In what way? What agreement are they speaking of? How do we know they were not negotiating some other contract at the time?
Pursue to many people in English is something forward looking not backwards looking.
Again, it is not clear that she wants to stop the current contract. they may be wanting to do another deal, with another agreement. You dont know, you are making logical leaps that require way more evidence than in those emails.
Dude, You are the one being dense. What I stated came DIRECTLY from exhibit C. The proof is on them to prove that it was clear to medianet that that is what they meant. At best it is ambiguous.
The client has advised that we do not want to pursue an agreement with MusicNet at this time
That is in no way a clear termination of an existing agreement.
Did you actually read exhibit C?
I did, and it does not say they would like to terminate, it says
From musicNet : Hope youre well...
Its been a while since we last spoke, but I wanted to circle back on the licensing of the Aimee Mann catalog.
Are you till overseeing that iniiative, and if not could you please direct me to whoever might be.
From Leslie Wallake : I still have a handle and ill put the file to see where we left off. It may be that the client does not want legal time spent on this if too little money involved. Was Music net offering an advance of any kind
Music net: no advance..benefits..kiss butt no advance
Leslie : The client has advised that we do not want to pursue an agreement with MusicNet at this time
Please point out the termination...
No where does it say it would like to cancel the previous agreement (which is required by the contract). You can say that was their intent, but that is not what they did.
That depends if it was a perpetual self renewing contract, or if it is a 1 time self renewing contract. You have not pointed out where it is perpetual.
There is difference between "There is a link" (You) and "Could Be Risk Factors " (your article)
From the article you are more likely to have autism, by a large margin than to have "the fevor" and even then there is a much much much smaller chance to have both, does not sound like much of a link to me.
When you ask "So you can't really say 100% that this isn't a factor? " you are asking the doctor to do the impossible. You can never say 100% to the negative, but that does not mean that it is true.
There is a link between the fever that kids get as a result of the immunization that can cause autistic spectrum disorder due to an underlying mitochondrial disorder, but this only happens in less than.01% of the time.
Citation please. You seem to be stating a fact without any sort of substantiation.
So out of the entirety of the statement the only thing you can harp on is that there is a missing n in ownership... I am sorry but I dont think I am the one who looks dumb.
Always nice when a conservative tries to bring race, and ignores the argument all together. The argument is not about police using riot gear when needed. It is about them feeling it gives them a pass to be violent themselves because they are better protected.
None of your statements justify a 20 man swat team, with riot gear and fully auto weapons, flash granades and the like. In addition there are TONS of ex-military who dont use weapons.
You are making several false assumptions.
Appropreate force for the crime. Growing a couple pot plants does not warrent full swat team.
"You suggest that the police were wrong for coming in with a gun?"
Strawman, no one is claiming cops come to a house unarmed, but they dont need a swat team in 99% of the cases they use them.
"I find this whole subject silly in that we are making out police to be the evil" Some police are evil, no one is making them all to be evil, no one is even making out the vast majority of them to be evil. But some ARE evil.
"Where in the world do the police go around with no guns?" Define your statement a little better, no guns as in any cops dont carry? If that is the case then easy, last I checked UK has beat cops that cary sticks instead of guns. In any case you have us on a red herring. No one is claiming cops should not cary guns, but they should not have a team of 20, in full riot gear, with fully auto machine guns, knocking on the door to serve summons and warrents to non violent offenders.
Slashdot Mirror
If you bought a house for the delivery service I think there are bigger problems at work here.
Not everywhere. Here in NC it happens sometimes in really rural areas, but not typically in populated ones.
In what way? What agreement are they speaking of? How do we know they were not negotiating some other contract at the time? Pursue to many people in English is something forward looking not backwards looking.
Maybe it is clear in legalize, but it is not clear in basic English.
The client has advised that we do not want to pursue an agreement with MusicNet at this time
Well if you look at the "termination letter" it is not very clear they want to terminate.
No, it is correct, the terms of the deal, state it it perpetually renews.
Again, it is not clear that she wants to stop the current contract. they may be wanting to do another deal, with another agreement. You dont know, you are making logical leaps that require way more evidence than in those emails.
The client has advised that we do not want to pursue an agreement with MusicNet at this time
That is in no way a clear termination of an existing agreement.
From musicNet : Hope youre well...
Its been a while since we last spoke, but I wanted to circle back on the licensing of the Aimee Mann catalog. Are you till overseeing that iniiative, and if not could you please direct me to whoever might be.
From Leslie Wallake : I still have a handle and ill put the file to see where we left off. It may be that the client does not want legal time spent on this if too little money involved. Was Music net offering an advance of any kind
Music net: no advance..benefits..kiss butt no advance
Leslie : The client has advised that we do not want to pursue an agreement with MusicNet at this time
Please point out the termination...
No where does it say it would like to cancel the previous agreement (which is required by the contract). You can say that was their intent, but that is not what they did.
That exchange does not say she wanted to cancel the contract, but that she did not want to pursue something unless more money was involved.
That depends if it was a perpetual self renewing contract, or if it is a 1 time self renewing contract. You have not pointed out where it is perpetual.
First you are not proving your "above average IQ"
There is difference between "There is a link" (You) and "Could Be Risk Factors " (your article)
From the article you are more likely to have autism, by a large margin than to have "the fevor" and even then there is a much much much smaller chance to have both, does not sound like much of a link to me.
There is a link between the fever that kids get as a result of the immunization that can cause autistic spectrum disorder due to an underlying mitochondrial disorder, but this only happens in less than .01% of the time.
Citation please. You seem to be stating a fact without any sort of substantiation.
Read beyond the first sentence of his post.
Which part, the part where they need to get a warrant or have probable cause, which is apparently the unwillingness to open the door now?
So out of the entirety of the statement the only thing you can harp on is that there is a missing n in ownership... I am sorry but I dont think I am the one who looks dumb.
Again, ownership, as in the number of families who own them, not the number that a person may have.
Owership, as in the number of families who own guns, not the number of guns per capita: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/03/chart-day-gun-ownership-30-year-decline
Always nice when a conservative tries to bring race, and ignores the argument all together. The argument is not about police using riot gear when needed. It is about them feeling it gives them a pass to be violent themselves because they are better protected.
So helping a country declare independence is imperialistic?
None of your statements justify a 20 man swat team, with riot gear and fully auto weapons, flash granades and the like. In addition there are TONS of ex-military who dont use weapons.
How you define people they save? How do you estimate things like criminals who dont attack you because they know you own a gun?
There are lots of things not in the constitution, that are still constitutionally protected rights.
Strawman, no one is claiming cops come to a house unarmed, but they dont need a swat team in 99% of the cases they use them.
"I find this whole subject silly in that we are making out police to be the evil" Some police are evil, no one is making them all to be evil, no one is even making out the vast majority of them to be evil. But some ARE evil.
"Where in the world do the police go around with no guns?" Define your statement a little better, no guns as in any cops dont carry? If that is the case then easy, last I checked UK has beat cops that cary sticks instead of guns. In any case you have us on a red herring. No one is claiming cops should not cary guns, but they should not have a team of 20, in full riot gear, with fully auto machine guns, knocking on the door to serve summons and warrents to non violent offenders.