Andy9o8

In all fairness, you really must tell us: in what industry & in what capacity?

Seems like a win-win.

Lady, do you mind? Tryin' to get work done here. Aw, shit. Thanks a lot.

I suppose; but if I analyze this any deeper, I'm going to need a retainer.

Marc, that's a buzz-word, not a position, and certainly not an argument or a rebuttal. It's like a preacher intoning "Satan!" - it appeals to base emotions, but does little to advance a productive conversation. All taxation and publicly-provided services are a form of socialism; and that has existed since the US was founded. The only debate is over how much, and whose ox gets gored.

Hey lawyer dude. YOU'RE FUCKING DEAD, you cant begrudge anything Legally, dead people extol and begrudge all the time. That's what wills and trusts are all about.

That doesn't win the day in and of itself. Speaking generally, there are lots of examples of tax revenues from everyone being used for various things which, individually, benefit only a sub-population. E.g., the childless, privately-educated person whose tax dollars fund public schools. The rural southern-Illinoisan whose state taxes fill potholes in Chicago. Lots of examples. We're all in this together, and we all benefit from society. Even the random unabomber living off the land in Montana still benefits from the security umbrella the government provides in the airspace above his cabin, paid-for by everyone's taxes.

I'm an organ donor and an Atheist. I acknowledge that there are people out there who are not organ donors because of religious beliefs. I would not begrudge such a person one of my organs. This is a serious question: Would you begrudge your organ going to a despicable fucking asshole?

Presumably this.

How is this different than if an infertile hetero couple did the same thing using a donor sperm or egg, then broke up and later went after the donor???? It's not. Actually, with respect, it is. Going through a clinic, the donor is protected from situations like this legally. At the time the example here occurred, going through a clinic was not in any way an option for a non-hetero couple, hence no legal protection in this scenario. Apparently the laws have been updated since. EDIT: Typing on autopilot, made a glaring error in the first sentence. That presumes going thru an agency with protections of contractual arrangements, not a private, less formal arrangement.

There is a lawyer joke in there somewhere; I just can't put my finger on it... A turkey baster puts it in you. A lawyer sucks it outta you.

How is this different than if an infertile hetero couple did the same thing using a donor sperm or egg, then broke up and later went after the donor???? It's not.

So with the current version of the statute, repeatedly creating sock puppets on a website after having been banned for TOS violations, and after being expressly told by site administrators that said sock puppets are not welcome, is a federal felony. Probably a separate count for each sock puppet. Possibly a separate count for each post made via any such sock puppet. As in, prosecution and prison and fines. As in, court supervision while on bail and during probation and parole. As in, being a convicted felon. And everything that flows from that.

Cause of death? Wing loading? Any known medical or depression issues?

let's stop using analogies. the real question is whether the specific acts committed under the specific facts of the case violated the specific statutes charged.

I think I have a better analogy for you. You keep bringing up this "lock" and I want to be clear that no one with any business being in the computer security industry considers obscurity to be any kind of lock. Picture, instead, you go to a gym and they have a few hundred lockers. Most of them are empty. You put your stuff in the 173rd locker and don't put a lock on it because, "what are the odds someone is going to look in that locker?" Everybody else does the same. Then someone comes along and goes through all the unlocked lockers, takes the contents out and puts them on the ground in front of the lockers and stands back and calls everyone idiots. See, this is why analogies are always thin ice. Anyhow , unless you have your own stuff in one of the lockers, forgot which one it was, and are now randomly opening them to find your own stuff, you most certainly know that you're going to open lockers containing stuff belonging to other people that want it left alone. And to compound it, you do more than just open a locker and then rudely leave the door open rather than just closing it as you know fully well the occupant would expect; - what right do you have to touch that other person's stuff and pull it out of the locker? Opening the locker and leaving the door open is just being an asshole; touching the stuff and pulling it out of the locker really crosses the line.

Look again: I also called him step 'n fetchit. I chose my words with deliberation.

Well, now. This has all been a wonderfully smooshy love-fest. Sorry to kill everyone's buzz here, but let's not forget that in Auernheimer's case these arguments failed to carry the day. And I'm not at all certain they will with the appellate court, either. We'll see. But just don't count your conviction-reversals before they're hatched.

I guess the dealer felt Kelly wasn't ready to downsize. Here you are trying to be funny and you don't make sense. See how easy this is... "Sir, in my heart, I know I'm funny." Lt. Hauck, Good Morning Vietnam

I disagree wholeheartedly with this. I know you do. We've had this conversation before. Sorry, but I've long since become jaded toward judges for whom I have little respect.

I wouldn't hazard a prediction with an odd coalition like that.

Who?? Oh, billvon. Got it.

I'm quite surprised, though pleasantly so. I've been deeply immersed in 4th Amendment law since the late 1970s, and the overwhelming trend has been, to my growing disgust, to honor the 4th Amendment more in the breach than otherwise. This is refreshing. Surprising but nice that Scalia sided with the defendant. It would have been equally (if not more) surprising that Thomas did, too; but Thomas is Scalia's lapdog who will always step 'n fetchit when Scalia says "dance".

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4462196#4462196

, Billions that the Red Cross paid out on Sandy? Your pulling numbers out of your ass. Billions as in millions. Ah. Millions as in thousands.