I think it always works better in NYC because it's pretty rare that speeds are such that slamming on the breaks will actually cause a rear end and the plus side is saving pedestrian lives. As somebody who mainly walks in Manhattan I am all for them.
It had been popping up weird messages. One of them, designed to look like a Mac OS X system warning, said, "You should fix your internal sensor soon. If unsure what to do, try putting your laptop near hot steam for several minutes to clean the sensor."
Now that is creative. Had to be some mighty dumb women who fell for that.
It amazes me that they don't know this because it must mean they've never voted in an election in their lives or if they did they just weren't paying attention.
More selective editing. How about the sentence before that you ignored:
"He rode directly to the house of Captain Isaac Hall, commander of Medford's minutemen [who was not British], who [meaning Captain Hall - not Revere] instantly triggered the town's alarm system."
In other words - he did not ride to warn the British; he rode to warn the minutemen. And he didn't ring bells and shoot guns - that was the "alarm system" triggered by Captain Hall.
I am not sure I can keep arguing in circles. I stated it out in plain undeniable facts but it just isn't getting through. She said what she said and it was factually incorrect based on history and what Revere himself said.
What I think probably happened was some staffer gave her a quick history lesson and she jumbled up all the facts into the rambling, inaccurate statement that she made. Yes if you pull individual words out of her statement you can fit them into some of the truth but you cannot ignore the whole speech just to make her seem less wrong.
You are really stretching now. The purpose of ringing the bells wasn't to warn the British and it was never his intention. He only warned the British because he got captured. If he had never been captured he never would have warned the British.
I really don't care about the Obama thing one way or the other. The topic is about Palin.
Probably better that words should mean what they really do mean instead of what one group of people believe they are "meant" to mean. The word origin actually comes from a word that meant "male" and eventually evolved into something that meant "lover". Nothing in the etymology hints at being of opposite genders.
The blame probably goes much further back to something like IRC. Although that probably attracted a more intelligent crowd - perhaps blame AOL. Usually a safe move.
According to the actual court document:
" KNOWN writings used for comparison were various email writings of Mr. Zuckerbergexchanged with the Plaintiff and related parties during the time period as specified in the Amended Complaint, which totaled 35 emails
She had the right words in completely the wrong order. This doesn't really make her any part right. I find it hard to believe that somebody whose job involves a good deal of public speaking could be that bad at actually forming sentences in the right order.
After so many ridiculous ad-hominem attacks responding to me it's nice to see that there is at least one intelligent poster on this site still. You are 100% right - perception is everything.
Yeah for some reason the copy and pasting went to crap.
And I may not know more about history than the Ph.D. but obviously I can analyze things more independently and reasonably than he can. I am not a Democrat. I am a registered independent. I believe both sides are filled with idiots but right now the Republicans have the lead.
You cannot change what she said - she said that Paul Revere was shooting guns and ringing bells. That is not what happened. End of story.
This is not the 50's. We judge people by the things they say - not their gender. Hillary Clinton is a democrat and I despise her. If she had gotten the nomination I probably would have voted for some third party.
How do you figure that the economy is on Obama's back? What type of revisionist history do you need to believe in to think that the recession that started long before he took office was his fault? He's inherited a mess and done everything he can to get it even inching back up.
Nice selective editing just like the conservative blogger. This is what she said:
âoewarned the British that they werenâ(TM)t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as heâ(TM)s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.â
That just didn't happen. He didn't ring any bells, he didn't shoot any guns, and the purpose of the ride was not to warn the British. In the process of warning the militia he was captured and gave an inflated count to the British as a warning.
So basically you are proving how wrong she was then. Nowhere in there is he riding to warn the British by shooting guns and ringing bells. He was off to warn the militia and got caught.
That article is about conservative apologists trying to backfit what she said into history. Paul Revere didn't fire gunshots and ring bells on his horse ride - that happened AFTER he was captured and gave inflated numbers to the British. His ride wasn't about warning the British - that was an unintentional side effect of getting capture. He rode to warn the militia and ultimately get to John Hancock and Sam Adams.
Even the experts in that article don't really back her up - they says she basically lucky that some part of the store could be backfitted to match what she said.
To be fair, I don't believe she is as dumb as she appears. I think she intentionally puts on that stupid accent and plays dumb to win over the fly-over states.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it always works better in NYC because it's pretty rare that speeds are such that slamming on the breaks will actually cause a rear end and the plus side is saving pedestrian lives. As somebody who mainly walks in Manhattan I am all for them.
Your abuse of the English language offends me. My lawyers will be contacting you.
