"Controlled" is not the actual definition of "in thrall to" "
"thrall Pronunciation (thrôl) n. 1. a. One, such as a slave or serf, who is held in bondage. b. One who is intellectually or morally enslaved. 2. Servitude; bondage: "a people in thrall to the miracles of commerce" Lewis H. Lapham. tr.v. thralled, thralling, thralls Archaic To enslave."
Is it really necessary to continue, or do you care to continue making yourself look like a raging idiot?
"Still, if one wishes to comment on the political system (or the implications of a post on it), you should have at least a basic understanding."
I wasn't commenting on a political system, I was commenting on a comment. Stop with the fucking straw men, please, they're easily spotted and just as eaily dismissed.
"At least do as much before raking me over the coals like that else your the one who looks like a fucking idiot whether you are right or not."
I'm going to bring this down a level, but keep this in mind.
"Or perhaps you could take the time to actually look it up."
YOU said that. YOU were the one who posted a link after supposedly reading my post, despite the fact that I addressed that study in my post.
If you want to accuse others of looking "like a fucking idiot" then you should try to to a better job of reading what you're responding to.
"As for the issue of a single study with a single data point, surely you know that uniqueness is a highly strange thing in nature."
Not with respect to intelligence. Don't act like you know things that aren't true, it makes you look "like a fucking idiot".
If you'd like to understand why it's important to be diligent in studies such as this, look up the "counting horse" and you'll understand.
Lastly, I have to say, it's amazing to me that you can continue to act the way you are acting, in light of your original post, because it made you look "like a fucking idiot".
"I wouldn't mind seeing at least one link to a study with at least one example suporting your claims."
God, this is too easy. "Perhaps you could take the time to actually look it up."
We weren't talking about you, or the things you think are important, we are discussing the article.
And this
"They essentially have you "prove" that you did not open a line of credit somewhere. The full burdon of proof is on you for something that you had nothing to do with."
"and we will use these results to claim it is your fault, not ours, that you suffered identity theft"
That's why. Show me where it says that, or implies that, or in any way suggests that these businesses believe that.
He made that garbage up, and got modded correctly for it. Perhaps there should be a mod for "-1 incredibly, stupidly hyperbolic made up crap" but there isn't, so that's what he got.
"who our Prime Minister appears to be in thrall to"
Do you know what "in thrall to" means? Clearly not, otherwise you never would have posted.
Claiming the PM is "controlled" (that's what it means, in case you haven't looked it up yet) by the US means that his actions are a result of US influence.
"Or perhaps you could take the time to actually look it up."
First of all, fuck you. If you're so smart, why didn't you read this statment
"If you doubt this go look into it. There was a story about a border collie
Oh, I get it. You're basing your opinion on one data point. Don't do that."
What "border collie" did you think I was talking about? Why would you ASSUME I DIDN'T look it up?
"This is not one data point."
Yes it is, the "study" you link to has ONE dog in it. ONE. ONE data point. So, you're wrong again. Show me where your link talks about any other dog than Rico? Oh it doesn't, so either you don't know what "ONE" means, or you can't count. Either way, you're wrong AGAIN.
"As for words specificlly, the example of Pico and other similar research have shown that many animals (not just dogs)"
Ok, it's "Rico" not "Pico" and I wasn't asking about "other animals" I was asking about dogs because this story is about dogs, and other animals are irrelevant. GOT THAT? An ape is not a dog, a dolphin is not a dog, and their behaviors don;t generalize across species. Why would you even bring this up?
In the future, perhaps you could actually READ my post, and respond to it instead of posting a link to ONE study that involves ONE dog, which I ALREADY FUCKING ADDRESSED IN MY ORIGINAL POST.
God what the hell is wrong with idiots like you?
PS, I did my undergrad work in language acquisition. I was asking out of academic interest, and your dumbass post pops up. Unless you have a study which provides what I asked for, and NOT the same study that hundreds of other idiots like you assume shows dogs respond to language, then you need to shut up.
First, look up rhetorical, and then stop using the word because you don't know what it means.
As to the rest, you're an idiot. You know very well what I meant when I said the EU was influencing you, yet you play at being stupid (unless you're not playing) because you think it makes you look witty.
More importantly, I ASKED YOU TO CLARIFY YOUR STATEMENT.
All you had to do was answer my question, yet you decided to act like an asshole.
Why would you get so defensive if you didn"t believe what you said?
"If the fundies believe $it and the Harris Poll shows that a majority do not believe $it, does that mean that the fundies are not a majority in the US?"
Do you think fundies are a majority here?
