He talk's to God you know!

[archangel]

See arch, I told you "THEY" are always watching. Looks like they have a vendetta against you. Maybe you should contact the ACLU and see if they'll handle your case.

I'm not paranoid...Kathy was just being Kathy...I thought I was being funny yesterday and got nipped in the BUD...no biggy!

 

[Annie]

I read something here about baiting...

And we've been watching hit and run posts about censorship and such. Seems some just join in to keep the ball rolling. It's not fair to say stuff about 'big brother,' when volunteers are doing their best to keep things on a reasonable plane. Long time posters have more leeway than newbies, that's a given. So when something is said, by more than one moderator/administrator, it probably isn't unfair. Something to think about.

 

[Mr. P]

And we've been watching hit and run posts about censorship and such. Seems some just join in to keep the ball rolling. It's not fair to say stuff about 'big brother,' when volunteers are doing their best to keep things on a reasonable plane. Long time posters have more leeway than newbies, that's a given. So when something is said, by more than one moderator/administrator, it probably isn't unfair. Something to think about.

I didn't say a thing about unfair..Just baiting..Which I wouldn't expect from you, K. Now that IMO is unfair. Lets end it there, I have nothing else to say about it.

 

[Annie]

I didn't say a thing about unfair..Just baiting..Which I wouldn't expect from you, K. Now that IMO is unfair. Lets end it there, I have nothing else to say about it.

Perhaps you are correct about this being baiting. I will be glad to end it here, especially if all are done trying to bait mods/admins into defending their dealings with members. A reminder once again, mod decisions are NOT to be aired on the boards, if one has a problem-go to admin.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

No I'm not changing the issue..You said: My point is you're mistaken..Just because a Lawyer is a Lawyer doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. Believe me.

You misunderstand what I said then. I didn't say being a lawyer meant they always knew what they were talking about. I said the likelihood of a lawyer being more informed on a law issue is greater than the average person. You're finding blanket statements where there are none. If you don't think the chances of a lawyer knowing more about a law-related issue are greater than the average person... well then you're allowed to think that way. Nuc and I disagree.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

don't get too excited here...just received a neg for using the word 'sarcastic' and 'full of self' out of context...it happens to all of us from time to time!

Not getting excited, just pointing out that conservatives get their knocks when they step out of line as well. As you said, it happens to all of us.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Re Xen:
If I recall, in his first couple of posts on the board, Xen called us all some pretty choice names. It is ludicrous for anyone to come on a board with guns blazing and expect to be treated with respect. I tried to tell him a couple of times that his foul language, name calling and illogical angry arguments were his problem, but he chose to keep it up. C'est la vie.

Re Lawyers:
Going to a patent lawyer for advice on divorce proceedings may or may not initially be any better than asking a random layperson, but you can be damn sure the patent lawyer will know where and how to get the information needed to advise you much better than the random layperson would. 'kay?

 

[Said1]

Re Lawyers:
Going to a patent lawyer for advice on divorce proceedings may or may not initially be any better than asking a random layperson, but you can be damn sure the patent lawyer will know where and how to get the information needed to advise you much better than the random layperson would. 'kay?

I'm thinking a lawyer would be better at explaining legal text, just as a scientist would be able to interpret scientific data better than a layperson, regardless of specialty. That is where I would trust their opinion more. Is that an acurate thing to say of lawyers?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I'm thinking a lawyer would be better at explaining legal text, just as a scientist would be able to interpret scientific data better than a layperson, regardless of specialty. That is where I would trust their opinion more. Is that an acurate thing to say of lawyers?

Hence the point I'm trying to make.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I'm thinking a lawyer would be better at explaining legal text, just as a scientist would be able to interpret scientific data better than a layperson, regardless of specialty. That is where I would trust their opinion more. Is that an acurate thing to say of lawyers?

I'd say so. I'd say it's akin to asking a dermatologist a question about neurology. She probably won't know the answer, but can find the answer faster than I could, and as you say, will understand the terminology and data better than a random layperson.

Where people go wrong is in thinking that any lawyer has the answers to questions from any area of the law off the top of their heads. That used to happen to me, and it is unrealistic.

 

[sitarro]

Well well, it seems that the Toxic Texan has a direct line to God! That's amazing I'll bet that he doesn't have to wait on hold.
"Your prayer is in a que and will be answered soon, thank you for your infinate patience"
Anyway, I found it extremley interesting that the Pakistani government's response to the terrible the earthquake that struck that region earlier today causing huge loss of life (over 1,000 souls at the last count) was both swift and immediate, President Musharaf flying to the area to survey the damage, implimenting programes to house survivors, feed them, bring in medical aid, mobilise troops etc all within a few hours of the initial quake, amazing I thought considering that there was no prior warning. But if you look at the US administrations response to hurricane Katrina, plenty of time to prepare possible evacuations, mobilise troops, etc etc, what happened? It was a complete and utter cock up with G. W. once again procrastinating. Maybe he should get his direct link to God checked there could be a fault on the line!

So let me see if I understand what you are suggesting here Pasquinade,
You are advocating that the Bush administration should ignore state's rights and take over in every decision for the good of everybody? Should we just dispence with Govenors, State Senators, Mayors, Levee boards, Port Authorities, CEOs, business owners, etc.? Are you saying that we should trust the federal government to handle everything since they do such a bangup job on getting mail from point a to b?
Or are you saying that you are an ignorant clown that doesn't pay any attention to the world around you and just parrot any crap that you read on DU's website? It is snowing right now in Denver, looks like they will get 20 inches of wet, damaging snow that will surely cause problems for many, should the U.S. Government have the National Guard at the ready to go rescue anyone caught in a snowbank?
Do you understand how stupid your initial post was?
I would suggest that if you want government to dictate everything that relocation will be nessessary, I would suggest North Korea, I hear that Kim Jong Il is quite a guy.