that is the functional quality of coffee that makes it drinkable to me
there are no aesthetic qualities to discern in the flavor. its a bitter bean. in the rainbow of coffee flavors, its still just a bitter bean, and therefore without aesthetic attraction
maybe you can just admit you are a caffeine addict like me, and your supposed aesthetic considerations are just a case of the emperor's new clothes
you're a pretty rare consumer, because consumers like uniformity
but i will remember your words the next time i build a computer. i will not take solace in one SATA standard or one hard drive size. i will consider myself "at the mercy" of one oppressive uniform standard, and i will prefer to have my disk drives all sorts of random custom sizes and all SATA interfaces to be various and unique handcrafted cables with rare port shapes
because i don't like expedience. i like to expend 10x the amount of grief and time build a new PC. because, you see, the ends of making the process easy and quick does not justify the means
i'm not ok with a kill mission. but unlike you i realize a kill mission is better than nothing, and a capture mission fails. it's about the reality of the situation, not intent. you wish to condemn based on intent, when intent wasn't driving what happened, the reality of the situation was. got it?
"It is the responsibility of the civilized state to seek justice, not revenge."
absolutely 100% correct. and as soon as you show me a situation where revenge was freely chosen in formative intent over justice, then you have a point. but seeing as the bin laden situation does not fit that mandate, the value of your words, your perceptive abilities, and your judgment has been found lacking
it's the boy who cried wolf syndrome: conspiracy theory is such a favorite currency of the low iq and not quite mentally sound crowd, that if an actual real conspiracy theory happens, no one will believe it
the effect of all the low iq and mentally deficient wack jobs constantly running around and crying wolf on conspiracies is to basically ensure that any rational and realistic consideration of an actual conspiracy theory is discounted up front
all those constantly babbling about conspiracy theories actually help conspiracy theories succeed, because they hide the tiny signals in a fountain of noise
i frequently laugh at and pour derision on conspiracy theory crack pots. however, i readily admit conspiracy theories are real. its just that they are exceedingly rare because they are so hard to pull off in airtight secrecy. but the dumber you are or the more mentally deranged you are, the more they seem likely, because your fear/ paranoia/ schizophrenia or dim perceptive abilities are unable to see just how incredibly hard an actual conspiracy theory is to actually pull off. how many ways it can fail, and continue to fail, long after the fact. how long has it been from the kennedy assassination. no one, NO ONE, the vast conspiracy has issued a peep about it, even accidentally? no one is still interested? come on! a lone asshole shot kennedy, not some mafia/ cia/ cuban/ whatever plot. occam's razor, my deluded friends, occam's razor
but conspiracy theories do have value in this world: entertainment. they are a frequent part of hollywood movies, because, like alien invasions or superheroes, they tickle our fancy. even though we know such things are impossible (well, those of us who are mentally sound realize superheros, aliens, and overarching vast conspiracies by secret black ops agencies are impossible)
please note conspiracy theory proponents: all the noise you dingbats constantly make about conspiracy theories, help to hide the actual real rare ones. not that that fact is going to change your behavior. because you're stupid and/ or deranged. but carry on, i need to laugh. yes, i know: the chemtrails from the government airplanes and the fluoridated water has completely turned me into a sheep. (giggle)
i'm not agreeing with anything until you give me an idea of how likely you think capturing the man alive was
you think his wife is the same sort of threat as a seasoned al qaeda fighter? in the few minutes before pakistan intercepted the incursion, in an environment full of unknowns, in the dark, with who knows what booby traps, arms placements, hostile personnel, or other threats... capturing him is a possibility? really? you really wish to continue taking that joke seriously? how much additional threat to the lives of the SEAL team is acceptable to you to pursue a dubious goal? are you willing to risk the al qaeda asshole's escape, just to avoid the typical easy criticisms of armchair analysts like yourself?
