Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
→‎Comments Section: un-sign part of post made by Ed, reply to TK.
Line 165: Line 165:  
::I meant "parts of it I only skimmed", not "the only parts I read I skimmed", and this was simply because I really didn't need to see every detail of, say, the punishments.  I read enough of the law to see what it in general listed;  I was merely expressing that, while the general thrust of the law seemed to not mean what this page said, there might have been some minor technicality or precedent that extended its scope or changed its meaning.  Also, was it really neccessary to assume that I was unable to understand it or had not read it, and accuse me of "spewing nonsense"?  You are right, though.  It is not terribly long, and uses few words that could be considered "big". [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 14:06, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 
::I meant "parts of it I only skimmed", not "the only parts I read I skimmed", and this was simply because I really didn't need to see every detail of, say, the punishments.  I read enough of the law to see what it in general listed;  I was merely expressing that, while the general thrust of the law seemed to not mean what this page said, there might have been some minor technicality or precedent that extended its scope or changed its meaning.  Also, was it really neccessary to assume that I was unable to understand it or had not read it, and accuse me of "spewing nonsense"?  You are right, though.  It is not terribly long, and uses few words that could be considered "big". [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 14:06, 28 February 2009 (EST)
   −
::I think it's a fair question, Mr. Schlafly. I found the grammar and style next to incomprehensible. It's not a matter of any one word being big. It's [[legalese]] and cries out for a translation. {{unsigned|Umlaut}}
+
::I think it's a fair question, Mr. Schlafly. I found the grammar and style next to incomprehensible. It's not a matter of any one word being big. It's [[legalese]] and cries out for a translation.
    
::Please, counselor, be patient with us lesser mortals. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:50, 28 February 2009 (EST)
 
::Please, counselor, be patient with us lesser mortals. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:50, 28 February 2009 (EST)
Line 224: Line 224:     
::Whether vandalism and "cyber terrorism" to this or any other wiki or site is illegal is not the question (though I think it isn't).  My point was that 18 USC § 1030 appears to be an inappropriate citation.  Pointing out such an inaccuracy (or perceived inaccuracy) is certainly a contribution to Conservapedia. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 08:02, 2 March 2009 (EST)
 
::Whether vandalism and "cyber terrorism" to this or any other wiki or site is illegal is not the question (though I think it isn't).  My point was that 18 USC § 1030 appears to be an inappropriate citation.  Pointing out such an inaccuracy (or perceived inaccuracy) is certainly a contribution to Conservapedia. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 08:02, 2 March 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
:: Almost ''any'' web site could be claimed to be "used in international communications", so no, I can't see that being applicable.  How on Earth is this a "liberal deceit"?  And are you saying that the commandment's reference to a law is a distraction?  Perhaps you'd better point that out to Andy so that he can remove the distraction.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 2 March 2009 (EST)
nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254

edits

Navigation menu