Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
That certainly seemed to be the idea implied. Maybe that's not what you intended, but that's how it came across.
Only if you're reading the magical words that are only visible to you that appeared underneath or beside what I actually wrote. This quote 'attorneys... not clearly laying out the facts of the case' is clearly me writing about laying out facts in an unclear way, not about laying out false evidence. Again, you're an idiot.
Nope. I think that's what you're doing.
Which word am I redefining? Fact? Unclear? Or the magical words that only you can see?
And now yo resort to name calling. Yeah, real convincing.
If you believe that calling you an idiot magically refutes my point, then you've proven the characterization. Thanks!
Once again, I refer you to your original statement.
Please do refer to it. Which part implies that I believe that anyone has ever presented false evidence to a judge?
I think that if you want to apologize for the judge by laying the blame off on the attorneys, then you need to present some evidence supporting that position.
I think that if you want to discuss this topic, you need to have a basic understanding of how our legal system works. Also, I presented my own experience to back my opinion. Don't like them? Refute them. Maybe you'll learn a little but about what judges and attorneys actually do in the meantime.
Speculation masquerading as opinion isn't very convincing, no matter how much name calling you add to it.
I wasn't attempting to convince you of anything, so what's your point again?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
Look familiar? Are you seriously trying to deny that you laid out that idea? Really?
I absolutely deny that I stated that the attorneys in this case, or in any case, presented false evidence to a judge. That is not shown or implied by my statements. Are you seriously trying to redefine the words that I wrote?
Again, since you obviously didn't understand it the first time: Confusing information ≠ False evidence.
If information is false, then it's false. Whether it's also confusing has no bearing on it's veracity. Or is that "over your head"?
You're an idiot who has missed the point twice now. Obviously, presenting facts in a confusing way is still a way of presenting facts. I never stated nor implied that any attorney ever presented falsehoods to a judge, by way of being confusing. That's completely illogical and I have no idea how you ever arrived at that idea.
Anyway, the part of my comment that you keep missing, is that presenting facts in a misleading and/or confusing way (which is not the same as presenting falsehoods) is damaging to our system and the people in it. I believe that it's unethical and should be punishable.
I'm also curious as to why you're arguing about this. Do you think that the judge made a good decision, based on good evidence? Do you believe that the information submitted by the attorneys had no bearing on his decision? Or that many attorneys see no problem with confusing a judge in their favor? What, exactly, is your point?
You're assuming an awful lot of facts that aren't in evidence. At this point, we have no way of knowing who lawfully owns the property. Regardless, I was addressing a single point, which is that this piece belongs in a museum. I believe that the purchase of this piece by a museum, from the astronaut, would solve all of the problems present in this scenario.
NASA: They want the camera out of his hands. This would accomplish that.
Astronaut: He wants money. This would accomplish that.
The Public: We want historical pieces to be preserved for ourselves and future generations. This would accomplish that.
Museum: It would certainly be a nice addition to an existing exhibit, drawing in folks to see it. (Especially with the surrounding publicity.) This would accomplish that.
All of your other BS comments aren't relevant to my comment. Try again, stalker troll.
Imagine if this were written about Jews, blacks, Muslims or Latinos...
Yes Rose, I am sure the world and especially the US would be far better off if you did not have that 'nasty 4' groups that you have been so we'll trained to hate.
Were you waiting with baited breath for me to finally write something that you can take exception with? Because that's the only explanation I can think of for you jumping the gun this way, lol.
Go back. RTFA. Then read my comment in context. You'll see that the sentence in question was very obviously written by someone else. So... You're an idiot.
So you are ok with everyone, as long as they do not have a different color or a different belief system,,,, RIGHT !!!..
I'm okay with everyone, period. However, this is irrelevant since the sentence you're upset with was written by someone else.
I guess it is fortunate that America has it's very own race and it's very own unique religion... oh wait !!!!
I'm at least one of the things listed in that sentence, and my close relatives are two more. Not that you care, because you're only commenting in a sad attempt to score points against me, a practical stranger on the Internet.
