...in time strange fold found their way into the reaches of the mountain, and it was there that they found the caves of unimaningable... Of vengeful, ancient breed
There was crack on the corner and fire coming out of the monkey's head. Gilded with the pelts of many enemies
The English language is a wonderful thing. Part of it being wonderful is having a variety of words to accurately describe a variety of situations, another part is the 'fuzzy' comprehension of words writers or readers may not be familiar with.
Your parent presented the difference of enticement and entrapment. The article details enticement and a 'sting' rather than entrapment.
You state (in the parent) Entrapment is not illegal -- its just not allowed by gov't agents. This is true. It is even legal for government agents to entrap (it is against their rules of conduct, rather than laws of legality), but they may not bring a case to prosecution on the basis of entrapment, and a case may easily be thrown out if it becomes clear they have used entrapment.
Entrapment can be non-governmental -- but there is not a law on file for it BECAUSE IT IS NOT BREAKING THE LAW. Of fucking course they will specifically only talk about police and gov't officials in a law SPECIFICALLY BARRING POLICE AND GOV'T OFFICALS FROM ENGAGING IN THIS ACTIVITY.
Now this is where you logic of "I was talking in laymans terms and nothing more. Any non-dumbfuck would have understood this is EXACTLY what I was saying" breaks down. You firstly talked about the legal definition, even citing your perceptions of the law relating to government bodies, then contradicted yourself by saying (after the event) this is not what you meant.
That is why the English language (and practically almost every other human language on the planet) is a wonderful thing. There are words which mean certain things. That is also where human comprehension is a wonderful thing; we cannot expect everyone to speak like a PhD thesis so we piece together potentially inconsistent uses of words with the context they are used in (as is grammar and spelling to other degrees). You, sir, failed to use the word correctly, but more importantly "I was talking in laymans terms and nothing more" failed to help a lay(or any other)man understand what you actually meant, by being internally inconsistent.
First the BBC is not the same as Channel 4, it doesn't recieve anything from the T.V. license and money is raised through commercials. However it does have some broadcasting obligations, like programmes for schools.
The BBC is mainly funded by the licence fee (limited revenues come from sales of programmes to other networks/countries, etc). Channel 4 is partially (minority) funded by the licence fee, the justification being that it is remitted to provide 'niche' viewing in some subject areas (education, as you stated, and a few other areas).
Make a massive lasagne chill/freeze the remains and microwave/grill or oven it when you get home. Works great for homemade soups too.
But roasts are great: roast chicken or duck just need salt/pepper seasoning, add some chilli flakes or honey for a different flavour. Roast pork and beef are lovely but some more effort for the sauce (apple with pork is good, some red wine with the roast juices cooked up on the stove for 15 minutes). Add herbs to taste. Mmmm.
Slashdot Mirror
Then again, I am posting on Slashdot, so I don't know why I pretend -not- to be dorky ;-)
;)
I'm a geek and a nerd, not a dork. It is so dorky not to get your facts right.
...better to reign in Hell! Thank God for the suffering!
...in time strange fold found their way into the reaches of the mountain, and it was there that they found the caves of unimaningable ... Of vengeful, ancient breed
There was crack on the corner and fire coming out of the monkey's head. Gilded with the pelts of many enemies
All. Hell All. Strange folk arrived in the town, but no one noticed them.
The English language is a wonderful thing. Part of it being wonderful is having a variety of words to accurately describe a variety of situations, another part is the 'fuzzy' comprehension of words writers or readers may not be familiar with.
Your parent presented the difference of enticement and entrapment. The article details enticement and a 'sting' rather than entrapment.
You state (in the parent) Entrapment is not illegal -- its just not allowed by gov't agents. This is true. It is even legal for government agents to entrap (it is against their rules of conduct, rather than laws of legality), but they may not bring a case to prosecution on the basis of entrapment, and a case may easily be thrown out if it becomes clear they have used entrapment.
Entrapment can be non-governmental -- but there is not a law on file for it BECAUSE IT IS NOT BREAKING THE LAW. Of fucking course they will specifically only talk about police and gov't officials in a law SPECIFICALLY BARRING POLICE AND GOV'T OFFICALS FROM ENGAGING IN THIS ACTIVITY.
Now this is where you logic of "I was talking in laymans terms and nothing more. Any non-dumbfuck would have understood this is EXACTLY what I was saying" breaks down. You firstly talked about the legal definition, even citing your perceptions of the law relating to government bodies, then contradicted yourself by saying (after the event) this is not what you meant.
That is why the English language (and practically almost every other human language on the planet) is a wonderful thing. There are words which mean certain things. That is also where human comprehension is a wonderful thing; we cannot expect everyone to speak like a PhD thesis so we piece together potentially inconsistent uses of words with the context they are used in (as is grammar and spelling to other degrees). You, sir, failed to use the word correctly, but more importantly "I was talking in laymans terms and nothing more" failed to help a lay(or any other)man understand what you actually meant, by being internally inconsistent.
First the BBC is not the same as Channel 4, it doesn't recieve anything from the T.V. license and money is raised through commercials. However it does have some broadcasting obligations, like programmes for schools.
The BBC is mainly funded by the licence fee (limited revenues come from sales of programmes to other networks/countries, etc). Channel 4 is partially (minority) funded by the licence fee, the justification being that it is remitted to provide 'niche' viewing in some subject areas (education, as you stated, and a few other areas).
Make a massive lasagne chill/freeze the remains and microwave/grill or oven it when you get home. Works great for homemade soups too.
But roasts are great: roast chicken or duck just need salt/pepper seasoning, add some chilli flakes or honey for a different flavour. Roast pork and beef are lovely but some more effort for the sauce (apple with pork is good, some red wine with the roast juices cooked up on the stove for 15 minutes). Add herbs to taste. Mmmm.
Or (1.5/1.07)-1=40.2% upgrade!
First comment from China!