No, I was implying that your point was a kind of arithmetical wordplay, whether the situation was real or not.
It's not some sort of math trick and the situation is very much real.
Oh? You said (in your scenario) that the server had "hourly pay" of $2.83 * 5 = $14.15, plus $100 in tips, and had to pay 20% in tax. By my calculation, $14.15 + $100 = $114.15, 20% of that is $22.83 ...
Taxes are only taken out of a paycheck. That's why it's called Income Withholding. Servers don't pay taxes into the system. The Fed just eats the difference.
That's news to me, but if it's true then I must correct my figure: the server's net income for the evening is $0+$100 = $100 ...
That's correct. I had included that last calculation in one of my early "drafts", not sure why I took it out.
... and once again the fact that none of this is in the form of a check means nothing.
Actually, that's pretty much the entire point: since the server effectively is not being paid anything by the restaurant when people decide not to tip that means the server isn't getting paid at all (or getting paid less when people choose to tip poorly).
I'm not aware of any wordview/ethical position that says it's OK to not pay people for the work they do.
No, I was implying that your point was a kind of arithmetical wordplay, whether the situation was real or not.
You seem determined to believe that I'm trying to be deceitful and playing a "numbers game" to make my point. I'm not.
I wouldn't call that so much a "change of scenario" as a demonstration of the direct effect not tipping has on the server's income.
And oddly enough, the convention is a percentage of the price of the dishes, as if the service has anything to do with that.
Actually, that's not entirely true. In a higher end restaurant better, more personal and time consuming service is expected. As one example, at a nice restaurant the server will usually recite that day's special dishes rather than tossing a sheet of paper on the table. That takes time. That may not sound like much, but doing this for each table adds up, and there are other things.
Another example would be course timing, something that is not obvious to your average diner. In a typical chain restaurant (Friday's, Appleby's, etc) if you order an app, a soup, and an entree the server will put the orders in and when the kitchen has each ready they just bring them to the table, whether you're ready or not. It can and does lead to a situation where you have all your courses on the table at the same time. At a fine dining restaurant, that should never happen. Each course (which should be in the order of appetizer, soup/salad, entree) should be cleared from the table before another is brought. Most people wouldn't notice unless they've been in the business, but the server is keeping a close eye on you to know how to coordinate the timing of putting each ticket into the kitchen so that you don't end up with a buffet on your table. This takes time, effort, and experience.
Still, as long as we are now talking about a matter of courtesy and not of accounting
It may have started out as a courtesy but has evolved to a situation where it is much more often than not the only income of a server. That being the case, it's now an ethical question of whether you feel a person should be paid for the work they do.
Where you are both wrong is in your idea that restaurants make "piles of cash".
Oh, I am very well aware of this (except in some fringe cases). I was just responding to the fantasy scenario he created where restaurant owners "are now flush with cash".
In my response to a post filled with absurdities I failed to point out that one absurdity. My bad.
His whole "proposal" is idiotic to begin with anyway.
As I said above: I've been out of town for a few days, so this might go unnoticed (and most likely unheeded), but here goes anyway ...
I get it, you made a mildly funny math joke, like "What Happened to the Last Dollar?"
Huh? Are you implying that this isn't a real situation, that I just made this up?
Don't believe me? Find a server you know and ask them to show you their paystub. If you don't know any (and you feel comfortable doing this) ask a server what their last paycheck was. Sometimes you will find one that has a paycheck that's a pittance, something in the $10 - $30 dollar range for a 2 week period, but they only got that by lying about the amount of tips they make. It's a common practice, but nevertheless a server can be Federally prosecuted for tax evasion.
But let's be serious again. The server's net income for the evening comes out to $91.32
It doesn't work like that -- more evidence (as if any was needed) that you don't know what you're talking about.
Taxes are only taken out of a paycheck. That's why it's called Income Withholding. Servers don't pay taxes into the system. The Fed just eats the difference.
I hope you don't think that the numbers in my example are in any way representative (with the exception of the server minimum wage of $2.83/hr). I picked $100 just because it's a nice, round number that's easy to do percentages on. I picked 20% (I'm sure that's low) because it is also an easy, round number to work with.
Their gross income from that example would be $114.15. Their net income would be $100 ($100 in the tips they made, plus $0 on their paycheck). Of course, in the real world, it wouldn't even be that much. In almost every restaurant the servers are required to "tip out" some or all of the support staff like bartenders and/or hosts and/or bussers. That's probably gonna total up to somewhere around $10. Yes, owners of restaurants are that fucking cheap that they force the servers to pay the wages of other staff.
And it gets even better. Say they work the next night and nobody comes in, they get $0 in tips. Think they're actually gonna get that $14.15 in wages? Fuck no. They still "owe" $5.85 from the night before which will be withheld.
And better still! That $2.83/hr. They still have to pay taxes on that as well.
...Oh, was that it?
I guess the point was lost on you, so I'll give it another shot (though you've already demonstrated that it would be in vain to hope that you understand any of this). Let's go on the assumption that the net income would have been $100, no side tip-outs. Let's also assume the "standard" tip is 15% (this varies depending on who you talk to, where you live, and the type of restaurant). You and your family had dinner there and the bill was $200 (maybe you have a large family, or it's an expensive restaurant). The 15% tip on that bill would be $30.
You decide you don't wanna tip. Guess what? You have just removed $30 from that servers net income. Now it's only $70. All because you decided to be a prick because you're "above tipping" or some other bullshit. You are refusing to pay someone for work they did directly for you without a middleman.
I have personally (and have seen others do this) refused to take a tip from a table because the service was screwed up. Servers don't want charity; they want you to hold up your end of the bargain you made when you walked in the door: to pay them for the work they do. There are plenty of other places where you can dine where tipping is not part of the "deal." Or you could just eat at home. But, noooooo. You're a special snowflake who demands tip-top service but refuses to pay for it.
Is the whole tipping "culture" screwed up? Yea, I think you could make a very strong argument for that. But punishing the server is ultimately and completely ineffective. Who you should be angry with are the owners of these places and you should use your dollars to influence them.
In the end, if you think you're gonna save some money by not tipping, you are sadly mistaken. If the owners decide to pay the servers more I guaran-fucking-tee you they're gonna pass those costs straight along to you in the form of higher menu prices. And a little more on top, just because.
I've been out of town for a few days, so this might go unnoticed (and most likely unheeded), but here goes anyway ...
You have it completely backwards. People who are Ideologically opposed to the practice of (forced) tipping in restaurants and would like to see it relaxed should do the opposite: visit these restaurants as MUCH as possible
No, it's you who have it utterly and unbelievably backwards. Apparently you have zero clue what the owners of these restaurants, who are now making piles of cash, will say to their servers when they demand a pay raise: "Don't like it? Quit." It will be and is and always has been absurdly easy for restaurant owners to replace servers. It so easy all they have to do is hang a sign on the door and they will get flooded with applications. FLOODED.
What your non-"solution" will do is reward and encourage these owners for being too cheap/greedy to pay their servers a livable wage. In your scenario, they're making money hand over fist -- why in the world would they do anything to change/disrupt that?
My proposal, on the other hand, will cause them to take action. That action may or may not be paying their servers more, but they will do something as they watch their profits die out and the profits of other restaurants rise, as opposed to your plan which will reinforce them doing things exactly the way they are.
It's painfully clear by what you said above that you have no experience in this industry. It's a shame to don't have any understanding of basic economics either.
I was taught to only tip if the service was personal, excellent and above the expectation (by way of prices) of the establishment in question.
Well, I can't really fault you personally for what you were taught, but the people who gave you that lesson(s) were short-sighted.
I understand the general objection to tipping and the desire to resist doing so. But here's the thing: the people who are your servers are making *far* below minimum wage. In my state, for example, the "normal" minimum wage is $7.25/hr (I guess that's a Federal thing, actually) but the minimum wage for a server is only $2.83/hr, less than half.
On top of that, servers are required to pay taxes on the tips they make, which comes out of that $2.83/hr. This creates a situation where at the end of a pay period a server's payroll check is very often $0. Let me show you how that works, using just a single day as an example.
A server works a 5 hour shift, say from 5pm - 10pm. The hourly pay for that time worked comes out to be $2.83 * 5 = $14.15. Not a whole lot. At the end of the evening the server is required to report the amount of tips made. Let's say it was $100. And let's say there's a "tax rate" (this is includes ALL of the deductions you're used to seeing on a normal payroll check) of 20%. So that server owes the gov't $20 in taxes for the amount of tips made. Which comes out of the payroll of $14.15. Obv, that's a negative number. The server's paycheck comes out to be $0.
This situation is quite normal.
So, when you decline to leave a tip for a server you are *quite literally* affecting that person's income. Sure, it's easy to say, "Well, they should get a better job." and to some degree that's correct. But they went into this job with the clear expectation and precedent that they would be making tips.
If tipping really rankles you, my suggestion is to vote with your dollar. And by that I do NOT mean declining to tip your server -- that affects just a single person who is just trying to get by just like the rest of us.
Vote with your dollar by not patronizing places where tipping is expected _and_ relied on by the servers. When you get right down to it, it's the fault of the establishment that refuses to pay their workers a livable wage, not the fault of the person in that situation.
Usually it's about the equivalent of listening to a fanatical catholic and a fanatical atheist argue about the existence of god when you're trying to watch a documentary about cars.
Ha! Way to pull a car analogy out of nowhere! Nice!
That's not a feature, that's a bug! (in the eyes of the city)
"...but the alerts on our app were helping people pay their parking fines on time and avoid late fees,”
As anyone with any exposure to any kind of criminal "justice" in this country already knows, the powers that be like it when you pay late. That way they get to extort even more money from you.
I paid a couple of hundred bucks for the privilege to watch games and highlights.
Just because you pay to be able to watch the games and they also include highlights in the bundle does not mean that you get to stomp all over everyone else's Fair Use rights.
You suggest there's no market substitution, but it seems to me that there is a very lucrative market for highlights like these.
Maybe, but that there is a market for the highlights of games doesn't it any way make it substitute for the actual games that the NFL and XOS are pretending to protect. You're comparing apples and oranges.
What about game analysis, something that would absolutely, positively fall under Fair Use? Just because some would pay for such analysis, does that mean that is also a case of market substitution? Maybe in your dopey permission culture world it does, but back here in reality it doesn't.
I personally pay money to watch these highlights online.
You pay for highlights like this yet you have the nerve to call other people "dopey"?!?!?
My apologies for not mentioning this in the comments of the article in question titled "Predictable: The Fragmented Media Will Give Us All Our Post-Oregon-Shooting Outrage Blankets", but I do want you to know that is one of the most thought provoking and insightful articles I've ever read. Not just on TD, but anywhere.
Normally when I see your name attached to an article I expect (and you deliver in spades!) humor and snarky commentary, which didn't prepare me well for your profound analysis of mass shootings and our ingestion of them.
Just wanted to say "cheers" and keep up the great work!
Oooooh! That's soooooo clever! It's not like anyone else ever thought of taking a term and combining it with the word "porn" to illustrate an obsession with something. How DO you come up with such startlingly unique ideas?
I tune all such shizzle out.
Ah, the common refrain of faux intelligentsia who wish to appear more serious and profound than the rest of the world. I see that you are above all that.
Give us a break. Spare us from your self important drivel. Say something we haven't heard a thousand times before, something that isn't centered around YOU.
Good to know in advance that you'll dismiss what I say without reading it based on presumptions
Hahahahaha! That's really good! YOU are the one making a presumption that we were discussing anything about gun regulation when the conversation had nothing to do with that.
Whew! You went a loooooong way there only to illustrate that nobody was actually talking about regulation, only that you inferred that they were.
Meanwhile, there are STILL no commenters discussing regulation. Except you.
Try doing a Ctrl+F for 'regulat' and you'll see that the only matches are yours and mine where I'm telling you that regulation is NOT what we're talking about. Perhaps it's come up in a roundabout way in another thread (I'm starting to wonder if you understand what a thread is), but not in this one.
Maybe you should take your axe to an anti-gun forum and grind it there.
I have also been non-reporting crime victim for the same reason.
But, you have to wonder: hasn't that always been the case? If so, the stats aren't skewed at all. Well, at least they're as skewed as they've always been.
On the post: DailyDirt: Leaving A Good Tip...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Traditionaly here...
It's not some sort of math trick and the situation is very much real.
Oh? You said (in your scenario) that the server had "hourly pay" of $2.83 * 5 = $14.15, plus $100 in tips, and had to pay 20% in tax. By my calculation, $14.15 + $100 = $114.15, 20% of that is $22.83 ... That's news to me, but if it's true then I must correct my figure: the server's net income for the evening is $0+$100 = $100 ...
That's correct. I had included that last calculation in one of my early "drafts", not sure why I took it out.
... and once again the fact that none of this is in the form of a check means nothing.
Actually, that's pretty much the entire point: since the server effectively is not being paid anything by the restaurant when people decide not to tip that means the server isn't getting paid at all (or getting paid less when people choose to tip poorly).
I'm not aware of any wordview/ethical position that says it's OK to not pay people for the work they do.
