Posts by Kurt Meyer

Re: That missing 'h'

@ Chris Miller

"DC has its own 'State' Attorney - it's not a state, but District Attorney is a different thing."

No, DC does not have its own 'State' attorney, and 'Disrtrict Attorneys' aren't mentioned, either in the article or my post.

As written: "all 51 state attorneys"

Properly written: "all 50 state Attorneys General, and The Attorney General of The District of Columbia"

Pedant indeed.

That missing 'h'

More than compensated for by the inclusion of all 51 State Attorneys.

Re: Why play Mr Nice Guy?

@ AC

"... you never did."

Absolutely right AC, they never did.

Re: I can believe that the Russians are intentionally trying to influence/compromise things.

@ Voyna i Mor

"... I dread to imagine your idea of a properly right wing judge. "

Roland Freisler? William Stoughton? Andrey Vyshinsky?

Yes, two of them were employed by nominally "Socialist" governments.

Re: Obaka is just angry over his "legacy"

@ Ledswinger

Thanks for the kind words.

Re: Obaka is just angry over his "legacy"

@ bombastic bob

Bob, I won't address the opinions expressed in your many posts. I fully support your right to have your say, no matter what your point of view.

But for goodness sakes, look at the style and composition you use, you're all over the map. SHOUTY CAPITALISATION, 'single quotes', "double quotes", here [brackets], there (parentheses), some _underscores_, and even a little strikeout thrown in for good measure.

The scattergun approach you use to emphasize your points has the effect of making your words less readable. It is disrupting to the eye of the reader. There is no smooth flow to your text.

Pick a style for emphasizing your words, and stick with it.

If you want to get your opinion across to your readers, which seems to me to be the only point of posting in the first place, make it easy for them to follow along.

One last point, the name twisting, such as "Obaka", or "the Demo-Rats". This makes you look childish, no matter who you support. It looks as though little Billy got a hold of Dad's PC, and is banging out nonsense. Again, this detracts from the smooth flow of your words.

If you say that "Mr. Obama has been a weak leader" or "Mrs. Clinton is a crook", we'll get that you don't care for them and/or their politics and policies. Please give your readers that much credit.

Bob, you're an educated man, and unless I miss my guess, no Spring chicken. Use that education, and that experience to make your thoughts and feelings known to your readership in a way that is easy for them to read.

Re: The Problem is TCP/IP

@ AC Re: Henry Louis Mencken

Love me some Mencken.

Thanks

Re: How can a scam like this even work?

@ Frank Zuiderduin

"Am I to believe that raiding people's houses because of owed taxes is actually a real practice over there? Out of the blue? No prior court case or even a letter? Really?"

No Frank, it is not a common practice in the US for ordinary citizens to have their home raided by the IRS.

Any contact initiated by the Internal Revenue Service will be by a letter requesting you to call them to schedule a meeting to discuss your taxes. You may ignore the letter if you wish.

More letters will follow as surely as night follows day. You may ignore the letters if you wish.

Sooner or later, a letter will arrive announcing that a court date has been set to hear the matter of "you vs. The United States Internal Revenue Service." You may ignore the letter if you wish.

Eventually, a letter will arrive to inform you that a judgement has been made and that you owe some large amount of taxes, payable immediately. You may ignore the letter if you wish.

Finally, two things will happen.

First, you will get a polite but insistant knock on your front door and open it to find the local sheriff's deputies and the IRS, there to seize your worldly goods to satisfy your tax liabilities,

And second, you will wish to Fucking Christ that you hadn't ignored those letters.

Re: Similar Scam in Hong Kong

@ JohnMartin

"Looks like fear of government reprisal is cross cultural even into the "land of the brave and the home of the free"..."

I don't believe that the scammers success was due as much to a fear of government, as it was due to human stupidity. This "scam" hasn't been given much, if any, notice in the mainstream media here in the US.

Hong Kong has a mostly Chinese population. The callers were presumably Chinese. The similarity would make the chance of success much greater in my opinion.

Most Americans, hearing a "foreign" voice on the phone, telling them to part with their money, especially to the IRS, would respond with a stream of invective that would make a sailor blush, before hanging up.

Stupid people live in every country, and the US certainly has no shortage of them. Scams of every sort find fertile soil here.

Sadly, xenophobia also grows here as well as anywhere on the planet, and "No raghead motherfucker* better say shit to me!" is a frequently heard phrase. Too frequently heard.

.

*The de facto epithet used to describe the people living in an arc that stretches from Morocco to Indonesia. An common alternative is "Sand Nigger".

Doubly sad is both the inability and the unwillingness to differentiate between peoples of completely different lands, ie, Indians, Persians, Turks, Arabs, Somalis.

Re: I have said it before, I will say it again

@ boltar

"Are you channelling the Remain camp there?"

No boltar, I don't have a dog in the Brexit fight, but I like to think that my vision extends beyond the tip of my own nose. Your's doesn't seem to do so.

Re: Schadenfreude

Regarding that "hard" Brexit, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor seem to have some very different ideas.

Schadenfreude indeed.

