David, give me an example where people that work harder in the same job and at the same ability are not paid more for their higher work.
Conflating neurosurgeons with dock workers and then saying Y gets paid more than X is not apples to apples.
To substanciate the pay gap, you want to show that Y that is male gets paid more than Y that is female with the SAME work. Implied variables there are hours worked and quality of work and ACTUALLY the same work.
I've seen statistics where receptionists in a coal mine were conflated with actual coal miners. The argument being that they both worked in the coal industry. Sure. They both work for a coal company and the women at the company do generally make less than the men. However, they are not doing the same job.
You run into the same thing in STEM. There are more male engineers, more male programmers, more males doing the higher paying jobs. But that doesn't mean the women are being paid less through discrimination. It merely means the women are not doing the same jobs.
What is more, if you look at these statistics internationally you find that the women are less likely to be in STEM in first world countries. That includes Japan or South Korea. China for example has much more women in proportionally in STEM.
The variable that appears to control the situation is economics. A society that is rich tends to have far fewer women in demanding jobs. Where as societies that are poor or less wealthy tend to have proportionally more women in demanding jobs. A reasonable assumption is that women in rich countries have the option to not do jobs they do not like. Where as in poorer countries they need the money and so will stay in positions that all things being equal they'd rather not do.
There are quite a lot of statistics to back this up. A big thing you'll see is women self selecting themselves out of STEM. That is, they get the degree, work on the job for a year or so, and then transition into something else.
The argument made by some is that these women are harassed out of their professions. There is however no evidence for that and the statement is at best a supposition. What is more, it is undermined by the fact that women in poorer countries don't do that. If they get the degree, they stay in the job. And it is hard to assume that the discrimination is worse in the tolerant, liberal, progressive First World than it is in second and third world countries where political correctness bug is not dominant.
According to the MS people they dumped win 9 and skipped to the next itteration. That's why they skipped a number.
Possibly that's just a marketing ploy. However, win 10 is quite clearly garbage and I can tell you from inside the enterprise world... we're skipping it. Just like we skipped win 8.
So... whether or not the pattern holds is debatable. It isn't as if we actually make decisions on that basis. Its just funny that alternating OSs are shit. Never mind that they seem to have come out with two turkeys in a row.
Look, if MS wants to make the enterprise customers happy... make an OS for us. We're not being unreasonable there. We're a big part of their market and we'd like an OS tailored for our needs. We got what we needed in windows 7. We don't even need much really. We also don't like to be forced to change without a compelling reason to do so. Upgrades like that cost us a lot of money. We'd prefer to get something in place and leave it there until there is an actual reason to change it. New GUI animations does not qualify. We give zero shits about that.
If ripping out your throat and eating your liver isn't hostile then we have different definitions for words.
What does the word "green" mean to you? Its a color for me... the leaves of plants are typically green.
We'll have to go through the entire english dictionary word by word to resync our definitions.:D
Or you can stop being a sophist fucktard and just use the correct definitions. You know... Either fucking or.
From webster: "" Games Word of the Day Video Blog: Words at Play My Faves Dictionary hostile adjective hosÂtile \ËhÃs-tÉ(TM)l, -ËOEtÄ(-É(TM))l\
: of or relating to an enemy
: not friendly : having or showing unfriendly feelings
: unpleasant or harsh Full Definition of HOSTILE 1 a : of or relating to an enemy b : marked by malevolence : having or showing unfriendly feelings c : openly opposed or resisting d (1) : not hospitable (2) : having an intimidating, antagonistic, or offensive nature 2 a : of or relating to the opposing party in a legal controversy b : adverse to the interests of a property owner or corporation management â" hostile noun â" hosÂtileÂly \-tÉ(TM)l-(l)Ä", -ËOEtÄ(-É(TM))l-lÄ"\ adverb See hostile defined for English-language learners See hostile defined for kids ADVERTISEMENT Examples of HOSTILE
They were entering hostile territory.
