As if your rights came to you just because you cried loud enough. You have the right to complain because others (hint: utmost patriots) do their DUTIES to secure them. No other reason. Not nature, not God, not journalists or bloggers or protesters. Only people with guns willing to put themselves between you and harm.
Since you're so gungho to protect the country you served in the military. I know I did, my mos or military occupations speciality was 11B, small arms specialist or infantry. Those with my mos are some of the ones on the frontline being shot at.
Perhaps, if you (like me) are too selfish to be like these true patriots - soldiers, cops, firemen, etc.. - and put our lives on the line for the sake of others, perhaps our patriot duty, when we have nothing helpful to say, is not to continually carp and complain, but rather to STFU.
I was a soldier but I guess you weren't, so who's more patriotic?
First, nowhere in your posts before now does "Obs" appear. Two, it seems you're still not adderssing my points. Seems you're using spelling and "Obs" to avoid them.
THOMAS Home | Contact | Accessibility | Legal | FirstGov
There is nothing else, so as I said in the post you replied to when a link is provided "the addie keeps on changing,".
No, it's an EXCEPTION from people who are paid to influence less than 500 people. So basically, Rupert Murdoch is allowed to pay Rush Limbaugh to make a post about calling on Congress to vote yes on Bill X on his private blog that's only readable by 100 elite members.
Nowhere do I see the word "exception". Nor does it say a blog with 500 or more has to register.
There's no chilling of free speech here, no totalitariaism, none of that bullshit.
I'm wondering if you even read my post, nowhere did I say there would be a chilling of free speech. What I did say was "However it doesn't say those with 500 or more members need to register, and an amendment has been added to strike that part of the bill." I wrote the opposite of what you're implying I wrote.
It seem to me you're the one who doesn't understand.
Hell, it even says specifically in one section that registration is only concerned with "paid grassroots lobbying" and explicitly says that other "grassroots lobbying" is not involved.
Maybe you missed the part right after "paid grassroots lobbying" where it said blogs with under 500 members didn't have to register. However it doesn't say those with 500 or more members need to register, and an amendment has been added to strike that part of the bill. I'd link to the actual bill however the addie keeps on changing, so the link provided gets a "page not found" message.
If we are to remain free, we should be able to criticize the government WITHOUT revealing our identity.
The USSC, US Supreme Court has ruled that free anonymous speech is essential for democracy and is protected byt the First Admendment's Free Speech clause. Here's a PDF that names some of the cases ruled on.
Let's say a group of 10 people want to buy and develop a plot of land. Without a unified legal entity to own the property and execute contracts they would *all* have to be party to *every* transaction. Therefore a single member could refuse to execute a contract and prevent the other 9 from executing that contract, even if the other 9 are in absolute agreement. Without a legal structure to grant the 9 power to out-vote the one holdout a single member could effectively ruin the entire "company". There are many other similar situations one could imagine; as I noted, organizing any signficant number of people or amount of captial would be very difficult without a formal legal structure.
Wrong, there the legal entity called a limited partnership. A limited partner may not have any control of the business, including veto power. All they contribute is capital, expertise, or labor.
You think owning a firearm of any kind will do you any good if the government decided to get rid of you?
It seemd to be doing quite well for those in Iraq.
Whether you agree with the pro-gun lobby or not the fact remains that if you were a threat to the government and they found out, the special forces they sent in could brush you aside without the slightest amount of trouble. They are better trained than you could hope to be (while trying to hold down a full time job anyway) and better equiped. They also have infintely more experience at killing people.
If they are so effective then why not send them to Iraq? Afterall the military can't seem to control the insurgents.
Now I am sure a great many soldiers would never dream of harming their own citizens. However I bet there are some that would follow any order they were given. The germans circa 1940 were not some alternate race of people bred for evil, they were just human beings like you and me, yet some of them ended up gaurding concentration camps that most of the population never knew existed.
I served in the US Army and I can't name one person who would of fired on a US citizen unprovoked and or unarmed. Sure there are some but many of those who serve, would shoot their own commander if the commander ordered them to fire on US civilians. I very well may of done so, would of done so if I thought it was an unconstitutional order, myself.