Re: I have said it before, I will say it again

@ AC

"No that does not make my life better, it has no impact on me at all as far as I can tell."

Me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me.

FTFY

Re: Seems simple to me

@ tr1ck5t3r

"Whilst entrapment is illegal in the UK..."

Sam Allardyce?

Re: @Kurt Meyer Doom I tell you

@ ITS Retired

ZootCadillac said:"The US government is not representative of anybody but its citizens."

You said:"The US Government does not even represent a good share of its own citizens."

Both statements are true, in my opinion.

True because the US government is the sole representative of the United States, and only the United States, when it engages in international relations with other governments.

True because of the large percentage of US citizens who voted for candidates other than the winning candidates, said winners then forming the government.

I'd bet a dollar to a donut that an old hand like you knows that nobody wins 100% of any national election. Even the totalitarian states haven't managed that. There will always be those whose views are not represented at the national level.

Wind-up

@ AC

I'm going with "not".

Re: @Kurt Meyer Doom I tell you

@ ZootCadillac

"I hope that sates your curiosity."

It does, and thank you for your well written post in reply to my question.

I agree wholeheartedly with your statement that "The US government is not representative of anybody but its citizens. They do not speak for or have responsibility for 95% of the world."

Not for the last time, I would that my government thought the same.

The many, many, ramifications of that attitude are perhaps best left for another time, and another thread.

To return to the subject of internet governance, I am of two minds. On the one hand as you say, it doesn't seem right that any single nation have control of the internet.

As you are no doubt aware, nations act in their own interests first, last, and always. This may, or may not, coincide with the interest of other nations at any given time.

To allow another nation to have control of a vital resouce requires a level of trust that does not exist today, if indeed it ever existed.

Given that lack of trust, where do we turn? I (and many others around the world) am not convinced of the trustworthiness of many of the "independent international bodies" that have attempted to regulate or administer international interests.

The lack of trust does not spring only from chauvinism, jingoism, or nationalism. It comes from the conduct of many of the existing international bodies, The UN, FIFA, The IOC, and many, many others too numerous to mention.

Their performance has been mixed in the opinion of many, and while international governance of the internet will represent a change from it's present state, the hope of greater trustworthiness may prove to be ephemeral.

This may actually be of benefit to the US, in that the mistrust will be spread amongst the members of this group rather than the current focus on a single country.

Loonies

@ Ole Juul

"... buncha loonies."

Yes Ole, sadly there are a bunch of loonies in the US. In much the same way there are a bunch of loonies in your country, and every other country on the planet.

Ole, I want to make clear that what follows is not directed at you personally.

The local loonies make a handy stick with which to beat any given nation, but should we judge any entire nation based on the existence of Pelle, Mosley, Quisling, or Mussert? Or their modern day equivalents?

I think not, and I'll wager that you, Ole, feel the same way. Yet that judging occurs every day on these pages, and again, sadly, shows no signs of stopping.

Re: Doom I tell you

@ ZootCadillac

I'm curious why you picked percentage of the world's population to use for your statement. If that is to be the measurement, shouldn't we hand everything to the Chinese? Surely with them in control of international standards of every sort, our troubles will be over, our lives worry free.

Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

@ tskears

The Pompous Git said: "All her referees said they would never rehire the lazy bitch again."

That is one applicant.

You said: "So the entire female gender is condemned because this one example had learned how to play the system."

That is an entire gender.

One person /= an entire gender.

That's called putting words into someone's mouth. It is a common tactic of the imbecilic, when they have no argument to refute a statement.

Oh... that's right, you're not interested in reason, or logic, you're fighting against oppression.

What do you do for a living when you're not posting fuckwitted nonsense on the Reg?

I ask because I want to make sure that whatever organization would employ someone so berift of basic intelligence as you seem to be, never receives any of my time or money.

Re: I'm a dude, he's a dude, she's a dude

@ Pompous Git Re:@ Jeremy Puddleduck

Skills based hiring? What a concept!

Jeremy, when you look up idiot, save yourself some time, use a mirror.

Judging the applicants

@ DougS

"...how exactly are you going to judge them on the quality of their work?"

Perhaps by asking to see samples of their work?

You might contact their former employer(s) to ascertain whether or not the applicant produced quality work at their previous job(s).

As mentioned above, you could ask the applicant to demonstrate their skills at the duties required for the job in question.

That seems easy enough.

Re: Caveman, ugh

@ AC

"It's because all he has to oppose him is the clitorall hinny."

Hey, don't forget Gary "Aleppo" Johnson!

Re: Mobile presentation != net neutrality

@ Potemkine

"Avoid 'Ghostery', there's evil inside."

I have always thought so, and have never availed myself of their services.

Re: Politically correct

@ Hollerithevo

"It originally meant...

Whoa, words changing their meaning over time!

When did that start happening?

Re: Nomenclature...

@ bombastic bob - Re: The Los Angeles class

"So with only 3 ships in the class ..."

There were 62 boats in the Los Angeles class, 39 of which are still active.

Perhaps you were thinking of the Seawolf class, the successor to the Los Angeles. There are three Seawolf class boats.