I guess it is fortunate that America has it's very own race and it's very own unique religion... oh wait !!!!
For what? You to make sense? Believe me, I'm not holding my breath for that outcome.
So speaking profanities in front of small children is ok because 'you' think it is,
I never use profanity in front of my children, but you use profanity frequently. Oh, wait. You meant words like 'shit' and 'damn'? Oh. I meant mangling language and logic, both of which are sacred to me. Amusingly, you now have the choice of respecting my unique beliefs and agreeing that your posts are profane or proving yourself to be a hypocrite. :)
and it is ok for you to justify that as long as you can gain some points by feeding the bias and racist attitudes that you 'Americans' have...
Ironically, all you've done is show your own biased attitudes against an entire country of diverse and unique people.
Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
So, some attorney in this case presented false evidence purporting to show that WiFi isn't radio based and that is what the judge based his ruling on? Citation, please.
You cite something, since you're the one who laid out that idea. I stated a fact, which is that the judge rules based on the evidence presented to him. I also stated an opinion that was pretty clearly presented as an opinion, which is that it seems to be standard procedure to purposely confuse judges.
The point, which has gone over your head, is that the judge isn't supposed to Google or Wiki or even dead tree Britannica the term 'wi-fi'. That information should be clearly and factually presented by the attorneys, laying the groundwork for a clear ruling or a clear appeal if the judge has gone senile.
What makes me sad is there isn't a system in place for the public to punish the attorneys involved for not clearly laying out the facts of the case. Remember that the judge's job isn't to know everything. The judge's job is to look at the facts placed before them and make a determination.
I've seen attorneys purposely confuse judges on multiple occasions and, since I'm not involved in a legal profession, I'm betting that it's a standard procedure. Obviously, there needs to be some sort of fine for attorneys who obfuscate or maybe a bounty for every incorrect statement, said bounty being paid by the attorney who filed it.
Imagine if this were written about Jews, blacks, Muslims or Latinos...
I tried. It didn't make any sense, since parents are not caregivers to any of the groups he listed. In fact, since you have to imagine a position of authority over one or more of these grouping to even get to the place where Arredondo apparently is, I'd suggest that he's the one with the problem here.
For far too many kids, the obscenities found in Mansbach's book are a common, everyday household language.
Okay, you know what? Words are just words. It's now what's said, but how it's said that matters. My children aren't going to feel any different about hearing the word 'shit' than they would hearing the word 'yowza', or different about 'damnit' when I stub my toe rather than 'darnit', provided that they have the same inflection. So the words themselves aren't a problem.
However, I understand that what the writer means is that some parents verbally abuse their children as a matter of course, which is irelevant since the parents who do so aren't going to be shocked or amused by this book in the first place.
Again, the writer seems to be the one with the problem. I'm going back to listen to Samuel L. Jackson read the book again. Bye!
Though it's not uncommon for the White House to hear from foreign dignitaries, this may mark the first time they have invited a representative from another planet.
That's the most important bit there. And it's unlikely that the DA who chose to prosecute the crap charge would then turn around and prosecute the cop.
Noncompliance of a simple request can be viewed as hostile, which can lead to an escalation of the situation, generally by a perp who wants to take advantage of the situation.
If it's a simple request, then her refusal shouldn't have elicited more than a shrug and for the officer to move on and complete his duties, none of which involved this citizen in any way.
Asshole cops aside, when it's your ass on the line, you start to view things a bit differently.
Yes, you do. You look at clothing and behavior and use your training to judge where the dangers are in situations.
Sometimes this leads to not-awesome but understandable behavior, like my father-in-law showing up to my son's birthday party packing heat because we didn't live in a great neighborhood. Sometimes this leads to not-awesome and not-understandable behavior, like the one detailed in the post.
Tl;dr: His actions were inexcusable and he should be summarily fired to 'send a message' to those like him.
The bigger asshole in this is the prosecutor.
Agreed, but the presence of a larger asshole doesn't excuse the smelliness of lesser assholes.