Her suggestions were given a hostile reception.
It was a small town that was hostile to outsiders.
The camel is specially adapted to its hostile desert habitat.
Dugoni, a lawyer who coauthored a nonfiction book about an Idaho worker brain-damaged in 1996 by cyanide fumes, opens his debut novel with a wrongful death attorney in San Francisco, David Sloane, about to make his closing remarks defending a corporation in a similar case. Sloane, who has won 14 cases in a row, hates his arrogant client and must face an obviously hostile jury. â"Publishers Weekly, 9 Jan. 2006
[+]more
Origin of HOSTILE Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin hostilis, from hostis First Known Use: 1580 Related to HOSTILE
: resulting from or showing a lack of knowledge Full Definition of IGNORANT 1 a : destitute of knowledge or education ; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence 2 : unaware, uninformed â" igÂnoÂrantÂly adverb â" igÂnoÂrantÂness noun See ignorant defined for English-language learners See ignorant defined for kids ADVERTISEMENT Examples of IGNORANT
He is an ignorant old racist.
She was ignorant about the dangers of the drug.
It was an ignorant mistake.
⦠the World Series of the wild-card era is the pull of a slot-machine lever, a game of cha
So you wish to say that a shark that eats a seal or a lion that eats a gazelle or a wolf that kills a dear... all of these are angry?
Your citation does not refer to hostility in general but a specific type of hostile behavior which has as a definition an emotional component. That said..her description of even that state is merely her opinion.
If you consult the dictionary definitions they do not refer to anger.
And regardless... you can't say the wolf is angry or the lion is angry or the shark is angry.
To attack is not to be angry. I can nuke you from orbit without feeling anything.
As to the literature... you have not cited any of this literature. And even if you do, you are arguing against common knowledge. You might as well say the Sun isn't hot or water isn't wet.
Hostility doesn't require anger.
If I am doing a hostile take over of your corporation... am I angry? If I am invading your country to steal your natural resources... am I angry?
Anger is not required for hostility.
As to your attempt to claim you're not an idiot because I made a typo... the difference is that I made a typo and you failed to grasp a basic concept that any ignorant savage would have known. That renders you less than the guy covered in his own shit.;-)
Even numbered MS releases are garbage. I don't know why that is... it just is... and that made it funny that they skipped 9.
Basically MS ossilates between making the corporate customers happy and the consumer customers happy. The corporate releases are odd numbered for some reason and the customer releases are even numbered.
Even numbered OS's... 98 Vista Windows 8
Odd numbered: Windows 95 Windows NT/XP Windows 7
Long story short... i'm waiting for windows 11. Windows 10 has cooties.
Incorrect. You are conflating hostility with anger. Hostility does not require any emotion what so ever.
Anger is the emotion after fear once one has decided to "fight" in basic emotional fight/flight response.
If I don't fear you then I can't be going into fight/flight and that means I'm not going to be angry.
Hostile... yes. A lion that brings down a gazelle is hostile... but it isn't angry.
The wolf does not fear the dear... and yet it is hostile. It rips its throat out. It howls over the kill. There is no anger. To conflate all hostility with anger and is to suggest that every predator is afraid its prey. This betrays a general ignorance of basic emotions in the higher animal kingdom. Of which humans are the apex.
Because you're ignorant of something that illiterate tribes people were aware of... I can only assume you're a moron. In fact, I'm quite certain that non-sapient lower animals are aware of it. I don't think the dear thinks the wolf is afraid of it. Though of course... such animals when cornered try to be intimidating. To not be aware of something a non-sapient herd animal is aware of... *golf clap*. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You are an incredible retard.;-)
This further explains why you're posting under the AC tag... too stupid to login apparently.
Did you honestly not understand what I was saying?
Let me define that for you since you probably don't know what the word "honest" means (Webster):
"" honest adjective honÂest \ËÃ-nÉ(TM)st\
: good and truthful : not lying, stealing, or cheating
: showing or suggesting a good and truthful character
: not hiding the truth about someone or something : not meant to deceive someone Full Definition of HONEST 1 a : free from fraud or deception : legitimate, truthful b : genuine, real c : humble, plain 2 a : reputable, respectable b chiefly British : good, worthy 3 : creditable, praiseworthy 4 a : marked by integrity b : marked by free, forthright, and sincere expression : frank c : innocent, simple See honest defined for English-language learners See honest defined for kids ADVERTISEMENT Examples of HONEST
He says that it's impossible to find an honest politician.
These criminals pose a danger to honest citizens.
He has an honest face.
Just give me an honest answer.
If you want my honest opinion, you should get a job.
To be perfectly honest, I don't want to go.
He gave us a painfully honest account of his childhood.
It was an honest error.
He still goes to the office every morning and puts in an honest day's work.
Origin of HONEST Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin honestus honorable, from honos, honor honor First Known Use: 14th century ""
You're literally an Anonymous COWARD... so so very afraid of being judged. What is it really the Karma system that makes your tiny penis shrivel into your body? I think last time you made some laughable adolescent defense like "uhm... I don't feel like going through the 2 seconds to create an account even though I post here all the time"... followed by you making a sock puppet account where you tried to prove a point about how making accounts doesn't matter... which backfired hilariously by the way.
You're not a very good troll. You're persistent which... is something... but... you don't know how to evoke the emotional reaction trolls need to really put their stamp on someone.
A good troll has people kicking their cats and calling their mother's cunts. You're utterly forgettable. Try harder.
anger is an emotional response to fear... When you perceive harm to yourself or something you care about... fear and then anger happens.
Fear comes first... very quickly... think of the oncoming car in traffic. That instant of fear.
Then anger.
The short changing clerk is stealing from you... fear of losing something then anger.
Again... you'd have to be a threat to be capable of generating anger in me. Or at least... I'd have to feel fear for some reason.
You can't make me afraid... and so I can't feel anger.
What you do is interpret dismissive statements as "anger" so you can make yourself seem relevant by the associated fear. Thus a dismissive statement... one that conveys no value or fear towards you... is pathetically misrepresented as one generating anger which would make you seem relevant.
You're not a threat to me. There is nothing here that would be capable of making me afraid. And thus nothing capable of making me angry.
Only things that can TOUCH me or touch something I care about can make me afraid. You're not amongst them.
Anger requires fear. For me to be angry I'd have to fear you... that's impossible... I've never been angry with you.
I've possibly been disgusted by your idiocy... but that's about it.
This is why citing someone else's anger is taken as an insult where as citing their hate or whatever is not.
Anger and fear can be used as insults. But you'd need to be threatening to evoke either emotion. You're not... so... stop professing your ignorance of basic human emotions/obviously telegraphing your pathetic desire to "get" to me. Its not possible. You will never get to me. I'd need to care for that to happen... why would I care? You're nothing.
Where as you e-stalk me... which means, ironically I got to you. With every sad attempt to troll me all you do is admit that I raped your little e-anus and you've been following me around ever since trying to get even. It will never happen.
I'm better than you. I crush you without even trying.
It is nonsense. The sick thing is that it isn't nonsense I created. Its the nonsense morons like you are breast fed on. Like the water that runs through a fish's gills... you don't even see it.
How is retweeting "material" support... How is that even defined... lets look that up...
From definitions. net... no idea how valid this is: "" Wiktionary(0.00 / 0 votes)Rate this definition:
material support(Noun)
(in the context of support for terrorism) Any property, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safe houses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, and transportation, except medicine or religious materials
""
retweeting would not fall under that.
from wikipedia: ""In American law, providing material support for terrorism is a crime prohibited by the USA PATRIOT Act and codified in title 18 of the United States Code, sections 2339A and 2339B. It applies primarily to groups designated as terrorists by the State Department. The four types of support described are âoetraining,â âoeexpert advice or assistance,â âoeservice,â and âoepersonnel.â In June 2010, the United States Supreme Court upheld the law in an as-applied challenge in the case Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, but also left open the door for other as-applied challenges.[1] The plaintiffs in the case ha""
so... we're saying that because the retweeter provided a retweet SERVICE that he's guilty of this?
I'm going to call bullshit again.
Look... fuck the terrorists. I'd pull their intestines out with a pair tongues whistling. No really. I'd wear an apron... don't want to get their goo on my shirt and pants. But... yeah. Fuck em. I don't care about those fucks. My issue is with an out of control government that could start targeting someone else. Me for example. And on that point we start running into problems.
My contention is that the terrorists tend to be morons and so can easily be charged under less expansive and more specific charges. This "service" charge can be applied to anything.
And cue the hordes of people saying "but people that crucify children have rights tooo!"... I'm sure they do. We all do. And one of my rights is to not have to deal with these people. If they want to cut their mother's throats in whatever-istan then go to town. I really don't care. But you start doing that in Mayberry (name of an idyllic american town from a tv show)... then everything changes. Its where we live. If you don't want the angry americans putting your heads on spikes... then just live somewhere else. Go bother the Canadians. I suspect if you push them hard enough they'll cover you in maple syrup and let the ants eat you alive... or something equally patriotic... possibly Canadian polar bears.:)
Hey David, as people working hard getting paid more... here you're conflating a lot of things.
I said that people in the same job position will have their pay determined mostly by how much time they put into the company... and let us add if they happen to be any good at their jobs.
To this you respond "I know people that work hard and don't get a lot of money"... well, I never said otherwise. If you work in a shit job and you work really hard then your pay is going to be relative to the shit job. If the shit job pays poorly then even if you get a bonus the bonus is probably going to be shit.
So I'm not sure what you're saying here?
Everyone should be paid the same? Lets see how that works out... lets pay ditch diggers and neurosurgeons the same... Why not.
How hard you work is not the only variable. Obtuse arguments like yours is why legal contracts are sometimes 500 pages long. The lawyers have to spell out all the obvious crap and then rephrase it several times so no one can possibly make the argument that the contract says other than what it would have been obvious it said were it only 5 pages long.
David, we're talking about pay in employment statistics... not your dream of social revolution, from each according to their ability, and to each according to their need. That's not what we're talking about. You had your revolution and you lost. Can we please move on?
Everyone has their own experience. Mine is as a customer. I use Oracle software all the time. And I know that Oracle is in trouble because they're too expensive, restrictive on use, and there is really just a laundry list of problems with them.
Stock price? You're saying wallstreet has a clue? Those idiots know less than you do and you know nothing.
I like the use of the word "we're" as if you're not just the same pathetic retard. If you had the number you're presuming you'd log in. Part of the reason you go AC is to sockpuppet and pretend to be more people than you are.
if people actually knew how few AC trolls there really were... that it was just a small group of very active jackasses... Everyone would agree with me that AC has to be retired as a feature on the board.
Slashdot Mirror
David, give me an example where people that work harder in the same job and at the same ability are not paid more for their higher work.
Conflating neurosurgeons with dock workers and then saying Y gets paid more than X is not apples to apples.
To substanciate the pay gap, you want to show that Y that is male gets paid more than Y that is female with the SAME work. Implied variables there are hours worked and quality of work and ACTUALLY the same work.
I've seen statistics where receptionists in a coal mine were conflated with actual coal miners. The argument being that they both worked in the coal industry. Sure. They both work for a coal company and the women at the company do generally make less than the men. However, they are not doing the same job.
You run into the same thing in STEM. There are more male engineers, more male programmers, more males doing the higher paying jobs. But that doesn't mean the women are being paid less through discrimination. It merely means the women are not doing the same jobs.
What is more, if you look at these statistics internationally you find that the women are less likely to be in STEM in first world countries. That includes Japan or South Korea. China for example has much more women in proportionally in STEM.
