Another quick point: You really need to read up on mens rea. The fact that a person can or can not be held accountable for a crime is not the same as saying "guilt" is variable. Mens rea states that a person must have the state of mind required to commit a crime in order to be held accountable for the crime. You do realize that being held "accountable" is the punishment for a crime right? So an insane person, who had no idea they were holding a hammer and smashing someone's brains in can not be held accountable for murder. A person knowing they are holding a hammer, angry at the victim, while smashing their brains in would be held accountable. Go read the definition of "Accountable" if you have doubts.
See, you say it yourself again: you agree with my statement that "Punishment" is what is scaling. But the "class" of crime almost always dictates a range of possible punishment with discretion over that punishment being given to judges
I agree with this statement absolutely. I have said this from the start. The punishment for a crime is variable.
You also don't quite seem to understand how definitions or language itself work. Definitions are never ironclad.
That is absolutely false. The whole point of a definition and debate is for clarity. One is absolutely One (using my previous example). I can not have more "One" than you, or less "One" than you. If we both have "One", we both have "One". Guilt is exactly the same classification of term. If we are both guilty of theft, we have both committed thievery. If you stole a diamond and I stole an apple, the fact that we are "Guilty" does not change and can not be metered or scaled. There is no fuzzy definition for it, no matter how bad you want there to be. And if you don't like "One" and "Guilt", lets say "Running" or "Died" or "Born" or perhaps "Late" or "Early". All of those things are clearly defined and binary. You are either late, or you are not late. You are dead, or not dead. You are either running, or not running.
If you are late for a date with your significant other, you are late. If you are 5 minutes late, you will be scolded. If you are an hour late, you won't be getting any tonight. See how that works? This is basic rhetoric and basic philosophy. Go ahead and tell your partner "it's fuzzy, I was only 30 minutes late so it does not count the same as an hour" and see if that changes things. And yes, you would be "Guilty" of being late.
I stand by what I said at the beginning of this discussion. Stealing food from a starving child just to watch them suffer and stealing food from a supermarket to feed a starving child are both guilt, but they are qualitatively different.
Not possible and completely illogical.
Same with stealing gum vs. stealing a car. What you steal, and the circumstances under which you steal it, do make a difference in how guilty you are.
This statement is not rational. See my example of being late. You either "are" or "are not" late. There is no grey area there, and there is no grey area with guilt. The scale for punishment relates to "what" you stole. The fact that "you stole" can not possibly be scaling.
I believe the person was making humor, you know.. well.. maybe you don't so start here. This is very different from FUD of course. My post, the one that was replied too, had nothing to do with anti-Google anything. I think you are overly defensive. Your Google overlords pay you to be so defensive?
And if your "you guys" comment had nothing to do with my post, perhaps you should use more caution when using generalizations.
Actually it does contain the contradiction I mentioned.
Except you're forgetting that the punishments often vary even for these individual named crimes
That statement backs what I said, which is that the "class" of crime is dictating the punishment. Not "how guilty" someone is, because being more or less guilty is not logically possible.
specifically because the legal system recognizes that people who have committed these crimes may have different degrees of guilt.
Here you claim such a level of being more or less guilty exists and is in those same laws.
There is no such thing as being more or less guilty, and pulling at a poorly worded definition to back your point is really grasping at straws. Did you even notice that the definition you provided states very clearly "The opposite of innocent". If what you said was true, it would say something like "maybe not innocent" or something foolish like that. It does not, it shows very clearly a binary operation.
Your logic is broken still, but does not seem like you care to admit it.
Anyway, look at it this way, if the legal system saw guilt the way you insist they must, why does it have "not guilty by reason of ____" verdicts for people who definitely committed the act?
That has NOTHING to do with a varying level of Guilt! Read it again! It does not even imply that someone could be more guilty of a crime, or less guilty of a crime "because". It states that given a certain situation, like insanity, a person can not be held "guilty" for a crime.
Every big company at some point has declared war on the password. We have smart cards, biometrics, RSA tokens, and finger paintings to prove it. None of those things work any better than a password when used alone. In conjunction with a password, we can achieve "better" security.
The logic of a password-less world is what's broken. Period, end of statement. If the logic is broken, no matter who implements the password-less solution we still end up with a broken solution.
