Ok, found it, in the first friggin' sentence no less. Sheesh!
As it turns out he is talking about afternoon tea, so his usage is not in error. In fact it is so correct that he gives the impression of having a finer understanding of the difference between English, British and UKish than yourself.
She is a paralegal. That means the value of her legal opinion is not that of a lawyer, but in excess of the general populace.
What she would be an expert at is the gruntwork of the legal profession. Knowing the ins and outs of the "system," which, as it happens, is her role at Groklaw, because. ..
. . . why does her opinion matter so much in this case.
It doesn't. O'Gara is a pure opinion piece writer. Groklaw is fact based. They publish the court records. This is PJ's area of expertise. While commentary on the record is offered legal opinion is defered to lawyers, who, oddly enough PJ is in contact with and who actually write for the site.
The value and accuracy of the material at Groklaw can largely be judged by the fact that SCO and O'Gara choose to attack PJ on a personal level, rather than than attacking the validity of the material and opinions available at Groklaw.
Such is always the tactic of the irrationally vicious. Same crap as saying that if you don't approve of attacking Poland you're for terrorism and and against God and the Homeland.
You always know that someone is full of shit when they start resorting to this sort of thing.
Next thing you know they'll start implying that PJ's lying because her dog looks funny, whether she has a dog or not.
O'Gara and her ilk can say any lies they like, because they are speaking "opinion." PJ can't, because she is speaking the court record.
No, because you have completely stripped the supplied quote of its contextual meaning. You aren't a tabloid journalist by any chance?
What is he claiming to be the foundation of English society, and is it, indeed, said foundation, or, at least, arguably a part of said foundation.
If he's talking about the wearing of the Great Kilt he is in error. That was the foundation (forcably wiped out by the English to break Scottish society) of Scottish society and has no counterpart in England. If he's talking about afternoon tea he is not in error, even if the afternoon tea is now also the foundation of Scottish society.
Just as drilling for oil and the rodeo are foundations of Texan society, but not foundations of American society, but the Constitution is the foundation of both American society and Texan society, even though Texas did not even exist at the time of Constitutional ratification by the states.
I have visually rescanned the article, but did not find the quote. I could take steps to grep for it, but since you already know where it is I would be greatful if you could either point me to it more explicitly or provide a meaningful quote.
Obviously his mistake was in not calling English Telecom and EnglandOnline, the ignorant colonial.
Please, for my own information, point out where he called the UK England. I can find no reference in the article to the UK at all, only the company UKOnline.
For that matter, despite your protest and that of others, I can find no single instance where he used the terms "Britain" or "England" inappropriately. In fact he seems quite careful about refering to his place of residence as England and BT's service as British, never English.
I may have missed some instance or other, however.
He infers in his opening statement that England is British, which, as it happens, it is. It's not like he's living in Wales and calling it "England."
Posting is not chatting. It isn't even vaguely akin to chatting.
Here's the key issue for you:
It is performed while in social isolation.
Thus posting is actually a very good social outlet for those with Asperger's, and I keep up a private correspondence with a few. Quite intelligent people, able to discourse quite well when not in an actual social situation.
Because they bought a thermal printer, hosting, a barcode scanner and a venue.
I've never really understood this reasoning, yet I hear it all the time:
"Well, if he can afford a Ferrari he can afford to maintain it."
Right, he's now a couple hundred thou poorer and probably in the hole for it, soooooooo. ..
Obviously he has a lot of money left over. Plain logic is what we call that.
This must be how the government thinks:
"We just spent an unexpected $300 billion and had to borrow $200 billion of it from our most feared financial enemy. Daaaaaayam! We must be loaded. Let's go to Vegas everybody. Hot and cold running hookers for everybody!"
That would explain a lot. Funny how they never send my my share of the hookers, even though I'm footing the bill.
Here's how it works in the real world:
"Nah, I can't can't go to the movies tonight. I just bought a Ferrari and I'm broke dude. Can't even afford to put gas in the fucking thing."
Thank God for credit cards and assuming he will provide next month, eh?
"Hey, can you help me find someone who will give us money to give free help to people charging admission to shows?"
