Mensan

Mine was free.

Thi thread is now about Scottish humour.

This is a great post. There is a current philosophical argument about what knowledge actually is. It seems like a laughable topic, but if you read what people consider the definition of knowledge to be, and why the argument exists, it makes you question your knowledge. I'll see if I can find it.

Get a notarized bill of sale to protect both of you. The tax dept. may ask for it. note on the bill of sale the car was non-op and it will help you a lot.

Is this a repost? If so, I I missed it.

There you go buddy! That's what I was talking about! Way to use facts to back up your argument! http://www.scarymommy.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/gold-star.jpg If you keep this up, you'll eventually earn some credibility! I'm glad I could lend a hand in your marked improvement. I'm so proud. Edit: I'm still confused about how the court would view the fourth factor and how the original copyright owner (i.e., NOT YOU) would have been affected: Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

Section 107 specifically covers it. I'd love to see the reaction if you took it to trial. It would be laughable and you know it. "But they made fun of me! I'm gonna SUE!"

It falls under Fair Use. Not a copyright violation, and if it were, not yours to claim.

Facts are indisputable. What you posted is not a fact. What were you trying to say?

If you were the subject of the picture, you have no claim to the copyright. Only the creator does. In addition, you will find a clause in Facebook's user agreement that states Grant or anyone else may use that picture as they see fit.

I am. I will. If you want to continue to post (to everyone's detriment), you totally can. Just understand that I, and many others, will be there to point out your flaws and failures, as well as your insulting tone. It appears to offend you, so if you don't want it to happen, take some Ritalin, do some fact checking before you hit "submit", and generally make this place better. Otherwise, like I said; unpleasant comments, laughs at your expense (behind your back), etc.

Your net value here is negative. I have respect for many people who hold different opinions than I. Sometimes, I even agree with your message. What you fail to understand is that the way you deliver messages makes you unlikable. If you could frame your arguments respectfully (and also so they made clear, logical sense), you might be welcomed onto the playground. Since you can't though, there's the door.

Then STOP FUCKING POSTING. My goal is to make you look bad, but you're even better at that than I am.

El doble

I never said you were wrong. I only asked if you could prove your claim, and you have not. Online search for the terms intellectually-dishonest debate tactics might lead you to some terms with which you should familiarize yourself. Here are a few that may be of particular interest: False premise: debater makes a statement that assumes some other fact has already been proven when it has not; in court, such a statement will be objected to successfully by opposing counsel on the grounds that it “assumes facts not in evidence.” Vagueness: debater seems to cite facts or logic, but his terms are so vague that no facts or logic are present. Debates where any party is allowed to use vague terms last forever, are circular, and settle nothing. ‘Lawyering.’ This was inspired by Chris Christie’s recent criticism of Obama for trying to “lawyer” his lie about keeping your plan and your doctor if you like them. The purpose of debate is to ascertain the truth. The purpose of “lawyering” is to win the case by whatever means will accomplish that end. Famed Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz said, “When the truth hurts my client, my job is to suppress the truth.” Conclusory statements. This is a conclusion statement masquerading as evidence to prove the conclusion in question. You don’t prove a defendant is guilty by merely saying he’s guilty. You commit [insert dishonest debate tactic here] all the time. Give me an example so we can set the record straight. None is forthcoming. The “logic” of it seems to be if you say “all the time,” you are thereby absolved from having to prove the accusation. In fact, if it is so frequent, it should be easy to come up with an example. The fact that you cannot come up (or choose not to come up) with even a single one gives the indication that your accusation is false. Edit: I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were committing another offense to debate while I was typing my response. I'll add another one, referring to the post above mine: Theatrical fake laughter or sighs: This can be wordless, but it says “What you just said is so ridiculously wrong that we must laugh at it.” Also I think you meant passtime

Give me a concrete example of what you are referring to.

A sure sign of a poor debater is taking offense and resorting to personal insults.

I think the humor he found was almost entirely in the people making/posting it. Probably wasn't what you were going for.

http://i.imgur.com/jat0YWq.jpg

http://www.mathematicsdictionary.com/spanish/vmd/mirror/a/adjacentangles.gif

I support a socialized medical program but the current system is broken. My mom actually had coverage for the first time in her life and was able to get some preventative care. Since then (a year and a half ago?) her rates tripled and she has had to go without insurance because she can't afford it. A better solution than dismantling the program in place would be to address the problems that plague it. IMO, strongly regulating insurance companies would reduce the amount of money we all have to pay. It's at least a start.

Those should have a different oil pan and pickup. Make sure to transfer yours over.

She plagiarized her speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUsJ6BRJPrc#t=2m36s From the greatest Nic Cage film of all time, Vampire's Kiss: