Yeah? So what if it's flamebait! It's a perfectly valid question. These people should never have this kind of power outside their jurisdictions. If they want to play these games within their localities or state, whatever, that would be fine. But an Alaskan(or pick any state) senator must not be allowed to have an effect on any other states legislation. Just like the US should not any influence over Canadian law. It is up to us to assure that their influence does not extend across state or national borders. Mr. Stevens is in Washington to look after the interests of Alaskans, not the lower 48. His influence is detrimental to the rest of us. The same goes for the rest of the people mentioned in the original post. This is unacceptable. Flamebait, BAH! Bunch of thin skinned ninnies. Anything to avoid actually discussing the matter. So typical.
Can we kick Alaska(Stevens), Utah(Hatch), Connecticut(Lieberman), California(Feinstein), and New York(sorry folks, but that's what you get for electing Hillary) out of the union? The people they elect are going to wreck the country.
If he's so badly despised, why was he re-elected? Was the opposition that much worse? The papers indicated that the "healthy" economy was the reason, if so, then the Australians are already just like the Americans. They will vote for anybody they believe will fatten their wallets to the exclusion of all other issues. Democracy at its best. If I was to follow the election results, I would have to say that yours is a minority opinion, unfortunately. It's time to "defrag" the opposition.
Never said it didn't. I just don't always see the need of identifying the speaker as part of the context when hearing the full content of the satement will suffice. I know sound bites are insufficient, and that's what the link shows. At the same time, a sound bite can sometimes stand on its own also, and can be applied out of context, as demonstratd by those who use the staements of nazi propagandists to prove a point. In fact some of those points become more valid when used in a completely different context than originally intended. It was a great link by the way, but some of the comments made my point, I believe.
You certainly should take into account the messenger when attributing credibility to statements of fact.
I have to disagree. There are many ways to verify the veracity of a statement of fact without knowing who said it. And also, like my math teacher always said, "Show your work." So anonymity still works for me. It's a search for truth, not a whodunit.
While you're checking, see if you can't locate Jimmy Hoffa:-) Something tells me this is a wild goose chase, and the people behind the curtain are finding all this to be very amusing. I have to admit, so do I.
Don't know what you mean, but I do take at face value, and on the face of it, it looks like trash. Humorous trash, but it's still trash. But then who knows? Everything they print could be true...And it's the Times that's full of it.
Because "Simon Garlick" would know, since he pimps his kids out to every perv in the county for only 250 bucks a night...
See? That's all that's necessary to put a stop to such trash..Nothing more. But here, you're on the "right" side of the fence, and we can see how the point spread will go. Already evidenced by the above score. So be it. It's your world. Do with it as you wish. I'm just a visitor. I just find you people to be odd, in that you don't seem to mean what you say or say what you mean. I have trouble with latter, myself.
PS. Required disclaimer...just in case some whacko takes this too far: My previous comment is, to the best of my knowledge, untrue..... and don't you dare restrict my right to say it!
Oh wait... maybe true free speech IS an absolute. Not only that, It couldn't be more clearly, undeniably stated in America's most "valuable" document. Or are we just supposed to keep on guessing how far it really goes? There's obviously still plenty of disagreement over such a simple statement. Who ever thought that the LAW industry would reap such huge profits over "...no law..."? That's quite a paradox!
WHOA!! Talk about ignoring the messenger...Sorry 'bout that,Chief. I though you were somebody else...Ummm...Carry on, I suppose. Maybe someone will throw you a "funny" mod, and I can metamod the "flamebait" as unfair. Uh...It's been a slice.
States can have laws that ratchet freedom further, but they can't decrease your rights any more than the federal government Constitutionally is able to.
I wonder if the auto companies tried to use that arguement against California emissions laws, or as a restriction of trade amongst the states. I honestly don't know so please, don't mod me down.
Jesus Christ, you guys! This isn't the Jerry Falwell site!
Re:Does it matter?
on
SCO Vs. Groklaw
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I suppose that could be true, but I usually take the words at their face value. That's why I don't care about fake blogs and stuff. The CEO of Exxon stating(if he were to do so) that we must cut back on petroleum usage is no less valid than when the head of Greenpeace says it. I would of course be suspicious of what alternative Exxon has to offer, but the statement still stands. Since I'm not a mind reader, I see the statement, not the intention, though I can differenciate a parable from a statement of fact. It's been getting me in a bit of trouble lately. I just have to face the fact that I'm just not an elequent speaker, and that seems to cost points around here.
