Posts by Sarge


log in
1) Message boards : Politics : Absolute Power (Message 1647916)
Posted 2 days ago by Profile Sarge
Does it, in fact, corrupt? Absolutely?
Check out this wonderful, double-blind study: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-mDhg09pcw.
Hmmm, the "most sadistic" of the guards was very much into theater at the time.
2) Message boards : Politics : Net Neutrality Part Deux (Message 1647904)
Posted 2 days ago by Profile Sarge
But! But?!

Can't stir the pot if he answers - only if he asks!

Hi Gary...

One good thing about your Reply's:

The Reply, signifying nothing, is short. Unlike other's.

Remember this axiom: When ones Ideas are Bankrupt. Get personal, and silly.

Now let's see if you can/will respond to my forthcoming answer to Sarge, with an Intelligent and Thoughtful Disagreement.

I have faith you can.


Remember this axiom?
Why post something too long to read when you can post hundreds of short replies? I have faith you do remember and apply, as well as distort the meanings of short and long.
3) Message boards : Politics : Net Neutrality Part Deux (Message 1647888)
Posted 2 days ago by Profile Sarge
But! But?!

Can't stir the pot if he answers - only if he asks!

I think he's saying he hasn't read it.
Though I enjoy italics.
4) Message boards : Politics : Net Neutrality Part Deux (Message 1647539)
Posted 2 days ago by Profile Sarge
President has no authority to Declare War.

Yes he does for at least 90 days. In a nuke world that is forever. Perhaps you should learn some of what powers government has.

"Declare War", a Constitutional Term and Specific meaning, does not mean Wage War.

The '90 Day Congressional Authority' is about Waging War, not Declaring War. Which is an entirely another level, concerning 'Treaty's and Obligations'.

The USA's last Declared War, Constitutionally Declared by Congress, was WWII.


Since YOU have READ the Act about NET NEUTRALITY, which points, specifically, are you against?


Aw, c'mon, broh! You've had more than 4 hours to answer. Why don't you answer questions asked directly of you?
[That's FOUR (4) good comebacks! ;)]

Sarge...

Get a life. This maybe important to you. Not me. Have more important things to do.

Just came home, and now going out, under swaying palm trees, to have a bite to eat. With the most beautiful woman in the world.

Just sit by your computer, and await my reply tomorrow morning.

:) :) :)


But! But?!
5) Message boards : Cafe SETI : Tim Hunt/Captain Avatar (Message 1647474)
Posted 2 days ago by Profile Sarge
Rest in Peace, Cap'n.
6) Message boards : Politics : Net Neutrality Part Deux (Message 1647473)
Posted 2 days ago by Profile Sarge
President has no authority to Declare War.

Yes he does for at least 90 days. In a nuke world that is forever. Perhaps you should learn some of what powers government has.

"Declare War", a Constitutional Term and Specific meaning, does not mean Wage War.

The '90 Day Congressional Authority' is about Waging War, not Declaring War. Which is an entirely another level, concerning 'Treaty's and Obligations'.

The USA's last Declared War, Constitutionally Declared by Congress, was WWII.


Since YOU have READ the Act about NET NEUTRALITY, which points, specifically, are you against?


Aw, c'mon, broh! You've had more than 4 hours to answer. Why don't you answer questions asked directly of you?
[That's FOUR (4) good comebacks! ;)]
7) Message boards : Politics : Net Neutrality Part Deux (Message 1647370)
Posted 3 days ago by Profile Sarge
President has no authority to Declare War.

Yes he does for at least 90 days. In a nuke world that is forever. Perhaps you should learn some of what powers government has.

"Declare War", a Constitutional Term and Specific meaning, does not mean Wage War.

The '90 Day Congressional Authority' is about Waging War, not Declaring War. Which is an entirely another level, concerning 'Treaty's and Obligations'.

The USA's last Declared War, Constitutionally Declared by Congress, was WWII.


Since YOU have READ the Act about NET NEUTRALITY, which points, specifically, are you against?
8) Message boards : Politics : Net Neutrality Part Deux (Message 1646688)
Posted 4 days ago by Profile Sarge
Clyde wrote:
Much verbiage, signifying nothing.

Now that is the best self assessment I've seen on the boards.

Not bad.

Finally, an interesting comeback. Keeps me on-board.

:) :) :)

Why? Did you fall over?

I was being pushed.

:) :) :)


Welcome back on the wagon?
9) Message boards : Politics : Net Neutrality Part Deux (Message 1646687)
Posted 4 days ago by Profile Sarge
Is humor defined by whether a good number of people find it funny?
Because, yeah, I actually found this funny as well.
But, the other post, by someone else, talking about humor? Where is it? Because a whole bunch of people from different walks of life just ain't seeing it, bro'!
Maybe the supposed humor was in what the "last" question was. I didn't answer his question. I answered my own "last" question, as he so often does with questions he asks.
I have simply stated I need to go look up more info and that, in the meantime, I am not for ISPs charging more for the same or more for less service.
What's so difficult to understand about that response, ha ha, hee hee, ho ho? And to take it for, that's the closest I have to an answer right now?
When I'm certain on a response I provide, you'll know it. Meantime, enjoy the warm fuzzy feelings.