on the slightest suggestion capture is sketchy: kill the fucker, and weather the holier-than-thou tut tuts from armchair ivory tower types like yourself. thanks for your cheap easy judgment from afar. you certainly have an inflated sense of the value of your weak judgments, especially with the ease with which your shoddy house of cards of thinking is discredited. pfffffffffft
to me you seem to think that it was possible, probable to capture him. to me this makes your reasoning skills suspect, that your political prejudices are trumping your ability to perceive reality here. you also won't admit that capturing him was indeed the ideal and the intent of the usa. you wish to say the usa clearly intended to kill him only, not capture him. when the reality is of course capturing him was a remote possibility. so you wish to ascribe the failure to capture, to intent, when the failure to capture is clearly due to conditions on the ground. how am i supposed to respond to you except to look askance and wonder at how and why your reasoning skills have been sublimated by your politics?
so no, i'm sorry, the only agreement here is that you choose your political agenda over a grasp on reality. this means to me you are not morally or intellectually honest. a hypocrite, because you wish to continue to prosecute the usa for not living up to the highest standards when in your own rhetoric you yourself won't do that. your intent is to condemn the usa. which is fine, condemn the usa if that's important to you, the usa has done plenty wrong in the world. but if you base your condemnation on creative jumps of faith in your preformed prejudices, rather than a sound reading of reality, what do you want me to do except lose all respect for you? you are not an intellectually honest person. you freely choose to suspend your perception of the conditions on the ground in the moments of his confrontation. you condemn the usa for not living up to standards of behavior you freely defile yourself in your rush to judge based on your prejudices. the sum total of your words to me is a picture of hypocrisy, no more: condemn the usa for not living up to the highest standards of behavior, while you yourself freely choose lower standards of behavior in how you suspend your perception of reality in order to assuage your political prejudices. to hell with you
The U.S. Navy SEAL team that killed Osama bin Laden Sunday in Pakistan would have taken al Qaeda's leader in alive if it was possible, White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said Monday.
"If we had the opportunity to take bin Laden alive, if he didn't present any threat, the individuals involved were able and prepared to do that," Brennan told reporters during a press conference.
Brennan told reporters that the White House thought bin Laden would likely resist capture but that taking him alive was considered a "remote" possibility.
"We were not going to put our people at risk," Brennan said. "The president put a premium on making sure that our personnel were protected, and we were not going to give bin Laden or any of his cohorts the opportunity to carry out lethal fire on our forces."
the quotes you have stem from the realizations outlined above: capture is ideal, but highly unlikely, so kill is acceptable
now, at what point do we get some intellectual honesty from you and hear you admit how im-fucking-possible it would be to capture bin laden in the situation's parameters without any risk to the SEALs involved? out with it, asshole. or is it that i'm not dealing with an intellectually honest person?
you wish to think that capturing bin laden in the situation's parameters was a possibility? you wish to bleieve that? because it's reality? or because it adheres to your political prejudices?
"That’s enough rock, officials said, to fill the Rogers Centre in Toronto. And the cement used to line the tunnel would build a sidewalk stretching from Windsor to Quebec City."
The Americans, Burmese and Liberians have imperial, the rest of the world has metric. But now we have RogerCentre's as units of volume and Windsor-to-Quebec units of distance to understand when dealing with Canucks?
"No matter how small the possibility, capturing Bin Laden should have been the intention. Bin Laden's motivations don't really come into play here"
i stopped reading here. capturing bin laden WAS the intention. but you do understand he was violently captured, right? you do have some idea what that entails, right? either you are purposefully intellectually dishonest about the parameters of that situation, or you're an idiot who can't understand them. which is it?
it's a honeypot. if i were the government i'd run silent, and deep, and allow bitcoin to prosper. there are more interesting and useful ways to track people using bitcoin than knowing exact transactions. just allow usage of bitcoin to be your red flag for investigating someone. 90% will be innocuous or low-level idiots, but its useful data nonetheless. then just pick off the more interesting major shitflies that bitcoin attracts. the golden goose that keeps on giving: it's untraceable says the advertising. tap, tap, tap, says the government. why kill the golden goose?