Pay it no mind. Slashdot moderation is political hogwash. I just don't belong to the right gang. And the status quo must be maintained at all costs. It's worth it for me to spill a little karma to get the message out. And usually I prefer to talk to people who disagree, even when they run off on silly tangents, or try to apply analogies that make absolutely(damn word keeps coming up) no sense whatsoever. I doubt I'll ever get a direct meaningful answer to the original statement, but's it's always worth the effort. Maybe next time, who knows. I found the whole thing extremely enlightening. It explains so much about our present condition. It also shows that the slashdot crowd is just like every other crowd. That part is a bit of a disappointment. I don't know why, but I expected more from them for some reason.
Wow! that's profoundly insightful. And 4 out of 10 moderators agree, so it must be true. So glad you are able to contribute so much to the dicussion. Keep up the good work. Feel free to join the the others on the list. You certainly will fit in. You poor pitiful soul. Such a lack of self control. It's ok, man. I know you can't help it. Must be all that lead you were exposed to. Stay out of the mines, son. It'll make you go crazy. As always, feel free to speak freely where ever you are. I may disparage your silliness, but I would never, ever try to stop you from saying whatever you wish, at any time. You have my personal guarantee:-) Oh, and happy Valentine's Day. Will you be mine? TCO isn't talking to me, lately. I do miss him so. *sigh*
PS. Could you spell check this post for me? My eyes aren't so good, and I'm not sure if "where ever" is one or two words.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony
I'd like to buy the world a Coke and keep it company.
They could put an icecube
I put mine on a chair, and it flew right into the wall.
A pox on both houses. Burn it, and buy a Mac.
(Score:-1, Flamebait)
Well, depending how you measure intelligence, you might be able to say he has a 7 digit IQ.
I'm sure that the law firm of Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe doesn't believe so.
Yeah? So what if it's flamebait! It's a perfectly valid question. These people should never have this kind of power outside their jurisdictions. If they want to play these games within their localities or state, whatever, that would be fine. But an Alaskan(or pick any state) senator must not be allowed to have an effect on any other states legislation. Just like the US should not any influence over Canadian law. It is up to us to assure that their influence does not extend across state or national borders. Mr. Stevens is in Washington to look after the interests of Alaskans, not the lower 48. His influence is detrimental to the rest of us. The same goes for the rest of the people mentioned in the original post. This is unacceptable. Flamebait, BAH! Bunch of thin skinned ninnies. Anything to avoid actually discussing the matter. So typical.
The brain he uses to fill his bank account while trying to ram this crud down our throats.
Can we kick Alaska(Stevens), Utah(Hatch), Connecticut(Lieberman), California(Feinstein), and New York(sorry folks, but that's what you get for electing Hillary) out of the union? The people they elect are going to wreck the country.
...Yankee" is almost always a racial slur to ANY Americans...
Yo prefiero "Gringo".
If he's so badly despised, why was he re-elected? Was the opposition that much worse? The papers indicated that the "healthy" economy was the reason, if so, then the Australians are already just like the Americans. They will vote for anybody they believe will fatten their wallets to the exclusion of all other issues. Democracy at its best. If I was to follow the election results, I would have to say that yours is a minority opinion, unfortunately. It's time to "defrag" the opposition.
Context always matters.
Never said it didn't. I just don't always see the need of identifying the speaker as part of the context when hearing the full content of the satement will suffice. I know sound bites are insufficient, and that's what the link shows. At the same time, a sound bite can sometimes stand on its own also, and can be applied out of context, as demonstratd by those who use the staements of nazi propagandists to prove a point. In fact some of those points become more valid when used in a completely different context than originally intended. It was a great link by the way, but some of the comments made my point, I believe.
You certainly should take into account the messenger when attributing credibility to statements of fact.
I have to disagree. There are many ways to verify the veracity of a statement of fact without knowing who said it. And also, like my math teacher always said, "Show your work." So anonymity still works for me. It's a search for truth, not a whodunit.
Does she really exist? I'd like to know.
:-) Something tells me this is a wild goose chase, and the people behind the curtain are finding all this to be very amusing. I have to admit, so do I.
While you're checking, see if you can't locate Jimmy Hoffa
Don't know what you mean, but I do take at face value, and on the face of it, it looks like trash. Humorous trash, but it's still trash. But then who knows? Everything they print could be true...And it's the Times that's full of it.
Because "Simon Garlick" would know, since he pimps his kids out to every perv in the county for only 250 bucks a night...
See? That's all that's necessary to put a stop to such trash..Nothing more. But here, you're on the "right" side of the fence, and we can see how the point spread will go. Already evidenced by the above score. So be it. It's your world. Do with it as you wish. I'm just a visitor. I just find you people to be odd, in that you don't seem to mean what you say or say what you mean. I have trouble with latter, myself.
PS. Required disclaimer...just in case some whacko takes this too far:
My previous comment is, to the best of my knowledge, untrue..... and don't you dare restrict my right to say it!
Oh wait... maybe true free speech IS an absolute. Not only that, It couldn't be more clearly, undeniably stated in America's most "valuable" document. Or are we just supposed to keep on guessing how far it really goes? There's obviously still plenty of disagreement over such a simple statement. Who ever thought that the LAW industry would reap such huge profits over "...no law..."? That's quite a paradox!
WHOA!! Talk about ignoring the messenger...Sorry 'bout that,Chief. I though you were somebody else...Ummm...Carry on, I suppose. Maybe someone will throw you a "funny" mod, and I can metamod the "flamebait" as unfair. Uh...It's been a slice.
HA! That "fair use" disclaimer is priceless. The terrorists have won. Ok, enough of that nonsense. What's up with PJ? Does she, or doesn't she...exist? That is the question...
States can have laws that ratchet freedom further, but they can't decrease your rights any more than the federal government Constitutionally is able to.
I wonder if the auto companies tried to use that arguement against California emissions laws, or as a restriction of trade amongst the states. I honestly don't know so please, don't mod me down.
Don't get me started on THAT again...(you had to be there)
Jesus Christ, you guys! This isn't the Jerry Falwell site!
I suppose that could be true, but I usually take the words at their face value. That's why I don't care about fake blogs and stuff. The CEO of Exxon stating(if he were to do so) that we must cut back on petroleum usage is no less valid than when the head of Greenpeace says it. I would of course be suspicious of what alternative Exxon has to offer, but the statement still stands. Since I'm not a mind reader, I see the statement, not the intention, though I can differenciate a parable from a statement of fact. It's been getting me in a bit of trouble lately. I just have to face the fact that I'm just not an elequent speaker, and that seems to cost points around here.
Pay it no mind. Slashdot moderation is political hogwash. I just don't belong to the right gang. And the status quo must be maintained at all costs. It's worth it for me to spill a little karma to get the message out. And usually I prefer to talk to people who disagree, even when they run off on silly tangents, or try to apply analogies that make absolutely(damn word keeps coming up) no sense whatsoever. I doubt I'll ever get a direct meaningful answer to the original statement, but's it's always worth the effort. Maybe next time, who knows. I found the whole thing extremely enlightening. It explains so much about our present condition. It also shows that the slashdot crowd is just like every other crowd. That part is a bit of a disappointment. I don't know why, but I expected more from them for some reason.
Wow! that's profoundly insightful. And 4 out of 10 moderators agree, so it must be true. So glad you are able to contribute so much to the dicussion. Keep up the good work. Feel free to join the the others on the list. You certainly will fit in. You poor pitiful soul. Such a lack of self control. It's ok, man. I know you can't help it. Must be all that lead you were exposed to. Stay out of the mines, son. It'll make you go crazy. As always, feel free to speak freely where ever you are. I may disparage your silliness, but I would never, ever try to stop you from saying whatever you wish, at any time. You have my personal guarantee :-) Oh, and happy Valentine's Day. Will you be mine? TCO isn't talking to me, lately. I do miss him so. *sigh*
PS. Could you spell check this post for me? My eyes aren't so good, and I'm not sure if "where ever" is one or two words.