Now that is creative. Had to be some mighty dumb women who fell for that.
It amazes me that they don't know this because it must mean they've never voted in an election in their lives or if they did they just weren't paying attention.
Odd numbers are development releases - duh. Only even numbers are for stable releases.
More selective editing. How about the sentence before that you ignored:
"He rode directly to the house of Captain Isaac Hall, commander of Medford's minutemen [who was not British], who [meaning Captain Hall - not Revere] instantly triggered the town's alarm system."
In other words - he did not ride to warn the British; he rode to warn the minutemen. And he didn't ring bells and shoot guns - that was the "alarm system" triggered by Captain Hall.
Thanks for proving how wrong she was.
I am not sure I can keep arguing in circles. I stated it out in plain undeniable facts but it just isn't getting through. She said what she said and it was factually incorrect based on history and what Revere himself said.
What I think probably happened was some staffer gave her a quick history lesson and she jumbled up all the facts into the rambling, inaccurate statement that she made. Yes if you pull individual words out of her statement you can fit them into some of the truth but you cannot ignore the whole speech just to make her seem less wrong.
First, many people (including my mother) have little to no idea what Facebook is.
Second, it isn't a criteria of jury selection that they never heard of the company.
I'm not sure that you meant this in response to my post and I am not sure what your point is? It seems contrary to your other posts, though.
You are really stretching now. The purpose of ringing the bells wasn't to warn the British and it was never his intention. He only warned the British because he got captured. If he had never been captured he never would have warned the British.
I really don't care about the Obama thing one way or the other. The topic is about Palin.
Probably better that words should mean what they really do mean instead of what one group of people believe they are "meant" to mean. The word origin actually comes from a word that meant "male" and eventually evolved into something that meant "lover". Nothing in the etymology hints at being of opposite genders.
Yeah I caught it after I posted :p I type too quickly for my own good sometimes. I really should use the Preview more often.
The blame probably goes much further back to something like IRC. Although that probably attracted a more intelligent crowd - perhaps blame AOL. Usually a safe move.
According to the actual court document: " KNOWN writings used for comparison were various email writings of Mr. Zuckerbergexchanged with the Plaintiff and related parties during the time period as specified in the Amended Complaint, which totaled 35 emails
Perhaps they are referring to Frank Zappa's album called "Apostrophes (')"?
She had the right words in completely the wrong order. This doesn't really make her any part right. I find it hard to believe that somebody whose job involves a good deal of public speaking could be that bad at actually forming sentences in the right order.
After so many ridiculous ad-hominem attacks responding to me it's nice to see that there is at least one intelligent poster on this site still. You are 100% right - perception is everything.
Yeah for some reason the copy and pasting went to crap.
And I may not know more about history than the Ph.D. but obviously I can analyze things more independently and reasonably than he can. I am not a Democrat. I am a registered independent. I believe both sides are filled with idiots but right now the Republicans have the lead.
You cannot change what she said - she said that Paul Revere was shooting guns and ringing bells. That is not what happened. End of story.
This is not the 50's. We judge people by the things they say - not their gender. Hillary Clinton is a democrat and I despise her. If she had gotten the nomination I probably would have voted for some third party.
How do you figure that the economy is on Obama's back? What type of revisionist history do you need to believe in to think that the recession that started long before he took office was his fault? He's inherited a mess and done everything he can to get it even inching back up.
Nice selective editing just like the conservative blogger. This is what she said:
âoewarned the British that they werenâ(TM)t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as heâ(TM)s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.â
That just didn't happen. He didn't ring any bells, he didn't shoot any guns, and the purpose of the ride was not to warn the British. In the process of warning the militia he was captured and gave an inflated count to the British as a warning.
So basically you are proving how wrong she was then. Nowhere in there is he riding to warn the British by shooting guns and ringing bells. He was off to warn the militia and got caught.
You must live in Kansas if you believe any of that.
That article is about conservative apologists trying to backfit what she said into history. Paul Revere didn't fire gunshots and ring bells on his horse ride - that happened AFTER he was captured and gave inflated numbers to the British. His ride wasn't about warning the British - that was an unintentional side effect of getting capture. He rode to warn the militia and ultimately get to John Hancock and Sam Adams.
Even the experts in that article don't really back her up - they says she basically lucky that some part of the store could be backfitted to match what she said.
To be fair, I don't believe she is as dumb as she appears. I think she intentionally puts on that stupid accent and plays dumb to win over the fly-over states.
That's exactly my point. There is a ton of information publicly available that I didn't directly put there myself.