The first thing you do when seizing control of a country is quietly sieze control of the media without the populace knowing. But if the media are the people the people that becomes alot more difficult, especially if they can blog with relative anonmity using a few tools. I would hope that a great many readers of slashdot could do a pretty good job of posting to the net while hiding their identity, and not just by posting as AC. But if you can make anonymously blogging about the government a crime in itself then you make things a little easier.
Ooh, I agree, control the press and it'll be easier to control the populace. Disarming the populace has the same effects.
Finally, I'll end with this. America has problems in Iraq not because of the guns (most of which we gave) to the Iraqi people, but because the military today is full of people whose last chance is joining up. We've lowered standards and requirements to the point where if you can't get into college and can't get a decent job and have lots of debt, well, what the hell... join the Army!
My sister runs her own business, an accounting firm with some friends of hers, and she owns a few rental properties so she is doing quite well financially. Her son, my nephew, was all set to go to college but instead because of 911 he went into the US Marines. He is now stationed in Iraq and he isn't there because he didn't have any other choice, he is there because he wants to protect the US.
And the stupid "AK-47" or [Insert favorite automatic sounding name here] argument is BS because Any kind of Automatic firearm has been COMPLETELY ILLEGAL for a very long time!
Wrong, automatic weapons are not illegal. A person can legally buy and own one. To buy one though you have to pay a $200 transfer tax.
Who the hell modded this insightful?? Did they even bother to read the bill's text, which clearly states that you have to be paid by a client to make arguments for a specific action in Congress? How does this differ from paying someone to go out on the streets and ask them to call their congressman? It's lobbying, and it's been regulated for years. If you're against this, you're against lobbying laws in general.
The original bill did say that those with less than 500 members didn't have to register but it didn't say whether registration would be required if there were 500 or more members. However an amendment was added that struck that part of the bill.
so you're saying that you'd let a child play with a gun,
I wouldn't let a child play with a gun or anyother firearm but I would let them hold and fire one. I grew up learning to respect firearms and how to fire them yet I've ever shot someone with one. And I was even in the army with an mos, Military Occupational Specialty, of 11B or infantry, you know the guys that are on the first line?
i think you know you're logic is flawed. any fool can see that a gun is a device whose purpose is to kill.
Your logic is flawed. Many people have defended themself by having a firearm, of course hardly anyone ever hears about that because it doesn't fit in wih people's idea that firearms are only bad, yet they neglect to mention many people are killed by knives, vehicles, and other things.
There's a little known clause in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that says for any local governmental or quasi-governmental body, foreign business interests have a right to compete in that marketplace. Local farmer's markets, co-ops, even your local municipal water supply, could potentially be up for grabs under that agreement. It's already begining to happen in South America that way.
The above applies to services government provide not anything coops sale. Coops, including the two I am a member of, are member owned corporations and are not governmment run businesses. This seems to be a mistake too many people make about coops, that they are government agencies or such, when in fact they are not. As one, Lakewinds, says "We are a member-owned cooperative committed to outstanding customer service." As for things like local water supplies, I totally support local control of water. For instance I was against Bechtel's privatization of Cochabamba, Bolivia's water supply in 2000 when it was opposed to by the people in Cochabamba. Then again this isn't capitalism, it's a monopoly, and capitalists hate monopolies. Instead of having a monopoly capitalists woud have the water system open so anyone would be able to provide water services.
It's called comparative advantage in economics. Some places have some advantage in producing somethings that other places don't have just as some places have natural resources in minerals others don't.
Actually it's called ABSOLUTE ADVANTAGE, and it's the killer of comparative advantage
I have no idea what you are talking about, with "ABSOLUTE ADVANTAGE" or in most of this thread. It seems we are talking past each other and are using different terms and definitions. Because of this it seems I'm wasting my tyme, I'm ending my comments.
Just like a blogger that takes money from tobacco concerns, oil concerns, PETA, the cattle industry, a software company, or whoever else under the sun, should have to say, "Look, they paid me more than $25,000 to say this, so I said it." That doesn't mean what they said isn't true, but it shouldn't appear that the person said it out of the kindness of their heart or that they suddenly were inspired to write about it.