No, I was implying that your point was a kind of arithmetical wordplay, whether the situation was real or not.
You seem determined to believe that I'm trying to be deceitful and playing a "numbers game" to make my point. I'm not.
I wouldn't call that so much a "change of scenario" as a demonstration of the direct effect not tipping has on the server's income.
And oddly enough, the convention is a percentage of the price of the dishes, as if the service has anything to do with that.
Actually, that's not entirely true. In a higher end restaurant better, more personal and time consuming service is expected. As one example, at a nice restaurant the server will usually recite that day's special dishes rather than tossing a sheet of paper on the table. That takes time. That may not sound like much, but doing this for each table adds up, and there are other things.
Another example would be course timing, something that is not obvious to your average diner. In a typical chain restaurant (Friday's, Appleby's, etc) if you order an app, a soup, and an entree the server will put the orders in and when the kitchen has each ready they just bring them to the table, whether you're ready or not. It can and does lead to a situation where you have all your courses on the table at the same time. At a fine dining restaurant, that should never happen. Each course (which should be in the order of appetizer, soup/salad, entree) should be cleared from the table before another is brought. Most people wouldn't notice unless they've been in the business, but the server is keeping a close eye on you to know how to coordinate the timing of putting each ticket into the kitchen so that you don't end up with a buffet on your table. This takes time, effort, and experience.
Still, as long as we are now talking about a matter of courtesy and not of accounting
It may have started out as a courtesy but has evolved to a situation where it is much more often than not the only income of a server. That being the case, it's now an ethical question of whether you feel a person should be paid for the work they do.
On the post: DailyDirt: Leaving A Good Tip...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Traditionaly [sic] here...
Oh, I am very well aware of this (except in some fringe cases). I was just responding to the fantasy scenario he created where restaurant owners "are now flush with cash".
In my response to a post filled with absurdities I failed to point out that one absurdity. My bad.
His whole "proposal" is idiotic to begin with anyway.
On the post: DailyDirt: Leaving A Good Tip...
Re: Re: Re: Traditionaly here...
I get it, you made a mildly funny math joke, like "What Happened to the Last Dollar?"
Huh? Are you implying that this isn't a real situation, that I just made this up?
Don't believe me? Find a server you know and ask them to show you their paystub. If you don't know any (and you feel comfortable doing this) ask a server what their last paycheck was. Sometimes you will find one that has a paycheck that's a pittance, something in the $10 - $30 dollar range for a 2 week period, but they only got that by lying about the amount of tips they make. It's a common practice, but nevertheless a server can be Federally prosecuted for tax evasion.
But let's be serious again. The server's net income for the evening comes out to $91.32
It doesn't work like that -- more evidence (as if any was needed) that you don't know what you're talking about.
Taxes are only taken out of a paycheck. That's why it's called Income Withholding. Servers don't pay taxes into the system. The Fed just eats the difference.
I hope you don't think that the numbers in my example are in any way representative (with the exception of the server minimum wage of $2.83/hr). I picked $100 just because it's a nice, round number that's easy to do percentages on. I picked 20% (I'm sure that's low) because it is also an easy, round number to work with.
Their gross income from that example would be $114.15. Their net income would be $100 ($100 in the tips they made, plus $0 on their paycheck). Of course, in the real world, it wouldn't even be that much. In almost every restaurant the servers are required to "tip out" some or all of the support staff like bartenders and/or hosts and/or bussers. That's probably gonna total up to somewhere around $10. Yes, owners of restaurants are that fucking cheap that they force the servers to pay the wages of other staff.
And it gets even better. Say they work the next night and nobody comes in, they get $0 in tips. Think they're actually gonna get that $14.15 in wages? Fuck no. They still "owe" $5.85 from the night before which will be withheld.
And better still! That $2.83/hr. They still have to pay taxes on that as well.
...Oh, was that it?
I guess the point was lost on you, so I'll give it another shot (though you've already demonstrated that it would be in vain to hope that you understand any of this). Let's go on the assumption that the net income would have been $100, no side tip-outs. Let's also assume the "standard" tip is 15% (this varies depending on who you talk to, where you live, and the type of restaurant). You and your family had dinner there and the bill was $200 (maybe you have a large family, or it's an expensive restaurant). The 15% tip on that bill would be $30.
You decide you don't wanna tip. Guess what? You have just removed $30 from that servers net income. Now it's only $70. All because you decided to be a prick because you're "above tipping" or some other bullshit. You are refusing to pay someone for work they did directly for you without a middleman.