"Both according to the rules of war and the rules of civil justice, the goal should have been to bring Bin Laden to a courtroom. We both know this didn't happen. You seem uninterested in probing further whereas I question whether it was ever the intention."
capturing bin laden was a vanishingly small possibility. this is reality. because of bin laden's motivations, having nothing whatsoever to do with whatever the usa intended. if you were intellectually honest, you would admit this. as it is, you choose political agenda over realistic judgment, and so you are transparent and worthless to the search for justice and truth. you betray your own self-stated principles
Something is happening that is new, but we can't describe how or why it is new. We're like Roy Scheider in Jaws: "You're going to need a bigger boat." And you're like Robert Shaw: you just get to work trying to catch the thing. Even though it is big, it's bad, it's silent, it runs deep, you don't have the tools to properly track, capture, kill or otherwise defeat the thing, and you will be dead in 15 minutes at the end of the movie anyway. So just run around and panic. Because rootkits are scary, and strange new exotic rootkits are scarier. Your best bet is to strap on your scuba gear and go hide on the ocean bottom and pee while the real men take care of business. Oh, almost forgot: "Boo!"
in civilian life, never mind wartime, policemen, or even citizens, are allowed to use lethal force when confronted with lethal force. if a cop shot a bank robber in his hideout, with a gun by the bank robbers side and his cohorts shooting at him, would you say that the state failed to deliver the bank robber to a court room? would you condemn the cops, and the state, because it was unable to produce for you an outcome which was unlikely to happen? would you prefer the state and police to leave bank robbers free? is that superior than attempting to capture them, and killing them, unfortunately, when they refused to comply?
likewise, bringing osama bin laden to a courtroom was, agreed, the most useful resolution to his capture, but, and this is where we part ways, between my understanding of reality and your fantasy life: bring bin laden to a courtroom was a highly unlikely occurrence, considering bin laden's own choices and motivations in the scenario where he is confronted
so this is where we part ways: i see how unlikely it would have been to capture the man, as the seal team would have been met with force, and bin laden would try to kill himself or others. meanwhile, you wish to condemn the seal team and the usa for not giving you an outcome that if you had any intellectual honesty about you, you would see was highly unlikely to happen, considering the type of person we are talking about
but that doesn't stop you from condemning the usa. meaning you are not interested in valid moral judgment here. if you were honest, you would admit that osama bin laden would have done everything to avoid capture, including choosing his own death and the death of others. that you do not include that most likely outcome in the formulation of your criticism of the usa's actions, simply means you are not engaging in intellectually honest thought
you don't have to like the usa, the usa has done plenty wrong in this world. but your dislike of the usa should ideally, for your own sense of logical coherence, be based on solid criticisms, not choosing unrealistic scenarios over realistic ones as the basis for your judgments, revealing that you care more about an agenda than reality
oh, sorry, almost forgot, as an aside: that makes you a dishonest asshole. you obviously chooses politics over a true sense of justice, exactly as you charge that others lack in that department. you feigned inability to grasp the most likely scenario we are dealing with here is too transparent
when you actually show allegiance to the higher principles you criticize the usa on, even as you choose political recrimination over those supposed high principles of yours that you betray, then we can have an honest discussion. until then, you're just a transparent intellectually dishonest asshole in my eyes, a hypocrite
more than that, if you don't understand why transactions out in the open works for you, you are a rube who is going to get ripped off if you are dealing in nontrivial amounts of cash with no recourse
or, you are making financial deals which are in the shadows on purpose, in which case you are actually ATTRACTING governmental interest, and giving them a starting point to make investigations, and a reason to sniff around
but for investigative purposes, guys knocking on your door, absolutely
they will ask you who was using that ip on such-and-such a date. if you have an open wifi, they will ask you nicely if they can bug your base and hang around and triangulate where the guy with the pringle can is. if you refuse, they will look at you with a new sort of interest
oh, you thought "ip!=person so nobody is going to investigate crimes anymore"?
what exactly do you think you have to offer me that is going to change my thinking?
or is your point not to argue with me in good faith, but to make a bunch of noise noting the difference between a constitutional monarchy and an absolute one. yes, i understand the difference. and? are you proud you know the difference? you want some sort of recognition?