The site was built by Overdrive. They probably also run it for her, and take a commision. That makes them just as much a middleman as if she sold the ebooks through Amazon.
Whoosh! That was the sound of the point going over your head. In the normal run of things, the publisher would have hired Overdrive and/or placed the books on Amazon. In those case, she did it herself. The middleman that she cut out was the publisher.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
I live five miles from my rep and he won't stop to speak to me in the high-end grocery store, much less at a town meeting where he has ten plants in the audience ready to ask him pre-planned questions.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
If you go to his website, you can make an appointment online.
If you are a lobbying group, you certainly can. Or did you miss the 'number of attendees', etc. on the form?
See, if you fill out that form for yourself, you'll get a call from a senior staff member who won't answer any questions on any of his positions and tells you that you cannot make an appointment at all, but if your veteran husband wants to get other vets together and fly to DC (and agree to be photographed with Tom Cole), he'll see you.
In DC. After the photo op.
If you write, you'll get a very expensively printed letter back that very carefully says nothing at all. If you write and e-mail enough times, you'll get an angry e-mail that may or may not be from Tom Cole himself, but whoever they are is angry and not very eloquent. Also, they should use more line breaks. But whatever. It's still not helpful.
Cole serves on Budget and Appropriations so these sorts of issues are out of his area of expertise.
So you're saying that following your suggesting and contacting my rep about these issues would be... useless? Even though that's a direct contradiction from what you said earlier?
Yeah. Thought so.
Anyway, you didn't answer my question. Have you ever tried contacting your representative?
On the post: Judge Who Doesn't Understand Technology Says WiFi Is Not A Radio Communication
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
Only if you're reading the magical words that are only visible to you that appeared underneath or beside what I actually wrote. This quote 'attorneys... not clearly laying out the facts of the case' is clearly me writing about laying out facts in an unclear way, not about laying out false evidence. Again, you're an idiot.
Nope. I think that's what you're doing.
Which word am I redefining? Fact? Unclear? Or the magical words that only you can see?
And now yo resort to name calling. Yeah, real convincing.
If you believe that calling you an idiot magically refutes my point, then you've proven the characterization. Thanks!
Once again, I refer you to your original statement.
Please do refer to it. Which part implies that I believe that anyone has ever presented false evidence to a judge?
I think that if you want to apologize for the judge by laying the blame off on the attorneys, then you need to present some evidence supporting that position.
I think that if you want to discuss this topic, you need to have a basic understanding of how our legal system works. Also, I presented my own experience to back my opinion. Don't like them? Refute them. Maybe you'll learn a little but about what judges and attorneys actually do in the meantime.
Speculation masquerading as opinion isn't very convincing, no matter how much name calling you add to it.
I wasn't attempting to convince you of anything, so what's your point again?
On the post: Judge Who Doesn't Understand Technology Says WiFi Is Not A Radio Communication
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
I absolutely deny that I stated that the attorneys in this case, or in any case, presented false evidence to a judge. That is not shown or implied by my statements. Are you seriously trying to redefine the words that I wrote?
Again, since you obviously didn't understand it the first time: Confusing information ≠ False evidence.
If information is false, then it's false. Whether it's also confusing has no bearing on it's veracity. Or is that "over your head"?
You're an idiot who has missed the point twice now. Obviously, presenting facts in a confusing way is still a way of presenting facts. I never stated nor implied that any attorney ever presented falsehoods to a judge, by way of being confusing. That's completely illogical and I have no idea how you ever arrived at that idea.
Anyway, the part of my comment that you keep missing, is that presenting facts in a misleading and/or confusing way (which is not the same as presenting falsehoods) is damaging to our system and the people in it. I believe that it's unethical and should be punishable.
I'm also curious as to why you're arguing about this. Do you think that the judge made a good decision, based on good evidence? Do you believe that the information submitted by the attorneys had no bearing on his decision? Or that many attorneys see no problem with confusing a judge in their favor? What, exactly, is your point?
On the post: NASA Sues Astronaut, Claiming He Stole Space Camera... 40 Years Ago
Re: Re: Re: National Treasure
NASA: They want the camera out of his hands. This would accomplish that.