I have personally (and have seen others do this) refused to take a tip from a table because the service was screwed up. Servers don't want charity; they want you to hold up your end of the bargain you made when you walked in the door: to pay them for the work they do. There are plenty of other places where you can dine where tipping is not part of the "deal." Or you could just eat at home. But, noooooo. You're a special snowflake who demands tip-top service but refuses to pay for it.
Is the whole tipping "culture" screwed up? Yea, I think you could make a very strong argument for that. But punishing the server is ultimately and completely ineffective. Who you should be angry with are the owners of these places and you should use your dollars to influence them.
In the end, if you think you're gonna save some money by not tipping, you are sadly mistaken. If the owners decide to pay the servers more I guaran-fucking-tee you they're gonna pass those costs straight along to you in the form of higher menu prices. And a little more on top, just because.
On the post: DailyDirt: Leaving A Good Tip...
Re: Re: Re: Traditionaly here...
You have it completely backwards. People who are Ideologically opposed to the practice of (forced) tipping in restaurants and would like to see it relaxed should do the opposite: visit these restaurants as MUCH as possible
No, it's you who have it utterly and unbelievably backwards. Apparently you have zero clue what the owners of these restaurants, who are now making piles of cash, will say to their servers when they demand a pay raise: "Don't like it? Quit." It will be and is and always has been absurdly easy for restaurant owners to replace servers. It so easy all they have to do is hang a sign on the door and they will get flooded with applications. FLOODED.
What your non-"solution" will do is reward and encourage these owners for being too cheap/greedy to pay their servers a livable wage. In your scenario, they're making money hand over fist -- why in the world would they do anything to change/disrupt that?
My proposal, on the other hand, will cause them to take action. That action may or may not be paying their servers more, but they will do something as they watch their profits die out and the profits of other restaurants rise, as opposed to your plan which will reinforce them doing things exactly the way they are.
It's painfully clear by what you said above that you have no experience in this industry. It's a shame to don't have any understanding of basic economics either.
On the post: DailyDirt: Leaving A Good Tip...
Re: Traditionaly here...
Well, I can't really fault you personally for what you were taught, but the people who gave you that lesson(s) were short-sighted.
I understand the general objection to tipping and the desire to resist doing so. But here's the thing: the people who are your servers are making *far* below minimum wage. In my state, for example, the "normal" minimum wage is $7.25/hr (I guess that's a Federal thing, actually) but the minimum wage for a server is only $2.83/hr, less than half.
On top of that, servers are required to pay taxes on the tips they make, which comes out of that $2.83/hr. This creates a situation where at the end of a pay period a server's payroll check is very often $0. Let me show you how that works, using just a single day as an example.
A server works a 5 hour shift, say from 5pm - 10pm. The hourly pay for that time worked comes out to be $2.83 * 5 = $14.15. Not a whole lot. At the end of the evening the server is required to report the amount of tips made. Let's say it was $100. And let's say there's a "tax rate" (this is includes ALL of the deductions you're used to seeing on a normal payroll check) of 20%. So that server owes the gov't $20 in taxes for the amount of tips made. Which comes out of the payroll of $14.15. Obv, that's a negative number. The server's paycheck comes out to be $0.
This situation is quite normal.
So, when you decline to leave a tip for a server you are *quite literally* affecting that person's income. Sure, it's easy to say, "Well, they should get a better job." and to some degree that's correct. But they went into this job with the clear expectation and precedent that they would be making tips.
If tipping really rankles you, my suggestion is to vote with your dollar. And by that I do NOT mean declining to tip your server -- that affects just a single person who is just trying to get by just like the rest of us.
Vote with your dollar by not patronizing places where tipping is expected _and_ relied on by the servers. When you get right down to it, it's the fault of the establishment that refuses to pay their workers a livable wage, not the fault of the person in that situation.
On the post: Viacom Once Sued YouTube For A Billion Dollars; Now It's Just Released Over 100 Movies For Free On YouTube
Re: Re: Re: 77% of the comments go to the troll
Ha! Way to pull a car analogy out of nowhere! Nice!
Agree with you 100%
On the post: Kim Davis's Approach To Email More Outdated Than Her Views On Marriage
Re: Re: Re: Separation of Church and state
False.
That the material universe exists is already proven. If you insist there is something more to it that that it is YOUR burden to prove that it exists.
