That's perfectly consistent with--and follows from--the premise that "bumping into someone when you're on these moped-like bikes at slower speeds is not a big deal, so there's not much of an incentive to be extra cautious."
You're really a fucking idiot aren't you? No, that is not perfectly consistent. It is, in fact, moronic as I stated.
"Bumping into someone when you're on these moped-like bikes at slower speeds is not a big deal, so there's not much of an incentive to be extra cautious."
What a colossally moronic statement, from someone who is obviously not a cyclist.
Most motorcycling injuries occur at speeds less than 10 miles an hour. Please shut up so you don't say anything else so stupid.
L A M E $10k would've gotten her a killer LCD or DLP projector (only the 3-chip DLPs are worth anything, but $10k would get her one).
And said 10K projector would look like shit next to this one. They all do, because as good as they've gotten, ALL LCD and DLP projectors have visible artifacts at that screen size. ALL of them.
This CRT is better. Most CRT's are better. That you think otherwise demonstrates how little you know about the subject.
A federal judge has handed the MPAA a resounding victory in its copyright infringement lawsuit against TorrentSpy. Judge Florence-Marie Cooper entered a default judgment against Justin Bunnell and the rest of the named defendants in Columbia Pictures et al. v. Justin Bunnell et al.
That's what happens when you destroy evidence, you lose your case, THEN you also get to deal with the consequences of destroying evidence.
Parent has it exactly right. While banging the drum of "founding fathers wanted a free press" you ignore the idea the the very same founding fathers distrusted government intensely.
I do enjoy watching you pick and choose which of the founding fathers' positions you support, and which you... forget about... in order to pretend you have a tenable position.
When I don't KNOW something, I investigate reliable sources
Then why are you wrong?
And why do you think saying things lie "drank the Bush Kool-aid" does anything other than destroy any credibility you might have gained through meticulous research?
Oh right, because you were lying about the "investigate reliable sources" part.
Neither is drawing attention to the caps and the insults.
As to what you cliam to have processed, who cares? You think your.000001% of the cases (and I think you're lying so it's 0%) matters?
Exceptions prove the rule. The rule is pathetic excuses.
You failed to make a single cogent argument, likely because you know you have none.
And lastly, you're a moron. There's your excuse for failing to respond, when the reality is you're beaten, and wrong, and not smart enough to do anything about it but make MORE PATHETIC EXCUSES (like the caps?).
Just someone with reading comprehension skills who likes to educate the mentally deficient
Blind leading the blind, eh?
Why would he "include" those who participated in the attacks if the very subject of his letter didn't? You can't answer that, can you.
Of course I can you retard, look at the original purpose of the letter. If you weren't so stupid you'd realize it's NOT WHAT YOU THINK IT IS, and your argument is wrong. It's your reading comprehension, that you so arrogantly flaunt, that has failed you.
Caps and insults aren't a rebuttal to an arguement.
Neither is drawing attention to the caps and the insults.
As to what you cliam to have processed, who cares? You think your.000001% of the cases (and I think you're lying so it's 0%) matters?
Exceptions prove the rule. The rule is pathetic excuses.
You failed to make a single cogent argument, likely because you know you have none.
And lastly, you're a moron. There's your excuse for failing to respond, when the reality is you're beaten, and wrong, and not smart enough to do anything about it but make MORE PATHETIC EXCUSES (like the caps?).
Lying about a personal matter which a court has no business asking
Is better than refusing to answer because they have no business asking?
Like I said, you'll do anything, say anything to minimize your own transgressions. You just did.
He could have said "in the interests of good taste, I will not answer that" or even taken the fifth. Instead he LIED. And you justified it. And the best part is you're not smart enough to realize it.
Save your breath, you proved my point better than I possibly could have. Thanks for being exactly what I said you were.
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
You might want to read that again until you realize it doesn't say anything about said "link".
And it's fantastic that you called him a liar when you openly and demonstrably lied about the contents of your link.
That's funny, I thought both were reprehensible. I guess that goes to show someone like you is willing to do whatever it takes to minimize your own transgressions.
