The lawyerly response would be 'Yes, I'm sure you searched for all emails to and from the subject's address. Please provide all emails sent or received, as requested, or explain why these are not produced.'
As in cutting through the BS and stating the demand plainly. FOIA requests need not ask that the subject search for documents, but that they produce ANY available documents requested. How they do that is not the requester's concern.
And since even you know she used the private server(s) as the only means of official email communication, then the excuses are feeble and moot. Either fail to deliver or claim they are lost. The former, violation. The latter, incompetence at the least, and implicitly a violation.
You could look for the big efforts, like hospitals, schools, and similar institutions.
My church joins with others to support an orphanage in Haiti and one in Mexico, also supporting a pastoral college in the US, and two local food pantries, rather than operate our own poorly. The last time I asked our various outreaches, missionaries, and corporate giving totaled about 20% of our budget. We also deliberately maintain a 'benevolence fund' to aid members and non - members who need financial assistance.
There are currently 166 LDS temples worldwide either open, under construction, or being renovated.
I've toured two of these, one which might be described as elaborate. No golden oxen, but yes, ornate and well fashioned. I'm respectfully impressed.
Some of their practices are indeed non-Christian, and I live in the midst of many Mormons, have studied their religion as best I can, and see the divergence.
"even their charity is just charity to their own mega-churches where the money ends up going to a campaign to keep gays from basic human rights or to bogus "feed the children" charity scams."
"Pirates were, customarily, hung by the neck until dead. Can't do that in zero-gravity..." Sure. Set the noose and twirl them around.
"Throwing one out of an airlock is rather cruel — and unusual too. Wasting your own crew's sole means of evacuation on transferring the captured pirates to Earth is not only wasteful, but may well condemn the said crew to death." As if hanging isn't cruel if not done quite right. Twirling will require some acceleration, which will be cruel.
"Keeping the detained pirates up there — and feeding them food at $17,000-20,000 per kilogram? Talk about waste of taxpayers' money!" Right. So capital punishment serves the same purpose in space as it does on the open seas; why are you feeding the criminal at the expense of your own crew?
"Letting them "go", as we now do in our vegetarian times with most maritime pirates, is not going to be an option either — where are they going to go and what'll keep them from coming right back to your space-station after you leave?" The Russian solution...
"Quite a dilemma, actually... Unless you handle it the Russian way — "release" the bastards, but make sure, they die before reaching the shore." Ditto.
The mobile Internet market is busy defining 'unlimited data' as something else. More specifically;
- Throttling speeds after some arbitrary amount of data used. It really doesn't matter what the amount is, so long as they disclose it.
- Reducing video quality to reduce bandwidth demands. Which is a 'nice' way of saying your love of good quality video costs them too much, and they cannot afford to expand network capacity to satisfy your appetite for beauty.
- Working with video providers to cache the data closer to the mobile network, saving on peer network costs and enabling them to reduce video quality somewhat easier.
- Offering you higher data limits for higher fees, letting you set the price for what you want...
Why is this good?
> Throttling after a certain amount of data does let the user know they are profligate (by the definition of the seller) data consumers, and gives them the information needed to make buying decisions.
> Reducing video quality gives consumers a tangible measure of quality of service to make buying decisions with.
> When mobile and other ISPs develop partnerships with content providers they can better manage the data. Of course playing with video quality, for one, will expose to consumers the choices being made, and give them information to make buying decisions.
> Fractional data service may give some consumers more choice and control (Google Fi is a lot like this), though it may be that the oligarchy is merely letting consumers play with pennies.
But this is just the problem of supply and demand. Because it impacts our ability to watch kitten videos we go insane. Really.
Hardly. There may be some minimal fines, and some consent decrees, and they will continue on with a few token hires and better management of the process.
Look at Wells Fargo - Such breathtaking violations of consumer finance laws and regulations, literal theft, an organizational culture that both permitted and failed to detect such behavior, and NO ONE will go to jail. The theft charges that were not brought should compel that, and the fines are an order of magnitude less than deserved.
