There is really no significance to it being the first amendment numerically. The original Bill of Rights had twelve amendments in it. Only the last ten were ratified (ergo the third proposed amendment became what we call the first amendment) originally. Another was ratified not long ago and became the 27th amendment. The last one of the original twelve has still not been ratified, and likely will not be because it's very impractical.
The Fourteenth Amendment prevents the states from infringing on any person's liberty without due process of law. This has eventually been interpreted as incorporating most of the Bill of Rights as limiting the power of the states as well as the federal government. Also, other liberty interests cannot be arbitrarily interfered with, though the degree of due process necessary may vary depending on the importance of the liberty interest at stake.
I thought Bicycle was a Steveism. Certainly he was fond of the idea, and the AUC had a Picasso-style Bicycle. I'll have to check my sources.
Re:Nah! Let's try something better...
on
Mac mini to PC Hack
·
· Score: 2, Informative
First, the earlier poster said that the original name of the Macintosh was the Lisa, which is just wrong.
Second, it would have been McIntosh, but Jef Raskin changed the spelling to avoid a trademark issue with the McIntosh stereo people. It didn't work (because how words sound is more important than how they're spelled for trademark purposes), and they had to come to an agreement.
Re:Nah! Let's try something better...
on
Mac mini to PC Hack
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The original name of the Macintosh was Macintosh. It stemmed from a project (called Annie) to create a cheap gaming console, but they weren't related except that the person assigned to Annie countered with the proposal for Macintosh.
The Lisa was a completely seperate thing, but a lot of ideas did get shared between the two groups.
I mean, the important thing here is that the lawyers get paid right? My understanding was that that was the point of US society these days: to pay Lawyers.
Yes, that is absolutely correct. So long as the lawyers get paid, everyone's happy.;)
I want you to read it yourself. Read the Constitution. Read the 9th and 10th amendments.
I have. Your message from the pixies does not seem to be in it. You have not shown that anyone else in the world agrees with you even a little bit, which casts total doubt on every word you write.
You are a liar -- by your own admission -- and you are a crank, posting your own unique brand of nonsense. You're probably off your medication or simply one of the most stupid people I've ever had the bad fortune to encounter, even on/.
Until you can cite me one law, case, or scholarly article that backs you up, this is the end of our discussion. Since you will never find such a thing, I expect it is the permanent end to our discussion. Future posts from you or believed to be from you will be ignored or met with the same challenge and recounting of your history of lies and spurious nonsense.
According to federal law, the copyright never existed.... When the copyright holder dies the copyright goes away.
There are no such laws.
So you're just lying.
Given that you lied, saying that those laws existed when in fact they do not, as you now admit, why should I believe that there is any basis at all for the rest of your argument, or that you are posting in good faith?
Tell you what: cite to any statute, case, or scholarly article supporting your tortured and unique reading of the Constitution and we can continue. But if you're the only person in the world suffering from your particular delusion, then I think it's best if you suffer alone.
But if you cannot find even one person to back you up, then it'll be evident that you're just lying some more, and are not in fact arguing, but just being an idiot. You do have a track record for that, after all.
According to federal law, the copyright never existed.... When the copyright holder dies the copyright goes away.
You said there is a federal law causing copyrights to enter the public domain. You have also said that there is a federal law causing copyrights to retroactively not exist upon the death of the copyright holder -- a term you no longer seem to be objecting to.
That is not a federal law causing copyrights to enter the public domain. It only permits states to establish state laws to that effect, and they cannot due to the effect of the supremecy clause.
You said there was a federal law causing copyrights to enter the public domain.
As I said, you're repeating your babble. Why not go back to when you first made your unsupportable claims, and work your way back to where you lost?
And by the way: If not spec'd in the will then, yes, it goes away. It becomes public domain under federal law.
You claim that there is such a federal law. Cite the precise statute or case to this effect. As there is no such law, I figure you won't be able to post a reply, and that'll finish things up nicely.
The actual law -- the one that in effect brands you as a liar or monumental moron -- is 17 USC 201(d)(1), which reads in pertinent part: The ownership of a copyright may... pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.
No. While some transfers are by means of contract, many others are not.
If an author copyright holder gives a copyright to a friend as a gift, it's not per a contract, but it is valid. You, fool, think it's not.
If an author dies and his will leaves his copyright to his family, it's not per a contract, but it is valid. You, fool, think it's not. Likewise for authors that die intestate; it's treated as personal property and goes to his heirs.
In these cases, the non-authors that are given the copyrights become copyright holders. Except in your fantasy world.
So what do you think happens to a copyright when an author dies? It has to go away too? Or what?
The only thing being sparked is a revolution, corporate boy.
Uh huh. And btw, I'm actually in favor of sweeping reforms that would massively reduce copyright. I'm opposed to where it's been going for the last century or so.
No, it doesn't derive it's powers from lawyers. But don't underestimate our powers, which are mighty and terrible!
The Constitution does not grant Federal rights to "copyright holders", only to "authors and creators".
Nope. The constitution doesn't grant rights to authors. (And the term 'creators' should not be in quotes as you have it, since it is not in the Constitution. You claim to like the literal wording of it, but can't quote it correctly? You're a dumbass.) The constitution only empowers Congress. Congress, using that power, can choose if it wants to establish a system of copyrights, and can set up any system it likes so long as it is within the power granted to it. Allowing for transfers is within that power as a necessary and proper adjunct to promoting the progress of science and does not conflict with the securing to authors subclause as transfers necessarily come afterwards and were part of the framers' intent for federal copyright laws as evidenced by the fact that that's what they were familiar with before, and that's what they implemented once the government was running.
I have but the least glimmer of hope that you're on the level and just amazingly stupid, as opposed to being a troll and amazingly stupid.
Either way, you've lost the argument, resorted to name calling of a type that doesn't actually work since I _am_ a lawyer and that's not an insult, and have just started over again.
If you want to start over again, go back to the top of the thread and read down to this point and repeat until the truth of the matter gets through your thick head.
Federal authorities have no business meddling in these matters.
It is.
All federal powers were granted to it by the states or the people. Rarely were the powers given over completely, instead they are shared, with the federal government supreme over the states.
For example, Congress can regulate interstate commerce by means of the commerce clause. So can the states, but they can't conflict with what Congress does, and can't abuse their freedom of action where Congress hasn't legislated so as to fuck it all up (see the negative commerce clause).
Unlikely
You're saying that the federal government would have existed even if no state or person had empowered it?
For your next post, you'll talk about how the world is flat, huh?
Posting as an AP is not a hack. It is lame. N.b. that I've posted over 25 times today and am still using my account.
The 9th and 10th cover rights not enumerated in the Constitution.
Wow. For all your amazing crap, harping on these, you don't actually know what they are. That's funny.
The 9th does that, and only for people. The 10th covers powers, not rights.
Copyright is not a right of the people. The ninth is inapplicable. It is a power of the states (and not the people) so the 10th certainly indicates that states retain copyright powers, but that doesn't preclude Congress from legislating where it too has that power, as it does.
The Constitution is very specific in LIMITING the Federal government.
No, it's more like it's very specific in expanding the federal government from nothing. To limit would imply that it's reducing it and that therefore it has an independent existence. For a sort of states-rights idiot, you really aren't very good at this.
You can't believe there anyone smarter than lawyers.
That is patently false.
I think that it's difficult to rate intelligence well, but if there is someone who is the smartest person in the world, odds are that it's not a lawyer if only because there is a relatively small number of lawyers in the world. It's also probably not a computer scientist, for the same reason. If I had to guess, I'd say the smartest person in the world is probably a housewife.
But what I've found is that lawyers tend to be a hair above telephone sanitizers and marketers.
That's a bit odd, given that pretty much all even halfway successful societies have had laws, and that where there are laws, people tend to specialize in working with them, just as we have other specialized occupations (farmer, metalworker, etc). I think lawyers probably positively contribute to societies, because they try to keep people from breaking the law, which is on the whole a good thing. (depends on the law, of course)
In addition to the nicer BMW (both of mine are paid off)
Pretty forgetful, are you? I have no BMW, so there's nothing to be nicer than. Plus, I don't think a BMW is nice given what I look for in a car. So who cares?
my wife is hotter than yours
Not married.
my kids are smarter than yours
No kids, and don't particularly want any.