Of course. Makes a lot of sense.

When unable, or unwilling, to answer a pertinent question.

Much verbiage, signifying nothing.


You have an interesting sense of "much", sir. Was that sentence too long for you, too? [See, I used "too" instead of "as well". Please inflict more Orwellian reduction of speech on us. ;)]
10) Message boards : Politics : Net Neutrality Part Deux (Message 1646638)
Posted 4 days ago by Profile Sarge
As Long As My Bill Continues to go UP UP UP and Service Continues to go Down Down Down, I'll Be A Happy, Smiling Consumer.

Got Throttled?

Got Pinched Pipe?

Got Lame Streamed?

Got Higher Bill?

Got Shat Service?

Got 'it'?

Yep.


ROFL! Now that's humor done right.


Is humor defined by whether a good number of people find it funny?
Because, yeah, I actually found this funny as well.
But, the other post, by someone else, talking about humor? Where is it? Because a whole bunch of people from different walks of life just ain't seeing it, bro'!
Maybe the supposed humor was in what the "last" question was. I didn't answer his question. I answered my own "last" question, as he so often does with questions he asks.
I have simply stated I need to go look up more info and that, in the meantime, I am not for ISPs charging more for the same or more for less service.
What's so difficult to understand about that response, ha ha, hee hee, ho ho? And to take it for, that's the closest I have to an answer right now?
When I'm certain on a response I provide, you'll know it. Meantime, enjoy the warm fuzzy feelings.
11) Message boards : Politics : Net Neutrality Part Deux (Message 1646233)
Posted 5 days ago by Profile Sarge
Question:

Those FOR the Entire Act -

Anything gives your pause?

If so... What?


Ok, I tried getting you to admit this earlier, but you were just not getting the hint.

They haven't released the entire proposal. The FCC is not suggesting that all regulations under Title II be enforced. So asking people if they are "FOR the Entire Act" is very misleading on your part. No one in favor of Title II Regulation / Net Neutrality is "FOR the Entire Act".

What you should be asking is, from the proposal, is there anything you disagree with or would add? For me, I would add the local loop unbundling section as well. But otherwise, I agree with the entire summary that has been proposed so far.

Again, the FCC has tried to establish Net Neutrality without Title II previously. There's no way this can be described as a gov't power grab. The ISP Cartels have only themselves to blame for this. Verizon should have left well enough alone.

Therefore...

You were FOR this Act, before knowing The Details?

Please explain.


Clyde, here's an honest answer for you: I have not read it. (Do we have a link to it in this thread or could someone provide it? Yes, I know I can search engine it, but, hey, I'm multi-tasking as it is.)

On principle, Clyde, I believe ... yes, believe for the time being, that it is not a government power grab but rather the result of not doing this would be instead that the big ISPs will be the ones making the grab ... the grab for power and money. So, while I must educate myself on the exact details of the Act, let me ask YOU: do you *not* believe *companies* are sometimes the ones grabbing for power??

Why will you not accept that BOTH are SOB'S?


Why do you not, and when will you, accept that I am independent and, despite any leanings I have, I do not subscribe to the idea that our goverment is or has been perfect? Why is it, for so many (and that includes some posting here), that if one does not agree with a person on one point, it is belleved the disagreer must therefore hold an opinion diametrically opposed from the other on all issues? Why is it, besides work and life (such as it is) that some people disappear from here for months? To answer the last question: because there's only so many ways we can explain ourselves and get tired of running over the same old ground.
12) Message boards : Politics : Net Neutrality Part Deux (Message 1646154)
Posted 5 days ago by Profile Sarge
Question:

Those FOR the Entire Act -

Anything gives your pause?

If so... What?


Ok, I tried getting you to admit this earlier, but you were just not getting the hint.

They haven't released the entire proposal. The FCC is not suggesting that all regulations under Title II be enforced. So asking people if they are "FOR the Entire Act" is very misleading on your part. No one in favor of Title II Regulation / Net Neutrality is "FOR the Entire Act".

What you should be asking is, from the proposal, is there anything you disagree with or would add? For me, I would add the local loop unbundling section as well. But otherwise, I agree with the entire summary that has been proposed so far.

Again, the FCC has tried to establish Net Neutrality without Title II previously. There's no way this can be described as a gov't power grab. The ISP Cartels have only themselves to blame for this. Verizon should have left well enough alone.

Therefore...

You were FOR this Act, before knowing The Details?

Please explain.


Clyde, here's an honest answer for you: I have not read it. (Do we have a link to it in this thread or could someone provide it? Yes, I know I can search engine it, but, hey, I'm multi-tasking as it is.)