The variable that appears to control the situation is economics. A society that is rich tends to have far fewer women in demanding jobs. Where as societies that are poor or less wealthy tend to have proportionally more women in demanding jobs. A reasonable assumption is that women in rich countries have the option to not do jobs they do not like. Where as in poorer countries they need the money and so will stay in positions that all things being equal they'd rather not do.
There are quite a lot of statistics to back this up. A big thing you'll see is women self selecting themselves out of STEM. That is, they get the degree, work on the job for a year or so, and then transition into something else.
The argument made by some is that these women are harassed out of their professions. There is however no evidence for that and the statement is at best a supposition. What is more, it is undermined by the fact that women in poorer countries don't do that. If they get the degree, they stay in the job. And it is hard to assume that the discrimination is worse in the tolerant, liberal, progressive First World than it is in second and third world countries where political correctness bug is not dominant.
According to the MS people they dumped win 9 and skipped to the next itteration. That's why they skipped a number.
Possibly that's just a marketing ploy. However, win 10 is quite clearly garbage and I can tell you from inside the enterprise world... we're skipping it. Just like we skipped win 8.
So... whether or not the pattern holds is debatable. It isn't as if we actually make decisions on that basis. Its just funny that alternating OSs are shit. Never mind that they seem to have come out with two turkeys in a row.
Look, if MS wants to make the enterprise customers happy... make an OS for us. We're not being unreasonable there. We're a big part of their market and we'd like an OS tailored for our needs. We got what we needed in windows 7. We don't even need much really. We also don't like to be forced to change without a compelling reason to do so. Upgrades like that cost us a lot of money. We'd prefer to get something in place and leave it there until there is an actual reason to change it. New GUI animations does not qualify. We give zero shits about that.
Login and I'll use quote tags just for you. Otherwise... "" is easy and equally legible.
MS os's... and i cited NT...
... I say I'm not angry... which is an instinctual emotion... and you accuse me of being bound by instinct?
You're too stupid to craft insults that will mean anything to someone over the age of 10.
If ripping out your throat and eating your liver isn't hostile then we have different definitions for words.
What does the word "green" mean to you? Its a color for me... the leaves of plants are typically green.
We'll have to go through the entire english dictionary word by word to resync our definitions. :D
Or you can stop being a sophist fucktard and just use the correct definitions. You know... Either fucking or.
From webster:
""
Games
Word of the Day
Video
Blog: Words at Play
My Faves
Dictionary
hostile
adjective hosÂtile \ËhÃs-tÉ(TM)l, -ËOEtÄ(-É(TM))l\
: of or relating to an enemy
: not friendly : having or showing unfriendly feelings
: unpleasant or harsh
Full Definition of HOSTILE
1
a : of or relating to an enemy
b : marked by malevolence : having or showing unfriendly feelings
c : openly opposed or resisting
d (1) : not hospitable (2) : having an intimidating, antagonistic, or offensive nature
2
a : of or relating to the opposing party in a legal controversy
b : adverse to the interests of a property owner or corporation management
â" hostile noun
â" hosÂtileÂly
\-tÉ(TM)l-(l)Ä", -ËOEtÄ(-É(TM))l-lÄ"\ adverb
See hostile defined for English-language learners
See hostile defined for kids
ADVERTISEMENT
Examples of HOSTILE
They were entering hostile territory.
Her suggestions were given a hostile reception.
It was a small town that was hostile to outsiders.
The camel is specially adapted to its hostile desert habitat.
