Of COURSE these people won't change their minds! To do that they would have to be capable of experiencing cognitive dissonance. Want to read some lunacy? Just check out what Jenny says on her stupid website this week:
Recent Dr. Andrew Wakefield Media Circus: Much Ado About Nothing
The mainstream media is in a frenzy over a new "study" claiming that Andrew Wakefield's 1998 Lancet paper was fraudulent. For years, the media has mischaracterized Wakefield's work as implicating the MMR vaccine in the autism epidemic. This was never true, as Wakefield himself wrote in the conclusion to his paper:
"We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described."
We hope the media will take the time to read the actual Lancet study, rather than repeating the message of a vaccine-industry funded media circus.
Talk about missing the point! Hey lady, the person who convinced you of a certain thing was a fraud and a charlatan. He pushed phony bullshit on you and you bought it. It's all crap; none of it is true. The last nail in the coffin came years and years ago; this is merely the last scoop of earth on top of the grave-site. Give it up, be an adult, understand that you were horribly wrong and use your celebrity to try to undo some of the enormous harm you did to the world's children. For God's sake don't dig in your high heels and move the goalpost!
Did you ever give him steamed carrots? Like, the baby food with carrots in it? Or did you ever cook and mash up your own carrots? Or did your wife ever eat carrots and breastfeed your son? I don't want to cause undue alarm, but you need to search the web TODAY about carrots and developmental abnormalities. Seriously. Do it, and be careful with carrots until your child is at least in its teens.
A license isn't a kind of contract? I'm not a lawyer; my layperson's use of those words would have licenses as a subset of contracts; but perhaps that's all wrong.
If it is available on Sourceforge, then it is easily found for distribution, and thus isn't abandonware. The whole point of abandonware is that the authors have made it difficult to obtain. But this software is right there, ready to be had. It's pretty much the exact opposite of abandonware.
I've always thought of handguns such as mine to be recreational firearms. I'm not going to use my handgun to protect my family. How could I? I keep it in an inaccessible location, in a locked box, unloaded, and I don't even keep bullets in the house. From time to time, though, I like to buy some bullets and take it to a firing range.
I think of semi-automatic weapons the same way. I imagine they are crazy fun to shoot, but much like skydiving I've never tried it.
You could change my mind with compelling corner cases showing ambiguity, but yes I would use constructions such as "the dog hates kicked" -- and yes, it sounds a bit funny today, like new constructions typically do.
"The state of Michigan does not recognize prenuptual agreements".
That is not so. Michigan recognizes prenuptial agreements, as does every state in the union. All states, however, have different kinds of restrictions on what exactly prenups can say and be enforceable.
Wait, wait; I realize we might be talking about different things. I may be responding to the wrong thread. Okay, in response to the statement which you quoted:
"what happens in a Michigan divorce is that property is divided equally between "the parties", regardless of who filed, what caused the divorce, or either party's behavior during the marriage."
That also would not be the case. As I said, the marriage contract would control division of property. For almost everyone, the marriage contract is set by statute; but for people with enforceable prenups, the contract is that prenup, to the extent allowed by law.
Yes, I am talking about Michigan law specifically, but only based on the quick lookup I did, showing that Michigan law is substantially in line with the law in the whole rest of the country.
Yes. Property would be divided according to the marriage contract, which is either the pre-nup (if it exists and to the extent enforceable under the law) or the default contract, which is state statute plus state case law.
It's possible that your pre-nup was invalid for some reason, and then the default law would apply.
I'm not unwilling to EVER think about supporting a Republican, or supporting the party in general. First, however, I would require two apologies: one for Nixon; the other for W Bush. Those two are not only the worst two Presidents of the modern era, they are actually below the threshold of tolerability. I think they Republicans could actually get a pass on Nixon, because they in fact did not tolerate Nixon -- the loss of their support is what finally got Nixon to step down. So pretty much all I'm asking for is a quick "Hey, we're really sorry for that Bush thing, that was then and this is now, we're different, please give us another look".
After that apology, they would just need to be slightly more centrist on most issues for me to consider them. I think that could actually happen if the wackos could just split off into an official Tea Party third party. With that the Republicans move a bit to the center, the Dems move a bit more to the left, becoming a not-quite-so-extreme mirror of the Tea Party, and suddenly we have a pretty good looking political party system in America.