I'm guessing I'm better looking
No way to know.
people like me more (by definition: you're a lawyer)
I don't care what people think of me if they merely adhere to mindless prejudices. I don't need their respect. Given your attitude, I doubt anyone likes you much if they get to know you.
Also clients tend to love their lawyers. We get things done for them.
my house is nicer
I rent.
and my guess is if we met in a ring, I'd kick your ass there too
I abhor violence, and you haven't kicked my ass in any way at all yet, so it's a little premature to say 'too.'
When you total all of that, the implications are really pretty staggering for you.
No, I've met plenty of trolls on/.
Its people like you arguing laws that set precedent.
I find that particular mangling of words to be amusing.
that we have a 2nd rate judiciary and set of laws because...well... you know why.
What would you propose as a replacement? I'm guessing it would be Thunderdome (two litigants enter, one litigant leaves).
While the 9th notes that there are rights of the people not enumerated in the bill of rights, such rights enjoy no unique guarantees. Furthermore, what specific right is infringed by the availability of copyright transfers?
There's no right to a copyright. There's no right to a non transferable copyright.
Typical of a lawyer, you're expanding to fit your personal desire.
No, not really. I wouldn't mind a non transferable copyright system, but I don't see the point, and I don't see that we'd be stuck with one.
No wonder your kind are labelled as the scum of society.
No, no one in the world dislikes lawyers based on the 9th amendment.
And what's with you? A lawyer kill your family, and now you're out for revenge?
There is. The courts could act as a check on Congress, and generally do, but they are an equal branch of the federal government, not a superior one. They can't sit over Congress and pick and choose laws as if they were a super-legislature. This means giving Congress leeway to act. It has bounds, but it's free to do as it likes within those bounds.
This includes copyright transfers.
"Copyright holder" is an enumeration of "authors and creators" and, per the 9th amendment, is disallowed.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Try again.
Oh wait... yet you still don't know about "25 posts per day (more or less)".
Nope. Guess I've never encountered that. And it doesn't appear to be in the FAQ, from a quick glance. But if it means I don't have to put up with the crap that you've been spewing, I'm not terribly upset.
This is from an earlier post, but 'Elrond?' The man's name is Eldred. Elrond is an elf in the Tolkien books. I mean, I only read the opinions and briefs countless times, and attended the actual oral argument back in '02. I assure you, his name is Eldred.
An author cannot reassign his Constitutional rights
Copyright is not a constitutional right. Congress is merely empowered by the constitution. The copyright law they enact pursuant to that power, however, is merely federal law. And if the federal law -- which is supreme to everything but the constitution -- says he can assign it, then he can. No problem.
A copyright holder is not necessarily an "author and inventor".
Yes, that's what I said.
Only serves to illustrate that courts can be bought.
I admit, I'm really struggling to figure out how you can arrive at such clearly insane conclusions. Is this some sort of performance art, you're engaged in? Posting something that's nonsense, but only slightly so?
If so, I applaud your willingness to enage in art, but I'm not very impressed by it. Dada has come and gone.
Care to quote that from the Constitution?
Okay.
The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;...
And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Since, per Eldred, Congress constitutionally has broad leeway to implement copyright as it sees fit in order to exercise the power it has in this field, it can constitutionally permit for copyright transfer.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Yes, I know what the ninth amendment is. I'm saying I don't see how it is applicable.
Oh God. This explain everything. I'm arguing with a newb.
I have a UID of 3773 and you think I'm a newbie?
It takes you almost 30 minutes to respond. Are you retarded?
Well, maybe it takes no time at all to post a string of nonsense connected by spittle, but I don't post such things
I have one post left today to violate your anus.
And so again, why is it that you've only the one remaining post?
(Not that I'm arguing. You're an idiot, and I'll be glad to never see you again. Feel free to jump off of a cliff.)
Slashdot Mirror
There is really no significance to it being the first amendment numerically. The original Bill of Rights had twelve amendments in it. Only the last ten were ratified (ergo the third proposed amendment became what we call the first amendment) originally. Another was ratified not long ago and became the 27th amendment. The last one of the original twelve has still not been ratified, and likely will not be because it's very impractical.
Well I think it's exciting, but I don't claim that anyone normal would.
The Fourteenth Amendment prevents the states from infringing on any person's liberty without due process of law. This has eventually been interpreted as incorporating most of the Bill of Rights as limiting the power of the states as well as the federal government. Also, other liberty interests cannot be arbitrarily interfered with, though the degree of due process necessary may vary depending on the importance of the liberty interest at stake.
I thought Bicycle was a Steveism. Certainly he was fond of the idea, and the AUC had a Picasso-style Bicycle. I'll have to check my sources.
First, the earlier poster said that the original name of the Macintosh was the Lisa, which is just wrong.
Second, it would have been McIntosh, but Jef Raskin changed the spelling to avoid a trademark issue with the McIntosh stereo people. It didn't work (because how words sound is more important than how they're spelled for trademark purposes), and they had to come to an agreement.
The original name of the Macintosh was Macintosh. It stemmed from a project (called Annie) to create a cheap gaming console, but they weren't related except that the person assigned to Annie countered with the proposal for Macintosh.
The Lisa was a completely seperate thing, but a lot of ideas did get shared between the two groups.
a little over a million dollars
;)
$2.7 million, IIRC.
I mean, the important thing here is that the lawyers get paid right? My understanding was that that was the point of US society these days: to pay Lawyers.
Yes, that is absolutely correct. So long as the lawyers get paid, everyone's happy.
I want you to read it yourself. Read the Constitution. Read the 9th and 10th amendments.
/.
I have. Your message from the pixies does not seem to be in it. You have not shown that anyone else in the world agrees with you even a little bit, which casts total doubt on every word you write.
You are a liar -- by your own admission -- and you are a crank, posting your own unique brand of nonsense. You're probably off your medication or simply one of the most stupid people I've ever had the bad fortune to encounter, even on
Until you can cite me one law, case, or scholarly article that backs you up, this is the end of our discussion. Since you will never find such a thing, I expect it is the permanent end to our discussion. Future posts from you or believed to be from you will be ignored or met with the same challenge and recounting of your history of lies and spurious nonsense.
It becomes public domain under federal law.
... When the copyright holder dies the copyright goes away.
According to federal law, the copyright never existed.
There are no such laws.
So you're just lying.
Given that you lied, saying that those laws existed when in fact they do not, as you now admit, why should I believe that there is any basis at all for the rest of your argument, or that you are posting in good faith?
Tell you what: cite to any statute, case, or scholarly article supporting your tortured and unique reading of the Constitution and we can continue. But if you're the only person in the world suffering from your particular delusion, then I think it's best if you suffer alone.
But if you cannot find even one person to back you up, then it'll be evident that you're just lying some more, and are not in fact arguing, but just being an idiot. You do have a track record for that, after all.
It becomes public domain under federal law.
... When the copyright holder dies the copyright goes away.
According to federal law, the copyright never existed.
You said there is a federal law causing copyrights to enter the public domain. You have also said that there is a federal law causing copyrights to retroactively not exist upon the death of the copyright holder -- a term you no longer seem to be objecting to.
There are no such laws, but you say there are.
Cite the statute or case precisely.
I said no such thing.
Yes you did, but you're a liar:
If not spec'd in the will then, yes, it goes away. It becomes public domain under federal law.
You said there was a federal law causing copyrights to enter the public domain.
Cite the statute or case precisely.
That is not a federal law causing copyrights to enter the public domain. It only permits states to establish state laws to that effect, and they cannot due to the effect of the supremecy clause.
You said there was a federal law causing copyrights to enter the public domain.
Cite the statute or case precisely.
You said there was a federal law causing copyrights to enter the public domain.
Cite the statute or case precisely.
No, the constitution does not establish copyrights, nor is it properly termed a federal law.
You said there was a federal law causing copyrights to enter the public domain.
Cite the statute or case precisely.
As I said, you're repeating your babble. Why not go back to when you first made your unsupportable claims, and work your way back to where you lost?
... pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.
And by the way: If not spec'd in the will then, yes, it goes away. It becomes public domain under federal law.
You claim that there is such a federal law. Cite the precise statute or case to this effect. As there is no such law, I figure you won't be able to post a reply, and that'll finish things up nicely.
The actual law -- the one that in effect brands you as a liar or monumental moron -- is 17 USC 201(d)(1), which reads in pertinent part: The ownership of a copyright may
Be seeing you.
This comes into the realm of employee contracts.
No. While some transfers are by means of contract, many others are not.
If an author copyright holder gives a copyright to a friend as a gift, it's not per a contract, but it is valid. You, fool, think it's not.
If an author dies and his will leaves his copyright to his family, it's not per a contract, but it is valid. You, fool, think it's not. Likewise for authors that die intestate; it's treated as personal property and goes to his heirs.
In these cases, the non-authors that are given the copyrights become copyright holders. Except in your fantasy world.
So what do you think happens to a copyright when an author dies? It has to go away too? Or what?
The only thing being sparked is a revolution, corporate boy.
Uh huh. And btw, I'm actually in favor of sweeping reforms that would massively reduce copyright. I'm opposed to where it's been going for the last century or so.
No, it doesn't derive it's powers from lawyers. But don't underestimate our powers, which are mighty and terrible!
The Constitution does not grant Federal rights to "copyright holders", only to "authors and creators".
Nope. The constitution doesn't grant rights to authors. (And the term 'creators' should not be in quotes as you have it, since it is not in the Constitution. You claim to like the literal wording of it, but can't quote it correctly? You're a dumbass.) The constitution only empowers Congress. Congress, using that power, can choose if it wants to establish a system of copyrights, and can set up any system it likes so long as it is within the power granted to it. Allowing for transfers is within that power as a necessary and proper adjunct to promoting the progress of science and does not conflict with the securing to authors subclause as transfers necessarily come afterwards and were part of the framers' intent for federal copyright laws as evidenced by the fact that that's what they were familiar with before, and that's what they implemented once the government was running.
I have but the least glimmer of hope that you're on the level and just amazingly stupid, as opposed to being a troll and amazingly stupid.
Either way, you've lost the argument, resorted to name calling of a type that doesn't actually work since I _am_ a lawyer and that's not an insult, and have just started over again.
If you want to start over again, go back to the top of the thread and read down to this point and repeat until the truth of the matter gets through your thick head.
Otherwise it's time for you to give up, sparky.
From where does the Constitution derive its power?
Powers are not upward flowing. Feds cannot gain powers from the states.
How the hell do you think the states and people created the federal government other than by investing it with their own powers?
Magic federalist pixies?
Federal authorities have no business meddling in these matters.
It is.
All federal powers were granted to it by the states or the people. Rarely were the powers given over completely, instead they are shared, with the federal government supreme over the states.
For example, Congress can regulate interstate commerce by means of the commerce clause. So can the states, but they can't conflict with what Congress does, and can't abuse their freedom of action where Congress hasn't legislated so as to fuck it all up (see the negative commerce clause).
Unlikely
You're saying that the federal government would have existed even if no state or person had empowered it?
For your next post, you'll talk about how the world is flat, huh?
Posting as an AP is not a hack. It is lame. N.b. that I've posted over 25 times today and am still using my account.
The 9th and 10th cover rights not enumerated in the Constitution.
;)
Wow. For all your amazing crap, harping on these, you don't actually know what they are. That's funny.
The 9th does that, and only for people. The 10th covers powers, not rights.
Copyright is not a right of the people. The ninth is inapplicable. It is a power of the states (and not the people) so the 10th certainly indicates that states retain copyright powers, but that doesn't preclude Congress from legislating where it too has that power, as it does.
The Constitution is very specific in LIMITING the Federal government.
No, it's more like it's very specific in expanding the federal government from nothing. To limit would imply that it's reducing it and that therefore it has an independent existence. For a sort of states-rights idiot, you really aren't very good at this.
Maybe. What are you doing to make it right?
Finishing the job?
What happened to 25 more or less?
You can't believe there anyone smarter than lawyers.
/.
That is patently false.
I think that it's difficult to rate intelligence well, but if there is someone who is the smartest person in the world, odds are that it's not a lawyer if only because there is a relatively small number of lawyers in the world. It's also probably not a computer scientist, for the same reason. If I had to guess, I'd say the smartest person in the world is probably a housewife.
But what I've found is that lawyers tend to be a hair above telephone sanitizers and marketers.
That's a bit odd, given that pretty much all even halfway successful societies have had laws, and that where there are laws, people tend to specialize in working with them, just as we have other specialized occupations (farmer, metalworker, etc). I think lawyers probably positively contribute to societies, because they try to keep people from breaking the law, which is on the whole a good thing. (depends on the law, of course)
In addition to the nicer BMW (both of mine are paid off)
Pretty forgetful, are you? I have no BMW, so there's nothing to be nicer than. Plus, I don't think a BMW is nice given what I look for in a car. So who cares?
my wife is hotter than yours
Not married.
my kids are smarter than yours
No kids, and don't particularly want any.
I'm guessing I'm better looking
No way to know.
people like me more (by definition: you're a lawyer)
I don't care what people think of me if they merely adhere to mindless prejudices. I don't need their respect. Given your attitude, I doubt anyone likes you much if they get to know you.
Also clients tend to love their lawyers. We get things done for them.
my house is nicer
I rent.
and my guess is if we met in a ring, I'd kick your ass there too
I abhor violence, and you haven't kicked my ass in any way at all yet, so it's a little premature to say 'too.'
When you total all of that, the implications are really pretty staggering for you.
No, I've met plenty of trolls on
Its people like you arguing laws that set precedent.
I find that particular mangling of words to be amusing.
that we have a 2nd rate judiciary and set of laws because...well... you know why.
What would you propose as a replacement? I'm guessing it would be Thunderdome (two litigants enter, one litigant leaves).
How?
While the 9th notes that there are rights of the people not enumerated in the bill of rights, such rights enjoy no unique guarantees. Furthermore, what specific right is infringed by the availability of copyright transfers?
There's no right to a copyright. There's no right to a non transferable copyright.
Typical of a lawyer, you're expanding to fit your personal desire.
No, not really. I wouldn't mind a non transferable copyright system, but I don't see the point, and I don't see that we'd be stuck with one.
No wonder your kind are labelled as the scum of society.
No, no one in the world dislikes lawyers based on the 9th amendment.
And what's with you? A lawyer kill your family, and now you're out for revenge?
There is no "as it sees fit"
There is. The courts could act as a check on Congress, and generally do, but they are an equal branch of the federal government, not a superior one. They can't sit over Congress and pick and choose laws as if they were a super-legislature. This means giving Congress leeway to act. It has bounds, but it's free to do as it likes within those bounds.
This includes copyright transfers.
"Copyright holder" is an enumeration of "authors and creators" and, per the 9th amendment, is disallowed.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Try again.
Oh wait... yet you still don't know about "25 posts per day (more or less)".
Nope. Guess I've never encountered that. And it doesn't appear to be in the FAQ, from a quick glance. But if it means I don't have to put up with the crap that you've been spewing, I'm not terribly upset.
An author cannot reassign his Constitutional rights
Copyright is not a constitutional right. Congress is merely empowered by the constitution. The copyright law they enact pursuant to that power, however, is merely federal law. And if the federal law -- which is supreme to everything but the constitution -- says he can assign it, then he can. No problem.
A copyright holder is not necessarily an "author and inventor".
Yes, that's what I said.
Only serves to illustrate that courts can be bought.
I admit, I'm really struggling to figure out how you can arrive at such clearly insane conclusions. Is this some sort of performance art, you're engaged in? Posting something that's nonsense, but only slightly so?
If so, I applaud your willingness to enage in art, but I'm not very impressed by it. Dada has come and gone.
Care to quote that from the Constitution?
Okay.
Since, per Eldred, Congress constitutionally has broad leeway to implement copyright as it sees fit in order to exercise the power it has in this field, it can constitutionally permit for copyright transfer.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Yes, I know what the ninth amendment is. I'm saying I don't see how it is applicable.
Oh God. This explain everything. I'm arguing with a newb.
I have a UID of 3773 and you think I'm a newbie?
It takes you almost 30 minutes to respond. Are you retarded?
Well, maybe it takes no time at all to post a string of nonsense connected by spittle, but I don't post such things
I have one post left today to violate your anus.
And so again, why is it that you've only the one remaining post?
(Not that I'm arguing. You're an idiot, and I'll be glad to never see you again. Feel free to jump off of a cliff.)