As my ex father in law, a Professor Emeritus in theology used to say, "If all the splinters of the cross were assembled, the cross would have been too big to drag through the streets." As you said, forgers were plentiful and good at their craft. Usually it was just wood chunks and chicken bones, but this one was exemplary.
No it doesn't, that's just rationalization. Restaurants (successful, anyway) are *very* good at managing product waste. There's very little waste from a buffet.
Unless you mean "those seeking to enter", then this is yet another call on an "industry" to solve the problems of individuals. Notch can't deal -- Notch's problem, mot "the industry's".
1) I've never had Amazon sit on an order for a week without a notice that the item wasn't in stock.
2) I just went to Amazon and ran a test. The shipping price is *not* built into the item price. I ordered one, the two comupter mice. Same mouse each time. The shipping was $8.29 and $8.49. So your statement is demonstrably false.
Ah, purposefully switching "chooses" from purchaser to seller. Of *course* the seller chooses their price. *All* of the competing vendors do. Then the customer chooses the price they like for the goods they'll receive.
If you're going to imply someone's shallow, don't be so shallow yourself.
The immediate feedback is the button push and knowledge you ordered the laundry soap. Also, there's no *MAYBE*, the purchase is sent and the soap will arrive later. (Most people don't wait for the empty box to get more soap and so don't need it to materialize on the spot, they put it on a list and get it later. Much the same logic as the button.)
The problem with the complainers is they act as if their complaints must be taken as fact, not opinion and hurt feelings.
Complain all you want, but if you generally receive that little finger wave brush-off, you might reevaluate the need for publicly airing your personal opinion as if the other party were an actual villain.
First, I attributed the first definition, so you're simply FUDding by implying it's mine. Go bark up a real tree.
Second, I was pointing out that the promoted definition of militia was too narrow and so the subsequent argument against the public obtaining arms is flawed.
Third... Well hell, I at least brought in a definition. How's this? You grab the legal definition and post it.
No, not constant fear, constant vigilance. Other people cannot be trusted without qualm. ISIS doesn't give a rat's ass what you want civilization to look like. Neither does the street thug.
Have you really had such radically different experiences?
I certainly have. I've worked in numerous cities and I have never once come across the atmosphere you describe. I have met and been friends with a number of officers and none of them match that description.
Your description of "every last" cop is so antithetical to my experience (and blatantly biased) that I have to assume that you're the common denominator, not the police.
So you want to give the police the authority to morally judge someone's state of mind prior to any illegal actions and then "guide" them (with the authority of law), even though they are currently breaking no laws?
Piss off to that.
"Peace Officer implies their duty is to prevent those laws from being broken in the first place."
That is not and has never been the implication other than by their simple presence doing so. Please provide some support for your supposition.
Slashdot Mirror
As my ex father in law, a Professor Emeritus in theology used to say, "If all the splinters of the cross were assembled, the cross would have been too big to drag through the streets." As you said, forgers were plentiful and good at their craft. Usually it was just wood chunks and chicken bones, but this one was exemplary.
No it doesn't, that's just rationalization. Restaurants (successful, anyway) are *very* good at managing product waste. There's very little waste from a buffet.
Mud hurled by someone without the balls to use their own ID.
Unless you mean "those seeking to enter", then this is yet another call on an "industry" to solve the problems of individuals. Notch can't deal -- Notch's problem, mot "the industry's".
I seriously do not understand what you mean. Buy a square screen monitor.
An actual, out-loud laugh. Thank you.
You sir or ma'am have not been around horse shit. Just an FYI, cattle crap stinks too.
I missed the bulletin were you were appointed laughter arbiter.
I think you have your pronouns confused. You meant to use "I" but mistakenly used "you".
1) I've never had Amazon sit on an order for a week without a notice that the item wasn't in stock.
2) I just went to Amazon and ran a test. The shipping price is *not* built into the item price. I ordered one, the two comupter mice. Same mouse each time. The shipping was $8.29 and $8.49. So your statement is demonstrably false.
They're new, so they're novel. They'll mature.
Ah, purposefully switching "chooses" from purchaser to seller. Of *course* the seller chooses their price. *All* of the competing vendors do. Then the customer chooses the price they like for the goods they'll receive.
If you're going to imply someone's shallow, don't be so shallow yourself.
Now figure in the bulk storage of the cold restock items and how to get them to the shopping shelves. You've got half a clue and half an argument.
"My marketing team" -- right AC, right.
The immediate feedback is the button push and knowledge you ordered the laundry soap. Also, there's no *MAYBE*, the purchase is sent and the soap will arrive later. (Most people don't wait for the empty box to get more soap and so don't need it to materialize on the spot, they put it on a list and get it later. Much the same logic as the button.)
I think it will catch on somewhat.
The problem with the complainers is they act as if their complaints must be taken as fact, not opinion and hurt feelings.
Complain all you want, but if you generally receive that little finger wave brush-off, you might reevaluate the need for publicly airing your personal opinion as if the other party were an actual villain.
So, you lied to him to win your argument. Labeling most certainly is in the interest of the producer because it's an interest of the consumer.
Another piece of bogosity. This is definitely *not* the only alternative available.
Your friend missed two fallacies in your #2 "gotcha" query.
If the practice doesn't influence all the other companies to use the same practice, what's the deal?
Figured I'd just use a hypothetical question since one appears to by your entire argument as well.
Oh please.
First, I attributed the first definition, so you're simply FUDding by implying it's mine. Go bark up a real tree.
Second, I was pointing out that the promoted definition of militia was too narrow and so the subsequent argument against the public obtaining arms is flawed.
Third... Well hell, I at least brought in a definition. How's this? You grab the legal definition and post it.
No, not constant fear, constant vigilance. Other people cannot be trusted without qualm. ISIS doesn't give a rat's ass what you want civilization to look like. Neither does the street thug.
Maybe not law but we have a number of dead military personal gunned down in their offices to demonstrate our military will indeed disarm their troops.
I'll presume to correct your statement to mean "any sane government".
Merriam-Webster:
militia: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.
Considering we don't want to discriminate against women, that means the entire able-bodied population.
This leaves "well regulated". The laws regulating firearm ownership pretty much have that covered.
I certainly have. I've worked in numerous cities and I have never once come across the atmosphere you describe. I have met and been friends with a number of officers and none of them match that description.
Your description of "every last" cop is so antithetical to my experience (and blatantly biased) that I have to assume that you're the common denominator, not the police.
Not a crime. What's your point?
So you want to give the police the authority to morally judge someone's state of mind prior to any illegal actions and then "guide" them (with the authority of law), even though they are currently breaking no laws?
Piss off to that.
"Peace Officer implies their duty is to prevent those laws from being broken in the first place."
That is not and has never been the implication other than by their simple presence doing so. Please provide some support for your supposition.