In the real world, however, this is what we call a win/win/win as all three parties get something satisfactory out of the deal.
Well, as long as it wasn't a Brian DePalma movie or Episode III.
You do understand that this current government is "faith based" and rather sneeringly refers to people who use argument as "reality based," then goes out and wins with peer pressure, don't you?
Nor is soliciting your elected representative in government a form of "peer pressure." It is electorate pressure, i.e. pressure from a superior. That's what they're frickin' there for! Not to rule, to represent.
. ..some strange man that "nobody knew," as the super described him, had tried to get into her apartment while she was gone - the Medeco lock she had had installed on her door - something nobody else in the complex seemed to feel a need for - was more expensive than the door.
Dear Ms. O'Gara,
Thank you for your words and letting us know that PJ is not simply paranoid and that they are out to get her.
I'm sure PJ appreciates your kind support in this matter.
It's a pretty good maxim, if you're a lion out to have some buffalo for lunch.
If, however, you write software and don't want to appear on the Microsoft cafeteria menu divide and become unconquerable might be a better one.
Once this is achieved you can deal with the bloat issue by simply not installing it, something not possible with standarized, monolithic bloat.
You will achieve full standardization of free software when you achieve full standardization of the human mind. You can easily achieve this by standardizing everybody but me, because I will then procede to shoot myself.
Feel free to substitute 16/15 or 4 for 3 if you wish to do so for historical accuracy. Any number other than pi is within the range of significant digits to my argument.
Or perhaps we should just redefine science.
If most poets (and apparently script writers) are "fools," then what of people who perpetuate urban legends?
Most people are fools all of time. All people are fools some of the time. Most poets are at least merely fools. Most script writers are idiots who failed at being bad poets.
Although I'd argue that the correct characterization of people who perpetuate urban legends is "ignorant."
Every legal authority needs constitutional authority. It is the law of the land and the only source of federal authority.
Agencies created by Congress to have legal authority by beaureaucratic code writing are Congress's attempt to bypass those parts of the Constitution that say "Congress shall pass no law. .."
The courts are saying that Congress doesn't have the authority to do that. If they wish federal law, they need to pass it through Congress. Which is both, good, proper and about time.
Which is why I did nothing of the kind. I characterized him as "perspicacious." You can look that up in your Funk & Wagnell's.
. ..you would find yourself as lost as he would be if he were to try to design a nuclear weapon.
You seem to have missed the point that I wouldn't, which is how we came to meet in a coffeehouse. He found out I was a physicist entirely incidentally while discussing our poetry and music.
I'm glad the book got a good review . ..
I haven't a clue whether or not the book got a good review, nor can I ascertain how you would know that either. All I know for sure is that the poet, who I hadn't seen for years (poetry often takes much longer to get published), took the trouble to drive some hours to be at a time and place he thought I might show up (a coffeehouse) to tell me that my own influence on the book had been deemed "impeccable" by a respected member of my own nominal field; and that he was including a formal acknowledgement of such in the book.
IF you don't feel this is warranted, take it up with him.
He's been invited to make his first public readings from the book at RIT. We'll see how that goes.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, found it, in the first friggin' sentence no less. Sheesh!
As it turns out he is talking about afternoon tea, so his usage is not in error. In fact it is so correct that he gives the impression of having a finer understanding of the difference between English, British and UKish than yourself.
KFG
. . .maybe YOU will be censorred one day, and when that happens I will laugh!
I have a snappy rejoinder. You may have it for only $300.
KFG
Who exactly is she. . .
.
She is a paralegal. That means the value of her legal opinion is not that of a lawyer, but in excess of the general populace.
What she would be an expert at is the gruntwork of the legal profession. Knowing the ins and outs of the "system," which, as it happens, is her role at Groklaw, because. .
. . . why does her opinion matter so much in this case.
It doesn't. O'Gara is a pure opinion piece writer. Groklaw is fact based. They publish the court records. This is PJ's area of expertise. While commentary on the record is offered legal opinion is defered to lawyers, who, oddly enough PJ is in contact with and who actually write for the site.
The value and accuracy of the material at Groklaw can largely be judged by the fact that SCO and O'Gara choose to attack PJ on a personal level, rather than than attacking the validity of the material and opinions available at Groklaw.