Tell me, what are the options for a person who spent the last 2 years in institutionalized hell.
Straighten their life out and get a job, stay out of trouble and stop making pathetic fucking excuses.
hey get out after dealing with the true scum of society and have no real employment opportunities and are expected to....
I believe I already covered the pathetic excuses. People do it every day, so your excuses ring hollow.
then there is no point to prison except as a punitive measure
No, and claiming otherwise doesn't strengthen your argument, it merely demonstrates you've failed to give this subject any thought.
PROTECTING THE PUBLIC. That goal is NOT punitive, and yet it is a reason for prisons. Get back to me when you've considered this subject as seriously as you pretended to.
There's vengeance, reform, and protection. Protection and reform should play a role, vengeance should not.
The point was, you assumed it was vengeance without any reason to do so. You didn't mention "protection" at all, and we both know it wasn't an accident.
And where did I say that rehabilitation was a universal possibility?
Hey LEARN TO READ. I said "You seem to think", which is quite clearly an attempt at getting you to clarify. Instead of failing to read my post with a decent level of comprehension, you could have just, you know, clarified.
You're projecting your own stereotype on me.
No, I was making an observation, which seems perfectly accurate. You've done nothing but claim otherwise, while your posts have shown your claims to be spurious.
Because the point of a penal system should be reform, not vengeance.
I like how it's "vengeance" and not "removing a proven criminal from society to minimize his ability to hurt someone else".
When they say things like "bleeding hearts" they mean you. You seem to think that rehabilitation is a universal possibility (so wrong it hurts) and that the penal system shouldn't, at least in some cases, be used as a repository for those people unable to conduct themselves in a civilized manner. Permanently.
What good is a system of state-sponsored punishment if after you've paid your debt, you're still considered guilty?
You ARE guilty, this doesn't change because you finished your sentence. Documenting that you were convicted of a crime changes nothing. You still did it, and you don't get to pretend you didn't because your sentence is up.
Why would that make any prisoner want to reform, if he/she knew they would be treated the same no matter what?
First, you won't be "treated the same no matter what", and second, TO AVOID PRISON. You would want to reform TO AVOID PRISON. In case you didn't get it, TO AVOID PRISON.
Slashdot Mirror
"To be blunt, I don't believe"
To be even more blunt, no one gives a fuck about your opinion.
You're really a fucking idiot aren't you? No, that is not perfectly consistent. It is, in fact, moronic as I stated.
"Bumping into someone when you're on these moped-like bikes at slower speeds is not a big deal, so there's not much of an incentive to be extra cautious."
What a colossally moronic statement, from someone who is obviously not a cyclist.
Most motorcycling injuries occur at speeds less than 10 miles an hour. Please shut up so you don't say anything else so stupid.
And said 10K projector would look like shit next to this one. They all do, because as good as they've gotten, ALL LCD and DLP projectors have visible artifacts at that screen size. ALL of them.
This CRT is better. Most CRT's are better. That you think otherwise demonstrates how little you know about the subject.
That's what happens when you destroy evidence, you lose your case, THEN you also get to deal with the consequences of destroying evidence.
So it's most definitely not the latter.
Parent has it exactly right. While banging the drum of "founding fathers wanted a free press" you ignore the idea the the very same founding fathers distrusted government intensely.
I do enjoy watching you pick and choose which of the founding fathers' positions you support, and which you... forget about... in order to pretend you have a tenable position.
So it doesn't work. Thanks.
Awesome?
?????
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHHHA
BAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Oh my god it hurts...
BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
You should know by now intelligent observations like that one aren't welcome around here.
Then why are you wrong?
And why do you think saying things lie "drank the Bush Kool-aid" does anything other than destroy any credibility you might have gained through meticulous research?
Oh right, because you were lying about the "investigate reliable sources" part.
Neither is drawing attention to the caps and the insults.
.000001% of the cases (and I think you're lying so it's 0%) matters?
As to what you cliam to have processed, who cares? You think your
Exceptions prove the rule. The rule is pathetic excuses.
You failed to make a single cogent argument, likely because you know you have none.
