This lazy label he got when he decided that he doesn't need to create anything of his own, simply because blender already exists.
They never said that. I have no idea where you got that idea from. You simply decided that on your own.
I’d also argue that that doesn’t prove laziness even if true. One can be a hard-worker without creating something completely unique and original of their own on their own.
Bastard label is just obvious to everyone who isn't blind.
Then I guess I’m blind. That’s also an ad hominem, BTW, and not actually relevant.
This conclusion comes from the fact that when he does not create anything of his own, his work effort that he uses to advance the society is at lower level than any ordinary person who have decided to help government keep their society up and running.
An assertion made without evidence, especially one based upon an unsupported premise, can be dismissed without evidence. And even if true, that still wouldn’t support your conclusion. It’s a non sequitur.
This deceit and misinformation you'll get when he subscribes to his salaru and demands compensation level that isn't grounded by the work amount that he's doing.
Again, that doesn’t follow. You don’t know what knowledge their employer has. Maybe their employer knows the amount of work their doing and feels that they’re still worth their salary.
I.e. the key issue is that other people are working harder and still he thinks he's entitled to higher salary simply for his beautyful face.
so any money he receives has no equivalent work product.
This doesn’t follow from the aforementioned premise.
When this happens, we call it fraud.
False. Fraud requires some level of deceit or misinformation. Even taking the previous statement as sound (which it isn’t), that still isn’t necessarily fraud.
That kinda explains a lot. They can’t imagine that some people might not abuse their authority to remove speech they don’t like if given the chance, so they assume everybody would.
I have asthma, so I couldn’t smoke marijuana if I wanted to, but the point here is state troopers enforcing federal law, which they are not obligated to do.
To be clear, no one is asserting that the neighborhood cared at all. This is about you. If you think your concerns were shared by the neighborhood, fine, but arguments about the neighborhood’s opinions are completely irrelevant since no one is saying anything about them.
Yeah, I did, but then the judge got a lot of other things wrong, too. Again, the 1st Amendment means that, for an injunctive order on speech prior to adjudication of the merits, a higher standard must be met compared to any other injunction, period.
Very low standard of proof for protective orders in NY State.
Immaterial. This isn’t a protective order, so that makes zero difference.
NBC was present at the raid which means they were tipped off. They information was "leaked" shortly there after. It is no unreasonable to say the FBI are the ones who gave it to the NYT.
Irrelevant. That doesn’t mean that they participated in or instigated the raid or solicited the information, which means they had nothing to do with the information being gathered in the first place. Who gave it to them is irrelevant at this stage.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why is it that you went after that statement and nothing else either of us said? That wasn’t even a major point they were making?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They never said that. I have no idea where you got that idea from. You simply decided that on your own.
I’d also argue that that doesn’t prove laziness even if true. One can be a hard-worker without creating something completely unique and original of their own on their own.
Then I guess I’m blind. That’s also an ad hominem, BTW, and not actually relevant.
An assertion made without evidence, especially one based upon an unsupported premise, can be dismissed without evidence. And even if true, that still wouldn’t support your conclusion. It’s a non sequitur.
Again, that doesn’t follow. You don’t know what knowledge their employer has. Maybe their employer knows the amount of work their doing and feels that they’re still worth their salary.
[citation needed] Again.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really? Sure seems to get them out of lawsuits pretty well from what I can tell… More importantly, that is not an argument against Fair Use existing.
Re: Re:
[citation needed]
This doesn’t follow from the aforementioned premise.
False. Fraud requires some level of deceit or misinformation. Even taking the previous statement as sound (which it isn’t), that still isn’t necessarily fraud.
Re: Re:
Right here.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: get the license inst
How does your modeling software work if it can’t even handle round objects?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: get the license inst
Where the hell did you get that idea?
Re: Re: Re:
That kinda explains a lot. They can’t imagine that some people might not abuse their authority to remove speech they don’t like if given the chance, so they assume everybody would.
Re: Re:
Because they are. No, seriously, they absolutely are.
Re: Re: Re:
Cop/anti-pot logic: you have to be a stoner to be opposed to anti-marijuana laws
Re:
I have asthma, so I couldn’t smoke marijuana if I wanted to, but the point here is state troopers enforcing federal law, which they are not obligated to do.
Re: Neighborhood did not care it was Al Farooq Youth & Family Ce
To be clear, no one is asserting that the neighborhood cared at all. This is about you. If you think your concerns were shared by the neighborhood, fine, but arguments about the neighborhood’s opinions are completely irrelevant since no one is saying anything about them.
Re: Re: Re:
Irrelevant. This is about the ordinance as written, not the actions of the woman in this particular case.
Re: Re: Re: light sensitive?
I hope you’re joking, because no it doesn’t.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Trespassing requires your physical presence on private property. There is no such thing as electronic trespassing.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other Side
Yeah, I did, but then the judge got a lot of other things wrong, too. Again, the 1st Amendment means that, for an injunctive order on speech prior to adjudication of the merits, a higher standard must be met compared to any other injunction, period.
Re: Re: Re:
Either way, the government should have to explain that in court.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Other Side
Immaterial. This isn’t a protective order, so that makes zero difference.
Irrelevant. That doesn’t mean that they participated in or instigated the raid or solicited the information, which means they had nothing to do with the information being gathered in the first place. Who gave it to them is irrelevant at this stage.
Re: Re: Re: Other Side
Except this isn’t a protective order; it’s an injunction and prior restraint.
Also, again, [citation needed]
Re: Re: Re: Let's be clear, though
True, but no one said anything about the whole world to begin with.
More comments from bhull242 >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by bhull242.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt