engage in a sexual relationship, consensual or otherwise, with a subordinate because that individual's seniority makes the threat of retaliation/possibility of coercion very difficult to account for. Doing so is generally regarded as sexual harassment, because it is assumed that the subordinate cannot give genuine consent, as they have retaliation to be afraid of. It is similar to the idea that a contract signed under duress is often non-binding.
Make of it what you will, it is established very clearly in case law.
You mean like you felt when you were SO SURE you were right, and had me cornered, only to realize you were arguing points that had nothing to do with what I was saying, but were too stupid to figure it out before you posted? Big like that?
Save yourself the trouble of defending your moronic opinion in the future by keeping it to yourself.
"On April 24, 1846, a 2,000-strong Mexican cavalry detachment attacked a 63-man U.S. patrol that was sent into the contested territory north of the Rio Grande and south of the Nueces River. The Mexican cavalry succeeded in routing the patrol, killing 11 U.S. soldiers in what later became known as the Thornton Affair, after the slain U.S. officer who was in command. A few survivors escaped and returned to Fort Brown."
Before this, the only "aggression" was political maneuvering, and claiming it was The US who instigated it is factually incorrect and revisionist. Both sides engaged in said maneuvering, with no real claim of being "right" available to either.
Then you have attacks and deaths, perpetrated by the Mexicans. If you're going to claim one side is the "aggressor" when it was the other side who attacked them, you need an entirely new definition of "aggressor".
But happily, that's not necessary as you're just wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
"Industrial agriculture does not. I live in an area with lots of smaller family farms and there isn't a single "farm use only" diesel pump."
Because they have access to delivery of fuel directly to their farm, which they probably take advantage of as necessary.
Your ignorance of the methods involved does not mean that you have a point, it only means you're speaking from ignorance.
"only arguing with an earlier poster who claimed it was amazingly fair."
Nobody EVER said ANYWHERE it was "amazingly fair". You are a liar.
It must really suck to make what you thought was a good point, only to have it eviscerated like your just was.
As to this
"but try finding it in a rural area that isn't a huge agricultural region. I live in an area..."
I don't know how you'd know whether it was available around you or not seeing as how you didn't know it was available AT ALL til GP just educated you. Don't try and lie and pretend you did. And frankly, no one cares about your anecdotal evidence.
"Guess I expect to much of people to read links off of an article they obviously haven't seen before. Just keep modding them redundant because people are lazy."
It gets modded redundant because you keep posting it.
From Dictionary.com
"redundant
-adjective
1. characterized by verbosity or unnecessary repetition in expressing ideas;"
So that's why you're wrong about that.
Also, I'd reread your article. It doesn't say what you think it does.
"Apple iPhone 4GB - Cell Phone Technical Specifications
* Application Platform - Java
* Platform / Operating System - Apple OS X
* Data Download Speed - EDGE (Up to 144 Kbps) and 802.11b, g and n WiFi (Up to 100 Mbps)
* Network Compatibility - GSM 850, 900, 1800, 1900"
That covers every type of GSM network that I am aware of. So, what's your point?
"Except, it isn't. Less fuel economic cars get raped. It isn't just about everyone driving SUVs, but think of the poor family that cannot afford anything then that clunker from the 1980s. They are not getting the same mileage as the rich guy who decided to either "save" money or be more eco-friendly with his Hybrid. The cost of a hybrid is significantly more in some cases then its all fuel counterpart. So, in this case, the poorer are paying for the roads, while the richer are using less fuel and therefore paying less taxes, even if they are driving more."
And you don't think this is offset by the number of well-off people driving SUV's while the less well-off drive old econoboxes? I do. I'll wager it's more than offset, and if you were honest, you'd admit I'm right.
"Also, things other then cars run on fuel. These people are also paying for the roads. Gas powered lawn mowers burn on the same fuel. I don't think there are many mowers that are running down streets, especially if they are the walk-behind kind. Generators can run on fuel"
This is a pittance, don't try to pretend otherwise. It's nothing compared to what cars use, and I can't see the validity of considering it when talking about gas taxes.
So, apart from the bad example and the insignificant exception, do you have a real argument? As it stands, it sounds very much like you picking a position and trying very hard to find reasons to support it.
"I've asked the community -- the reason is the perception is that the unions take their money and do nothing"
This is nowhere in your original post. If you know it is one of the reasons that the community dislikes unions, why didn't you mention it previously?
You do realize that you're completely ignoring the context of the pamphlet don't you?
"'defenders' of the Constitution" does not mean the same as "Defenders of the Constitution". You're pretending it does.
You go on to make the same ridiculous mistakes with each of your supposed quotes from the pamphlet, and in doing so ignore the context.
You're the worst kind of liar.
"but I suspect it comes from unions having better contracts with better benefits, and then the general public getting pissed when unions fight to keep what they have."
If you really believe that is why unions are disliked, then you need to resign your position immediately due to overwhelming ignorance/naivety. As a representative of the union, you should have a much better handle on the perceptions of those in the community regarding unions, and not rely on your obviously biased opinion.
To correct your flawed thinking.
"The NCAA acknowledges that there are First Amendment protections afforded to journalists who have been issued press credentials, without enumerating them"
That is why you are wrong. This is in no way a 1st amendment case despite what you and others seem to think. The individual did not have his speech regulated, he had his conduct regulated, as is the NCAA's right, which was agreed to by the individual involved. They said "you cannot do X" which he promptly did. This is no more a first amendment case than someone taking a dump in the sink and getting thrown out is a first amendment case.
Now I have corrected you, you're welcome.
You're still wrong. And still an asshole.