One difference is that, if our fears are realized, the globalist overseers will give them comfort and indemnity from the responsibility to say 'no!' and not delete anything considered offensive, dangerous, or just 'improper' by anyone who can get the ear of the censors.
So, for instance;
- Christians plainly offend Islam, must by being Christian. Those who profess no faith also offend Islam, so take a number and get in line.
- Criticism of oppressive governments offends those governments. They can be expected to demand censorship. Their subjects will likely not receive better treatment.
- Government abuses that would otherwise be disclosed by whistle-blowers will go unreported, and unrecognized, if the censors have their way and prevent the distribution of these reports.
- Contrary opinion on a number of topics would be at risk of suppression and outright deletion. Pick a topic. All contrary thought would be at risk of disappearing.
- And to finish, this sort of control may enable the censors to not merely suppress information, but to identify and punish those who provided it. Yeah, that's comforting.
The US isn't perfect, but it's much more trustworthy than any proposed globalized group. Heck, today I don't even trust Jon Postel's Alma Mater these days. And he would weep.
If your judgment is that Twitter behavior is a legitimate measure of a person's character, you're half right. If you think it's a legitimate measure of a candidate's maturity, you're just lost. Whichever candidate.
I have too many acquaintances who are lefties and antivax/anticorp/antianything to accept that as universally accurate. The antivaxxers are defined by the health of their children, mostly.
Slashdot Mirror
The lawyerly response would be 'Yes, I'm sure you searched for all emails to and from the subject's address. Please provide all emails sent or received, as requested, or explain why these are not produced.'
As in cutting through the BS and stating the demand plainly. FOIA requests need not ask that the subject search for documents, but that they produce ANY available documents requested. How they do that is not the requester's concern.
And since even you know she used the private server(s) as the only means of official email communication, then the excuses are feeble and moot. Either fail to deliver or claim they are lost. The former, violation. The latter, incompetence at the least, and implicitly a violation.
Not an amp, but I still have a working Channel Master 6506, red, though most of the electrolytic caps have been replaced.
It was a gift back when it was new.
By that measure few of us are anything but overwhelmingly selfish. Or worse.
You could look for the big efforts, like hospitals, schools, and similar institutions.
My church joins with others to support an orphanage in Haiti and one in Mexico, also supporting a pastoral college in the US, and two local food pantries, rather than operate our own poorly. The last time I asked our various outreaches, missionaries, and corporate giving totaled about 20% of our budget. We also deliberately maintain a 'benevolence fund' to aid members and non - members who need financial assistance.
And in my area we are not exceptional.
"and are an extension of government welfare programs"
You've got that reversed. Government has been encroaching on private charity work for a few decades.
And today most of us get our opium in packages about 5-6 inches tall and a fraction of an inch thick. With a battery in it.
We already try.
Cutting us in half does not improve this.
There are currently 166 LDS temples worldwide either open, under construction, or being renovated.
I've toured two of these, one which might be described as elaborate. No golden oxen, but yes, ornate and well fashioned. I'm respectfully impressed.
Some of their practices are indeed non-Christian, and I live in the midst of many Mormons, have studied their religion as best I can, and see the divergence.
But I won't call them ungenerous.
"even their charity is just charity to their own mega-churches where the money ends up going to a campaign to keep gays from basic human rights or to bogus "feed the children" charity scams."
Citations, please.
"Pirates were, customarily, hung by the neck until dead. Can't do that in zero-gravity..."
Sure. Set the noose and twirl them around.
"Throwing one out of an airlock is rather cruel — and unusual too. Wasting your own crew's sole means of evacuation on transferring the captured pirates to Earth is not only wasteful, but may well condemn the said crew to death."
As if hanging isn't cruel if not done quite right. Twirling will require some acceleration, which will be cruel.
"Keeping the detained pirates up there — and feeding them food at $17,000-20,000 per kilogram? Talk about waste of taxpayers' money!"