I want to know, because it would be unfair of me to call you a screeching imbecile before I was clear on it.
This isn't the Middle East, fundamentalism here is still a small niche, no matter what the EU tries to tell you.
"The 'free ride' of bundling obviously does make a big difference. Just because Microsoft owns the operating system, this doesn't mean that it should be allowed to bundle whatever it likes."
Apart form the fact that you hate MS irrationally of course, why not?
As others have said (and you've probably ignored their wisdom too) bundling an app doesn't force anyone to use it.
Your assertion is just that, an assertion, with no basis in reality.
Slashdot Mirror
If the US totally disregarded human life, the numbers would be much higher.
Now address my points. All of them are easy opportunities to show our "total disregard for human life" yet we don't do any of them. Why is that?
Face it, you overstated your position, and now that you se it is indefensible, you're at a loss. Just admit it and get it over with.
"How did the US get to the "top of the pile"? A combination of a total disregard for human life"
See, the fact that you say that at all, but worse list it first, shows just how far from reality you are.
Do we execute our dissidents? No. Do we execute our POW's? No. Do we blindly and indisciminately use force? No.
The worst you can possibly say is that the US is overzealous, but "complete disregard for human life" is just hyperboilic in the extreme.
Which is why people like you get ignored.
Isn't it time we stopped bitching about this behavior and started doing something about it?
It's nice to know there are so many people who see through ploys like this (jail time? JAIL TIME?) but what is being done?
I'm tired of it. I'm sure most of you are tired of it. So why are we still tolerating it?
And please, no boycott stuff. It doesn't work, at least not well enough. We need something more, but what I don't know.
"Controlled" is not the actual definition of "in thrall to" "
"thrall Pronunciation (thrôl)
n.
1.
a. One, such as a slave or serf, who is held in bondage.
b. One who is intellectually or morally enslaved.
2. Servitude; bondage: "a people in thrall to the miracles of commerce" Lewis H. Lapham.
tr.v. thralled, thralling, thralls Archaic
To enslave."
Is it really necessary to continue, or do you care to continue making yourself look like a raging idiot?
"Still, if one wishes to comment on the political system (or the implications of a post on it), you should have at least a basic understanding."
I wasn't commenting on a political system, I was commenting on a comment. Stop with the fucking straw men, please, they're easily spotted and just as eaily dismissed.
"At least do as much before raking me over the coals like that else your the one who looks like a fucking idiot whether you are right or not."
I'm going to bring this down a level, but keep this in mind.
"Or perhaps you could take the time to actually look it up."
YOU said that. YOU were the one who posted a link after supposedly reading my post, despite the fact that I addressed that study in my post.
If you want to accuse others of looking "like a fucking idiot" then you should try to to a better job of reading what you're responding to.
"As for the issue of a single study with a single data point, surely you know that uniqueness is a highly strange thing in nature."
Not with respect to intelligence. Don't act like you know things that aren't true, it makes you look "like a fucking idiot".
If you'd like to understand why it's important to be diligent in studies such as this, look up the "counting horse" and you'll understand.
Lastly, I have to say, it's amazing to me that you can continue to act the way you are acting, in light of your original post, because it made you look "like a fucking idiot".
"I wouldn't mind seeing at least one link to a study with at least one example suporting your claims."
God, this is too easy. "Perhaps you could take the time to actually look it up."
We're done.
"Wow, you really are the consumate internet ass, are you not?"
If you meant "consummate", no. If you did mean "consumate" that's not a word, so no there too.
And before you cast stones, keep this is mind.
I didn't go around accusing people of behavior they didn't enagage in, based solely on my ignorance and misunderstanding.
That was you.
(apology? of course not...)
NIce try, but you completely avoided my question.
We weren't talking about you, or the things you think are important, we are discussing the article.
And this
"They essentially have you "prove" that you did not open a line of credit somewhere. The full burdon of proof is on you for something that you had nothing to do with."
is your opinion, and it just doesn't matter.
"This sure as hell looks like you implied that he was a screeching imbecile. Care to offer some other explanation?"
Yes, you ASSUMED something that wasn't true. You made a mistake.
Anything else, or are you going to apologize now?
"I try not and underestimate, or discount people that don't have the same skill set as me, and you would do well not to either."
And yet you appear to think it's ok to OVERestimte his knowledge.
"and we will use these results to claim it is your fault, not ours, that you suffered identity theft"
That's why. Show me where it says that, or implies that, or in any way suggests that these businesses believe that.
He made that garbage up, and got modded correctly for it. Perhaps there should be a mod for "-1 incredibly, stupidly hyperbolic made up crap" but there isn't, so that's what he got.
