Yes, it's called a typo, which I admittedly make. Now, as I said in the other thread before the moderator shut down your bigotry, we all make those. It's the consistency of an error which is at issue. Were it the case I repeatedly confused look and like, you'd have a point. As it is, you've managed to find a typographical error made on the inside of some HTML coding. Damn, you're good. (Now, I know that'll probably rock your socks a bit, but I assure you that you shouldn't take it in that special way you like to take things.)Quote:
Quoting jk
Yes, I can see how a person who walks around talking to his imaginary friend, telling the world that this imaginary friend can, at his behest, change the world (say by killing everyone) would think that essentially being called scatterbrained could be a complement.Quote:
In reality, using that term to describe a persons mind could actually be seen as a complement. It takes a man of great control to be able to utilize a figuratively fragmented mind so as to be able to consider many thoughts concurrently. Most people are relegated to considering one thought at a time and are easily confused if that one thought process is disturbed.
Well, let's see if I can walk you through this. Come out of the trailer, and let's chat. Comminuted, as you pointed out, means to pulverize. If something has been comminuted, it's fair to presume it's been reduced to small bits, fragments you might say. Something which has been broken into small pieces, again fragments if you please, can be said to be fragmented. Phew, I'm glad we worked through that one together.Quote:
So Ash, why don't you enlighten us. What was your intent of using the term; comminuted
Ok, get back in that trailer and study some more.
The 'Inevitable Discovery' Warrant Exception
Printable View
-
11-07-2009, 09:45 AMashman165Re: The 'Inevitable Discovery' Warrant Exception
-
11-07-2009, 01:51 PMjkRe: The 'Inevitable Discovery' Warrant ExceptionWell, two threads, two typos. That looks consistent to me.Quote:
Oh, wasn't it YOU that said a typo is a typo but consistent repetition of a type is more correctly considered to be a deficit? I guess this means you have a mental deficit. Glad you are the one that defined that one for us.Quote:
ashman165;365846]Yes, it's called a typo, which I admittedly make.
It's the consistency of an error which is at issue. Were it the case I repeatedly confused look and like, you'd have a point.
.Oh, now you are blaming it on the computer. Ya, that always works.Quote:
As it is, you've managed to find a typographical error made on the inside of some HTML coding
Well, in the 27 different sources I read to determine any possible definition, none of them considered the word appropriately used to refer to a person as "scatterbrained". Maybe you could dig a bit deeper and post where I might find that definition.Quote:
Yes, I can see how a person who walks around talking to his imaginary friend, telling the world that this imaginary friend can, at his behest, change the world (say by killing everyone) would think that essentially being called scatterbrained could be a complement.
Still looking for any dependable source to support your use. As I said before, if a person has a fragmented mind and is capable of utilizing those fragments independently, I would see that as a complement. You seem to have a one track mind and for some reason, it always comes back to you talking about my sex life:Quote:
Well, let's see if I can walk you through this. Come out of the trailer, and let's chat. Comminuted, as you pointed out, means to pulverize. If something has been comminuted, it's fair to presume it's been reduced to small bits, fragments you might say. Something which has been broken into small pieces, again fragments if you please, can be said to be fragmented. Phew, I'm glad we worked through that one together.
Quote:
but I assure you that you shouldn't take it in that special way you like to take things.
Nice view from the $1m trailer here.Quote:
Ok, get back in that trailer and study some more.
-
11-07-2009, 04:00 PMashman165Re: The 'Inevitable Discovery' Warrant ExceptionNo, I blamed it on my typing. The computer didn't write the HTML coding or the text inside of it; I did. I'm not quite sure you what you mean by in two separate posts, unless you consider my repeating the error specifically to point it out and then discussing how it's an error was in and of itself an indication that I didn't know the difference.Quote:
Quoting jk
Again, the word is synonymous with pulverize, to crush into small pieces, to grind down, to break into small pieces. These aren't concepts which are concordant with independent pieces working in synergy as a whole.Quote:
Well, in the 27 different sources I read to determine any possible definition, none of them considered the word appropriately used to refer to a person as "scatterbrained". Maybe you could dig a bit deeper and post where I might find that definition.
I note that you 100% of the time have failed to use "compliment" correctly; you write "complement" which is something which completes something else. A compliment, on the other hand, is a way of expressing admiration or some such towards something. Like, you know, you compliment a lady on her selection of attire, whereas a missing ingredient added to a dish complements the recipe. I digress.Quote:
Still looking for any dependable source to support your use. As I said before, if a person has a fragmented mind and is capable of utilizing those fragments independently, I would see that as a complement. You seem to have a one track mind and for some reason, it always comes back to you talking about my sex life:
Thus ends my involvement with this. -
11-07-2009, 05:29 PMjkRe: The 'Inevitable Discovery' Warrant Exception
ashman165;365934] I digress.
Thus ends my involvement with this.[/QUOTE]
That is good as I do not believe you could digress any further. You really have a way of turning just about any topic into an argument of how intelligent you are and how lacking everybody else here is. If it is such an arduous task to interact with those you seem so attracted to yet so critical of, simply don't do it.
Answer posters questions and refuse to address those you seem to have such a problem with.
No, you are wrong. It is as simple as I misspelled compliment but hey, guess what? You understood what I meant so I succeeded in communicating with you yet you continue to fail to communicate with just about anybody here.Quote:
I note that you 100% of the time have failed to use "compliment" correctly; you write "complement" which is something which completes something else. A compliment, on the other hand, is a way of expressing admiration or some such towards something. Like, you know, you compliment a lady on her selection of attire, whereas a missing ingredient added to a dish complements the recipe.