Right. So capital punishment serves the same purpose in space as it does on the open seas; why are you feeding the criminal at the expense of your own crew?
"Letting them "go", as we now do in our vegetarian times with most maritime pirates, is not going to be an option either — where are they going to go and what'll keep them from coming right back to your space-station after you leave?"
The Russian solution...
"Quite a dilemma, actually... Unless you handle it the Russian way — "release" the bastards, but make sure, they die before reaching the shore."
Ditto.
These people need to be MADE to use Pokemon Go on their gaming rig.
I'll watch, thanks. Or not.
Because, if for no other reason, the World will be controlling their Internets anyways.
Let them.
Take a ticket, and get some popcorn.
The mobile Internet market is busy defining 'unlimited data' as something else. More specifically;
- Throttling speeds after some arbitrary amount of data used. It really doesn't matter what the amount is, so long as they disclose it.
- Reducing video quality to reduce bandwidth demands. Which is a 'nice' way of saying your love of good quality video costs them too much, and they cannot afford to expand network capacity to satisfy your appetite for beauty.
- Working with video providers to cache the data closer to the mobile network, saving on peer network costs and enabling them to reduce video quality somewhat easier.
- Offering you higher data limits for higher fees, letting you set the price for what you want...
Why is this good?
> Throttling after a certain amount of data does let the user know they are profligate (by the definition of the seller) data consumers, and gives them the information needed to make buying decisions.
> Reducing video quality gives consumers a tangible measure of quality of service to make buying decisions with.
> When mobile and other ISPs develop partnerships with content providers they can better manage the data. Of course playing with video quality, for one, will expose to consumers the choices being made, and give them information to make buying decisions.
> Fractional data service may give some consumers more choice and control (Google Fi is a lot like this), though it may be that the oligarchy is merely letting consumers play with pennies.
But this is just the problem of supply and demand. Because it impacts our ability to watch kitten videos we go insane. Really.
Because TWAIN was already taken.
Hardly. There may be some minimal fines, and some consent decrees, and they will continue on with a few token hires and better management of the process.
Look at Wells Fargo - Such breathtaking violations of consumer finance laws and regulations, literal theft, an organizational culture that both permitted and failed to detect such behavior, and NO ONE will go to jail. The theft charges that were not brought should compel that, and the fines are an order of magnitude less than deserved.
This is chump change comparatively.
One difference is that, if our fears are realized, the globalist overseers will give them comfort and indemnity from the responsibility to say 'no!' and not delete anything considered offensive, dangerous, or just 'improper' by anyone who can get the ear of the censors.
So, for instance;
- Christians plainly offend Islam, must by being Christian. Those who profess no faith also offend Islam, so take a number and get in line.
- Criticism of oppressive governments offends those governments. They can be expected to demand censorship. Their subjects will likely not receive better treatment.
- Government abuses that would otherwise be disclosed by whistle-blowers will go unreported, and unrecognized, if the censors have their way and prevent the distribution of these reports.
- Contrary opinion on a number of topics would be at risk of suppression and outright deletion. Pick a topic. All contrary thought would be at risk of disappearing.
- And to finish, this sort of control may enable the censors to not merely suppress information, but to identify and punish those who provided it. Yeah, that's comforting.
The US isn't perfect, but it's much more trustworthy than any proposed globalized group. Heck, today I don't even trust Jon Postel's Alma Mater these days. And he would weep.
Giving control away as planned will not make this better.
If your judgment is that Twitter behavior is a legitimate measure of a person's character, you're half right. If you think it's a legitimate measure of a candidate's maturity, you're just lost. Whichever candidate.
That would be Bernie. No, he won't.
I have too many acquaintances who are lefties and antivax /anticorp/antianything to accept that as universally accurate. The antivaxxers are defined by the health of their children, mostly.
Watergate occurred in the 70s.
And that's why men generally die younger.
Right.
Written like a true Leftist.
Patience, friend. The rebuilding begins when the previous structure is removed, and a new foundation is laid.
Since they already do, it's an easy promise.
You aware of the UCMJ?