I understand perfectly: the "free-matket" *snicker* USA is protecting monopolies while socialist EU is protecting free market. The USA fights for the giants, the EU fights for the little guys.
Uh... I was certain "patent infringement" and "antitrust" cases promote monopolization and competition respectively. I must have been wrong and will read on that.
Not nearly as amused as I! Next thing you know, you'll be telling me there was communism in USSR, that the USA is democratic, that free market is viable or that Caspian Sea isn't a lake! I ain't gonna fall for that! No siree, Bob!
Note the word "indirectly" used in my previous response.
The relevant parts of the definition are "narrower" and "broader" as well as the phrase "most inclusively,"
It's interesting that you've noticed the typo (now removed) but ignored the quoted words which appear in the first three sentences of the article in question. You had no reason to suppose I've not read them. And you dare call me a troll. Fuck you.
I've read it, several times. But since you insist on not reading or otherwise disregarding what I've written to you before (or you wouldn't make such idiotic claims), thus indirectly telling me to go fuck myself, here's a resounding "you too."
Hmm that wasn't an excuse for my errors, that was an excuse for asking humbly to be explained what was the grammatical error with "exactly".
Where exactly did I claim "exactly" was a grammatical error? How exactly my previous post enforces that idea, when it clarifies it is incorrect by being untrue? Pray tell.
English (always capitalized) is not my mother tongue either, but guess what, I don't see it as a viable excuse for my errors.
Every word is "just a word" and their meanings are important for unambiguous communication.
The relevant parts of the definiotion are "narrower" and "broader" as well as the phrase "most inclusively," and collectively they make your claim of being "exactly" what you've written earlier untrue. Absence of belief does not equal belief in absence. That's where antitheism fits.
Slashdot Mirror
catch up on Jewish/German history and have some appreciation for what he's ranting and raving about
Or maybe he's just up to date with more recent Israeli^WJewish/Palestinian history.
America is very guilty of war crimes by now.
No, just the USA.
TFA never said Assange can now be arrested, killed, or anything of the sort.
Because that's kind of implied.
The first casualty of war.
I understand perfectly: the "free-matket" *snicker* USA is protecting monopolies while socialist EU is protecting free market. The USA fights for the giants, the EU fights for the little guys.
I bet my socks that the method of finding bogus patent[ application]s is patented already.
Uh... I was certain "patent infringement" and "antitrust" cases promote monopolization and competition respectively. I must have been wrong and will read on that.
Stupid European Communists. Employing regulation. ~
Obvious disclaimer is obvious. IAAE.
Nobody likes competition.
31.
A Computer Science department made this. Isn't that encouraging?
Those who can, do. Whose who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, manage.
Is the shape important?
Yes.
Is the shape important?
Yes.
Yes.
Not nearly as amused as I! Next thing you know, you'll be telling me there was communism in USSR, that the USA is democratic, that free market is viable or that Caspian Sea isn't a lake! I ain't gonna fall for that! No siree, Bob!
I see you've made a little mistake. You might also want to learn about the word "misnomer." Good luck!
The relevant parts of the definition are "narrower" and "broader" as well as the phrase "most inclusively,"
It's interesting that you've noticed the typo (now removed) but ignored the quoted words which appear in the first three sentences of the article in question. You had no reason to suppose I've not read them. And you dare call me a troll. Fuck you.
Now, care to read the whole article
I've read it, several times. But since you insist on not reading or otherwise disregarding what I've written to you before (or you wouldn't make such idiotic claims), thus indirectly telling me to go fuck myself, here's a resounding "you too."
Hmm that wasn't an excuse for my errors, that was an excuse for asking humbly to be explained what was the grammatical error with "exactly".
Where exactly did I claim "exactly" was a grammatical error? How exactly my previous post enforces that idea, when it clarifies it is incorrect by being untrue? Pray tell.
English (always capitalized) is not my mother tongue either, but guess what, I don't see it as a viable excuse for my errors.
Every word is "just a word" and their meanings are important for unambiguous communication.
The relevant parts of the definiotion are "narrower" and "broader" as well as the phrase "most inclusively," and collectively they make your claim of being "exactly" what you've written earlier untrue. Absence of belief does not equal belief in absence. That's where antitheism fits.
You are confusing me with your "nope" linking to a wikipedia which says exactly what I was saying
have been teached
That's because, apart from basic kindergarten grammar skills, you also lack reading comprehension:
Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.
There. Now for antitheism:
Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism.
You're all crazy conspiracy theorists.
You're another idiot in the long list of those who conflate two non-exclusive terms. Atheism vs antitheism.
Nope.
with who.
It's "whom." Go back to school.