Astronaut: He wants money. This would accomplish that.
The Public: We want historical pieces to be preserved for ourselves and future generations. This would accomplish that.
Museum: It would certainly be a nice addition to an existing exhibit, drawing in folks to see it. (Especially with the surrounding publicity.) This would accomplish that.
All of your other BS comments aren't relevant to my comment. Try again, stalker troll.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Sick
Yes Rose, I am sure the world and especially the US would be far better off if you did not have that 'nasty 4' groups that you have been so we'll trained to hate.
Were you waiting with baited breath for me to finally write something that you can take exception with? Because that's the only explanation I can think of for you jumping the gun this way, lol.
Go back. RTFA. Then read my comment in context. You'll see that the sentence in question was very obviously written by someone else. So... You're an idiot.
So you are ok with everyone, as long as they do not have a different color or a different belief system,,,, RIGHT !!!..
I'm okay with everyone, period. However, this is irrelevant since the sentence you're upset with was written by someone else.
I guess it is fortunate that America has it's very own race and it's very own unique religion... oh wait !!!!
I'm at least one of the things listed in that sentence, and my close relatives are two more. Not that you care, because you're only commenting in a sad attempt to score points against me, a practical stranger on the Internet.
I guess it is fortunate that America has it's very own race and it's very own unique religion... oh wait !!!!
For what? You to make sense? Believe me, I'm not holding my breath for that outcome.
So speaking profanities in front of small children is ok because 'you' think it is,
I never use profanity in front of my children, but you use profanity frequently. Oh, wait. You meant words like 'shit' and 'damn'? Oh. I meant mangling language and logic, both of which are sacred to me. Amusingly, you now have the choice of respecting my unique beliefs and agreeing that your posts are profane or proving yourself to be a hypocrite. :)
and it is ok for you to justify that as long as you can gain some points by feeding the bias and racist attitudes that you 'Americans' have...
Ironically, all you've done is show your own biased attitudes against an entire country of diverse and unique people.
On the post: Judge Who Doesn't Understand Technology Says WiFi Is Not A Radio Communication
Re: Re: Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
You cite something, since you're the one who laid out that idea. I stated a fact, which is that the judge rules based on the evidence presented to him. I also stated an opinion that was pretty clearly presented as an opinion, which is that it seems to be standard procedure to purposely confuse judges.
The point, which has gone over your head, is that the judge isn't supposed to Google or Wiki or even dead tree Britannica the term 'wi-fi'. That information should be clearly and factually presented by the attorneys, laying the groundwork for a clear ruling or a clear appeal if the judge has gone senile.
Also? Confusing information ≠ False evidence.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Reading 'Go The F**k To Sleep' May Lead To Child Abuse And Racism*
Re: Re: Imagine if this were written about Jews, blacks, Muslims or Latinos...
Which is what makes the book so funny, natch.
On the post: Reading 'Go The F**k To Sleep' May Lead To Child Abuse And Racism*
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Generalizations about human beings don't work.
On the post: NASA Sues Astronaut, Claiming He Stole Space Camera... 40 Years Ago
Re: National Treasure
Then maybe a museum should buy it, and everyone could be happy.
On the post: Judge Who Doesn't Understand Technology Says WiFi Is Not A Radio Communication
Re: Knowing you don't know, is knowledge enough.
I've seen attorneys purposely confuse judges on multiple occasions and, since I'm not involved in a legal profession, I'm betting that it's a standard procedure. Obviously, there needs to be some sort of fine for attorneys who obfuscate or maybe a bounty for every incorrect statement, said bounty being paid by the attorney who filed it.
Or something.
On the post: Reading 'Go The F**k To Sleep' May Lead To Child Abuse And Racism*
I tried. It didn't make any sense, since parents are not caregivers to any of the groups he listed. In fact, since you have to imagine a position of authority over one or more of these grouping to even get to the place where Arredondo apparently is, I'd suggest that he's the one with the problem here.
For far too many kids, the obscenities found in Mansbach's book are a common, everyday household language.