But what if that's exactly how it starts? Say on my own I start blogging about product X, about how it terrific and that it does what I want it to. Then Company Y which produces product X starts paying me? Do I suddenly become a lobbyist just because I get paid for saying what I was saying before? Or was I a lobbyist the whole tyme? Or instead of this, suppose I start a blog that's supports a ban on drilling in ANWR. An environmental groups comes across my blog then starts paying me, should I suddenly have to register as a lobbyist? BS!
his is maybe one of the most ethical Ethics Bills I've seen in a long time.
BS! I don't want or think I should have to register as a lobbyist just because someone or thing supports my blog. Unlike in Utopia, in the real world people have to make a living, and if perchance they get paid for doing what they want to do they shouldn't be required to register. I don't kow if you are but say you were a programmer, what would you think of all programmers being required to register? Afterall crackers, script kiddies, or Blackhat hackers are all bad and since they are programmers to make sure the world is safe from bad all programmers should be made to register?
It's not about the amount of money you make, it's about what you're getting paid to do. If you're getting paid for ad space or T-shirts, no problem, even if you're raking it in. If you're getting paid to encourage (more than 500) people to contact their legislators, you have to register. At least that's how it looks to me.
Actually the original bill said:
"`(B) PAID ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SEGMENTS THEREOF- The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public."
As worded the bill doesn't even require a blogger to be paid, all it requires is that there be 500 members.
For example, if ExxonMobil pays me $1000 to write a blog post that urges my (over 500) readers to write their Congressional delegation to vote in favor of a bill that opens up ANWR, I would have to register as a lobbyist.
And what am I if I onn my own blog and without getting any pay or other enumeration write my congressional reps saying I support a ban on drilling in ANWR? Which btw I do support. Does that make me a lobbyist? How about if I start a blog opposing said drilling and others sign up, am I still an individual or a lobby? Then what if I can no longer afford my blogging and I accept ads, which are clearly visible on my blog, do I suddenly become a lobbyist even though I write from the same position?
I think that the GP misspoke. Bloggers who are not hired by a client to influence specific action are not affected.
You missed the part where they say:
"Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the
Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists."
The above does not require being paid, all it requires is 500 members.
And what if it is your natural stance? For instance what if you have a blog you don't get any pay for, say I start a blog tomorrow, and what you post is your stance or I post is my strance. Then someone likes what my writing so they start paying me? If I keep doing the same thing is it because I'm getting paid or because it's what I really think?
The key here is "Paid attempts." Bloggers who don't receive an income in exchange for their work aren't affected.
The kay isn't "Paid attempts" as the article says "Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists." The key is 500. A blogger with 500 or more members would have to register.
The only people who will be affected by this legislation are BS-peddlers like him and all the fake think tanks and policy-pushing "advocacy groups" he raises money for.
BS, true grassroots organizations would be affected. All that is required for registration to be required, as stated above, is that there be 500 or more members.
The coops may not be available if the WTO has it's way- our trade agreements will force the issue.
How so?
And few to none of those parts will be manufactured in the United States.
...The bad part is that you can't buy a magnet for a speaker that was made in the United States anymore. Or a capacitor you can trust.
It's called comparative advantage in economics. Some places have some advantage in producing somethings that other places don't have just as some places have natural resources in minerals others don't.
And time is spelt 'time', not 'tyme'. Misspelling it is not cute, or anything.
Check volumn 20 something of the full edition of the "Oxford Englich Dictionary", OED. The spelling of time like I spell it, "tyme" is a correct English spelling. It's old and not used anymore but it's still a correct spelling.
Did you read my page? It appears you've not addressed any of the points therein.
Yes I did read it. You say I didn't address your points, neither did you address mine. Instead you say how I spell wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
As if your rights came to you just because you cried loud enough. You have the right to complain because others (hint: utmost patriots) do their DUTIES to secure them. No other reason. Not nature, not God, not journalists or bloggers or protesters. Only people with guns willing to put themselves between you and harm.
Since you're so gungho to protect the country you served in the military. I know I did, my mos or military occupations speciality was 11B, small arms specialist or infantry. Those with my mos are some of the ones on the frontline being shot at.
Perhaps, if you (like me) are too selfish to be like these true patriots - soldiers, cops, firemen, etc.. - and put our lives on the line for the sake of others, perhaps our patriot duty, when we have nothing helpful to say, is not to continually carp and complain, but rather to STFU.