Dugoni, a lawyer who coauthored a nonfiction book about an Idaho worker brain-damaged in 1996 by cyanide fumes, opens his debut novel with a wrongful death attorney in San Francisco, David Sloane, about to make his closing remarks defending a corporation in a similar case. Sloane, who has won 14 cases in a row, hates his arrogant client and must face an obviously hostile jury. â"Publishers Weekly, 9 Jan. 2006
[+]more
Origin of HOSTILE
Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin hostilis, from hostis
First Known Use: 1580
Related to HOSTILE
Synonyms
adversarial, adversary, antagonistic, antipathetic, inhospitable, inimical, jaundiced, mortal, negative, unfriendly, unsympathetic
Antonyms
friendly, hospitable, nonantagonistic, nonhostile, sympathetic""
Note that anger isn't referenced in there even once. Idiot. :D
As to her, read your citation on hostility. It was referencing one person. And it was a she.
As to me not doing any of those things... Neither am I angry, shit for brains. :D
Ignorant savage?
Okay...
From webster:
Ignorant
""
adjective igÂnoÂrant \Ëig-n(É(TM)-)rÉ(TM)nt\
: lacking knowledge or information
: resulting from or showing a lack of knowledge
Full Definition of IGNORANT
1
a : destitute of knowledge or education ; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified
b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence
2
: unaware, uninformed
â" igÂnoÂrantÂly adverb
â" igÂnoÂrantÂness noun
See ignorant defined for English-language learners
See ignorant defined for kids
ADVERTISEMENT
Examples of IGNORANT
He is an ignorant old racist.
She was ignorant about the dangers of the drug.
It was an ignorant mistake.
⦠the World Series of the wild-card era is the pull of a slot-machine lever, a game of cha
So you wish to say that a shark that eats a seal or a lion that eats a gazelle or a wolf that kills a dear... all of these are angry?
Your citation does not refer to hostility in general but a specific type of hostile behavior which has as a definition an emotional component. That said..her description of even that state is merely her opinion.
If you consult the dictionary definitions they do not refer to anger.
And regardless... you can't say the wolf is angry or the lion is angry or the shark is angry.
To attack is not to be angry. I can nuke you from orbit without feeling anything.
As to the literature... you have not cited any of this literature. And even if you do, you are arguing against common knowledge. You might as well say the Sun isn't hot or water isn't wet.
Hostility doesn't require anger.
If I am doing a hostile take over of your corporation... am I angry? If I am invading your country to steal your natural resources... am I angry?
Anger is not required for hostility.
As to your attempt to claim you're not an idiot because I made a typo... the difference is that I made a typo and you failed to grasp a basic concept that any ignorant savage would have known. That renders you less than the guy covered in his own shit. ;-)
... Its a great company. I love their stuff.
Even numbered MS releases are garbage. I don't know why that is... it just is... and that made it funny that they skipped 9.
Basically MS ossilates between making the corporate customers happy and the consumer customers happy. The corporate releases are odd numbered for some reason and the customer releases are even numbered.
Even numbered OS's...
98
Vista
Windows 8
Odd numbered:
Windows 95
Windows NT/XP
Windows 7
Long story short... i'm waiting for windows 11. Windows 10 has cooties.
Incorrect. You are conflating hostility with anger. Hostility does not require any emotion what so ever.
Anger is the emotion after fear once one has decided to "fight" in basic emotional fight/flight response.
If I don't fear you then I can't be going into fight/flight and that means I'm not going to be angry.
Hostile... yes. A lion that brings down a gazelle is hostile... but it isn't angry.
The wolf does not fear the dear... and yet it is hostile. It rips its throat out. It howls over the kill. There is no anger. To conflate all hostility with anger and is to suggest that every predator is afraid its prey. This betrays a general ignorance of basic emotions in the higher animal kingdom. Of which humans are the apex.
Because you're ignorant of something that illiterate tribes people were aware of... I can only assume you're a moron. In fact, I'm quite certain that non-sapient lower animals are aware of it. I don't think the dear thinks the wolf is afraid of it. Though of course... such animals when cornered try to be intimidating. To not be aware of something a non-sapient herd animal is aware of... *golf clap*.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You are an incredible retard. ;-)
This further explains why you're posting under the AC tag... too stupid to login apparently.