Okay, you know what? Words are just words. It's now what's said, but how it's said that matters. My children aren't going to feel any different about hearing the word 'shit' than they would hearing the word 'yowza', or different about 'damnit' when I stub my toe rather than 'darnit', provided that they have the same inflection. So the words themselves aren't a problem.
However, I understand that what the writer means is that some parents verbally abuse their children as a matter of course, which is irelevant since the parents who do so aren't going to be shocked or amused by this book in the first place.
Again, the writer seems to be the one with the problem. I'm going back to listen to Samuel L. Jackson read the book again. Bye!
On the post: TSA Says Groping A Dying 95-Year-Old Woman, Forcing Her To Remove Diaper, Is Ok Because It Followed Standard Procedure
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Prince: Digital Music Has A Different Impact On Your Brain
Lol FOREVER!
On the post: Woman Charged With 'Obstructing Governmental Administration' For Filming Police From Her Front Yard
Re: Re:
That's the most important bit there. And it's unlikely that the DA who chose to prosecute the crap charge would then turn around and prosecute the cop.
On the post: Woman Charged With 'Obstructing Governmental Administration' For Filming Police From Her Front Yard
Re: Re: Please people ... its this simple ...
Actually, as this case shows:
The cop that assumes someone doesn't have a camera is a cop that will arrest people on trumped-up charges and be supported by his peers.
Sorry, Heph, but I FTFY. :/
On the post: Woman Charged With 'Obstructing Governmental Administration' For Filming Police From Her Front Yard
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If it's a simple request, then her refusal shouldn't have elicited more than a shrug and for the officer to move on and complete his duties, none of which involved this citizen in any way.
Asshole cops aside, when it's your ass on the line, you start to view things a bit differently.
Yes, you do. You look at clothing and behavior and use your training to judge where the dangers are in situations.
Sometimes this leads to not-awesome but understandable behavior, like my father-in-law showing up to my son's birthday party packing heat because we didn't live in a great neighborhood. Sometimes this leads to not-awesome and not-understandable behavior, like the one detailed in the post.
Tl;dr: His actions were inexcusable and he should be summarily fired to 'send a message' to those like him.
The bigger asshole in this is the prosecutor.
Agreed, but the presence of a larger asshole doesn't excuse the smelliness of lesser assholes.
On the post: Six Years Later, JK Rowling Realizes Ebooks Are A Good Idea... And She Cuts Out The Middleman
Re:
On the post: Six Years Later, JK Rowling Realizes Ebooks Are A Good Idea... And She Cuts Out The Middleman
Re:
Whoosh! That was the sound of the point going over your head. In the normal run of things, the publisher would have hired Overdrive and/or placed the books on Amazon. In those case, she did it herself. The middleman that she cut out was the publisher.
On the post: MPAA Directly Lobbies Law Enforcement To Be Its Own Private Police Force
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
You're an idiot.
On the post: MPAA Directly Lobbies Law Enforcement To Be Its Own Private Police Force
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: calling the cops is not "lobbying"
If you are a lobbying group, you certainly can. Or did you miss the 'number of attendees', etc. on the form?
See, if you fill out that form for yourself, you'll get a call from a senior staff member who won't answer any questions on any of his positions and tells you that you cannot make an appointment at all, but if your veteran husband wants to get other vets together and fly to DC (and agree to be photographed with Tom Cole), he'll see you.
In DC. After the photo op.
If you write, you'll get a very expensively printed letter back that very carefully says nothing at all. If you write and e-mail enough times, you'll get an angry e-mail that may or may not be from Tom Cole himself, but whoever they are is angry and not very eloquent. Also, they should use more line breaks. But whatever. It's still not helpful.
Cole serves on Budget and Appropriations so these sorts of issues are out of his area of expertise.
So you're saying that following your suggesting and contacting my rep about these issues would be... useless? Even though that's a direct contradiction from what you said earlier?
Yeah. Thought so.
Anyway, you didn't answer my question. Have you ever tried contacting your representative?
Next >>