On principle, Clyde, I believe ... yes, believe for the time being, that it is not a government power grab but rather the result of not doing this would be instead that the big ISPs will be the ones making the grab ... the grab for power and money. So, while I must educate myself on the exact details of the Act, let me ask YOU: do you *not* believe *companies* are sometimes the ones grabbing for power??
13) Message boards : Politics : Net Neutrality Part Deux (Message 1645827)
Posted 6 days ago by Profile Sarge
Please point to specific statements in the proposal. It really sounds like you've read a GOP pre-interpreted version of the proposal. There's no way lower speeds, higher consumer costs, and small independents are going out of business with this proposal.

GOP??? Silly, Ideological, Rant.


Its no longer ironic that you accuse everyone else of ideology and ideological standpoints while refusing to see your own.

GOP Sucks.


Yet you enjoy drinking their swill. Refill on your stein, sir?

Read The Entire Proposed Regulations.

Not the title.


Again, please point to specific clauses or sections that indicate anything what you've claimed.


Wow, Ozz, he most certainly does NOT have your number, does he? Has he called you a lib yet?
14) Message boards : Politics : Net Neutrality Part Deux (Message 1645826)
Posted 6 days ago by Profile Sarge
Start reading the Entire Proposal.

Just a Government Takeover, via Regulations.

More Consumer costs. Small Independents out-of-business. Lower Speeds possible. Government Control of Speech, More, and More and More.


Please point to specific statements in the proposal. It really sounds like you've read a GOP pre-interpreted version of the proposal. There's no way lower speeds, higher consumer costs, and small independents are going out of business with this proposal.

Net Neutrality? Another Obama-ism, AKA - A Lying Title. He loves that.


You do realize that Obama has only recently thrown his hat into the debate. He made no statements when the original Net Neutrality rules were put in place then shot down by Verizon via a court challenge. This issue has been going on for a few years, but I do note that anything that Obama tags his name to, his detractors immediately find the worse possible angle behind it then say it is all Obama's fault.


I wrote to one of my congressmen about Net Neutrality back in 1999 or so. Yes, I did get a response. So yeah, it's not just another "Obama-ism".
15) Message boards : Politics : Is there really any hope for America? (Message 1645821)
Posted 6 days ago by Profile Sarge
...so what's the problem?


Spear Chuckin' Neanderthals Still Live. Look at da Pic fO Proof.

And, of Course, da posted word.

Yep.


Who is Sean Penn?
Is he a spear chucker? Will Clyde find the hidden connotation in your post?
Hey, leave those elephants alone!
Sometimes, the unposted word is better?
Yep? Nope!
Au weh.
16) Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Then Again - There May Have Been No Big Bang (Message 1645818)
Posted 6 days ago by Profile Sarge
I like what I am reading! This is partly agreeing with my own long held theory about the universe. But there are too many "mights" for any conclusions yet. It is as much a theory as mine is, but first time I've found anyone seemingly agreeing with me.


So, you've been forming hypotheses, running experiments, collecting and analyzing data, revising your theory as you go?

Or did you mean "hunch"?
17) Message boards : Cafe SETI : The return of the kittyman..... (Message 1645520)
Posted 7 days ago by Profile Sarge
Hey Hippy, how Ya' doin'?

<=== Thought I was the "hippy" 'round here.

And bud...that mullet?

I had one too just until I had to look for a job ten years ago and it would not work for that. I cut it off and gave it to Locks for Life.
Love the look still. Amen, brother.


Hair that is all one length is not a mullet.

Well, when it kinda falls off to both sides an looks like a mullet, I calls it a mullet look.

Sorry if you do not consider it at such, nice locks nonetheless, my friend.
As I said, I used to were such locks. Some do not think so, but I think a man looks mighty fine wearing long hair.

I am not a gurly man, but I consider you a very fine looking guy.

Take that without any sexual connotatitons on my part.


A mullet has long hair in the back, short to medium on the top and sides. There are layers. It has nothing to do with how it is combed.




For further distinction, here is the "reverse" mullet, short on the sides and in the back, longer on the top.

18) Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : The computer that crunches cloud data to heat your home (Message 1641365)
Posted 17 days ago by Profile Sarge
i suspect that it's been mostly heated by your less frugal neighbors.


Which is why I have my air condition set to turn on whenever it goes above 68 to 72 degrees F. Which happens year round.
19) Message boards : Politics : M E T Two (Message 1639945)
Posted 19 days ago by Profile Sarge
So point out the posts where Arabs were mentioned with regards to Islam!

Questions regarding Islam:

Just why is Islam such a fractured religion/culture?

Aren't all women supposed to be covered in Islamic states?

Celebrities in Dubai

Unless my geography is grossly out of whack, isn't Dubai in the United Arab Emigrates?

The UAE is an Islamic Nation is it not?


Such negativity. Which is why I didn't post in one of your newest threads. BTW, care to try to spread lies about me again? Go on. Have a whack at it.
20) Message boards : Politics : Open Message to Russia (Message 1639202)
Posted 21 days ago by Profile Sarge
What we don't understand about Russia because we don't know their history is the satellite states or as I was taught buffer zone was Russia a thousand years ago.


And what about those who trace their roots there back to earlier than 862? How should they view this Scandinavia "invasion"?


Next 20

Copyright © 2015 University of California