The worst President ever, by the way? McKinley. He was also a Republican, but that was before the modern era, so you can't blame today's Republicans for him any more than you can credit them for Lincoln.
I disagree. I don't think protecting all things people say is necessary to protect most things people say. But, I don't think in absolute terms, so that's just how I roll.
For instance, I don't think we need to protect the right of people to scream obscenities at the funerals of soldiers, in order to protect the right of people to voice their opposition to government policies.
It's not a slippery slope, it's more like a nice, light gradient on a hill with paved steps up the side, and hand rails. It's easy to stop wherever we want.
It's true, and actually I like it. I've begun to adopt that convention as an adult. The insertion of the generic verb "to be" into such constructions pretty much meaningless. I'm also sort of a stickler for rules, though, so I'm conflicted about it.
Having recently gone through the pre-nuptial process, I was surprised that you claimed there is a state of the union which does not recognize prenups. So I looked it up, as you could have done, and found that -- as most of us immediately suspected -- you are totally wrong about that.
Frankly, it would be quite a shock if any of the United States outright refused to recognize an entire class of contracts recognized in the other 49 states. It wouldn't be impossible, but it would be highly irregular. Luckily for Michiganders wanting to get married, you are mistaken. You might want to talk to your divorce lawyer about that.
It indeed has nothing to do with justice or fairness; it has only to do with applying the law. If it's an unjust or unfair law, then, well shit that's what.
"Broken"? Hardly. As a senator to "fix" that bug in the law the way you and I "fix" bugs in software, and the bug report will simply get marked "Works as intended".
Indeed. I remember visiting BBSs at 2400 baud. To this day, I continue to read at exactly the speed at which text appears on-scree via a 2400 baud connection -- no joke.
Slashdot Mirror
Of COURSE these people won't change their minds! To do that they would have to be capable of experiencing cognitive dissonance. Want to read some lunacy? Just check out what Jenny says on her stupid website this week:
Recent Dr. Andrew Wakefield Media Circus: Much Ado About Nothing
The mainstream media is in a frenzy over a new "study" claiming that Andrew Wakefield's 1998 Lancet paper was fraudulent. For years, the media has mischaracterized Wakefield's work as implicating the MMR vaccine in the autism epidemic. This was never true, as Wakefield himself wrote in the conclusion to his paper:
"We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described."
We hope the media will take the time to read the actual Lancet study, rather than repeating the message of a vaccine-industry funded media circus.
Talk about missing the point! Hey lady, the person who convinced you of a certain thing was a fraud and a charlatan. He pushed phony bullshit on you and you bought it. It's all crap; none of it is true. The last nail in the coffin came years and years ago; this is merely the last scoop of earth on top of the grave-site. Give it up, be an adult, understand that you were horribly wrong and use your celebrity to try to undo some of the enormous harm you did to the world's children. For God's sake don't dig in your high heels and move the goalpost!
But... but.. but... she has "mommy intuition"! How could "medical science" ever trump that?
Did you ever give him steamed carrots? Like, the baby food with carrots in it? Or did you ever cook and mash up your own carrots? Or did your wife ever eat carrots and breastfeed your son? I don't want to cause undue alarm, but you need to search the web TODAY about carrots and developmental abnormalities. Seriously. Do it, and be careful with carrots until your child is at least in its teens.
Ha, ha, ha, ha. No you silly duck, that's not true at all.
A license isn't a kind of contract? I'm not a lawyer; my layperson's use of those words would have licenses as a subset of contracts; but perhaps that's all wrong.
If it is available on Sourceforge, then it is easily found for distribution, and thus isn't abandonware. The whole point of abandonware is that the authors have made it difficult to obtain. But this software is right there, ready to be had. It's pretty much the exact opposite of abandonware.
I've always thought of handguns such as mine to be recreational firearms. I'm not going to use my handgun to protect my family. How could I? I keep it in an inaccessible location, in a locked box, unloaded, and I don't even keep bullets in the house. From time to time, though, I like to buy some bullets and take it to a firing range.
I think of semi-automatic weapons the same way. I imagine they are crazy fun to shoot, but much like skydiving I've never tried it.
Your what?
Nice. Sounds like your boss did you a favor. That's some important user testing, a real failure by the original programmer.