Depends on what you know about the pill. If you don't believe your precious government would give you bad things because 1) you get to be an unwilling guinea pig or 2) they don't like you or 3) you are of the race/religion the people in power dislike.. then you are an ignorant fool.
Does that mean these sensors would fall into the same category as LSD? Well, you can bet your ass smart people are skeptical and want to know as much as possible about the sensors prior to swallowing them. And you start reading that young male fire fighters wake up from dreams of a certain Bush family member and complaining about sore assholes.. you can be sure that the pills are more than sensors.
If some of those references are too obscure, I guess you can go learn something.
You missed the biggest reason people use MS Security essentials. It's bundled, and people don't know any better. We want to think that most users are smart, but most end users are not smart. They use IE because it's there and they don't understand what Firefox is, or Chrome is. They use the MS Security tools because it's there and you don't need to know anything about security to have "security" (no matter how poor it is, the name is what matters).
Have end users gotten smarter? Maybe, but I think it's my own wishful thinking.
Honestly I don't believe I am reading anything other than what you wrote. If you note the whole paragraph I quoted, you will see that you contradict yourself. This backs what I pointed out, in that people believe in something rather delusional.
Lets go a bit further: How can you believe in a different definition of guilt other than what is in the dictionary? Think about that question very hard. There is only one definition of guilt, and only one definition of innocent (don't pull out the semantics card and say 1.) 2) etc..). If you need to change the definition of a word to make your logic work, then your logic can't be very good. There is no broad definition of "guilt" like there would be with "red". Defining guilt is as straight forward as defining "One" or "Ten".
That last point is the delusion that many people believe in (or perhaps a better way of defining the delusion). If I have one block of stone, or one feather, I still have exactly "one" item. No matter how big the stone or how small the feather, the definition of "One" can not be changed. It's the same with being guilty of something. It would be the same as being innocent of something. There is no scale of committing an act. You either "did" or "did not" do something.
Yeah, and be sued into deeper than Cambodian turd farmer poverty because M$ has taken patents out on every aspect of this prior to release in every space imaginable.
Does anyone else remember Microsoft DOS 6 with AV built in? It was defeated by every virus writer imaginable before it was released. Hell, even VCL (virus creation lab) had it circumvented before released.
Okay, but seriously. If anyone trusts a company with a known history of abuses to audit and secure themselves, PT Barnum had you pegged.
Anyone who still supports Obama is a full fledged authoritarian.
Unfortunately this is false. The majority of people that still support Obama are simply living in a delusional land of happiness where their Furor gives them candy and sunshine.
I spend a lot of time trying to show people reality. Some of the most devout Obama supporters believe that he is a gift from their god, and that Obama is a messiah. I wish I could claim that I was joking, but I can not.
Your logic is rather flawed. I'm not surprised, hell this is why we have such an imbalance of justice in the US. You exactly state that you agree with me here: Except you're forgetting that the punishments often vary even for these individual named crimes specifically because the legal system recognizes that people who have committed these crimes may have different degrees of guilt. The individual, named forms of homicide, after all, are only a way to pigeonhole acts from an entire spectrum of human behaviour.. Yet you are claiming that I'm wrong because you want someone to be "more guilty" or "less guilty" of a crime based on what ever criteria you toss out there.
Staying on the murder theme, because it's simple, ask why we have so many types of murder in the laws? It's not because of how guilty someone is, that is for sure. We have varying levels because when we punish someone the circumstances surrounding guilt matter. The legal system is properly looking at "why" you killed someone in order to determine your punishment. Self defense? You walk away free. Premeditated murder? Life or Capital punishment. Involuntary manslaughter? Depends on circumstances pretty heavily. None of those things have to do with how guilty someone is, but rather how they are punished (or not) for the crime.
Committing a crime is a binary decision. You either commit a crime, or don't commit a crime. (Don't confuse that statement with things like "well if a bank robber murders a teller" because that would be an additional crime and an additional binary operation.>/p>
Of course people in power want you to believe otherwise. Fuck, you think that nobody has gone to jail over operation fast and furious means that nobody did anything wrong? Sorry, that's not what is happening. You have been conditioned in to believing a false reality. That reality is that I may only be partially guilty of theft depending on who I stole from or what I stole. If I steal your money from a bank, as long as I'm a banker it's legal. Who has been put in jail for Real estate Fraud in the US? Who has been put in jail for bribery, collusion, conspiracy, etc.. (related to OWS being crushed by the FBI, TSA, and Big Businesses cash). These things are all provable, but they won't go to court because people are imbeciles and/or gutless. Like you, many people believe that guilt and innocence are grey areas.
Which relates to "punishment", not "guilt" Being guilty of Murder is being guilty of Murder. If it's 2nd degree the punishment will differ from 1st degree, but the state of "guilt" does not change. A person can not be "more guilty" of murder because of the degree. A person is either guilty or innocent.
On the surface, I agree. A bit further, I don't. When is the last time we hard how damaging Oil and Coal are to Humans or the environment? The simple answer is, that we don't. There are numerous studies that show how damaging frack mining is, yet you have to go out of your way to find information. So it's not just about the financial aspect (cheap vs. expensive). It's also that you won't hear how harmful the products and byproducts are. That information is getting buried as fast as it can be created.
Same with the other side. Al Gore and his type are played in media. Nothing else gets media attention or time.
To be clear, it's not that the majority of people actually believe humans are a plague but rather you get no air time if you have a more rational point of view.
What you present is the argument that neither side want's to hear. Trust me, I tried. The arguments for curing global warming are identical to cleaning up pollution. In the 70s, there was a huge push on cleaning up pollution. The "clean" campaigns were all silenced in favor of high profit for a select few.
While I agree with you, good luck getting anyone in current argument crowd discussing anything as logical as pollution.
Basically we have 2 fronts: Big Oil and Money people saying "We are not doing anything wrong", and the other half saying "Humans are a plague on the planet." Anyone else is ignored, ridiculed, or drown out in noise.
This is a partial list of L. Ron Hubbard’s published classic works of fiction. Included are Battlefield Earth, Fear, To the Stars, Final Blackout and Typewriter in the Sky, which were published in 1940 and reprinted numerous times.
The above is from Wiki. Later in the article it extrapolates Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000 is a 1982 science fiction novel written by L. Ron Hubbard. He composed a soundtrack to the book called Space Jazz. Initially titled "Man, the Endangered Species"
The rate you refer to is what society uses as a measurefor the punishment, not the state of guilt or innocence. If I take property that does not belong to me I am guilty of theft. Whether the theft was a diamond or loaf of bread is not relevant as to my guilt of crime.
Claiming that I'm more guilty based on what I stole is ludicrous.
The post you responded too presented a valid point. Your response is an argument from Fallacy. No, there is no similarity as you describe. Further, you can not say that a person is more or less guilty of a crime depending on what the substance is. A guy found guilty of selling Crack is not "less guilty" than the person who was selling Heroin. Both are criminal acts and both are illegal.
I dislike CoS as much as the next person that dislikes the CoS, so don't confuse what I'm saying in any way with defending them.
There is a slight problem with your request for punishment. In order for the fraud to be punishable there must be intent to cause harm. Proving that this advert caused any harm, or was intended to cause harm, would be impossible (and without merit ).
Is it worthy of people boycotting the magazine forever? Most surely yes. Is it punishable? Not in a criminal sense, but consumers should punish them by boycotting. Further, other organizations in a similar line of work should publicly shun them and learn from their mistake.
Hot damn! Spot on! I will however point out that most people lack the critical thinking abilities to see the truth in what your post. Really, that guy on the TV News station told them that it used to be fair, and politicians tell them that they matter so it has to be true!
I believe one should check the chronology of book writings by LRH. While long, Battlefield Earth was a decent book. Published well before the time of the cult and Dianetics (sp? I'm in no mood to go make sure I spelt it correctly)
What you fail to realize is that many people see virtual space as a way to become much more than they are. People "Friend" on FB because they are in need of attention and/or recognition. They epeen wave to feel important, and make themselves feel good by epeen waving. If they post "I ate froot loops" and their "friends" respond "zomg! I love froot loops" they believe that they have accomplished something. They have influenced their "friends", and can feel good about eating froot loops.
Your view is, of course, more accurate, but lets not discount what something like FB is to many.
yeah, my information is bad.. okay.. But you are a fucking liar and probably too ignorant to realize that you are a bad liar. Go pound sand up your asshole!
Slashdot Mirror
Another quick point: You really need to read up on mens rea. The fact that a person can or can not be held accountable for a crime is not the same as saying "guilt" is variable. Mens rea states that a person must have the state of mind required to commit a crime in order to be held accountable for the crime. You do realize that being held "accountable" is the punishment for a crime right? So an insane person, who had no idea they were holding a hammer and smashing someone's brains in can not be held accountable for murder. A person knowing they are holding a hammer, angry at the victim, while smashing their brains in would be held accountable. Go read the definition of "Accountable" if you have doubts.
See, you say it yourself again: you agree with my statement that "Punishment" is what is scaling. But the "class" of crime almost always dictates a range of possible punishment with discretion over that punishment being given to judges
I agree with this statement absolutely. I have said this from the start. The punishment for a crime is variable.
You also don't quite seem to understand how definitions or language itself work. Definitions are never ironclad.
That is absolutely false. The whole point of a definition and debate is for clarity. One is absolutely One (using my previous example). I can not have more "One" than you, or less "One" than you. If we both have "One", we both have "One". Guilt is exactly the same classification of term. If we are both guilty of theft, we have both committed thievery. If you stole a diamond and I stole an apple, the fact that we are "Guilty" does not change and can not be metered or scaled. There is no fuzzy definition for it, no matter how bad you want there to be. And if you don't like "One" and "Guilt", lets say "Running" or "Died" or "Born" or perhaps "Late" or "Early". All of those things are clearly defined and binary. You are either late, or you are not late. You are dead, or not dead. You are either running, or not running.
If you are late for a date with your significant other, you are late. If you are 5 minutes late, you will be scolded. If you are an hour late, you won't be getting any tonight. See how that works? This is basic rhetoric and basic philosophy. Go ahead and tell your partner "it's fuzzy, I was only 30 minutes late so it does not count the same as an hour" and see if that changes things. And yes, you would be "Guilty" of being late.
I stand by what I said at the beginning of this discussion. Stealing food from a starving child just to watch them suffer and stealing food from a supermarket to feed a starving child are both guilt, but they are qualitatively different.
Not possible and completely illogical.
Same with stealing gum vs. stealing a car. What you steal, and the circumstances under which you steal it, do make a difference in how guilty you are.
This statement is not rational. See my example of being late. You either "are" or "are not" late. There is no grey area there, and there is no grey area with guilt. The scale for punishment relates to "what" you stole. The fact that "you stole" can not possibly be scaling.
I believe the person was making humor, you know.. well.. maybe you don't so start here. This is very different from FUD of course. My post, the one that was replied too, had nothing to do with anti-Google anything. I think you are overly defensive. Your Google overlords pay you to be so defensive?
And if your "you guys" comment had nothing to do with my post, perhaps you should use more caution when using generalizations.
Actually it does contain the contradiction I mentioned.
Except you're forgetting that the punishments often vary even for these individual named crimes
That statement backs what I said, which is that the "class" of crime is dictating the punishment. Not "how guilty" someone is, because being more or less guilty is not logically possible.
specifically because the legal system recognizes that people who have committed these crimes may have different degrees of guilt.
Here you claim such a level of being more or less guilty exists and is in those same laws.
There is no such thing as being more or less guilty, and pulling at a poorly worded definition to back your point is really grasping at straws. Did you even notice that the definition you provided states very clearly "The opposite of innocent". If what you said was true, it would say something like "maybe not innocent" or something foolish like that. It does not, it shows very clearly a binary operation.
Your logic is broken still, but does not seem like you care to admit it.
Anyway, look at it this way, if the legal system saw guilt the way you insist they must, why does it have "not guilty by reason of ____" verdicts for people who definitely committed the act?
That has NOTHING to do with a varying level of Guilt! Read it again! It does not even imply that someone could be more guilty of a crime, or less guilty of a crime "because". It states that given a certain situation, like insanity, a person can not be held "guilty" for a crime.
Every big company at some point has declared war on the password. We have smart cards, biometrics, RSA tokens, and finger paintings to prove it. None of those things work any better than a password when used alone. In conjunction with a password, we can achieve "better" security.
The logic of a password-less world is what's broken. Period, end of statement. If the logic is broken, no matter who implements the password-less solution we still end up with a broken solution.
Depends on what you know about the pill. If you don't believe your precious government would give you bad things because 1) you get to be an unwilling guinea pig or 2) they don't like you or 3) you are of the race/religion the people in power dislike.. then you are an ignorant fool.
Does that mean these sensors would fall into the same category as LSD? Well, you can bet your ass smart people are skeptical and want to know as much as possible about the sensors prior to swallowing them. And you start reading that young male fire fighters wake up from dreams of a certain Bush family member and complaining about sore assholes.. you can be sure that the pills are more than sensors.
If some of those references are too obscure, I guess you can go learn something.
You missed the biggest reason people use MS Security essentials. It's bundled, and people don't know any better. We want to think that most users are smart, but most end users are not smart. They use IE because it's there and they don't understand what Firefox is, or Chrome is. They use the MS Security tools because it's there and you don't need to know anything about security to have "security" (no matter how poor it is, the name is what matters).
Have end users gotten smarter? Maybe, but I think it's my own wishful thinking.
Honestly I don't believe I am reading anything other than what you wrote. If you note the whole paragraph I quoted, you will see that you contradict yourself. This backs what I pointed out, in that people believe in something rather delusional.
Lets go a bit further: How can you believe in a different definition of guilt other than what is in the dictionary? Think about that question very hard. There is only one definition of guilt, and only one definition of innocent (don't pull out the semantics card and say 1.) 2) etc..). If you need to change the definition of a word to make your logic work, then your logic can't be very good. There is no broad definition of "guilt" like there would be with "red". Defining guilt is as straight forward as defining "One" or "Ten".
That last point is the delusion that many people believe in (or perhaps a better way of defining the delusion). If I have one block of stone, or one feather, I still have exactly "one" item. No matter how big the stone or how small the feather, the definition of "One" can not be changed. It's the same with being guilty of something. It would be the same as being innocent of something. There is no scale of committing an act. You either "did" or "did not" do something.
I chuckled at this.
Yeah, and be sued into deeper than Cambodian turd farmer poverty because M$ has taken patents out on every aspect of this prior to release in every space imaginable.
Ha Ha Ha!
Does anyone else remember Microsoft DOS 6 with AV built in? It was defeated by every virus writer imaginable before it was released. Hell, even VCL (virus creation lab) had it circumvented before released.
Okay, but seriously. If anyone trusts a company with a known history of abuses to audit and secure themselves, PT Barnum had you pegged.
Anyone who still supports Obama is a full fledged authoritarian.
Unfortunately this is false. The majority of people that still support Obama are simply living in a delusional land of happiness where their Furor gives them candy and sunshine.
I spend a lot of time trying to show people reality. Some of the most devout Obama supporters believe that he is a gift from their god, and that Obama is a messiah. I wish I could claim that I was joking, but I can not.
Your logic is rather flawed. I'm not surprised, hell this is why we have such an imbalance of justice in the US. You exactly state that you agree with me here: Except you're forgetting that the punishments often vary even for these individual named crimes specifically because the legal system recognizes that people who have committed these crimes may have different degrees of guilt. The individual, named forms of homicide, after all, are only a way to pigeonhole acts from an entire spectrum of human behaviour.. Yet you are claiming that I'm wrong because you want someone to be "more guilty" or "less guilty" of a crime based on what ever criteria you toss out there.
Staying on the murder theme, because it's simple, ask why we have so many types of murder in the laws? It's not because of how guilty someone is, that is for sure. We have varying levels because when we punish someone the circumstances surrounding guilt matter. The legal system is properly looking at "why" you killed someone in order to determine your punishment. Self defense? You walk away free. Premeditated murder? Life or Capital punishment. Involuntary manslaughter? Depends on circumstances pretty heavily. None of those things have to do with how guilty someone is, but rather how they are punished (or not) for the crime.
Committing a crime is a binary decision. You either commit a crime, or don't commit a crime. (Don't confuse that statement with things like "well if a bank robber murders a teller" because that would be an additional crime and an additional binary operation.>/p>
Of course people in power want you to believe otherwise. Fuck, you think that nobody has gone to jail over operation fast and furious means that nobody did anything wrong? Sorry, that's not what is happening. You have been conditioned in to believing a false reality. That reality is that I may only be partially guilty of theft depending on who I stole from or what I stole. If I steal your money from a bank, as long as I'm a banker it's legal. Who has been put in jail for Real estate Fraud in the US? Who has been put in jail for bribery, collusion, conspiracy, etc.. (related to OWS being crushed by the FBI, TSA, and Big Businesses cash). These things are all provable, but they won't go to court because people are imbeciles and/or gutless. Like you, many people believe that guilt and innocence are grey areas.
