"I never want a judge or a federal official telling me what I can and can't say. Ever. I don't care what people think their right is in a fair trial, but my right to speak my conscience or reveal information about others should be protected from government infringement."
So, explain why you should be able to reveal the identity of minors in a court case. Or rape victims. Or Jane Roe (from Roe v Wade).
Smarter people than you made the rules, and they exist for a reason.
Any chance you could get a new joke? I've been seeing that one on bumper stickers for a while now, and frankly, it wasn't funny when you used it on Thursday.
"A straw man argument is a rhetorical technique based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent."
So, now that you've been educated as to why your previous post was fallacious, let's address your point.
"If the PRC had an operative in the ROC, it's wouldn't be the ROC doing the dirty work, now would it?"
Fair point, not what he said. As for the point you make here, if the ROC is getting sweetheart deals and protection from the US, woudn't it be in their interest to prevent espionage? Of course it would.
Can the same be said about China? Nope.
And you'll notice that I have yet to personally attack you, while the same cannot be said for you.
"What you're saying is that it would be impossible for the PRC to get someone inside the ROC to implement something."
No, he's not saying that at all. He never made that argument, nor any argument that could be interpreted by a reasonable individual as near that argument.
Paraphrased, his argument was "Taiwan already HAS access to a great deal of our technology because we give it to them, so they have LESS motivation to engage in espionage. If they do engage in espionage, and get caught, they may not be our sweethearts anymore"
Address his point, not a made up hyperbolc statement that you can slap around to espouse your viewpoint.
"In 1154, Henry II became the first Plantagenet king. Among many achievements, Henry institutionalised common law by creating a unified system of law "common" to the country through incorporating and elevating local custom to the national, ending local control and peculiarities, eliminating arbitrary remedies, and reinstating a jury system of citizens sworn on oath to investigate reliable criminal accusations and civil claims. The jury reached its verdict through evaluating common local knowledge, not necessarily through the presentation of evidence, a distinguishing factor from today's civil and criminal court systems."
"Magna Carta (Latin for "Great Charter", literally "Great Paper"), also called Magna Carta Libertatum, was an English charter originally issued in 1215. Magna Carta is the most significant early influence on the long historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today."
So, even though common law existed before the Magna Carta, it was...based...on...the...Magna Carta...?
Exactly how many gasoline powered lawn tools do you have?
Professional landscapers use such tools for hours a day every day, and as far as I know the safety record of such devices is pretty good.
It's nice to think of things to complain about, and this tech is iffy, but making reasonably safe fuel cells powered by methanol shouldn't be as difficult as you seem to believe.
"I already defined reconstruction, as far as I was concerned, when I wrote:"
And your definition is wrong. What's not clear to you?
"Now, please give us your definition of reconstruction."
Why? You argued it was necessary based on an incorrect understanding of what the word meant. I have no responsibility to define it to your satisfaction.
"Bits of fuselage were moved from storage inside the building to the lawn after the events described in 1) in order to coverup that a patriotic aiforce pilot shot down a civilian plane, under direct orders to do so, in order to prevent another sucessfull strike."
Just so I'm clear, you think the government, as a matter of routine, stores airplane bits and pieces, JUST IN CASE?
Slashdot Mirror
You put a lot of things in bold, but it's pretty obvious why.
Nowhere in there is any support for your assertion that what is being done by Ticketmaster is unethical.
That is of course, because there's nothing "unethical" here at all, just something you don't like.
"The convictions were reversed in 1991"
Read your link.
"I never want a judge or a federal official telling me what I can and can't say. Ever. I don't care what people think their right is in a fair trial, but my right to speak my conscience or reveal information about others should be protected from government infringement."
So, explain why you should be able to reveal the identity of minors in a court case. Or rape victims. Or Jane Roe (from Roe v Wade).
Smarter people than you made the rules, and they exist for a reason.
How sad that you have to troll for karma like this
3 793853 58749
"Expecting the neo-con mod down in 3..2..1"
or this
"Expecting the conservative mod down in 3..2..1"
Examples?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=186339&cid=15
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=186102&cid=15
Stop karma whoring, or at least get a new catch phrase.
"Does anyone believe the bushit?"
3 58833
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=186102&cid=15
Any chance you could get a new joke? I've been seeing that one on bumper stickers for a while now, and frankly, it wasn't funny when you used it on Thursday.
"It's because of things like this that other countries want an international organization to control the TLD's."
/ 04/1558212
Well, it's because of things like this that the rest of us think things are fine right where they are.
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05
"AND, he has just as much right to speak as anyone else."
Unless he's in China, where he has no rights at all.
I love how when you use an obvious logical fallacy, I'm the troll. Nice personal attack, used in place of a valid argument.
Don't get pissy because you're making up positions for others. You did it not me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
"A straw man argument is a rhetorical technique based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent."
So, now that you've been educated as to why your previous post was fallacious, let's address your point.
"If the PRC had an operative in the ROC, it's wouldn't be the ROC doing the dirty work, now would it?"
Fair point, not what he said. As for the point you make here, if the ROC is getting sweetheart deals and protection from the US, woudn't it be in their interest to prevent espionage? Of course it would.
Can the same be said about China? Nope.
And you'll notice that I have yet to personally attack you, while the same cannot be said for you.
Who's trolling again?
"What you're saying is that it would be impossible for the PRC to get someone inside the ROC to implement something."
No, he's not saying that at all. He never made that argument, nor any argument that could be interpreted by a reasonable individual as near that argument.
Paraphrased, his argument was "Taiwan already HAS access to a great deal of our technology because we give it to them, so they have LESS motivation to engage in espionage. If they do engage in espionage, and get caught, they may not be our sweethearts anymore"
Address his point, not a made up hyperbolc statement that you can slap around to espouse your viewpoint.
Do you mean this Russ Feingold?
o f_Representatives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold
The S-E-N-A-T-O-R? You know, in the Senate?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Senate
You are aware, I hope, that the Senate is not the House?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_
And you are also aware I presume that the House begins the impeachment proceedings, while the Senate cannot?
Why would you just make shit up?
"how long before you get troll-modded into oblivion again"
Look for that to happen around the time you move out of your mom's basement and stop selling yourself on the street.
"UK common law comes from the Magna Carta"
Hmm, that's funny, you seem to be completely wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
"In 1154, Henry II became the first Plantagenet king. Among many achievements, Henry institutionalised common law by creating a unified system of law "common" to the country through incorporating and elevating local custom to the national, ending local control and peculiarities, eliminating arbitrary remedies, and reinstating a jury system of citizens sworn on oath to investigate reliable criminal accusations and civil claims. The jury reached its verdict through evaluating common local knowledge, not necessarily through the presentation of evidence, a distinguishing factor from today's civil and criminal court systems."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Charta
"Magna Carta (Latin for "Great Charter", literally "Great Paper"), also called Magna Carta Libertatum, was an English charter originally issued in 1215. Magna Carta is the most significant early influence on the long historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today."
So, even though common law existed before the Magna Carta, it was...based...on...the...Magna Carta...?
It actually took a few minutes.
Exactly how many gasoline powered lawn tools do you have?
Professional landscapers use such tools for hours a day every day, and as far as I know the safety record of such devices is pretty good.
It's nice to think of things to complain about, and this tech is iffy, but making reasonably safe fuel cells powered by methanol shouldn't be as difficult as you seem to believe.
"If half of this funding was given to a country in the developing world..." it would disappear into thin air, as has happened time and time again.
"it is just yet another way to earn money from the poor"
Care to explain how to take money from people with no money?
Was this sentence
"Designed to take the impact of mulitple jets."
to realize what a nutjob you are.
"The video was doctored"
That's the response from the conspiracy theorists to your video.
http://www.rediff.com/money/2001/nov/17wtc.htm
Proceed to engage in nonsensical conspiratorial blather.
"I already defined reconstruction, as far as I was concerned, when I wrote:"
And your definition is wrong. What's not clear to you?
"Now, please give us your definition of reconstruction."
Why? You argued it was necessary based on an incorrect understanding of what the word meant. I have no responsibility to define it to your satisfaction.
"Bits of fuselage were moved from storage inside the building to the lawn after the events described in 1) in order to coverup that a patriotic aiforce pilot shot down a civilian plane, under direct orders to do so, in order to prevent another sucessfull strike."
Just so I'm clear, you think the government, as a matter of routine, stores airplane bits and pieces, JUST IN CASE?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA. BWAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA.
That's just dumb.
"I just don't understand this theory that the govt is incabable of keeping secrets."
No one is saying that. Hell no one beleives that.
But there is a fair bit of difference between running a secret operation involving a few people and what would have been required on 9/11.
It's the scale of the secrecy required that is unbelieveable, to non-nutbags anyway...
No, no no YOU define reconstruction. YOU insisted it was necessary, not me.
"After Adolf Hitler firebombed the Reichstag"
No he didn't. Why do you people always resort to lying?
There is evidence he may have ordered it burned. That is not anywhere even remotely close to what you claimed, and you know it.
So why lie when you're easily disproven?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
Stop lying.
"Just because some people are insane does not mean that all people are insane."
Unfortunately for you, they're the same "insane" people for both conspiracies.
I believe you have been "hoist upon your own petard". But man was that funny how you called the OTHER conspiracy theorists insane...