Learn the lesson. While a mistake was made, the intent, the idea, the thought was still conveyed. You continually attempt to impress or belittle (I believe the latter) by your expansive vocabulary. That results in a failure to communicate with many here unless they are bored enough to consult a dictionary to attempt to discern what you meant. You do not know how to communicate. With all of your self claimed importance and intelligence, you have failed in one of the most basic requirements of society; being able to communicate.
How does it feel to be a failure? -
11-08-2009, 01:33 AMJoshuadeuce1Re: The 'Inevitable Discovery' Warrant ExceptionQuote:
Quoting ashman165
Affirmed the sentence, You are struggling with comprehension again.
You grilled me over Your vs. You're. Damn that smarts. But then, you leave this here. What the hell were you trying to say? This isn't a typo. Your HO scale train of thought vanished. I bet you left it over by the thesaurus.Quote:
Next higher appellate court declined to even consider your petition. Ok, call it what you like, but the fact remains that an appellate court reviewed your case and found the
Quote:
You seem to have a misunderstanding of the word "belief". Things which are evidently true (in other words, demonstrably the case) require no belief. A belief is the acceptance of some conjecture without a good reason, without evidence.
And I only "believed" you were ignorant of case law. Since it is "evidenced" repeatedly, I therefore "know" you're ignorant.
Quote:
It's immaterial how many people start up a website and wax retarded about chemistry. I for one will take my science from, you know, actual scientists doing actual scientific, controlled experiments and published in the only place where any science discussion matters: peer-reviewed journals. The study I cited to you has been subjected to scientific scrutiny for some 20 years and has yet to be found profoundly wanting. Indeed, it was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication as an authoritative source.
It's immaterial how many people wax retarded about the law. I for one will take my law from, you know, like statutes and court opinions, since like, you know, that's what really matters when we are talking about law.
The case law I cited to you has been subjected to legal scrutiny for some 41 years and has yet to be found profoundly wanting. Indeed, it has been reviewed, and challenged, and yet it is still accepted as the authoritative source.
Quote:
Your source is, as you've said, you. I'm sorry, but you aren't a credible source in even the lay sense of the term. In the world of science, your story has no meaning as it lacks any data, it lacks anyway to test your claims. So, we just have to believe you. That won't do.
And your source of knowledge pertaining to the issues discussed in this thread is? That's right, your source of knowledge, or lack thereof is unimportant.
Quote:
Yes, I'm so wrong and you're so right
Thank you.
Quote:
Let me see if I get this right: affirmed the sentence to implies that upon review of a case and noting constitutional violations which can't be remedied, they still let it stand? No, it doesn't work quite that way. If there had been a ground requiring reversal (say, the prejudicial infringement of your constitutional rights), the appellate court would have take action. By affirming the sentence, they're affirming that on the whole the case was properly brought before a competent court and handled in compliance with the law.
Whoa, speed racer. You've now transcended ignorance all the way to delusional. You're suggesting that if only issue (a) is submitted for Appellate review, that Court will automatically review issues b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,.....
without any prompting to do such. At least that's what I think you were trying to say. Kind of difficult to tell what you meant by this:
to?Quote:
affirmed the sentence to implies that
and this,
took, taking, take, ah taken. I got it.Quote:
the appellate court would have take action.
I also think you meant "Court of competent jurisdiction".
Do you even know what independent means?Quote:
are you somehow arguing that but for having frisked you, he wouldn't have offered you the occasion to voluntarily submit to the SFSTs? Even if he weren't, so what. He asked if you would voluntarily choose to take that battery of tests and you agreed to do it. If you'd said no, then we'd be stuck only with what you're complaining about. But you agreed to do it, thus shooting yourself in the foot.
Nope, I guess you don't.Quote:
Well, that does seem to be your contention. Unfortunately for your claim, no court has agreed. Moreover, your question is improper because it submits a binary situation when the decisions being made needn't have been so contrived as you'd like to pretend they must be.
It's only been in front of one.Quote:
Well, I'll give your non-argument, crass-assertion a bit more credence when it convinces a single judge of its merit.
Again, you are delusional.Quote:
Until then, I'll stick with the idea that the affirmation of your sentence implies the conviction itself was lawfully obtained
-
11-08-2009, 06:57 AMashman165Re: The 'Inevitable Discovery' Warrant Exception
I'll just cover this briefly; it's a condition known as a fortiori. Say you claim there are 21 people in the room. That necessarily implies there are {1, 2, . . .20} people in the room, but says nothing about whether there's a 22nd person.
Similarly, a court reviewing an appeal on the conviction won't draw on the pieces not essential to the conviction (like, say, the sentence). But, when you challenge a part of proceeding which depends on something prior having happened and fail to challenge anything in the necessary steps to what you're challenging, courts accept those parts as verities on appeal. So, either you were too stupid to challenge the conviction, in which case they accepted it as good, or your supposed mastery of case law isn't as good as you'd like us to believe.
I'll rest with this elegant fact: say what you like, the case remains that every court given the occasion to hear your daft arguments has smacked you down. No amount of prattling by you here changes this. You were convicted and no court in the land has found any merit in any argument you've presented on any aspect of this case. Congratulations. -
11-08-2009, 08:20 PMJoshuadeuce1Re: The 'Inevitable Discovery' Warrant ExceptionQuote:
Quoting ashman165
So I guess you were too stupid to read the part about being appointed an appellate defender. Her brief challenged only the sentence, not the errors by the trial court that lead to the conviction, or the part where I filed a "notice to withdraw". You keep suggesting my argument has been considered by an appellate court, it has not been. I thought I'd made that clear to anyone with even a teeny, weenie, little bit of reading comprehension. I guess I overestimated your abilities. When you learn to read, listen, comprehend, and communicate, come back and talk to me.
BTW, I'm just guessing this is not the way you talk to people in person. Then there would be the very real possibility someone would hold your @ss accountable for the sh!t coming out of your mouth.