1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
That, by the way, is the consensus of the definition of the term. So, it don't matter squat what a million people agree to -- if there is no evidence, there's no proof.
Nothing in the post indicated an American, except maybe heck. Then it's signed off, cheers, which is more English. Faces and licenses are blurred at times over here as well. Biased much?
Sounds to me like you're one of the underwear kids in his mom's basement. About as much logic in that assumption as yours. No, more, as you quite obviously haven't had to deal with raising, caring for and instructing kids.
Yes, the New York Times. That wonderfully unbiased and truth-laden paper. You know, the one that has been proven to fabricate interviews with people they haven't ever talked to and blatantly supports Obama.
You understand that the "classic experiment" is bullshit, right? It's not as if the subjects weren't aware it was an experiment and when they were offered a dollar they believed it was a real bribe or they were consigning someone to an actual job. Jeez, psych is such a lame arena.
All of this hinges on the certainty of a sect of scientists that assumes the red shifting we presume is caused by recession is not caused by something else.
"and McCain who admits he barely even knows how to turn his computer on."
You mean the guy who chaired the Science and Technology Committee and whose previous campaigns first used the internet for self-promotion? That guy?
He knows how to use the computer, dumbass, his injuries from the VN war prevent him from using it with any speed. He admits to not using it, not to not knowing how to use it. Again, dumbass.
"It's being talked about" is a phrase coined by advertising agencies to explain away the crap they have sold. Making an ad that people find annoying may get the product on their minds, but it will be in the context of annoyance. The agencies didn't care for that last part, so omitted it from the phrase.
"Once tone is established", people will tune out subsequent ads. Not successful at all.
"Wait for the next few". Uh, no. The only ad campaign successful with that was Maxwell house. Why? It was pleasant and the storyline was understood in the very first commercial.
"You can mistreat a dog and it will change its behavior so that it *can* attack your family."
Same thing with Christians. And?
"If they did animals wouldn't attack humans."
Horseshit. It's called hunting. We do it, they do it.
"Oh, by the way, stop confusing instincts with morals."
First, you come up with an agreed upon definition of the set of morals. These must encompass all cultures, as religion, much less Christianity, has no hold on same. You confuse instincts with learned behavior, by the way.
"Please stay on topic."
Agreed. He had no more business implying what you were taught than you did implying I believe I can do anything I want at any time. It's a bogus assumption.
By the way, the topic was Sarah Palin's Stance On Technology Issues, not whether people who are non-religious have morals.
Slashdot Mirror
Webster's
2. to look into closely; scrutinize; examine: Let us explore the possibilities for improvement.
Get a damn dictionary.
"I bet it means even less to all of us in America where every major data center has a secret room where the government sniffs our packets."
And, since you're willing to make an outright lie such as that, your opinion means what?
Nice assertion. Which ones?
you can browse the bookmarks of others who have "done the thinking" for you.
Unless you find that thought itself rather off-putting.
but it means giving up any kind of privacy
Yet another strike.
No. You are selling something you purchased (presumably). Not the same at all. If you make copies and sell those, yes.
Webster's
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
That, by the way, is the consensus of the definition of the term. So, it don't matter squat what a million people agree to -- if there is no evidence, there's no proof.
I don't care what Jason is fried on, getting high is not the answer.
How the hell Elbot fooled anyone is beyond me. It went off topic and rambling withing three sentences.
Nothing in the post indicated an American, except maybe heck. Then it's signed off, cheers, which is more English. Faces and licenses are blurred at times over here as well. Biased much?
Then you wouldn't enable the blocking. How hard was that?
'The most offensive thing I've ever seen was that they made 9/11 a holiday, and called it "Patriot Day".'
You are way too easily offended about the wrong things.
"far far more damaging than any sex or violence you could possibly show to any kid"
goatse, tub girl, two girls and a cup, any number of rape and sadism videos -- You sir, are a moron.
Sounds to me like you're one of the underwear kids in his mom's basement. About as much logic in that assumption as yours. No, more, as you quite obviously haven't had to deal with raising, caring for and instructing kids.
"he can demonstrate that an artist doesn't need the corporate engine"
After succeeding and making a butt-load of money using that engine.
A better test would be to follow a new artist doing the same thing and see if they become as successful.
Your address would be?
"That so many people are breaking this law points to the fact that it is unjust."
You mean like running a red light or cheating on taxes? What crap logic.
"Should they have lined up all those that drank a beer and shot them and took their homes?"
That extreme hyperbole shows you don't even really believe your hype.
Yes, and some say the tower fell from planted explosions. What's your point?
I know. Doesn't it piss you off the Clintons are still trying to control things?
"It really comes down to who you believe, if either."
Hmmm. New York Times or someone else. I'd chose almost anyone else.
Yes, the New York Times. That wonderfully unbiased and truth-laden paper. You know, the one that has been proven to fabricate interviews with people they haven't ever talked to and blatantly supports Obama.
You understand that the "classic experiment" is bullshit, right? It's not as if the subjects weren't aware it was an experiment and when they were offered a dollar they believed it was a real bribe or they were consigning someone to an actual job. Jeez, psych is such a lame arena.
All of this hinges on the certainty of a sect of scientists that assumes the red shifting we presume is caused by recession is not caused by something else.
Oops yourself -- Webster's Unabridged
[1885â"90, Amer.; back formation from GYPSY]
"and McCain who admits he barely even knows how to turn his computer on."
You mean the guy who chaired the Science and Technology Committee and whose previous campaigns first used the internet for self-promotion? That guy?
He knows how to use the computer, dumbass, his injuries from the VN war prevent him from using it with any speed. He admits to not using it, not to not knowing how to use it. Again, dumbass.
Precious. Vitriol toward Palin is "insightful" while vitriol toward Obama is "troll". Slashdot at its heart.
"It's being talked about" is a phrase coined by advertising agencies to explain away the crap they have sold. Making an ad that people find annoying may get the product on their minds, but it will be in the context of annoyance. The agencies didn't care for that last part, so omitted it from the phrase.
"Once tone is established", people will tune out subsequent ads. Not successful at all.
"Wait for the next few". Uh, no. The only ad campaign successful with that was Maxwell house. Why? It was pleasant and the storyline was understood in the very first commercial.
Ads ain't literature or play, they're ads.
"You can mistreat a dog and it will change its behavior so that it *can* attack your family."
Same thing with Christians. And?
"If they did animals wouldn't attack humans."
Horseshit. It's called hunting. We do it, they do it.
"Oh, by the way, stop confusing instincts with morals."
First, you come up with an agreed upon definition of the set of morals. These must encompass all cultures, as religion, much less Christianity, has no hold on same. You confuse instincts with learned behavior, by the way.
"Please stay on topic."
Agreed. He had no more business implying what you were taught than you did implying I believe I can do anything I want at any time. It's a bogus assumption.
By the way, the topic was Sarah Palin's Stance On Technology Issues, not whether people who are non-religious have morals.