"So, who implied that the other was a "screeching imbecile"?"
No one did, and if you claim I did something because of what you THINK I "implied" then the term fits you.
"I guess it is easy to accuse others of your failings."
Trite, concise, and wrong. READ the post again, and stop assuming you know what I think.
Then apologze for your misunderstanding and ignorance.
"who our Prime Minister appears to be in thrall to"
Do you know what "in thrall to" means? Clearly not, otherwise you never would have posted.
Claiming the PM is "controlled" (that's what it means, in case you haven't looked it up yet) by the US means that his actions are a result of US influence.
They are not, I showed you why, go away now.
"Or perhaps you could take the time to actually look it up."
First of all, fuck you. If you're so smart, why didn't you read this statment
"If you doubt this go look into it. There was a story about a border collie
Oh, I get it. You're basing your opinion on one data point. Don't do that."
What "border collie" did you think I was talking about? Why would you ASSUME I DIDN'T look it up?
"This is not one data point."
Yes it is, the "study" you link to has ONE dog in it. ONE. ONE data point. So, you're wrong again. Show me where your link talks about any other dog than Rico? Oh it doesn't, so either you don't know what "ONE" means, or you can't count. Either way, you're wrong AGAIN.
"As for words specificlly, the example of Pico and other similar research have shown that many animals (not just dogs)"
Ok, it's "Rico" not "Pico" and I wasn't asking about "other animals" I was asking about dogs because this story is about dogs, and other animals are irrelevant. GOT THAT? An ape is not a dog, a dolphin is not a dog, and their behaviors don;t generalize across species. Why would you even bring this up?
In the future, perhaps you could actually READ my post, and respond to it instead of posting a link to ONE study that involves ONE dog, which I ALREADY FUCKING ADDRESSED IN MY ORIGINAL POST.
God what the hell is wrong with idiots like you?
PS, I did my undergrad work in language acquisition. I was asking out of academic interest, and your dumbass post pops up. Unless you have a study which provides what I asked for, and NOT the same study that hundreds of other idiots like you assume shows dogs respond to language, then you need to shut up.
Two things.
First, look up rhetorical, and then stop using the word because you don't know what it means.
As to the rest, you're an idiot. You know very well what I meant when I said the EU was influencing you, yet you play at being stupid (unless you're not playing) because you think it makes you look witty.
More importantly, I ASKED YOU TO CLARIFY YOUR STATEMENT.
All you had to do was answer my question, yet you decided to act like an asshole.
Why would you get so defensive if you didn"t believe what you said?
Unless you just default to dickhead...
"Just like the USA, who our Prime Minister appears to be in thrall to, we are sleepwalking into a nightmare of Orwellian proportions."
Did any Americans vote for your parliament?
Then this problem is yours. Stop blaming your lack of due diligence in selecting politicians on the US.
"If the fundies believe $it and the Harris Poll shows that a majority do not believe $it, does that mean that the fundies are not a majority in the US?"
Do you think fundies are a majority here?
I want to know, because it would be unfair of me to call you a screeching imbecile before I was clear on it.
This isn't the Middle East, fundamentalism here is still a small niche, no matter what the EU tries to tell you.
You just got on a web board and advocated FOR parental irresponsibility and neglect.
What the hell is wrong with you, and why haven't you sterilized yourself?
first post ever.
"Well count me out of your 'experience.'"
Don't worry, I was talking about regular people, not irrational, overreactive slashbots.
So no, I'm not counting you.
"The 'free ride' of bundling obviously does make a big difference. Just because Microsoft owns the operating system, this doesn't mean that it should be allowed to bundle whatever it likes."
Apart form the fact that you hate MS irrationally of course, why not?
As others have said (and you've probably ignored their wisdom too) bundling an app doesn't force anyone to use it.
Your assertion is just that, an assertion, with no basis in reality.
If that's true, then why are so many people using firefox?
Oh right, because it's not true.
"The TLD is restricted for EU members only."
Yes, and cats meow.
What does either of those statements have to do with my post, or the OP?
"The average windows user doesn't complain because they're not usually aware that alternatives even exist."
SO it's the responsibility of the court to indemnify users against their own ignorance?
That's just dumb.
That's the first thing I checked, and as of ten minutes ago it was available.
"I fail to see"
d =1535
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?i
Not anyomore you won't.
Now the question is, will you admit what CHe really was, or make lame excuses for his slaughter and butchery?
And don't change the subject, address what Che is known to have done, not what the conspiracists think.