I was a soldier but I guess you weren't, so who's more patriotic?
FalconWhat about protesting those protesting the policies of the government? They seem to be rather political these days...
Yes, that too is patriotic but I wouldn't say name calling is.
Falconmeans.
First, nowhere in your posts before now does "Obs" appear. Two, it seems you're still not adderssing my points. Seems you're using spelling and "Obs" to avoid them.
Falconhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.0 00 01 [loc.gov]:
When I link on that link this is what I get:
THOMAS Home | Contact | Accessibility | Legal | FirstGov
There is nothing else, so as I said in the post you replied to when a link is provided "the addie keeps on changing,".
No, it's an EXCEPTION from people who are paid to influence less than 500 people. So basically, Rupert Murdoch is allowed to pay Rush Limbaugh to make a post about calling on Congress to vote yes on Bill X on his private blog that's only readable by 100 elite members.
Nowhere do I see the word "exception". Nor does it say a blog with 500 or more has to register.
There's no chilling of free speech here, no totalitariaism, none of that bullshit.
I'm wondering if you even read my post, nowhere did I say there would be a chilling of free speech. What I did say was "However it doesn't say those with 500 or more members need to register, and an amendment has been added to strike that part of the bill." I wrote the opposite of what you're implying I wrote.
It seem to me you're the one who doesn't understand.
FalconHell, it even says specifically in one section that registration is only concerned with "paid grassroots lobbying" and explicitly says that other "grassroots lobbying" is not involved.
Maybe you missed the part right after "paid grassroots lobbying" where it said blogs with under 500 members didn't have to register. However it doesn't say those with 500 or more members need to register, and an amendment has been added to strike that part of the bill. I'd link to the actual bill however the addie keeps on changing, so the link provided gets a "page not found" message.
FalconIf we are to remain free, we should be able to criticize the government WITHOUT revealing our identity.
The USSC, US Supreme Court has ruled that free anonymous speech is essential for democracy and is protected byt the First Admendment's Free Speech clause. Here's a PDF that names some of the cases ruled on.
FalconLet's say a group of 10 people want to buy and develop a plot of land. Without a unified legal entity to own the property and execute contracts they would *all* have to be party to *every* transaction. Therefore a single member could refuse to execute a contract and prevent the other 9 from executing that contract, even if the other 9 are in absolute agreement. Without a legal structure to grant the 9 power to out-vote the one holdout a single member could effectively ruin the entire "company". There are many other similar situations one could imagine; as I noted, organizing any signficant number of people or amount of captial would be very difficult without a formal legal structure.
Wrong, there the legal entity called a limited partnership. A limited partner may not have any control of the business, including veto power. All they contribute is capital, expertise, or labor.
FalconYou think owning a firearm of any kind will do you any good if the government decided to get rid of you?
It seemd to be doing quite well for those in Iraq.
Whether you agree with the pro-gun lobby or not the fact remains that if you were a threat to the government and they found out, the special forces they sent in could brush you aside without the slightest amount of trouble. They are better trained than you could hope to be (while trying to hold down a full time job anyway) and better equiped. They also have infintely more experience at killing people.
If they are so effective then why not send them to Iraq? Afterall the military can't seem to control the insurgents.
Now I am sure a great many soldiers would never dream of harming their own citizens. However I bet there are some that would follow any order they were given. The germans circa 1940 were not some alternate race of people bred for evil, they were just human beings like you and me, yet some of them ended up gaurding concentration camps that most of the population never knew existed.
I served in the US Army and I can't name one person who would of fired on a US citizen unprovoked and or unarmed. Sure there are some but many of those who serve, would shoot their own commander if the commander ordered them to fire on US civilians. I very well may of done so, would of done so if I thought it was an unconstitutional order, myself.
The first thing you do when seizing control of a country is quietly sieze control of the media without the populace knowing. But if the media are the people the people that becomes alot more difficult, especially if they can blog with relative anonmity using a few tools. I would hope that a great many readers of slashdot could do a pretty good job of posting to the net while hiding their identity, and not just by posting as AC. But if you can make anonymously blogging about the government a crime in itself then you make things a little easier.
Ooh, I agree, control the press and it'll be easier to control the populace. Disarming the populace has the same effects.
FalconFinally, I'll end with this. America has problems in Iraq not because of the guns (most of which we gave) to the Iraqi people, but because the military today is full of people whose last chance is joining up. We've lowered standards and requirements to the point where if you can't get into college and can't get a decent job and have lots of debt, well, what the hell... join the Army!
My sister runs her own business, an accounting firm with some friends of hers, and she owns a few rental properties so she is doing quite well financially. Her son, my nephew, was all set to go to college but instead because of 911 he went into the US Marines. He is now stationed in Iraq and he isn't there because he didn't have any other choice, he is there because he wants to protect the US.
FalconYour idea that enough people think like you that it would make a difference is utter bullshit.
Tell that to the soldiers, my nephew is a Marine stationed there, in Iraq. Or say the same about the Taliban in Afghanistan.
FalconAnd the stupid "AK-47" or [Insert favorite automatic sounding name here] argument is BS because Any kind of Automatic firearm has been COMPLETELY ILLEGAL for a very long time!
Wrong, automatic weapons are not illegal. A person can legally buy and own one. To buy one though you have to pay a $200 transfer tax.
FalconWho the hell modded this insightful?? Did they even bother to read the bill's text, which clearly states that you have to be paid by a client to make arguments for a specific action in Congress? How does this differ from paying someone to go out on the streets and ask them to call their congressman? It's lobbying, and it's been regulated for years. If you're against this, you're against lobbying laws in general.
The original bill did say that those with less than 500 members didn't have to register but it didn't say whether registration would be required if there were 500 or more members. However an amendment was added that struck that part of the bill.
Falconso you're saying that you'd let a child play with a gun,
I wouldn't let a child play with a gun or anyother firearm but I would let them hold and fire one. I grew up learning to respect firearms and how to fire them yet I've ever shot someone with one. And I was even in the army with an mos, Military Occupational Specialty, of 11B or infantry, you know the guys that are on the first line?
i think you know you're logic is flawed. any fool can see that a gun is a device whose purpose is to kill.
Your logic is flawed. Many people have defended themself by having a firearm, of course hardly anyone ever hears about that because it doesn't fit in wih people's idea that firearms are only bad, yet they neglect to mention many people are killed by knives, vehicles, and other things.
FalconThere's a little known clause in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that says for any local governmental or quasi-governmental body, foreign business interests have a right to compete in that marketplace. Local farmer's markets, co-ops, even your local municipal water supply, could potentially be up for grabs under that agreement. It's already begining to happen in South America that way.
The above applies to services government provide not anything coops sale. Coops, including the two I am a member of, are member owned corporations and are not governmment run businesses. This seems to be a mistake too many people make about coops, that they are government agencies or such, when in fact they are not. As one, Lakewinds, says "We are a member-owned cooperative committed to outstanding customer service." As for things like local water supplies, I totally support local control of water. For instance I was against Bechtel's privatization of Cochabamba, Bolivia's water supply in 2000 when it was opposed to by the people in Cochabamba. Then again this isn't capitalism, it's a monopoly, and capitalists hate monopolies. Instead of having a monopoly capitalists woud have the water system open so anyone would be able to provide water services.
It's called comparative advantage in economics. Some places have some advantage in producing somethings that other places don't have just as some places have natural resources in minerals others don't.
Actually it's called ABSOLUTE ADVANTAGE, and it's the killer of comparative advantage
I have no idea what you are talking about, with "ABSOLUTE ADVANTAGE" or in most of this thread. It seems we are talking past each other and are using different terms and definitions. Because of this it seems I'm wasting my tyme, I'm ending my comments.
FalconJust like a blogger that takes money from tobacco concerns, oil concerns, PETA, the cattle industry, a software company, or whoever else under the sun, should have to say, "Look, they paid me more than $25,000 to say this, so I said it." That doesn't mean what they said isn't true, but it shouldn't appear that the person said it out of the kindness of their heart or that they suddenly were inspired to write about it.
But what if that's exactly how it starts? Say on my own I start blogging about product X, about how it terrific and that it does what I want it to. Then Company Y which produces product X starts paying me? Do I suddenly become a lobbyist just because I get paid for saying what I was saying before? Or was I a lobbyist the whole tyme? Or instead of this, suppose I start a blog that's supports a ban on drilling in ANWR. An environmental groups comes across my blog then starts paying me, should I suddenly have to register as a lobbyist? BS!
his is maybe one of the most ethical Ethics Bills I've seen in a long time.
BS! I don't want or think I should have to register as a lobbyist just because someone or thing supports my blog. Unlike in Utopia, in the real world people have to make a living, and if perchance they get paid for doing what they want to do they shouldn't be required to register. I don't kow if you are but say you were a programmer, what would you think of all programmers being required to register? Afterall crackers, script kiddies, or Blackhat hackers are all bad and since they are programmers to make sure the world is safe from bad all programmers should be made to register?
FalconIt's not about the amount of money you make, it's about what you're getting paid to do. If you're getting paid for ad space or T-shirts, no problem, even if you're raking it in. If you're getting paid to encourage (more than 500) people to contact their legislators, you have to register. At least that's how it looks to me.
Actually the original bill said:
"`(B) PAID ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SEGMENTS THEREOF- The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public."
As worded the bill doesn't even require a blogger to be paid, all it requires is that there be 500 members.
FalconFor example, if ExxonMobil pays me $1000 to write a blog post that urges my (over 500) readers to write their Congressional delegation to vote in favor of a bill that opens up ANWR, I would have to register as a lobbyist.
And what am I if I onn my own blog and without getting any pay or other enumeration write my congressional reps saying I support a ban on drilling in ANWR? Which btw I do support. Does that make me a lobbyist? How about if I start a blog opposing said drilling and others sign up, am I still an individual or a lobby? Then what if I can no longer afford my blogging and I accept ads, which are clearly visible on my blog, do I suddenly become a lobbyist even though I write from the same position?
FalconI think that the GP misspoke. Bloggers who are not hired by a client to influence specific action are not affected.
You missed the part where they say:
"Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists."
The above does not require being paid, all it requires is 500 members.
Falconstance
And what if it is your natural stance? For instance what if you have a blog you don't get any pay for, say I start a blog tomorrow, and what you post is your stance or I post is my strance. Then someone likes what my writing so they start paying me? If I keep doing the same thing is it because I'm getting paid or because it's what I really think?
FalconIt's the same as re-branding people against the invasion of Iraq as unpatriotic.
Not to pick nits, but if you don't support your nation during time of war, then, yes, you are unpatriotic.
It's the utmost of patriotism to protest the policies of the government.
FalconThe key here is "Paid attempts." Bloggers who don't receive an income in exchange for their work aren't affected.
The kay isn't "Paid attempts" as the article says "Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists." The key is 500. A blogger with 500 or more members would have to register.
The only people who will be affected by this legislation are BS-peddlers like him and all the fake think tanks and policy-pushing "advocacy groups" he raises money for.
BS, true grassroots organizations would be affected. All that is required for registration to be required, as stated above, is that there be 500 or more members.
FalconThat's called Classical Liberalism, represented today by the Libertarians. It's the original a priori reasoning put forward by John Locke.
Yea, wiki has a page on Classical Liberalism. Thomas Paine was another proponent of it.
FalconThe coops may not be available if the WTO has it's way- our trade agreements will force the issue.
How so?
And few to none of those parts will be manufactured in the United States.
...The bad part is that you can't buy a magnet for a speaker that was made in the United States anymore. Or a capacitor you can trust.
It's called comparative advantage in economics. Some places have some advantage in producing somethings that other places don't have just as some places have natural resources in minerals others don't.
FalconI use GAIM as my IM client, and I am able to log in to multiple yahoo accounts at the same time using it, with no problem.
I didn't say Yahoo! Messenger, I said Yahoo! Groups.
FalconAnd time is spelt 'time', not 'tyme'. Misspelling it is not cute, or anything.
Check volumn 20 something of the full edition of the "Oxford Englich Dictionary", OED. The spelling of time like I spell it, "tyme" is a correct English spelling. It's old and not used anymore but it's still a correct spelling.
Did you read my page? It appears you've not addressed any of the points therein.
Yes I did read it. You say I didn't address your points, neither did you address mine. Instead you say how I spell wrong.
Falcon