it's an elementary issue that has nothing to do with what this thread is actually about
i think you have a problem with understanding the topic of a discussion
topic discussion: death to that bitch, the queen of england
your point: constitutional versus absolute
your point: over there. topic of discussion: right here
"we know we are talking about an absolute monarchy, from the time periods. to think you have a point that the type of monarchy needs to be overtly stated just means you can't fucking think"
is what i wrote. read it again. and death to your fucking bitch of a queen
well, that's the deeper point: fuck your queen, death to her, indeed
setting aside your inability to argue in good faith (we know we are talking about an absolute monarchy, from the time periods. to think you have a point that the type of monarchy needs to be overtly stated just means you can't fucking think), you are correct: the deeper point is i wish death on your monarchy
that's not a logical point, that's just a note of passion
my blood is irish and scottish and i am a descendent of a soldier in the american revolution
killing you fuckers is just my heritage. what better trophy than the top bitch herself? there are some blood debts come due, son
i don't know anything. i'm a nobody. maybe sometimes the person who is least involved can make the best point, no?
and you don't get my point. he says he's not above criticism.... good for him. who cares! when does he start TAKING SIDES. the king's refusal to get involved is part of the problem. people use his name for various competing causes. when does the king say "no, you can't use my name, but, you over there, you can use my name, because what you stand for is what is really good for thailand."
it's his name, no? shouldn't he decide how it's used? and please do not rehash what you have already said about that. of course he can decide what his name endorses. it is absurd to say otherwise. maybe his awareness of his legacy will move him to finally deliver his heart, for the good of the country as he sees it
how can you watch your country descend into gang warfare and say nothing? even this nobody knows enough to see that. why doesn't thailand see that?
hey, asshole: i said monarchy. a constitutional monarchy is very different. you're obviously intelligent enough to understand the difference between a monarchy pre-french or russian revolution style, which was obviously what the fuck i was talking about, and a constitutional monarchy. you are intelligent enough to understand the difference, right twatstain?
which leads me to the conclusion that you aren't interested in an honest discussion, so i didn't even bother to read the rest of your comment
Slashdot Mirror
you mean a separate entity like mono?
that is the functional quality of coffee that makes it drinkable to me
there are no aesthetic qualities to discern in the flavor. its a bitter bean. in the rainbow of coffee flavors, its still just a bitter bean, and therefore without aesthetic attraction
maybe you can just admit you are a caffeine addict like me, and your supposed aesthetic considerations are just a case of the emperor's new clothes
you're a pretty rare consumer, because consumers like uniformity
but i will remember your words the next time i build a computer. i will not take solace in one SATA standard or one hard drive size. i will consider myself "at the mercy" of one oppressive uniform standard, and i will prefer to have my disk drives all sorts of random custom sizes and all SATA interfaces to be various and unique handcrafted cables with rare port shapes
because i don't like expedience. i like to expend 10x the amount of grief and time build a new PC. because, you see, the ends of making the process easy and quick does not justify the means
right?
pffffffffffffffft. what an idiot
OVER NINE THOUSAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.google.com/search?q=nine+thousand
it's not a good thing that Mono should go away
it is a good thing from the point of view of ideology, however
but as a working programmer, i like getting things done. to hell with the ideologues
LOL ;-)
i'm not ok with a kill mission. but unlike you i realize a kill mission is better than nothing, and a capture mission fails. it's about the reality of the situation, not intent. you wish to condemn based on intent, when intent wasn't driving what happened, the reality of the situation was. got it?
"It is the responsibility of the civilized state to seek justice, not revenge."
