Then make the substitution, and re-read the statement. I was using the words that they used to describe themselves. I'm not sure how that's racist when that's how I was asked to call them.
Past your complaints on my word selection, what is your assessment of the situation?
The terms may still be there, but enforced more loosely than in the US. In the US, they are enforced strictly. That's why I mentioned it as "read the agreement" not "seen someone claiming it".
If you want to be fair, then all the parents of the public schools should have to pay tuition to the Charter/Private schools since the parents of those students continue to pay property taxes for the public schools.
And those without children between 5 and 18 shouldn't pay taxes at all? That'll break the concept of public school. The school is a public service, not a pay-per-use service. Might as well abolish the taxes that pay for it and have the children pay $100 per day, or whatever it is, paid the days they attend. Though that doesn't sound like something that would do well at the polls.
I've not read a merchant agreement in the UK, but in the US, the standard form requires same pricing between credit and cash, and no minimum spend. Violate that, and they can take away your CC agreement. And they do take complaints very seriously.
So, for a 5% loss, why wouldn't someone open up the same shop next door as "no credit" and cut prices 5%? People here have talked about how "every" store takes cards but the dollar stores near me don't. It may be different where you are, or maybe the elitists that respond so far about how there exist no stores that don't take credit cards refuse to set foot in a dollar store, even for research.
That's why education fails. We spend so much time on "how to educate 'children'" we forget that there is no "children". Every child is unique, and applying one standard to all will "punish" any who don't think like the others. Though we try to fix that with segregation, but that only goes so far (gifted programs for the "top" 15% and special ed for the bottom 15%).
It's not about me. I never once said I'm annoyed by texters. You are reading way too much into what I say. Try responding to what I write, not what you think I was thinking when I wrote it. You aren't smart enough to figure that out.
Both apply to the Zimmerman/Martin incident. He didn't need to take his gun with him to "look at a street sign" and he followed a "suspicious" person until there was an altercation, without ever retreating, even after reporting the person as suspicious to the police.
I figured someone would complain about "the Blacks" but how else would you describe the groups that protested the Zimmerman/Martin incident?
It looks to me like it'll come down to "black kid shot = acquittal, white adult shot = conviction" The race situation in the US is fragile. Since you flatly indicate he'd going to rot in jail, how would you compare two guys in a fight in a theater, one ending up shot, to one guy "stalking" another with a gun, getting into a fight and one ending up shot?
Incidents like this may be looked upon as isolated in court, but not in the public view. So, how do you compare it?
The man was being held back by his wife, and was assaulting the shooter at the time. In a heated situation, it's not unreasonable to believe that the shooter feared the assault in progress would progress to the next level, after which, he might not be able to defend himself, as he was an old man facing a younger ex-military man who had demonstrated violent tendencies.
If they could lower their prices, or charge two prices, why don't they? Oh, because the value of the card exceeds the cost of them. The are a "good" thing, compared to cash. More secure, easier to handle.
I've taken more tests than most. I may not be "normal" but I know what I know, so when I know I don't know any more, there's not much point in continuing, though that mostly applies to multiple choice tests.
It is assault (for throwing it) and battery (for hitting him). It is assault. That it is also battery doesn't cancel the assault. Your legal definition is using an exclusivity that the law doesn't actually use. All battery is assault. There is no "move on" to battery, but "also includes" battery.
So start a business that doesn't take a credit card and passes the 85% savings on to the consumer, and you'll have people lining up to buy from you. Oh, the problem is all the liars inflating the level of rent seeking from the credit industry, and that the convenience is worth the price charged.
The cost isn't hidden. I pay the same as cash. If you, as a cash buyer, don't like it, don't shop somewhere that takes credit cards. You have free choice. The fact that you are too spineless to exercise your "freedom" just shows you are a hypocrite.
I lose no freedom using a card. The "company" handling my CC transaction is the same that would handle my cash-equivelent debit card. The banking system is broken, but I'd be stupid to not use the programs to my best advantage.
The shooter left the argument, returned after the arguement ended, and the texter started a new argument about whether the shooter tattled on him. The texter assaulted the shooter, and was being held back by his wife, or he'd have (presumably) assaulted the shooter further. The shooter, in fear of a (possibly lethal) assault, defended himself.
Had the theater manager returned with the shooter, this wouldn't have happened. I hope the theater is sued for billions.
Slashdot Mirror
So, I have to pay to see if it works? And people wonder why Open Source doesn't take off...
I did 5 years ago. Worked out great for me.
Then make the substitution, and re-read the statement. I was using the words that they used to describe themselves. I'm not sure how that's racist when that's how I was asked to call them.
Past your complaints on my word selection, what is your assessment of the situation?
The terms may still be there, but enforced more loosely than in the US. In the US, they are enforced strictly. That's why I mentioned it as "read the agreement" not "seen someone claiming it".