And lastly, you're a moron. There's your excuse for failing to respond, when the reality is you're beaten, and wrong, and not smart enough to do anything about it but make MORE PATHETIC EXCUSES (like the caps?).
You're a fucking liar.
Blind leading the blind, eh?
Of course I can you retard, look at the original purpose of the letter. If you weren't so stupid you'd realize it's NOT WHAT YOU THINK IT IS, and your argument is wrong. It's your reading comprehension, that you so arrogantly flaunt, that has failed you.
God, how fucking stupid are you?
Hey, that's funny, considering you're too stupid to realize I never claimed that. A liar defending a liar, how surprising.
I said "THEY WERE BOTH REPREHENSIBLE". It is actually possible for them BOTH TO BE REPREHENSIBLE without them BEING EQUIVALENT.
Perhaps you'll learn that when by the time you finish 5th grade.
In the future, respond to what I SAY, you're not smart enough to interpret anything, as you've proven with your previous post.
Neither is drawing attention to the caps and the insults.
As to what you cliam to have processed, who cares? You think your
Exceptions prove the rule. The rule is pathetic excuses.
You failed to make a single cogent argument, likely because you know you have none.
And lastly, you're a moron. There's your excuse for failing to respond, when the reality is you're beaten, and wrong, and not smart enough to do anything about it but make MORE PATHETIC EXCUSES (like the caps?).
It doesn't, snide comments aside. You can claim it, but I read better than you obviously, so claiming it only makes you look that much more stupid.
Thanks for playing, next time, don't post AC after I shut your idiot ass up. It was obvious.
Is better than refusing to answer because they have no business asking?
Like I said, you'll do anything, say anything to minimize your own transgressions. You just did.
He could have said "in the interests of good taste, I will not answer that" or even taken the fifth. Instead he LIED. And you justified it. And the best part is you're not smart enough to realize it.
Save your breath, you proved my point better than I possibly could have. Thanks for being exactly what I said you were.
You might want to read that again until you realize it doesn't say anything about said "link".
And it's fantastic that you called him a liar when you openly and demonstrably lied about the contents of your link.
Nice job liar.
That's funny, I thought both were reprehensible. I guess that goes to show someone like you is willing to do whatever it takes to minimize your own transgressions.
Don't worry I'm not.
Straighten their life out and get a job, stay out of trouble and stop making pathetic fucking excuses.
I believe I already covered the pathetic excuses. People do it every day, so your excuses ring hollow.
No, and claiming otherwise doesn't strengthen your argument, it merely demonstrates you've failed to give this subject any thought.
PROTECTING THE PUBLIC. That goal is NOT punitive, and yet it is a reason for prisons. Get back to me when you've considered this subject as seriously as you pretended to.
The point was, you assumed it was vengeance without any reason to do so. You didn't mention "protection" at all, and we both know it wasn't an accident.
Hey LEARN TO READ. I said "You seem to think", which is quite clearly an attempt at getting you to clarify. Instead of failing to read my post with a decent level of comprehension, you could have just, you know, clarified.
No, I was making an observation, which seems perfectly accurate. You've done nothing but claim otherwise, while your posts have shown your claims to be spurious.
You're the one arguing the system should be changed, so the onus is on you to demonstrate why. You failed pretty miserably so far.
I like how it's "vengeance" and not "removing a proven criminal from society to minimize his ability to hurt someone else".
When they say things like "bleeding hearts" they mean you. You seem to think that rehabilitation is a universal possibility (so wrong it hurts) and that the penal system shouldn't, at least in some cases, be used as a repository for those people unable to conduct themselves in a civilized manner. Permanently.
So is yours, stop pretending otherwise.
You ARE guilty, this doesn't change because you finished your sentence. Documenting that you were convicted of a crime changes nothing. You still did it, and you don't get to pretend you didn't because your sentence is up.
First, you won't be "treated the same no matter what", and second, TO AVOID PRISON. You would want to reform TO AVOID PRISON. In case you didn't get it, TO AVOID PRISON.
I don't think you made a single valid argument.