On the post: Viacom Once Sued YouTube For A Billion Dollars; Now It's Just Released Over 100 Movies For Free On YouTube
77% of the comments go to the troll
On the post: Kim Davis's Approach To Email More Outdated Than Her Views On Marriage
Re: Seriously?
So, did that mean that when SCOTUS ruled that executing mentally retarded people was unconstitutional that all executions were barred?
Yea, didn't think so.
Kim Davis was RIGHT but... she didn't take it far enough.
Wow. Just wow.
On the post: 'There Is No Human Right To Patent Protection' -- UN Special Rapporteur
Re: More lies from the troll
Citation needed.
On the post: 3 California Cities Blocking Parking Ticket App For Being, Like, Way Too Useful
That's not a feature, that's a bug! (in the eyes of the city)
As anyone with any exposure to any kind of criminal "justice" in this country already knows, the powers that be like it when you pay late. That way they get to extort even more money from you.
No wonder these cities are so pissed off.
On the post: Just About Everything About Twitter Suspending Deadspin And SBNation Accounts Is Ridiculous
Re: Re: Re: Dopey comment
Just because you pay to be able to watch the games and they also include highlights in the bundle does not mean that you get to stomp all over everyone else's Fair Use rights.
On the post: Just About Everything About Twitter Suspending Deadspin And SBNation Accounts Is Ridiculous
Re: Dopey comment
Maybe, but that there is a market for the highlights of games doesn't it any way make it substitute for the actual games that the NFL and XOS are pretending to protect. You're comparing apples and oranges.
What about game analysis, something that would absolutely, positively fall under Fair Use? Just because some would pay for such analysis, does that mean that is also a case of market substitution? Maybe in your dopey permission culture world it does, but back here in reality it doesn't.
I personally pay money to watch these highlights online.
You pay for highlights like this yet you have the nerve to call other people "dopey"?!?!?
On the post: Bobby Jindal Announces Violent Games/Movies To Blame For All Those Mass Shootings
Well done Tim!
My apologies for not mentioning this in the comments of the article in question titled "Predictable: The Fragmented Media Will Give Us All Our Post-Oregon-Shooting Outrage Blankets", but I do want you to know that is one of the most thought provoking and insightful articles I've ever read. Not just on TD, but anywhere.
Normally when I see your name attached to an article I expect (and you deliver in spades!) humor and snarky commentary, which didn't prepare me well for your profound analysis of mass shootings and our ingestion of them.
Just wanted to say "cheers" and keep up the great work!
On the post: Predictable: The Fragmented Media Will Give Us All Our Post-Oregon-Shooting Outrage Blankets
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Predictable: The Fragmented Media Will Give Us All Our Post-Oregon-Shooting Outrage Blankets
Re: Disaster Porn
That wasn't Mike.
I have coined a term ... disaster porn
Oooooh! That's soooooo clever! It's not like anyone else ever thought of taking a term and combining it with the word "porn" to illustrate an obsession with something. How DO you come up with such startlingly unique ideas?
I tune all such shizzle out.
Ah, the common refrain of faux intelligentsia who wish to appear more serious and profound than the rest of the world. I see that you are above all that.
Give us a break. Spare us from your self important drivel. Say something we haven't heard a thousand times before, something that isn't centered around YOU.
On the post: The Increasing Attacks On The Most Important Law On The Internet
Re: projecting
Hahahahaha! That's really good! YOU are the one making a presumption that we were discussing anything about gun regulation when the conversation had nothing to do with that.
Textbook case of Psychological Projection
On the post: The Increasing Attacks On The Most Important Law On The Internet
Re: The AC used guns as a relevant example.
Meanwhile, there are STILL no commenters discussing regulation. Except you.
Try doing a Ctrl+F for 'regulat' and you'll see that the only matches are yours and mine where I'm telling you that regulation is NOT what we're talking about. Perhaps it's come up in a roundabout way in another thread (I'm starting to wonder if you understand what a thread is), but not in this one.
Maybe you should take your axe to an anti-gun forum and grind it there.
On the post: The Increasing Attacks On The Most Important Law On The Internet
Re: Re: guns, regulation is ALWAYS relevant.
Oh. Thank you o wise one for illuminating us as to what we were actually talking about.
On the post: In The Post-Ferguson World, Cops Are Now Victims And It's The Public That's Going To Pay The Price
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Excelllent piece
But, you have to wonder: hasn't that always been the case? If so, the stats aren't skewed at all. Well, at least they're as skewed as they've always been.
Next >>