Fair enough. It's definitely not an easy question to answer.
/shrugs
You could change my mind with compelling corner cases showing ambiguity, but yes I would use constructions such as "the dog hates kicked" -- and yes, it sounds a bit funny today, like new constructions typically do.
I was merely responding to this statement:
"The state of Michigan does not recognize prenuptual agreements".
That is not so. Michigan recognizes prenuptial agreements, as does every state in the union. All states, however, have different kinds of restrictions on what exactly prenups can say and be enforceable.
Wait, wait; I realize we might be talking about different things. I may be responding to the wrong thread. Okay, in response to the statement which you quoted:
"what happens in a Michigan divorce is that property is divided equally between "the parties", regardless of who filed, what caused the divorce, or either party's behavior during the marriage."
That also would not be the case. As I said, the marriage contract would control division of property. For almost everyone, the marriage contract is set by statute; but for people with enforceable prenups, the contract is that prenup, to the extent allowed by law.
Yes, I am talking about Michigan law specifically, but only based on the quick lookup I did, showing that Michigan law is substantially in line with the law in the whole rest of the country.
Yes. Property would be divided according to the marriage contract, which is either the pre-nup (if it exists and to the extent enforceable under the law) or the default contract, which is state statute plus state case law.
It's possible that your pre-nup was invalid for some reason, and then the default law would apply.
The point isn't that Fox has "a viewpoint"; it's that their viewpoint is dumb.
Just my quick two pennies:
I'm not unwilling to EVER think about supporting a Republican, or supporting the party in general. First, however, I would require two apologies: one for Nixon; the other for W Bush. Those two are not only the worst two Presidents of the modern era, they are actually below the threshold of tolerability. I think they Republicans could actually get a pass on Nixon, because they in fact did not tolerate Nixon -- the loss of their support is what finally got Nixon to step down. So pretty much all I'm asking for is a quick "Hey, we're really sorry for that Bush thing, that was then and this is now, we're different, please give us another look".
After that apology, they would just need to be slightly more centrist on most issues for me to consider them. I think that could actually happen if the wackos could just split off into an official Tea Party third party. With that the Republicans move a bit to the center, the Dems move a bit more to the left, becoming a not-quite-so-extreme mirror of the Tea Party, and suddenly we have a pretty good looking political party system in America.
The worst President ever, by the way? McKinley. He was also a Republican, but that was before the modern era, so you can't blame today's Republicans for him any more than you can credit them for Lincoln.
I disagree. I don't think protecting all things people say is necessary to protect most things people say. But, I don't think in absolute terms, so that's just how I roll.
For instance, I don't think we need to protect the right of people to scream obscenities at the funerals of soldiers, in order to protect the right of people to voice their opposition to government policies.
It's not a slippery slope, it's more like a nice, light gradient on a hill with paved steps up the side, and hand rails. It's easy to stop wherever we want.
I hope CmdrTaco can smooth things over.
It's true, and actually I like it. I've begun to adopt that convention as an adult. The insertion of the generic verb "to be" into such constructions pretty much meaningless. I'm also sort of a stickler for rules, though, so I'm conflicted about it.
In some ways yes, they are a single entity, on other ways no, they aren't.
It does result in severe penalties: it opens the door to an at-fault divorce proceeding.
Having recently gone through the pre-nuptial process, I was surprised that you claimed there is a state of the union which does not recognize prenups. So I looked it up, as you could have done, and found that -- as most of us immediately suspected -- you are totally wrong about that.
Frankly, it would be quite a shock if any of the United States outright refused to recognize an entire class of contracts recognized in the other 49 states. It wouldn't be impossible, but it would be highly irregular. Luckily for Michiganders wanting to get married, you are mistaken. You might want to talk to your divorce lawyer about that.
That post is a mind-blowing case of false equivalence.
It indeed has nothing to do with justice or fairness; it has only to do with applying the law. If it's an unjust or unfair law, then, well shit that's what.
"Broken"? Hardly. As a senator to "fix" that bug in the law the way you and I "fix" bugs in software, and the bug report will simply get marked "Works as intended".
Indeed. I remember visiting BBSs at 2400 baud. To this day, I continue to read at exactly the speed at which text appears on-scree via a 2400 baud connection -- no joke.