absolutely 100% correct. and as soon as you show me a situation where revenge was freely chosen in formative intent over justice, then you have a point. but seeing as the bin laden situation does not fit that mandate, the value of your words, your perceptive abilities, and your judgment has been found lacking
it's the boy who cried wolf syndrome: conspiracy theory is such a favorite currency of the low iq and not quite mentally sound crowd, that if an actual real conspiracy theory happens, no one will believe it
the effect of all the low iq and mentally deficient wack jobs constantly running around and crying wolf on conspiracies is to basically ensure that any rational and realistic consideration of an actual conspiracy theory is discounted up front
all those constantly babbling about conspiracy theories actually help conspiracy theories succeed, because they hide the tiny signals in a fountain of noise
i frequently laugh at and pour derision on conspiracy theory crack pots. however, i readily admit conspiracy theories are real. its just that they are exceedingly rare because they are so hard to pull off in airtight secrecy. but the dumber you are or the more mentally deranged you are, the more they seem likely, because your fear/ paranoia/ schizophrenia or dim perceptive abilities are unable to see just how incredibly hard an actual conspiracy theory is to actually pull off. how many ways it can fail, and continue to fail, long after the fact. how long has it been from the kennedy assassination. no one, NO ONE, the vast conspiracy has issued a peep about it, even accidentally? no one is still interested? come on! a lone asshole shot kennedy, not some mafia/ cia/ cuban/ whatever plot. occam's razor, my deluded friends, occam's razor
but conspiracy theories do have value in this world: entertainment. they are a frequent part of hollywood movies, because, like alien invasions or superheroes, they tickle our fancy. even though we know such things are impossible (well, those of us who are mentally sound realize superheros, aliens, and overarching vast conspiracies by secret black ops agencies are impossible)
please note conspiracy theory proponents: all the noise you dingbats constantly make about conspiracy theories, help to hide the actual real rare ones. not that that fact is going to change your behavior. because you're stupid and/ or deranged. but carry on, i need to laugh. yes, i know: the chemtrails from the government airplanes and the fluoridated water has completely turned me into a sheep. (giggle)
i'm not agreeing with anything until you give me an idea of how likely you think capturing the man alive was
you think his wife is the same sort of threat as a seasoned al qaeda fighter? in the few minutes before pakistan intercepted the incursion, in an environment full of unknowns, in the dark, with who knows what booby traps, arms placements, hostile personnel, or other threats... capturing him is a possibility? really? you really wish to continue taking that joke seriously? how much additional threat to the lives of the SEAL team is acceptable to you to pursue a dubious goal? are you willing to risk the al qaeda asshole's escape, just to avoid the typical easy criticisms of armchair analysts like yourself?
on the slightest suggestion capture is sketchy: kill the fucker, and weather the holier-than-thou tut tuts from armchair ivory tower types like yourself. thanks for your cheap easy judgment from afar. you certainly have an inflated sense of the value of your weak judgments, especially with the ease with which your shoddy house of cards of thinking is discredited. pfffffffffft
to me you seem to think that it was possible, probable to capture him. to me this makes your reasoning skills suspect, that your political prejudices are trumping your ability to perceive reality here. you also won't admit that capturing him was indeed the ideal and the intent of the usa. you wish to say the usa clearly intended to kill him only, not capture him. when the reality is of course capturing him was a remote possibility. so you wish to ascribe the failure to capture, to intent, when the failure to capture is clearly due to conditions on the ground. how am i supposed to respond to you except to look askance and wonder at how and why your reasoning skills have been sublimated by your politics?
so no, i'm sorry, the only agreement here is that you choose your political agenda over a grasp on reality. this means to me you are not morally or intellectually honest. a hypocrite, because you wish to continue to prosecute the usa for not living up to the highest standards when in your own rhetoric you yourself won't do that. your intent is to condemn the usa. which is fine, condemn the usa if that's important to you, the usa has done plenty wrong in the world. but if you base your condemnation on creative jumps of faith in your preformed prejudices, rather than a sound reading of reality, what do you want me to do except lose all respect for you? you are not an intellectually honest person. you freely choose to suspend your perception of the conditions on the ground in the moments of his confrontation. you condemn the usa for not living up to standards of behavior you freely defile yourself in your rush to judge based on your prejudices. the sum total of your words to me is a picture of hypocrisy, no more: condemn the usa for not living up to the highest standards of behavior, while you yourself freely choose lower standards of behavior in how you suspend your perception of reality in order to assuage your political prejudices. to hell with you
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20058913-503544.html
the quotes you have stem from the realizations outlined above: capture is ideal, but highly unlikely, so kill is acceptable
now, at what point do we get some intellectual honesty from you and hear you admit how im-fucking-possible it would be to capture bin laden in the situation's parameters without any risk to the SEALs involved? out with it, asshole. or is it that i'm not dealing with an intellectually honest person?
you wish to think that capturing bin laden in the situation's parameters was a possibility? you wish to bleieve that? because it's reality? or because it adheres to your political prejudices?
"That’s enough rock, officials said, to fill the Rogers Centre in Toronto. And the cement used to line the tunnel would build a sidewalk stretching from Windsor to Quebec City."
The Americans, Burmese and Liberians have imperial, the rest of the world has metric. But now we have RogerCentre's as units of volume and Windsor-to-Quebec units of distance to understand when dealing with Canucks?
"No matter how small the possibility, capturing Bin Laden should have been the intention. Bin Laden's motivations don't really come into play here"
i stopped reading here. capturing bin laden WAS the intention. but you do understand he was violently captured, right? you do have some idea what that entails, right? either you are purposefully intellectually dishonest about the parameters of that situation, or you're an idiot who can't understand them. which is it?
it's a honeypot. if i were the government i'd run silent, and deep, and allow bitcoin to prosper. there are more interesting and useful ways to track people using bitcoin than knowing exact transactions. just allow usage of bitcoin to be your red flag for investigating someone. 90% will be innocuous or low-level idiots, but its useful data nonetheless. then just pick off the more interesting major shitflies that bitcoin attracts. the golden goose that keeps on giving: it's untraceable says the advertising. tap, tap, tap, says the government. why kill the golden goose?
"Both according to the rules of war and the rules of civil justice, the goal should have been to bring Bin Laden to a courtroom. We both know this didn't happen. You seem uninterested in probing further whereas I question whether it was ever the intention."
capturing bin laden was a vanishingly small possibility. this is reality. because of bin laden's motivations, having nothing whatsoever to do with whatever the usa intended. if you were intellectually honest, you would admit this. as it is, you choose political agenda over realistic judgment, and so you are transparent and worthless to the search for justice and truth. you betray your own self-stated principles
Something is happening that is new, but we can't describe how or why it is new. We're like Roy Scheider in Jaws: "You're going to need a bigger boat." And you're like Robert Shaw: you just get to work trying to catch the thing. Even though it is big, it's bad, it's silent, it runs deep, you don't have the tools to properly track, capture, kill or otherwise defeat the thing, and you will be dead in 15 minutes at the end of the movie anyway. So just run around and panic. Because rootkits are scary, and strange new exotic rootkits are scarier. Your best bet is to strap on your scuba gear and go hide on the ocean bottom and pee while the real men take care of business. Oh, almost forgot: "Boo!"
her dissipated son, and his spoiled pampered runts
that's my thought
do you have anything to add to that thought of mine?
because you obviously have a deep desire to say something to me about that, but so far you've just danced around with tangential comments
address me directly on the topic or fuck off
in civilian life, never mind wartime, policemen, or even citizens, are allowed to use lethal force when confronted with lethal force. if a cop shot a bank robber in his hideout, with a gun by the bank robbers side and his cohorts shooting at him, would you say that the state failed to deliver the bank robber to a court room? would you condemn the cops, and the state, because it was unable to produce for you an outcome which was unlikely to happen? would you prefer the state and police to leave bank robbers free? is that superior than attempting to capture them, and killing them, unfortunately, when they refused to comply?
