"Are you honestly arguing that a poster's choice of "an" vs "some" disqualifies his entire argument? "
Nope, he's arging that gp is lying about the situation, and thus is not credible.
Gp's claim is in direct opposition with OP's post, so he's either lying or ignorant, and neither makes him credible.
However, specifically op said he had TWO AMD 64 processors, which he used in a professional capacity,thud belying the assumptions made in gp's reply.
"However, a person is not a fanboi for pointing out obvious inconsistencies, regardless if he mis-remembered a not particularly significant number."
No, but their credibility suffers when OP says "I had two different systems, both of which I used in a professional capacity" which is what he DID say, versus GP's lie that he is" someone who tried an AMD CPU once, didn't do due their due dilligence, and just assumed all AMD procs were broken because their system was."
THAT difference IS significant, despite your clearly incorrect assertion that it isn't.
In short, you replied to something you didn't bother to totally understand and got it wrong.
"1. Screaming and yelling at a poster for being a idiot because they do not agree with you, 2. Failing to recognize that the commenting system on/. is to be a meaningful, intelligent, mature discussion of a particular article, and 3. Not understanding that capitalization of words is to be done in accordance with proper rules of grammer, and not as a means to yelling louder over your percieved persecution."
In other words, you abused you mod points and used them incorrectly.
Nice job douche, you should quit modding posts until you learn how to do it without abusing it.
If you'll bother to think back 10 years ago, you'd recall that the slashdot hivemind was just as outraged over Clinton's Echelon.
SO what? You do know that "BHO" doesn't stand for "Clinton" right?
Or are you pretending the current political climate is the same as it was for Clinton?
Why do you think you totally non-insightful observation about someone who wasn't discussed, and served as President during a vastly different political climate, has anything to do with this discussion other than as a diversion?
"HEY GUYS, YOU DO KNOW GROVER CLEVELAND..."
Please allow the non-apologists to talk, although it is nice of you to prove OP's point.
Considering the last time any comment by you was NOT modded -1 was last January, you might not be the best person to judge anyone's life as "empty and meaningless".
I see, so you think the moderation of one's comments is somehow related to... the value of their life?
I suppose those two totally unrelated things prove SOMETHING...
No, see, what really happened is that you ARE a loser with no life, and the ONLY thing you had to come at me with was comment moderation.
So you tried desperately to find a way use comment moderation against me. Even to the point of making what, to anyone who isn't brain damaged, is a patently moronic association.
It's kind of funny that in trying to prove you aren't a total loser, you piled the evidence even higher against you.
YOU: "YOUR COMMENT MODERATION IS BAD SO YOU'RE AN ASTRONAUT!!!"
See that guy, that conclusion was just as valid as the one you pathetically spewed out in your Shakespearean "doth protest too much" rebuttal of your own loserdom.
God, how could you even try something so retarded? And then POST it?
It says a lot about just how empty and meaningless your life is that you think mundane court proceedings are worth your time.
Of course, you're probably not informed enough to know this was the definition of mundane, so your claims of how important the legal equivalent of a lunch order is sound slightly less retarded in light of your ignorance.
Well mods I'm disappointed. In my attempt to get this "lawyer" to actually clarify what he meant, and avoid posting his useless opinion in place of fact, you decided I was a troll.
And yet, I;m still factually corrct and this "lawyer" isn't.
Making people be ACCURATE with their discriptions of the case doesn't make me a troll, and if NewYorkCountry"so-called"lawyer ahd any self respect, he'd admit I was right and his description of the situtation was unclear at best.
What's that, I didn't slurp the pet-anti-RIAA "lawyer"? Oh, THAT'S why you think I'm a troll. I get it now.
"He meant the act of that actually bringing about an appeal is impossible. which it is. and they have not done, nor will. So his claim is 100% accurate."
No it isn't.
You're artificually confining the definition of the word to what makes his assertion correct.
They CAN appeal.
There may be NO LEGAL BASIS for their appeal to succeed, but that CAN and HAVE appealed, so you're both wrong now.
And this is stupid, you're both arguing they can't do something they've already done.
"Of course it doesn't; it doesn't need to! The 5th Amendment says that "no person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property...." It doesn't say "citizen," it says "person!" That means it applies to every person! Period! How much more fucking clear does it have to be?!"
What a colossally stupid attempt at a point.
Guess what dumbass, it discusses jurisdiction too. If the document DOES NOT have jurisdicstion, then it's claims of what behaviors are and are not allowed by government MEAN FUCK ALL because the document itself defines its jurisdiction.
So you're wrong, mostly because you confused your opinion with valid legal theory.
"The quote you claim he made in your last paragraph is indeed false. The claim he actually made (as you quoted in your first paragraph) is unequivocally true."
I chose the claim he MADE which is "unequivocally" present in black and white.
It's not a "quote I claim he made", as HE ACTUALLY MADE IT YOU FUCKING MORON.
It's clear you have no idea what the fuck you're blathering about, and your mastery of the language sucks.
"The definition of who is a person has changed, not the rights of a person. When the country was founded, slaves were not people, and women were only barely counted as such. "
"Barely counted as suh" still means they were people, so you're mooting your own point ith your post.
" The American government and Constitution were founded on the idea that everyone has the same rights, whether they are citizens of the U.S. or not."
Despite there being Slavery at the founding of The American Government.
Despite everyone NOT having the same rights at the founding of the American Government (women couldn't vote for example).
Despit your claim that "everyone has the same rights, whether they are citizens of the U.S. or not." appearing NOWHERE in the Constitution.
Now, don't presume that I disagree with the idea that equality is universal, but your claims about it being historically true in respect to the American Government are unequivocally false.
You;re aware you were definitively proven to be a lair, and have also proven every derogatory remark I've made true right.
And save the childish "you're iunsultign yourself' garbage, it's transparent.
I won, you LIED, and the best you can do now is troll me with stupid shit like "You're aware you're insulting yourself right? This is so much fun, I should probably go and get some popcorn."
Yeah yeah "I'm rubber you're glue" is next from you I'm sure.
Slashdot Mirror
"Are you honestly arguing that a poster's choice of "an" vs "some" disqualifies his entire argument? "
Nope, he's arging that gp is lying about the situation, and thus is not credible.
Gp's claim is in direct opposition with OP's post, so he's either lying or ignorant, and neither makes him credible.
However, specifically op said he had TWO AMD 64 processors, which he used in a professional capacity,thud belying the assumptions made in gp's reply.
"However, a person is not a fanboi for pointing out obvious inconsistencies, regardless if he mis-remembered a not particularly significant number."
No, but their credibility suffers when OP says "I had two different systems, both of which I used in a professional capacity" which is what he DID say, versus GP's lie that he is" someone who tried an AMD CPU once, didn't do due their due dilligence, and just assumed all AMD procs were broken because their system was."
THAT difference IS significant, despite your clearly incorrect assertion that it isn't.
In short, you replied to something you didn't bother to totally understand and got it wrong.
"1. Screaming and yelling at a poster for being a idiot because they do not agree with you, /. is to be a meaningful, intelligent, mature discussion of a particular article, and
2. Failing to recognize that the commenting system on
3. Not understanding that capitalization of words is to be done in accordance with proper rules of grammer, and not as a means to yelling louder over your percieved persecution."
In other words, you abused you mod points and used them incorrectly.
Nice job douche, you should quit modding posts until you learn how to do it without abusing it.
And it's "GRAMMAR" you fucking twat.
Wow, if you missed that fiasco, you need to stop commenting, period.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU
And I bet when you posted that stupid fucking "Citation Needed!" crap, you thought you had him.
SO what? You do know that "BHO" doesn't stand for "Clinton" right?
Or are you pretending the current political climate is the same as it was for Clinton?
Why do you think you totally non-insightful observation about someone who wasn't discussed, and served as President during a vastly different political climate, has anything to do with this discussion other than as a diversion?
"HEY GUYS, YOU DO KNOW GROVER CLEVELAND..."
Please allow the non-apologists to talk, although it is nice of you to prove OP's point.
I see, so you think the moderation of one's comments is somehow related to... the value of their life?
I suppose those two totally unrelated things prove SOMETHING...
No, see, what really happened is that you ARE a loser with no life, and the ONLY thing you had to come at me with was comment moderation.
So you tried desperately to find a way use comment moderation against me. Even to the point of making what, to anyone who isn't brain damaged, is a patently moronic association.
It's kind of funny that in trying to prove you aren't a total loser, you piled the evidence even higher against you.
YOU: "YOUR COMMENT MODERATION IS BAD SO YOU'RE AN ASTRONAUT!!!"
See that guy, that conclusion was just as valid as the one you pathetically spewed out in your Shakespearean "doth protest too much" rebuttal of your own loserdom.
God, how could you even try something so retarded? And then POST it?
It's not that, we just know you're full of shit and lying about them.
No it doesn't, you're lying again.
FTFY
It says a lot about just how empty and meaningless your life is that you think mundane court proceedings are worth your time.
Of course, you're probably not informed enough to know this was the definition of mundane, so your claims of how important the legal equivalent of a lunch order is sound slightly less retarded in light of your ignorance.
And this guy was still wrong.
"It's not possible for you to make an intelligent post.
Try all you want. You will fail."
Hi Zironic! Still pissed off I proved you were a liar here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1087679&cid=26467823
Sad though that you wasted ALL of your mods points on me, especially since you just made it obvious it was you.
NICE JOB MODS!
You wasted 6 mod points on me in my attempt to get this self procalimed "lawyer" to be MORE CLEAR AND CONCISE in his description of this situation.
Well done, very responsible use of mod points.
And yet my objection is STILL true, and his description is STILL wrong.
Well mods I'm disappointed. In my attempt to get this "lawyer" to actually clarify what he meant, and avoid posting his useless opinion in place of fact, you decided I was a troll.
And yet, I;m still factually corrct and this "lawyer" isn't.
Making people be ACCURATE with their discriptions of the case doesn't make me a troll, and if NewYorkCountry"so-called"lawyer ahd any self respect, he'd admit I was right and his description of the situtation was unclear at best.
What's that, I didn't slurp the pet-anti-RIAA "lawyer"? Oh, THAT'S why you think I'm a troll. I get it now.
I try to get this guy to be CORRECT ith his descriptions, and you people think that makes me a troll.
Says a lot about the priorities around here.
"He meant the act of that actually bringing about an appeal is impossible. which it is. and they have not done, nor will. So his claim is 100% accurate."
No it isn't.
You're artificually confining the definition of the word to what makes his assertion correct.
They CAN appeal.
There may be NO LEGAL BASIS for their appeal to succeed, but that CAN and HAVE appealed, so you're both wrong now.
And this is stupid, you're both arguing they can't do something they've already done.
*sigh*
No you said it's "(a) it's not possible to appeal the order"
They have.
You were wrong.
You missed my point.
Totally.
They did someting you claim is impossible, so your claim is clearly not accurate.
"I'm amazed your account still has enough karma to post above 0."
You shouldn't be, I don't lie like you do.
"I'm just a country lawyer, but as far as I know: (a) it's not possible to appeal the order"
Because doing so WILL BRING FORTH THE APOCALYPSE!!!
They've somehow done the IMPOSSIBLE!
Or maybe you should have said "an appeal has no legal basis for success" or something that accurately describes the situation?
Why haven't you taught them about the dangers of being an imbecile and posting on the internet, based on your extensive personal expertise doing both?
"While they might not be 100% accurate in all situations breath analyzers are still considered to be mostly accurate "
Stop making statments that you can't support with facts, I caught you lying the last time you tried that shit.
The you ran and hid like a bitch.
"Of course it doesn't; it doesn't need to! The 5th Amendment says that "no person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property...." It doesn't say "citizen," it says "person!" That means it applies to every person! Period! How much more fucking clear does it have to be?!"
What a colossally stupid attempt at a point.
Guess what dumbass, it discusses jurisdiction too. If the document DOES NOT have jurisdicstion, then it's claims of what behaviors are and are not allowed by government MEAN FUCK ALL because the document itself defines its jurisdiction.
So you're wrong, mostly because you confused your opinion with valid legal theory.
"The quote you claim he made in your last paragraph is indeed false. The claim he actually made (as you quoted in your first paragraph) is unequivocally true."
I chose the claim he MADE which is "unequivocally" present in black and white.
It's not a "quote I claim he made", as HE ACTUALLY MADE IT YOU FUCKING MORON.
It's clear you have no idea what the fuck you're blathering about, and your mastery of the language sucks.
"The definition of who is a person has changed, not the rights of a person. When the country was founded, slaves were not people, and women were only barely counted as such. "
"Barely counted as suh" still means they were people, so you're mooting your own point ith your post.
Which was pretty stupid to begin with.
" The American government and Constitution were founded on the idea that everyone has the same rights, whether they are citizens of the U.S. or not."
Despite there being Slavery at the founding of The American Government.
Despite everyone NOT having the same rights at the founding of the American Government (women couldn't vote for example).
Despit your claim that "everyone has the same rights, whether they are citizens of the U.S. or not." appearing NOWHERE in the Constitution.
Now, don't presume that I disagree with the idea that equality is universal, but your claims about it being historically true in respect to the American Government are unequivocally false.
You;re aware you were definitively proven to be a lair, and have also proven every derogatory remark I've made true right.
And save the childish "you're iunsultign yourself' garbage, it's transparent.
I won, you LIED, and the best you can do now is troll me with stupid shit like "You're aware you're insulting yourself right? This is so much fun, I should probably go and get some popcorn."
Yeah yeah "I'm rubber you're glue" is next from you I'm sure.
How about instead you just STOP LYING.?
"Inalienable
You cannot take them away, citizen, non-citizen, good guy, bad guy."
You're mistaken, rights CAN be taken away, and that's not what inalienable means.
If you doubt it, look at convicted felons, and don't bitch, it's perfectly Constitutional.
You're simply wrong.
"Liberty was an inalienable right once... long ago..."
WHEN? You tell me exactly when and where Liberty was "inalienable" and I'll prove you're full of shit. Just ask the Founding Father's slaves.
Government has ALWAYS stepped on rights, this magical Freedom land you're pontificating about never existed.