"I don't expect every parent to understand that, but I think it's reasonable for teachers to be aware of the rules of the game and step in as defenders of kids they see getting attacked online."
As a former teacher, let me say, you are out of your fucking mind.
The practical realities of enforcing discipline from incomplete information gathered from off campus and online sources are horrifying.
"They're teaching kids that online behavior has consequences, some of them unpleasant, just like the real world."
Laws exist to do that already. Why do you think the people who ignore them now will give two fucks about consequences from a a school?
Lastly
"In practice, it takes an informed victim to exercise that legal protection."
That's just bullshit, plain and simple. All it requires is a victim willing to seek out help.
"The arrogant attitude shown by these developers gives me not only a reason to think about how to fork the code, but the reasons we as a community should fork the code as soon as possible."
I wonder how you feel about this statement (and the motivation behind it) now that you know you're wrong.
"The situation is, if you were to install a turbo and you fried a piston due to the new turbo the warranty would not cover the damage. These parts are not directly related."
Um, what? Are you saying here that a turbo is not directly related to the operation of the piston?
"Chevy won't fix the *engine*, but if the differential burns out they'll sure as hell fix that."
No they won't. The diff operation is changed by the different engine you installed, and will not be covered. Saying so doesn't change that, it just makes you wrong.
"If you change the configuration of the phone, including the software, they can only get out of their warranty obligation if your configuration actually damaged the phone."
Source? Right...
Re:video gamers have their own version of reality
on
Halo 3 Review
·
· Score: 1
"He says it links "gypsy" to "cheap/theft.""
Exactly, thank you for admitting I was correct.
"2. he does not create the theft assumption, it already exists. "
Really? Not for me. Now what?
"You won't argue with people when you can provide proof against their argument?"
No, I won't argue with people who claim to know what others are thinking in direct opposition to what they type, because you can't possibly pretend to know what he meant, and what he actually typed makes you a liar. As your own post proves, right there at the top.
Besides, you proved me right with your statement earlier.
Re:video gamers have their own version of reality
on
Halo 3 Review
·
· Score: 1
"the etymology has no confirmed origin."
I fixed that to make it accurate.
And you didn't answer his question, you pontificated on an unrelated point.
Re:video gamers have their own version of reality
on
Halo 3 Review
·
· Score: 1
"He doesn't say that."
Yes he does.
With that in mind, I have no desire to respond to the "argument" of an individual who makes provably inaccurate statements like you did there.
Argue with someone who will put up with your tactics, liars infuriate me and I have no desire to tolerate you as a result.
Re:video gamers have their own version of reality
on
Halo 3 Review
·
· Score: 1
"This links Cheap/theft with Gypsies."
What part of not giving you a raise is theft?
Or is your association of theft to "gyp" in your head, and as such you're projecting your own racist ideas?
Slashdot Mirror
"I don't expect every parent to understand that, but I think it's reasonable for teachers to be aware of the rules of the game and step in as defenders of kids they see getting attacked online."
As a former teacher, let me say, you are out of your fucking mind.
The practical realities of enforcing discipline from incomplete information gathered from off campus and online sources are horrifying.
"They're teaching kids that online behavior has consequences, some of them unpleasant, just like the real world."
Laws exist to do that already. Why do you think the people who ignore them now will give two fucks about consequences from a a school?
Lastly
"In practice, it takes an informed victim to exercise that legal protection."
That's just bullshit, plain and simple. All it requires is a victim willing to seek out help.
"This is the result of a combination of poor parentage"
So you think it's genetic?
"Well it is an argument because I disagree."
That doesn't make it an argument, it just makes you an imbecile.
"You would have saved yourself some time and effort if you didn't bother to comment at all. Next time, just go with that."
Comedian, amuse thyself.
What kind of idiot are you that you ignore the part of my post that DOES prove him wrong?
"The BBC is running a story on UK schools..."
Look up what "UK" means so you'll know why your post was ridiculous.
So, how much worse is it that you jumped to all those conclusions and were wrong?
"The arrogant attitude shown by these developers gives me not only a reason to think about how to fork the code, but the reasons we as a community should fork the code as soon as possible."
I wonder how you feel about this statement (and the motivation behind it) now that you know you're wrong.
In your "you have no idea what the fuck a troll is" neck.
God why do you idiots think you can censor other people because they prove you're wrong?
"The situation is, if you were to install a turbo and you fried a piston due to the new turbo the warranty would not cover the damage. These parts are not directly related."
Um, what? Are you saying here that a turbo is not directly related to the operation of the piston?
I'll give you a chance to clarify that.
"Chevy won't fix the *engine*, but if the differential burns out they'll sure as hell fix that."
No they won't. The diff operation is changed by the different engine you installed, and will not be covered. Saying so doesn't change that, it just makes you wrong.
And the rest of your post is wrong too.
"If you change the configuration of the phone, including the software, they can only get out of their warranty obligation if your configuration actually damaged the phone."
Source? Right...
"He says it links "gypsy" to "cheap/theft.""
Exactly, thank you for admitting I was correct.
"2. he does not create the theft assumption, it already exists. "
Really? Not for me. Now what?
"You won't argue with people when you can provide proof against their argument?"
No, I won't argue with people who claim to know what others are thinking in direct opposition to what they type, because you can't possibly pretend to know what he meant, and what he actually typed makes you a liar. As your own post proves, right there at the top.
Besides, you proved me right with your statement earlier.
"the etymology has no confirmed origin."
I fixed that to make it accurate.
And you didn't answer his question, you pontificated on an unrelated point.
"He doesn't say that."
Yes he does.
With that in mind, I have no desire to respond to the "argument" of an individual who makes provably inaccurate statements like you did there.
Argue with someone who will put up with your tactics, liars infuriate me and I have no desire to tolerate you as a result.
"This links Cheap/theft with Gypsies."
What part of not giving you a raise is theft?
Or is your association of theft to "gyp" in your head, and as such you're projecting your own racist ideas?
"Personal insults, the last defense of a poor argument."
I suppose if I was trying to make any argument at all, you'd have something
Since my point was to tell you that both you and your joke were dumb, there's really nothing to argue over.
See, it was a s-t-a-t-e-m-e-n-t not an argument.
But you can't tell that your joke was awful, so why would I expect you to see there's no argument in process.
"The context is the article,read it"
Um, no. I mean, I did read the article, but that's not what I meant I said context.
No surprise though that since the "joke" was stupid, the person making turns out to be as well.
"Yeah, but I think for those people who have thought about it carefully, they only want money in moderation."
Yeah, but I think this is what people with no money tell themselves to feel better about it.
"why didn't they ever tease the aforementioned men who smelled even worse?"
Because she smelled worse? Or different? Or more noticeably bad "hot garbage vs. a little musty"?
At least I'm not so obviously bigoted that I'll jump to an incorrect conclusion based on my bigotry like OP did.
Well it's a good thing that has nothing to do with my response then.
Nice of you to chime in with, well, nothing.
"You don't seem to realize that the "you too!" form of argumentation is generally in poor taste and logically flawed."
And you don't seem to realize your reading skills suck, because I didn't do anything of the kind here.
Learn to read or stop posting.
"You snipped the part..."
Which is in keeping with my original point, that the implication was wrong and they teased her because she stank.
As to why she didn't tease the guys, any assumption is just that, and not worth my time to address.
"some times the knee jerk reactions on this site are amazing."
You mean like your post?
And jokes generally require some context to determine that they are indeed jokes. Yours had none.
"And that some makes it excusable to be part of a sexist, patriarchal culture?"
No, but it does make it reasonable to bring it up for discussion, as that is the purpose of these boards.
Or are you expecting us to do away with all types of male discrimination before we bring up any others?
"Rather, the "intelligent" and well-educated male contingent should be taking steps that the "rest" of male culture does not; lead by example..."
And you're assumption that they're not is supported by what exactly?
Oh, nothing, ok then.
No, he's calling an antisocial employee out for jumping to conclusions about behavior.
Like you did with your assumption right there.