likewise, bringing osama bin laden to a courtroom was, agreed, the most useful resolution to his capture, but, and this is where we part ways, between my understanding of reality and your fantasy life: bring bin laden to a courtroom was a highly unlikely occurrence, considering bin laden's own choices and motivations in the scenario where he is confronted
so this is where we part ways: i see how unlikely it would have been to capture the man, as the seal team would have been met with force, and bin laden would try to kill himself or others. meanwhile, you wish to condemn the seal team and the usa for not giving you an outcome that if you had any intellectual honesty about you, you would see was highly unlikely to happen, considering the type of person we are talking about
but that doesn't stop you from condemning the usa. meaning you are not interested in valid moral judgment here. if you were honest, you would admit that osama bin laden would have done everything to avoid capture, including choosing his own death and the death of others. that you do not include that most likely outcome in the formulation of your criticism of the usa's actions, simply means you are not engaging in intellectually honest thought
you don't have to like the usa, the usa has done plenty wrong in this world. but your dislike of the usa should ideally, for your own sense of logical coherence, be based on solid criticisms, not choosing unrealistic scenarios over realistic ones as the basis for your judgments, revealing that you care more about an agenda than reality
oh, sorry, almost forgot, as an aside: that makes you a dishonest asshole. you obviously chooses politics over a true sense of justice, exactly as you charge that others lack in that department. you feigned inability to grasp the most likely scenario we are dealing with here is too transparent
when you actually show allegiance to the higher principles you criticize the usa on, even as you choose political recrimination over those supposed high principles of yours that you betray, then we can have an honest discussion. until then, you're just a transparent intellectually dishonest asshole in my eyes, a hypocrite
more than that, if you don't understand why transactions out in the open works for you, you are a rube who is going to get ripped off if you are dealing in nontrivial amounts of cash with no recourse
or, you are making financial deals which are in the shadows on purpose, in which case you are actually ATTRACTING governmental interest, and giving them a starting point to make investigations, and a reason to sniff around
it's a house of cards
but for investigative purposes, guys knocking on your door, absolutely
they will ask you who was using that ip on such-and-such a date. if you have an open wifi, they will ask you nicely if they can bug your base and hang around and triangulate where the guy with the pringle can is. if you refuse, they will look at you with a new sort of interest
oh, you thought "ip!=person so nobody is going to investigate crimes anymore"?
oh, you're saying you can trust bitcoin?
ok. meaning you can verify transactions?
meaning... drum roll please, it is traceable
what exactly do you think you have to offer me that is going to change my thinking?
or is your point not to argue with me in good faith, but to make a bunch of noise noting the difference between a constitutional monarchy and an absolute one. yes, i understand the difference. and? are you proud you know the difference? you want some sort of recognition?
it's an elementary issue that has nothing to do with what this thread is actually about
i think you have a problem with understanding the topic of a discussion
topic discussion: death to that bitch, the queen of england
your point: constitutional versus absolute
your point: over there. topic of discussion: right here
not meeting each other. see? hellooooo?
(waving hands)
"we know we are talking about an absolute monarchy, from the time periods. to think you have a point that the type of monarchy needs to be overtly stated just means you can't fucking think"
is what i wrote. read it again. and death to your fucking bitch of a queen
well, that's the deeper point: fuck your queen, death to her, indeed
setting aside your inability to argue in good faith (we know we are talking about an absolute monarchy, from the time periods. to think you have a point that the type of monarchy needs to be overtly stated just means you can't fucking think), you are correct: the deeper point is i wish death on your monarchy
that's not a logical point, that's just a note of passion
my blood is irish and scottish and i am a descendent of a soldier in the american revolution
killing you fuckers is just my heritage. what better trophy than the top bitch herself? there are some blood debts come due, son
xoxoxoxoxoxox
i don't know anything. i'm a nobody. maybe sometimes the person who is least involved can make the best point, no?
and you don't get my point. he says he's not above criticism.... good for him. who cares! when does he start TAKING SIDES. the king's refusal to get involved is part of the problem. people use his name for various competing causes. when does the king say "no, you can't use my name, but, you over there, you can use my name, because what you stand for is what is really good for thailand."
it's his name, no? shouldn't he decide how it's used? and please do not rehash what you have already said about that. of course he can decide what his name endorses. it is absurd to say otherwise. maybe his awareness of his legacy will move him to finally deliver his heart, for the good of the country as he sees it
how can you watch your country descend into gang warfare and say nothing? even this nobody knows enough to see that. why doesn't thailand see that?
hey, asshole: i said monarchy. a constitutional monarchy is very different. you're obviously intelligent enough to understand the difference between a monarchy pre-french or russian revolution style, which was obviously what the fuck i was talking about, and a constitutional monarchy. you are intelligent enough to understand the difference, right twatstain?
which leads me to the conclusion that you aren't interested in an honest discussion, so i didn't even bother to read the rest of your comment