Such is always the tactic of the irrationally vicious. Same crap as saying that if you don't approve of attacking Poland you're for terrorism and and against God and the Homeland.
You always know that someone is full of shit when they start resorting to this sort of thing.
Next thing you know they'll start implying that PJ's lying because her dog looks funny, whether she has a dog or not.
O'Gara and her ilk can say any lies they like, because they are speaking "opinion." PJ can't, because she is speaking the court record.
KFG
Will this do?
"..as the foundation of English society..."
No, because you have completely stripped the supplied quote of its contextual meaning. You aren't a tabloid journalist by any chance?
What is he claiming to be the foundation of English society, and is it, indeed, said foundation, or, at least, arguably a part of said foundation.
If he's talking about the wearing of the Great Kilt he is in error. That was the foundation (forcably wiped out by the English to break Scottish society) of Scottish society and has no counterpart in England. If he's talking about afternoon tea he is not in error, even if the afternoon tea is now also the foundation of Scottish society.
Just as drilling for oil and the rodeo are foundations of Texan society, but not foundations of American society, but the Constitution is the foundation of both American society and Texan society, even though Texas did not even exist at the time of Constitutional ratification by the states.
I have visually rescanned the article, but did not find the quote. I could take steps to grep for it, but since you already know where it is I would be greatful if you could either point me to it more explicitly or provide a meaningful quote.
KFG
Obviously his mistake was in not calling English Telecom and EnglandOnline, the ignorant colonial.
Please, for my own information, point out where he called the UK England. I can find no reference in the article to the UK at all, only the company UKOnline.
For that matter, despite your protest and that of others, I can find no single instance where he used the terms "Britain" or "England" inappropriately. In fact he seems quite careful about refering to his place of residence as England and BT's service as British, never English.
I may have missed some instance or other, however.
He infers in his opening statement that England is British, which, as it happens, it is. It's not like he's living in Wales and calling it "England."
KFG
Posting is not chatting. It isn't even vaguely akin to chatting.
Here's the key issue for you:
It is performed while in social isolation.
Thus posting is actually a very good social outlet for those with Asperger's, and I keep up a private correspondence with a few. Quite intelligent people, able to discourse quite well when not in an actual social situation.
KFG
Because they bought a thermal printer, hosting, a barcode scanner and a venue.
.
I've never really understood this reasoning, yet I hear it all the time:
"Well, if he can afford a Ferrari he can afford to maintain it."
Right, he's now a couple hundred thou poorer and probably in the hole for it, soooooooo. .
Obviously he has a lot of money left over. Plain logic is what we call that.
This must be how the government thinks:
"We just spent an unexpected $300 billion and had to borrow $200 billion of it from our most feared financial enemy. Daaaaaayam! We must be loaded. Let's go to Vegas everybody. Hot and cold running hookers for everybody!"
That would explain a lot. Funny how they never send my my share of the hookers, even though I'm footing the bill.
Here's how it works in the real world:
"Nah, I can't can't go to the movies tonight. I just bought a Ferrari and I'm broke dude. Can't even afford to put gas in the fucking thing."
Thank God for credit cards and assuming he will provide next month, eh?
"Hey, can you help me find someone who will give us money to give free help to people charging admission to shows?"
In the real world, however, this is what we call a win/win/win as all three parties get something satisfactory out of the deal.
Well, as long as it wasn't a Brian DePalma movie or Episode III.
KFG
Try using arguments instead of peer pressure, OK?
You do understand that this current government is "faith based" and rather sneeringly refers to people who use argument as "reality based," then goes out and wins with peer pressure, don't you?
Nor is soliciting your elected representative in government a form of "peer pressure." It is electorate pressure, i.e. pressure from a superior. That's what they're frickin' there for! Not to rule, to represent.
KFG
. . . invested in Red Hat -- not donated.
Same difference.
KFG
. . .some strange man that "nobody knew," as the super described him, had tried to get into her apartment while she was gone - the Medeco lock she had had installed on her door - something nobody else in the complex seemed to feel a need for - was more expensive than the door.
Dear Ms. O'Gara,
Thank you for your words and letting us know that PJ is not simply paranoid and that they are out to get her.
I'm sure PJ appreciates your kind support in this matter.
KFG
I think if I read this article on the site without looking at the other articles I might have though I was reading some of the lowest form of tabloid.
Who ya gonna believe, Sys-Con, or your lyin' eyes?
KFG
I'm not particularly anti anything. I am pro education.
Which is why I left the state school at age 11. I'm no particular fan of those either.
KFG
No, if you read the mission statement you'll find the school itself is the product, so the poor kids don't even have that going for them.
The kids are the natural resource. Have you seen how they handle natural resources?
KFG
They're definitely in the education business. . .their mission. . .
Is thus to return a profit to their investors.
Thus there will be some people here who will claim that it is the school's legal duty to fuck over the kids to protect the stockholders.
Hey, why is this country getting so warm, and what are we doing in this handbasket?
KFG
Declaring a case "open and shut" based on a finding after trial is a wee bit of circular reasoning, don't you think?
KFG
It's a pretty good maxim, if you're a lion out to have some buffalo for lunch.
If, however, you write software and don't want to appear on the Microsoft cafeteria menu divide and become unconquerable might be a better one.
Once this is achieved you can deal with the bloat issue by simply not installing it, something not possible with standarized, monolithic bloat.
You will achieve full standardization of free software when you achieve full standardization of the human mind. You can easily achieve this by standardizing everybody but me, because I will then procede to shoot myself.
KFG
Wish I had an ultimate solution to suggest. . .
Remove the chaos from between your ears.
KFG
E-mail and hypertext preceded the PostIt note by a decade or two.
Not to mention RexDart's hyperbole.
KFG
It's called "Rubber Cement." We've been doing this for decades before the Post-It adhesive. Works just fine.
KFG
September '77
Port Elizabeth, weather fine
It was business as usual
In Police room 619
KFG
. . .to redefine pi as 3.2.
Feel free to substitute 16/15 or 4 for 3 if you wish to do so for historical accuracy. Any number other than pi is within the range of significant digits to my argument.
Or perhaps we should just redefine science.
If most poets (and apparently script writers) are "fools," then what of people who perpetuate urban legends?
Most people are fools all of time. All people are fools some of the time. Most poets are at least merely fools. Most script writers are idiots who failed at being bad poets.
Although I'd argue that the correct characterization of people who perpetuate urban legends is "ignorant."
All all people are ignorant all of the time.
KFG
. . .it doesn't need constitutional authority.
."
Every legal authority needs constitutional authority. It is the law of the land and the only source of federal authority.
Agencies created by Congress to have legal authority by beaureaucratic code writing are Congress's attempt to bypass those parts of the Constitution that say "Congress shall pass no law. .
The courts are saying that Congress doesn't have the authority to do that. If they wish federal law, they need to pass it through Congress. Which is both, good, proper and about time.
KFG
yet still be able to call him a fool.
.you would find yourself as lost as he would be if he were to try to design a nuclear weapon.
.
Which is why I did nothing of the kind. I characterized him as "perspicacious." You can look that up in your Funk & Wagnell's.
. .
You seem to have missed the point that I wouldn't, which is how we came to meet in a coffeehouse. He found out I was a physicist entirely incidentally while discussing our poetry and music.
I'm glad the book got a good review . .
I haven't a clue whether or not the book got a good review, nor can I ascertain how you would know that either. All I know for sure is that the poet, who I hadn't seen for years (poetry often takes much longer to get published), took the trouble to drive some hours to be at a time and place he thought I might show up (a coffeehouse) to tell me that my own influence on the book had been deemed "impeccable" by a respected member of my own nominal field; and that he was including a formal acknowledgement of such in the book.
IF you don't feel this is warranted, take it up with him.
He's been invited to make his first public readings from the book at RIT. We'll see how that goes.
KFG
"Clearly you haven't experienced the joys of ice-cube trays."
What have Jell-O shots got to do with it?
KFG
How about a concrete jumping castle?
And I thought living in a castle in the air was a bit inconvenient at times. I don't even want to think about what would happen to the china.
KFG