Two reasons: One is that abuse on that level deserves walking out on as well as a damned fine finger flip at the stupidity it represents as demonstrated by the articles about what went on. Two is - I just really can't stand "reality" shows with their fabricated hate sessions, created and shoved into production by douches like that guy. I honestly feel that those who go along and make them have some dire moral shortcomings - you know, Bridzillas.
You understand that a juxtaposition of two letters (otherwise known as a typo) indicates neither an inability to spell or a negation of potion. Just that the reader is a pedant.
If it takes fabricated bullshit to try to support your position (and then an outright rejection of free speech), you've pretty much shown you don't really have one.
Ah yes, you and he expressing that noted trait of liberals, acceptance of differing opinions. Neither of you made any effort at all to counter the doubts, just cast aspersions.
The con man *always* says the other guy's stuff is crap. How's that easy access going for people with OC? Hospital access? Doctor access? Not, is the answer. Replacing presumed junk with actual empirical junk.
These should be considered counterfeit. True, they are probably good bitcoins in the accuracy department, but by no stretch of the imagination could they be considered legitimately mined. Is there a mechanism built into the bitcoin structure that allows for this and voids the coins?
Actually, the people in those countries are first hand experienced in the thuggery of the UN. The prosecution of child traffickers in their ranks is about nill. It's their leaders getting kickbacks.
"There are no real scientists poking the holes you are talking about."
Oh bullshit. There are numerous "real" scientists doing so. Note: I was honest enough to put the scare quotes you left off of real (proving his point splendidly). A recent one was from IPCC itself. Just bullshit.
You do understand that you're not the gatekeeper to any nuance that may or may not be used by others during conversation, right? You're simply promoting your specific, narrowed definition of words as being the correct ones. The artist doesn't "suffer"? Ask Michelangelo that. Or perhaps you could have had an in depth conversation about it with van Gogh, if you could have pulled him out of the mental anguishes which fueled his art. Or maybe Poe. Poe was a little more linguistically oriented.
And yours is a good example of shortsighted snark. $1500 to try to punch someone for an apparatus that *you* signed the sales receipt for? It won't work out like you dream it will.
The introduction of the later crap -- PvE-only areas,
Actually, a lot of people *like* to enjoy the universe of their choosing without some douche who's spent half a lifetime grinding up to maximum constantly coming around and squashing players they're not involved with just to screw with them. Halo isn't for everyone. I prefer the games where you can flip PvP on and off.
If your friend is pricing his ebook the same as a paper book (his decision alone), he's doing it wrong. You also neglect details. Who's doing the actual publishing, putting the ink to paper? They naturally exert expense and delay.
As for your first paragraph, it's simply bias on your part and not at all supported by fact. If they "resist innovation" please tell me how the whole ebook thing took off? It wasn't the indies that spurred it.
Not sure what you mean by "push an author". They may entice an author, but there's not one thing they can do to to "push" an author in any direction except the enticements the publisher (e or otherwise) can offer.
Two times now. I do believe you're misrepresenting the regulation. Please provide a link to the law so we can read it ourselves. I was around then and I sure don't recall every opinion piece being mirrored with an adversary. And yes, hyper politics has existed since politics. It ain't new, it's just Internet driven now. Used to be called yellow journalism way back then.
Slashdot Mirror
Two reasons: One is that abuse on that level deserves walking out on as well as a damned fine finger flip at the stupidity it represents as demonstrated by the articles about what went on. Two is - I just really can't stand "reality" shows with their fabricated hate sessions, created and shoved into production by douches like that guy. I honestly feel that those who go along and make them have some dire moral shortcomings - you know, Bridzillas.
You understand that a juxtaposition of two letters (otherwise known as a typo) indicates neither an inability to spell or a negation of potion. Just that the reader is a pedant.
Opposing the pro-gay crowd's intolerance is tolerance then as well and there's plenty of it.
If it takes fabricated bullshit to try to support your position (and then an outright rejection of free speech), you've pretty much shown you don't really have one.
Explain - and please be precise - how this issue has impacted your nose, other than you yourself disjointing it.
Along with over half the population of voters. I do believe your definition of asshole is someone who doesn't believe as you do.
Ah yes, you and he expressing that noted trait of liberals, acceptance of differing opinions. Neither of you made any effort at all to counter the doubts, just cast aspersions.
The con man *always* says the other guy's stuff is crap. How's that easy access going for people with OC? Hospital access? Doctor access? Not, is the answer. Replacing presumed junk with actual empirical junk.
These should be considered counterfeit. True, they are probably good bitcoins in the accuracy department, but by no stretch of the imagination could they be considered legitimately mined. Is there a mechanism built into the bitcoin structure that allows for this and voids the coins?
Pointing out someone has no support for their argument is not ad hominem. What *you* did was an indirect form, however.
And there are invalid reasons for doing so and you have no idea which reasons they used.
Actually, the people in those countries are first hand experienced in the thuggery of the UN. The prosecution of child traffickers in their ranks is about nill. It's their leaders getting kickbacks.
And your response to a well reasoned post was exactly the pomposity and venom described as a losing tactic. Priceless.
"There are no real scientists poking the holes you are talking about."
Oh bullshit. There are numerous "real" scientists doing so. Note: I was honest enough to put the scare quotes you left off of real (proving his point splendidly). A recent one was from IPCC itself. Just bullshit.
You do understand that you're not the gatekeeper to any nuance that may or may not be used by others during conversation, right? You're simply promoting your specific, narrowed definition of words as being the correct ones. The artist doesn't "suffer"? Ask Michelangelo that. Or perhaps you could have had an in depth conversation about it with van Gogh, if you could have pulled him out of the mental anguishes which fueled his art. Or maybe Poe. Poe was a little more linguistically oriented.
And yours is a good example of shortsighted snark. $1500 to try to punch someone for an apparatus that *you* signed the sales receipt for? It won't work out like you dream it will.
Good luck proving your bitcoins. Even with storage facilities you have to have some form of value proof.
The introduction of the later crap -- PvE-only areas,
Actually, a lot of people *like* to enjoy the universe of their choosing without some douche who's spent half a lifetime grinding up to maximum constantly coming around and squashing players they're not involved with just to screw with them. Halo isn't for everyone. I prefer the games where you can flip PvP on and off.
Or will the FB infusion dilute it so much they're just screwed? If the latter, who could blame people for avoiding contributing in the future?
An appeal goes to a higher court. IOW, a different judge.
If your friend is pricing his ebook the same as a paper book (his decision alone), he's doing it wrong. You also neglect details. Who's doing the actual publishing, putting the ink to paper? They naturally exert expense and delay.
As for your first paragraph, it's simply bias on your part and not at all supported by fact. If they "resist innovation" please tell me how the whole ebook thing took off? It wasn't the indies that spurred it.
Not sure what you mean by "push an author". They may entice an author, but there's not one thing they can do to to "push" an author in any direction except the enticements the publisher (e or otherwise) can offer.
Two times now. I do believe you're misrepresenting the regulation. Please provide a link to the law so we can read it ourselves. I was around then and I sure don't recall every opinion piece being mirrored with an adversary. And yes, hyper politics has existed since politics. It ain't new, it's just Internet driven now. Used to be called yellow journalism way back then.
I'd hate to be in a world where people with a troll mentality could use their freedoms to render whole segments of society unusable.
Hopefully, you're not planning on attending college soon.
Two things give you away: 'lolbertarian' and the fact that you are unaware Google censures its results.