You are conflating hostility with anger. My posts show "hostility"... not anger. Anger requires fear. Hostility does not.
A shark that eats a seal is not angry at the seal yet it is hostile to it. I am not angry with you. I am merely hostile because you're stupid.
Did you honestly not understand what I was saying?
Let me define that for you since you probably don't know what the word "honest" means (Webster):
""
honest
adjective honÂest \ËÃ-nÉ(TM)st\
: good and truthful : not lying, stealing, or cheating
: showing or suggesting a good and truthful character
: not hiding the truth about someone or something : not meant to deceive someone
Full Definition of HONEST
1
a : free from fraud or deception : legitimate, truthful
b : genuine, real
c : humble, plain
2
a : reputable, respectable
b chiefly British : good, worthy
3
: creditable, praiseworthy
4
a : marked by integrity
b : marked by free, forthright, and sincere expression : frank
c : innocent, simple
See honest defined for English-language learners
See honest defined for kids
ADVERTISEMENT
Examples of HONEST
He says that it's impossible to find an honest politician.
These criminals pose a danger to honest citizens.
He has an honest face.
Just give me an honest answer.
If you want my honest opinion, you should get a job.
To be perfectly honest, I don't want to go.
He gave us a painfully honest account of his childhood.
It was an honest error.
He still goes to the office every morning and puts in an honest day's work.
Origin of HONEST
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin honestus honorable, from honos, honor honor
First Known Use: 14th century
""
To people that are literate. ;-)
You're literally an Anonymous COWARD... so so very afraid of being judged. What is it really the Karma system that makes your tiny penis shrivel into your body? I think last time you made some laughable adolescent defense like "uhm... I don't feel like going through the 2 seconds to create an account even though I post here all the time"... followed by you making a sock puppet account where you tried to prove a point about how making accounts doesn't matter... which backfired hilariously by the way.
You're not a very good troll. You're persistent which... is something... but... you don't know how to evoke the emotional reaction trolls need to really put their stamp on someone.
A good troll has people kicking their cats and calling their mother's cunts. You're utterly forgettable. Try harder.
anger is an emotional response to fear... When you perceive harm to yourself or something you care about... fear and then anger happens.
Fear comes first... very quickly... think of the oncoming car in traffic. That instant of fear.
Then anger.
The short changing clerk is stealing from you... fear of losing something then anger.
Again... you'd have to be a threat to be capable of generating anger in me. Or at least... I'd have to feel fear for some reason.
You can't make me afraid... and so I can't feel anger.
What you do is interpret dismissive statements as "anger" so you can make yourself seem relevant by the associated fear. Thus a dismissive statement... one that conveys no value or fear towards you... is pathetically misrepresented as one generating anger which would make you seem relevant.
You're not a threat to me. There is nothing here that would be capable of making me afraid. And thus nothing capable of making me angry.
Only things that can TOUCH me or touch something I care about can make me afraid. You're not amongst them.
... MS does this every so often. Its why even numbered OS's are shitty. Just wait for windows 11.
Anger requires fear. For me to be angry I'd have to fear you... that's impossible... I've never been angry with you.
I've possibly been disgusted by your idiocy... but that's about it.
This is why citing someone else's anger is taken as an insult where as citing their hate or whatever is not.
Anger and fear can be used as insults. But you'd need to be threatening to evoke either emotion. You're not... so... stop professing your ignorance of basic human emotions/obviously telegraphing your pathetic desire to "get" to me. Its not possible. You will never get to me. I'd need to care for that to happen... why would I care? You're nothing.
Where as you e-stalk me... which means, ironically I got to you. With every sad attempt to troll me all you do is admit that I raped your little e-anus and you've been following me around ever since trying to get even. It will never happen.
I'm better than you. I crush you without even trying.
Login and we'll see who falls. Or admit your terror me by refusing to login.
The stock market is not where business models are tested. Otherwise pets.com would be a going concern.
It is nonsense. The sick thing is that it isn't nonsense I created. Its the nonsense morons like you are breast fed on. Like the water that runs through a fish's gills... you don't even see it.
Login and we'll talk about it.
How is retweeting "material" support... How is that even defined... lets look that up...
From definitions. net... no idea how valid this is:
""
Wiktionary(0.00 / 0 votes)Rate this definition:
material support(Noun)
(in the context of support for terrorism) Any property, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safe houses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, and transportation, except medicine or religious materials
""
retweeting would not fall under that.
from wikipedia:
""In American law, providing material support for terrorism is a crime prohibited by the USA PATRIOT Act and codified in title 18 of the United States Code, sections 2339A and 2339B. It applies primarily to groups designated as terrorists by the State Department. The four types of support described are âoetraining,â âoeexpert advice or assistance,â âoeservice,â and âoepersonnel.â In June 2010, the United States Supreme Court upheld the law in an as-applied challenge in the case Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, but also left open the door for other as-applied challenges.[1] The plaintiffs in the case ha""
so... we're saying that because the retweeter provided a retweet SERVICE that he's guilty of this?
I'm going to call bullshit again.
Look... fuck the terrorists. I'd pull their intestines out with a pair tongues whistling. No really. I'd wear an apron... don't want to get their goo on my shirt and pants. But... yeah. Fuck em.
I don't care about those fucks. My issue is with an out of control government that could start targeting someone else. Me for example. And on that point we start running into problems.
My contention is that the terrorists tend to be morons and so can easily be charged under less expansive and more specific charges. This "service" charge can be applied to anything.
And cue the hordes of people saying "but people that crucify children have rights tooo!"... I'm sure they do. We all do. And one of my rights is to not have to deal with these people. If they want to cut their mother's throats in whatever-istan then go to town. I really don't care. But you start doing that in Mayberry (name of an idyllic american town from a tv show)... then everything changes. Its where we live. If you don't want the angry americans putting your heads on spikes... then just live somewhere else. Go bother the Canadians. I suspect if you push them hard enough they'll cover you in maple syrup and let the ants eat you alive... or something equally patriotic... possibly Canadian polar bears. :)
Hey David, as people working hard getting paid more... here you're conflating a lot of things.
I said that people in the same job position will have their pay determined mostly by how much time they put into the company... and let us add if they happen to be any good at their jobs.
To this you respond "I know people that work hard and don't get a lot of money"... well, I never said otherwise. If you work in a shit job and you work really hard then your pay is going to be relative to the shit job. If the shit job pays poorly then even if you get a bonus the bonus is probably going to be shit.
So I'm not sure what you're saying here?
Everyone should be paid the same? Lets see how that works out... lets pay ditch diggers and neurosurgeons the same... Why not.
How hard you work is not the only variable. Obtuse arguments like yours is why legal contracts are sometimes 500 pages long. The lawyers have to spell out all the obvious crap and then rephrase it several times so no one can possibly make the argument that the contract says other than what it would have been obvious it said were it only 5 pages long.
David, we're talking about pay in employment statistics... not your dream of social revolution, from each according to their ability, and to each according to their need. That's not what we're talking about. You had your revolution and you lost. Can we please move on?
Everyone has their own experience. Mine is as a customer. I use Oracle software all the time. And I know that Oracle is in trouble because they're too expensive, restrictive on use, and there is really just a laundry list of problems with them.
Stock price? You're saying wallstreet has a clue? Those idiots know less than you do and you know nothing.
I like the use of the word "we're" as if you're not just the same pathetic retard. If you had the number you're presuming you'd log in. Part of the reason you go AC is to sockpuppet and pretend to be more people than you are.
if people actually knew how few AC trolls there really were... that it was just a small group of very active jackasses... Everyone would agree with me that AC has to be retired as a feature on the board.
It is if the person you're proving it to can't branded with his failure. And if you don't log in, then I can't do that.
Login and we'll see.