You're an imbecile. Feel free to accuse me of an ad-hominem.
You've repeatedly screamed about "1st amendment" yet have provided NO meaningful arguments and failed to refute those that others have posted. You have attempted to deflect criticism of your points by shouting "FALLACY!!!" while failing to clarify exactly what fallacies you see, thereby closing down discussion of whether they are fallacies at all.
You are wrong. The courts have ruled on cases like this several time before, and there is NO 1st amendment question, there is YOU insisting that you're more lucid than everyone else and regurgitating first year rhetoric concepts (that you mangle badly and misuse) while completely failing to posit an argument more advanced than "YES HUH!!!".
The NCAA is a private actor, which said NOTHING about this fellow's ability to disseminate information about their event (that THEY own, not the participating Universities) and only addressed his ability to do it from a specified location. This has NOTHING to do with the 1st, and repeatedly bellowing "YES HUH!!! DOES TOO!!! FALLACY!!!!DOUBLE FALLACY!!!" makes you seem all the more obstinate and ignorant.
You are wrong. Proceed to your standard response.
You said
"If that was your first post"
Then you admit it was there, just "drenched in fallacy" (which you conveniently fail to point out)
You are a liar. And you go caught.
Not much more to say about it.
"The NCAA does not own any events or the content of those events"
This is when I decided to post in response. Why? Because you're completely wrong. The NCAA owns virtually ALL of the college championship tournaments (INCLUDING the College World Series, which this is about) with the notable exception of the BCS championship game.
I don't know why you think you know what you're talking about, but you're wrong. As to the specifics of the story, your opinion changes a bit when you realize they asked him to leave an event THEY OWN. This isn't about state sponsored blah blah spiel or 1st amendment rights or other ridiculous assertions, it is about the OWNERS of an event enforcing their standards for participation in an event THEY OWN.
"And the NCAA thinks they can stop a live blogger on what grounds?"
The law says they can.
Checkmate, you lose.
"I submit that it is an open question. You may indeed be right, but I tend to fall on the other side of the argument."
Considering that there is no legitimate reason for you to "fall on the other side of the argument" I am forced to question your qualifications for forming an intelligent opinion.
You've essentially "fallen on the other side" of an argument with no legitimate other side. Whether you submit that it's an open question or not changes nothing.
"The court has made a ruling. As the case now stands, it is currently ILLEGAL."
The court has granted an injunction.
"A preliminary injunction, or an interlocutory injunction, is a provisional remedy granted to restrain activity on a temporary basis until the court can make a final decision after trial."
In this case the activity being restrained is MAKING THE TAPS ILLEGAL.
Look at it THIS way, you're wrong.
"You obviously do not understand."
No, I understand perfectly. YOU clearly have no idea about how the law works whatsoever.
The taps are not illegal. The inunction prevents that from becoming the law until the appeal settled.
"The recently converted Scot Finnie went notebook shopping."
The first line of the summary.
"Au contraire..."
Then why are they still allowed? RTFL I sent and you'll see they're still occurring.
They ARE NOT illegal, as the case has not been decided.
You are wrong.
It was stayed, and may be overturned.
e rs/index.html
http://www.sixthcircuitblog.com/separation_of_pow
Nothing has been decided on their legality, claiming otherwise is disingenuous.
"A history of consensual relationships does not have any merit to a sexual harassment case."
I don't mean to stick up for Jhon, as he seems to be digging a reasonably large hole for himself, but this is a faulty assessment of the situation.
It has long been established that an individual in power cannot engage in a sexual relationship, consensual or otherwise, with a subordinate because that individual's seniority makes the threat of retaliation/possibility of coercion very difficult to account for. Doing so is generally regarded as sexual harassment, because it is assumed that the subordinate cannot give genuine consent, as they have retaliation to be afraid of. It is similar to the idea that a contract signed under duress is often non-binding.
Make of it what you will, it is established very clearly in case law.
"Wow, that was quite the internet smackdown."
You deserved it, but frankly, I've done better.
"Someone must feel big now."
You mean like you felt when you were SO SURE you were right, and had me cornered, only to realize you were arguing points that had nothing to do with what I was saying, but were too stupid to figure it out before you posted? Big like that?
Save yourself the trouble of defending your moronic opinion in the future by keeping it to yourself.
"Because the location is accompanied with culture and history!"
And a name is just a name. You lose.
Honestly, your point was moronic, I suggest you never bring it up again because you sound incredibly dumb arguing it.
"I'm talking about licensing/buying/ordering software and hardware components and patents from companies which HQ and origin is not American."
Then you're a bigger imbecile than you appear. This DOES NOT happen in any significant quantity. I understand now why you were wrong.
Based on your post and 2 days of consideration, I have verified to 100% certainty that you're too stupid to discuss this subject.
"On April 24, 1846, a 2,000-strong Mexican cavalry detachment attacked a 63-man U.S. patrol that was sent into the contested territory north of the Rio Grande and south of the Nueces River. The Mexican cavalry succeeded in routing the patrol, killing 11 U.S. soldiers in what later became known as the Thornton Affair, after the slain U.S. officer who was in command. A few survivors escaped and returned to Fort Brown."
Before this, the only "aggression" was political maneuvering, and claiming it was The US who instigated it is factually incorrect and revisionist. Both sides engaged in said maneuvering, with no real claim of being "right" available to either.
Then you have attacks and deaths, perpetrated by the Mexicans. If you're going to claim one side is the "aggressor" when it was the other side who attacked them, you need an entirely new definition of "aggressor".
But happily, that's not necessary as you're just wrong.
This article says it's $600 for the NanoBook
s p
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2141806,00.a