Which relates to "punishment", not "guilt" Being guilty of Murder is being guilty of Murder. If it's 2nd degree the punishment will differ from 1st degree, but the state of "guilt" does not change. A person can not be "more guilty" of murder because of the degree. A person is either guilty or innocent.
When is the last time we hard how damaging Oil and Coal are...
Should be When is the last time we heard how damaging Oil and Coal are... Darn my engrish skillz at times.
On the surface, I agree. A bit further, I don't. When is the last time we hard how damaging Oil and Coal are to Humans or the environment? The simple answer is, that we don't. There are numerous studies that show how damaging frack mining is, yet you have to go out of your way to find information. So it's not just about the financial aspect (cheap vs. expensive). It's also that you won't hear how harmful the products and byproducts are. That information is getting buried as fast as it can be created.
Same with the other side. Al Gore and his type are played in media. Nothing else gets media attention or time.
To be clear, it's not that the majority of people actually believe humans are a plague but rather you get no air time if you have a more rational point of view.
What you present is the argument that neither side want's to hear. Trust me, I tried. The arguments for curing global warming are identical to cleaning up pollution. In the 70s, there was a huge push on cleaning up pollution. The "clean" campaigns were all silenced in favor of high profit for a select few.
While I agree with you, good luck getting anyone in current argument crowd discussing anything as logical as pollution.
Basically we have 2 fronts: Big Oil and Money people saying "We are not doing anything wrong", and the other half saying "Humans are a plague on the planet." Anyone else is ignored, ridiculed, or drown out in noise.
This is a partial list of L. Ron Hubbard’s published classic works of fiction. Included are Battlefield Earth, Fear, To the Stars, Final Blackout and Typewriter in the Sky, which were published in 1940 and reprinted numerous times.
The above is from Wiki. Later in the article it extrapolates Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000 is a 1982 science fiction novel written by L. Ron Hubbard. He composed a soundtrack to the book called Space Jazz. Initially titled "Man, the Endangered Species"
Honest mistake.
The rate you refer to is what society uses as a measurefor the punishment, not the state of guilt or innocence. If I take property that does not belong to me I am guilty of theft. Whether the theft was a diamond or loaf of bread is not relevant as to my guilt of crime.
Claiming that I'm more guilty based on what I stole is ludicrous.
The post you responded too presented a valid point. Your response is an argument from Fallacy. No, there is no similarity as you describe. Further, you can not say that a person is more or less guilty of a crime depending on what the substance is. A guy found guilty of selling Crack is not "less guilty" than the person who was selling Heroin. Both are criminal acts and both are illegal.
I dislike CoS as much as the next person that dislikes the CoS, so don't confuse what I'm saying in any way with defending them.
There is a slight problem with your request for punishment. In order for the fraud to be punishable there must be intent to cause harm. Proving that this advert caused any harm, or was intended to cause harm, would be impossible (and without merit ).
Is it worthy of people boycotting the magazine forever? Most surely yes. Is it punishable? Not in a criminal sense, but consumers should punish them by boycotting. Further, other organizations in a similar line of work should publicly shun them and learn from their mistake.
Hot damn! Spot on! I will however point out that most people lack the critical thinking abilities to see the truth in what your post. Really, that guy on the TV News station told them that it used to be fair, and politicians tell them that they matter so it has to be true!
I believe one should check the chronology of book writings by LRH. While long, Battlefield Earth was a decent book. Published well before the time of the cult and Dianetics (sp? I'm in no mood to go make sure I spelt it correctly)
What you fail to realize is that many people see virtual space as a way to become much more than they are. People "Friend" on FB because they are in need of attention and/or recognition. They epeen wave to feel important, and make themselves feel good by epeen waving. If they post "I ate froot loops" and their "friends" respond "zomg! I love froot loops" they believe that they have accomplished something. They have influenced their "friends", and can feel good about eating froot loops.
Your view is, of course, more accurate, but lets not discount what something like FB is to many.
yeah, my information is bad.. okay.. But you are a fucking liar and probably too ignorant to realize that you are a bad liar. Go pound sand up your asshole!