Battery may include the elements of assault, but if you are convicted of battery, you cannot be convicted of assault on the same actions.
Perhaps it's pedants like you, but the charge is often "assault and battery" so you move from assault to assault with battery.
How can you batter someone without assaulting them?
If you want to be fair, then all the parents of the public schools should have to pay tuition to the Charter/Private schools since the parents of those students continue to pay property taxes for the public schools.
And those without children between 5 and 18 shouldn't pay taxes at all? That'll break the concept of public school. The school is a public service, not a pay-per-use service. Might as well abolish the taxes that pay for it and have the children pay $100 per day, or whatever it is, paid the days they attend. Though that doesn't sound like something that would do well at the polls.
I wouldn't trust a CODEC I can't even find a MOS for (yeah, I found some independent tests, but they varied wildly).
I've not read a merchant agreement in the UK, but in the US, the standard form requires same pricing between credit and cash, and no minimum spend. Violate that, and they can take away your CC agreement. And they do take complaints very seriously.
So, for a 5% loss, why wouldn't someone open up the same shop next door as "no credit" and cut prices 5%? People here have talked about how "every" store takes cards but the dollar stores near me don't. It may be different where you are, or maybe the elitists that respond so far about how there exist no stores that don't take credit cards refuse to set foot in a dollar store, even for research.
That's why education fails. We spend so much time on "how to educate 'children'" we forget that there is no "children". Every child is unique, and applying one standard to all will "punish" any who don't think like the others. Though we try to fix that with segregation, but that only goes so far (gifted programs for the "top" 15% and special ed for the bottom 15%).
It's not about me. I never once said I'm annoyed by texters. You are reading way too much into what I say. Try responding to what I write, not what you think I was thinking when I wrote it. You aren't smart enough to figure that out.
Both apply to the Zimmerman/Martin incident. He didn't need to take his gun with him to "look at a street sign" and he followed a "suspicious" person until there was an altercation, without ever retreating, even after reporting the person as suspicious to the police.
I figured someone would complain about "the Blacks" but how else would you describe the groups that protested the Zimmerman/Martin incident?
It looks to me like it'll come down to "black kid shot = acquittal, white adult shot = conviction" The race situation in the US is fragile. Since you flatly indicate he'd going to rot in jail, how would you compare two guys in a fight in a theater, one ending up shot, to one guy "stalking" another with a gun, getting into a fight and one ending up shot?
Incidents like this may be looked upon as isolated in court, but not in the public view. So, how do you compare it?
The man was being held back by his wife, and was assaulting the shooter at the time. In a heated situation, it's not unreasonable to believe that the shooter feared the assault in progress would progress to the next level, after which, he might not be able to defend himself, as he was an old man facing a younger ex-military man who had demonstrated violent tendencies.
If they could lower their prices, or charge two prices, why don't they? Oh, because the value of the card exceeds the cost of them. The are a "good" thing, compared to cash. More secure, easier to handle.
I've taken more tests than most. I may not be "normal" but I know what I know, so when I know I don't know any more, there's not much point in continuing, though that mostly applies to multiple choice tests.
It is assault (for throwing it) and battery (for hitting him). It is assault. That it is also battery doesn't cancel the assault. Your legal definition is using an exclusivity that the law doesn't actually use. All battery is assault. There is no "move on" to battery, but "also includes" battery.
So he knows them, but recalls them slowly? I'd still consider that knowing them.
So start a business that doesn't take a credit card and passes the 85% savings on to the consumer, and you'll have people lining up to buy from you. Oh, the problem is all the liars inflating the level of rent seeking from the credit industry, and that the convenience is worth the price charged.
If you are using cash, you are paying for it as well. So why not use the card?
If there is physical contact, it is NOT assault.
If there is physical contact, it is NOT assault? Then what is assault?
The cost isn't hidden. I pay the same as cash. If you, as a cash buyer, don't like it, don't shop somewhere that takes credit cards. You have free choice. The fact that you are too spineless to exercise your "freedom" just shows you are a hypocrite.
Throwing popcorn is NOT assault,
Striking someone with something is assault, even if the item is feathers or popcorn.
I lose no freedom using a card. The "company" handling my CC transaction is the same that would handle my cash-equivelent debit card. The banking system is broken, but I'd be stupid to not use the programs to my best advantage.
So, I pay cash and pay 1% more than if I'd used the card. And that's good for me, how?
The shooter left the argument, returned after the arguement ended, and the texter started a new argument about whether the shooter tattled on him. The texter assaulted the shooter, and was being held back by his wife, or he'd have (presumably) assaulted the shooter further. The shooter, in fear of a (possibly lethal) assault, defended himself.
Had the theater manager returned with the shooter, this wouldn't have happened. I hope the theater is sued for billions.