On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Sam wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 1:33 AM, denstar wrote: ... >> It *looks* like only the data mining got thrown out. > > You didn't read it, you guessed. > http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0253p-06.pdf
More wishful thinking, than guessing. I saw this and was all happy: II. CONCLUSION The closest question in this case, in my opinion, is whether the plaintiffs have the standing to sue. Once past that hurdle, however, the rest gets progressively easier. Mootness is not a problem because of the governments position that it retains the right to opt out of the FISA regime whenever it chooses. Its AUMF and inherent-authority arguments are weak in light of existing precedent and the rules of statutory construction. Finally, when faced with the clear wording of FISA and Title III that these statutes provide the exclusive means for the government to engage in electronic surveillance within the United States for foreign intelligence purposes, the conclusion becomes inescapable that the TSP was unlawful. I would therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. > Very bottom: > > JUDGMENT > On Appeal from the United States District Court > for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. > THIS CAUSE was heard on the record from the district court and was argued by > counsel. IN CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is ORDERED that the order of the > district court is VACATED and the case is REMANDED with instructions > to DISMISS the case for lack of jurisdiction. Thanks (I guess. *sniff* :~]), I had interpreted the results incorrectly. Only one of the 3 was a badass, apparently. God I loved his dissent though. Beautiful logic, IMO, but I'm biased. >> Did B. Kennedy "change"? Get less socially conservative or some such? > > No, but he did change his mind a lot. Ah. I wasn't sure what Belafonte was talking about. >>>> You're saying we don't need the records. We should just trust people >>>> in power not to abuse it. >>> When did I say that? >> When you said they didn't need warrants because they did the same work >> with or without them, I think. > > Not. I said the same guy probably listens in with warrants and > without. If you trust him not to blackmail with a warrant then you > should trust him without. Why? With a warrant you have documentation that X listened to Y. It's not "trust", per se. At least not an unchecked trust, which is what you are advocating for! Trust the government, eh? Apparently arbitrarily, even. Privacy == Trust, Health Care == distrust. Although the former is *way* more dangerous than the latter. And FWIW, I'm not advocating we "trust" the .gub with our Health. If we know about it, we can influence it. (easier). >>> Sucks to be him. He read one speech he didn't even want to and he gets >>> branded with the decade old issue. His name is forever a tarnished. >> >> Heh. One speech, eh? Somehow I don't remember it like that, but I >> wasn't there, so who knows? > > Well than why are we discussing it? It's fun? Maybe one of us will bring some informative anecdotes to the table? You don't honestly think he only did the one speech to that rotary club or whatever, do you? I know you don't, because you mentioned a more famous "speech" he gave earlier. I love how some music uses clips from McCarthy... >>> 19 died in Salem, zero died from McCarthyism. Over 100 million died >>> from communism. No joke. >> It wasn't communism, it was the sudden stop at the bottom. > > Good to see you can joke about over 100m dead but get upset that > someone didn't get applause at an award show. I can joke about a silly concept like "communism" killing 100m. Can concepts kill, or does it take some "human" influence? Way to shift blame off the individuals and onto a concept there, Sambo! You sick puppy! ;) And I wasn't upset about no applause-- I applaud the no applause. Turning in your neighbors and whatnot?!?! Yuck. And yet it's one of the "best" way to fight terror, neh? >> Even if you only count McCarthy, that's more than Zero. > > You mean years later from too much boozing? I thought you said he went crazy over what happened? >> Look dude, people were afraid to speak their minds, and leaving the country. > > Good, that was the idea. To be like WWII Germany? I'm not surprised you feel this way, you'd like to see something like the SS and whatnot here, going by what you consider "destructive" to the country. =) >> Wasn't there some actor who got a lifetime award, and nobody clapped, >> because the dude had turned in a lot of fellow actors and directors >> and whatnot as pinkos? > > A tear wells up in my right eye. Are you sure it's not something just sticking in it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EQ_VVMtKck >> You really don't think McCarhtyism is that bad? Because McCarthy himself >> did X? > > I was saying McCarthy's intentions were good and he strayed to crazyland. > McCarthyism is a way to brand national security as evil. Some bad came > out of it but it started out as good. In your opinion. With a leak, which I thought you didn't favor, and was really a Bad thing for National Security? >> Do you know how many children die *every day* from preventable causes? >> It's a lot. > > And what does that have to do with anything? I don't know. Context. >> Ah yes, the "axis of evil". Iraq was *sooooooo* like WWII. > > So we should wait until untold millions are slaughter before raising a finger? Iraq was going to slaughter untold millions? You really *do* think these jokers are an Axis of Evil! Come on man. The only reason a lot of this shit goes down is because who is friends with who. Is it, say, Iran that we fear? Really? >>>> Sam, am I tripping, or have you been a supporter of the "if you are >>>> not doing anything wrong you've nothing to fear" meme? >>> You're tripping. That's not even a real argument, never heard about >>> except from folks like you. >> It is a real argument, which *is* a trip. Maybe Rob said it? > > Pretty sure he didn't. You imagined it or read it on Huffpo. Fine by me, I'd rather believe that anyway. My apologies for the slander. >> You support it by saying we don't need warrants and whatnot, you know. >> Or do you know? >> Why do we have warrants, in your opinion? > > Warrants are for domestic wiretaps. We have them and need them. > Overseas spying is a different animal. If a legal no warrant needed > overseas wiretap lands in the US they don't need to hang up. That's > the law. What warrants when who? Did you read that PDF, or did you just look for something that supported your argument that what was done wasn't illegal?!?! Surely you grokked more than just who won and who lost from that document. >> Hahaha! :) And I had you pegged as more of a scab. ;) > > I'm white collar. I'm t-shirt. I did wear a suit a couple weeks ago tho. *gasp!* Does white collar mean you don't actually work, so couldn't be a scab? >> Why just the health care stuff though? And why all the sudden >> excitement when Obama got in there, vs. prior? > > You're the one that is fixated on the health care. Because Obama is > doing all the damage. You've been pretty insistent about health care, I'm just staying on topic. :)p He sure as hell didn't do all the damage. ... >> I still think worse shit happened during the last admin. This shit is >> pedestrian compared to that last shit. > > What's your beef? Katrina? Current oil leak crisis is 100 times worse. > Wiretaps? Current wiretapping is increased. Actually Clinton used to > do it far more often. > The wars? No end in sight. > Gitmo? Still open. > Drone killings? Way up. Religiously motivated policy? Way down. People willing to do whatever Obama wants to present a united front? Way down. The "war" on Iraq? Down Majority rule? Down Hard working president? Up It's not all sunshine and rainbows, but give credit where credit is due. I watched that PBS show about the health care bill. WOW! That show was *not* all lovey dovey on Obama. But I was impressed, nonetheless. Obama is amazing. Love him or hate him, he achieved his goal. The the goal wasn't war, BTW. (me poking fun at how this is better than that was) >> I think some people profit from making it seem that this shit is >> worse. Like, I was surprised to know that more people have been >> deported under Obama than the previous administration, but they're >> still calling him soft. > > Are you happy or sad that people get deported? Just noting the inconsistency, same as you. >> And the main point (apparently) of the Tea Party is that we're paying >> more taxes now than ever before, right? >> Is that right? > > No. You just read it and said it was about the constitution. > I stated before that they aren't complaining about paying taxes, they > don't mind paying them. It's the bankrupting of the country with the > out of control spending. So the Tea Party would /actually/ be just fine with paying more taxes? Because they're fiscally responsible? Or advocate fiscal responsibility? > You are one of the dozen people left that don't seem to mind. I just don't mind it so much for health care as for War. The "war" and tax cutting had already screwed us, though you say we wouldn't have had any problem paying for it. I don't see you calling for more taxes to balance the budget. In fact, you diss Democrats for raising taxes to cover spending. You want to eat your cake and have it too. >> I'm pretty sure most of the discord is egged on by people pulling our >> puppet-like strings. > > Speak for yourself :) At least I see them. >>> Bush was bad because he's evil, Obama is bad because he's a politician >>> so he gets a pass? >> Didn't we agree on misguided vs. evil? >> Bush43 was more misguided. >> Better? > > No and no. Bush was a leader, he wasn't perfect but he did what was > needed for the country. Obama just cares about himself and the Friends > of Obama. This is a big party and it's great to be king. Someone needs > to tell him it's time to start doing the work. Bush43 was *sooo* altruistic. Yeah. That's what the history books will say. You honestly think Bush43 worked harder than Obama has?!?! >> I'm not advocating showing pornos, I'm advocating information. >> As a government, we sure as hell can't be all "Abstinence Only". >> People die who wouldn't have otherwise, statistically. If you believe >> the statistics. > > Maybe we should start in kindergarten, it's just life saving information. > Can't believe you're still running with the people died from no condom > lesson line. I'm running with the line that Science Trumps Religion, as far s the Government goes. Or that it should. Do you have stats that say Abstinence only works better? Or are you arguing it should be about morals vs. statistics? >> There are sickos out there who mess with young kids, you know? You >> can't be around all the time, and the kid needs to know how to tell >> you something is wrong, right? > > What does that have to do with condom demos? Maybe you mean sex education? I'm pretty sure it covers more than just putting condoms on cukes. Why are you so anti-condom anyway? What's the big deal? Latex allergy? >>>>> PP does offer a valuable service but it also offers a very dishonest >>>>> one. A few bad apples maybe... >>>> You are specifically referring to abortion here, right? >>> >>> No. >>> So many things they do wrong here's just one: >>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,54079,00.html >>> Life Dynamics said one of its activists has called more than 800 >>> abortion clinics nationwide in recent months, pretending to be a >>> 13-year-old girl impregnated by her 22-year-old boyfriend. What she >>> learned is that more than 90 percent of the clinic employees handling >>> the calls said they would conceal the information provided by the >>> caller, according to Life Dynamics president Mark Crutcher. >> >> I don't think that is so bad. Do you have anything better than this? > Figures you wouldn't mind that one. > > http://www.newser.com/story/57236/students-planned-parenthood-sting-raises-ire-on-youtube.html > I guess 31 on 13 won't upset you either. This is the same thing. Don't you have anything better than "statutory" rape? Like maybe "normal" rape, where they tell the girl not to report it? Isn't it PP that has that stereotype? Oh, wait... > http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ucla_student_sting_exposes_racism_at_planned_parenthood/ > An actor posing as a racist donor called Planned Parenthood > development centers asking that his donations be used to abort > African-American babies to "lower the number of black people." Each > branch agreed to process the racially earmarked donation. None > expressed concern about the racist motives for the donation, and some > staffers encouraged the racist reasoning. Meh. > There's more where they tell the kids an 8 week old fetus doesn't have > arms and legs or a head. Misinformation is lame, but an exception to the rule, from my experience. Do you have any firsthand experience with PP? Abortion? No one I've known has ever said "oh, I'm pregnant, I'll just go get an abortion", not even whores. Have you ever been friends with a hooker? How 'bout just a slut? Not that it would matter if you told me you were best buds with 10 chicks who got abortions once a month and called it "birth control"... I just wonder where you're coming from. >> I will feel like a failure if my daughter doesn't think she can tell >> me she's pregnant. > > Doesn't PP encourage them not to tell the parents? What? That's putting the cart before the horse. And no, they do not encourage it. Not as policy or some such, that I know of. But does personal privacy bug you, personally? Do you think dads killing their daughters for being "unclean" is super cool or something? Does shit like that even fit into your worldview? Or are all parents automatically good parents because they are parents? Where's all the laws that force kids to have good communication with their folks at? >> BTW, abstinence only leads to a lot of crap like this. Kids too >> scared to tell their parents what is going on in their lives for fear >> of being judged. > > I call BS. Parents putting pressure on their kids is alien to you? You haven't run into this in your own life? If not you specifically, perhaps a friend? Or two? >>> Not the individual educators. The advertising agencies, the >>> institutions like University of Pheonix tend to earn more when people >>> can be sold on more education = job. >> That's what is always pushed though, isn't it? > > Are you being difficult or forgetful? Is there a third option? > When the job market sucks schooling is likely to increase. Some > companies like I mention load up dice and monster with fake jobs so > when you call they try to convince you to go to school for an even > better job then the one they pretended to offer. I'm pretty sure that even for them, it's better when the jobs are real. But that's not here or there. Your original claim was that educational institutions cheer when the economy and job market do poorly. It *is* sorta a racket-- Education that is (especially textbooks) -- but I digress. >>> Who said the world is ending? >> I thought you said the end was neigh, due to health care? >> Closer than normal, then? > > Again with the health care as if everything else is right in the world. I'm not trying to lead the conversation. You've done lots and *lots* of threads about it. Not so much about the other shit: > Wiretaps? Current wiretapping is increased. Actually Clinton used to > do it far more often. > The wars? No end in sight. > Gitmo? Still open. > Drone killings? Way up. which you only seem to trot out opportunistically. Where are all the threads about the other stuff? 1% compared to 90%, you tell me why *I* keep the focus on health care. >> 12 is old enough to know about condoms, don't you think? > > No. So your kid will be educated on the street. What a smart way to shape her! My god man, you don't think 12 year olds know about Sex? Or are curious? You'd prefer they learned in school apparently? Oh, I get it. Never. *That* will keep them from experimenting! I see the logic: no sex means no need to tell 'em how to be safe about it! ;) >>> Did I mention that sex-ed changes as they get older? I think they only >>> teach AO to kids twelve and younger. >> Heh. I'm old as the hills now, and I was "active" before 12. Kids >> these days? Yikes! > > That's a little odd. "Active" might be too strong a word. :-) It was one time, and I don't think there was really any penetration. I learned something about women tho, even then: a lot of chicks are really dumb and take a long time to get smart, as far as men go. (Why do you guys (not you Sam- tho Sam /could/ be a chick name... (just freaking kidding)), why, oh why, do you love assholes more than good guys? *sigh* Like I'm one to talk. Dudes can be as blind. NM, ladies! =]) Playing doctor was ~5 to 7, IIRC. 10+ ain't exactly innocent experimentation. Carnal knowledge is probably easier to learn about the more people who communicate, too. I had usenet- luckily kids these days use the web for the most part (well, that and school of course). We are bombarded with sex. It sells shit, and we're capitalists. I think it's important to give our kids context. Besides having *awesome* storytelling parents, I read a shitload. It did like; grow me up faster, but I wouldn't trade real knowledge for- well- the alternative. Hrm. I think I'm abusing semi-colons. And I'm starting to wonder if bad grammar is infectious. >> I think we're evolving bigger boobs, too. > > Those are implants. Ugh. There *are* a lot of young kids getting those. Sad. Society fucks up chicks worse than dudes, I'd say. But no, this is different. I'm wondering if it's something in the milk... >>> Who decides? >> Now? The government. > > You like the nanny state, when government tells you and your kids what > to do and when? Just as long as they don't listen to you chewing the > fat with Osama. I like safety nets and support networks. I'm lucky enough to have good ones, but I know plenty of folks aren't as lucky as I. I wish we could rely on common decency-- things like churches-- but we can't. That's one of the better purposes of government, IMO. To help care for the sick and the poor, without all the religious baggage that can come from religious efforts in this area. And to be clear, I don't think all religious people push their religion while pushing charity, just that it happens enough to be a stereotype. (heh). >> 12 is "old enough" to learn about condoms tho, for sure for sure. > > That's up to the parents to decide based on the maturity of the child > and the crowd they associate with. Some kids might take it as an > endorsement and then you have peer pressure kicking in. I wonder if you are desensitized to the sheer volume of sex in our society? Or the sheer power of hormones? Do parents decide when their children get to puberty, too? This is all about being able to resist peer pressure. You don't equip your kid to do that by keeping her in the dark. Or maybe you do. I don't *really* know, ya know. >> I'd start 2 years earlier, at least. And it might be different for >> boys and girls, neh? > > Maybe we should teach them kama sutra too, don't want them to do it > wrong and get discouraged. I pray to god you don't teach like this. (Throwing the baby out with the bath-water.) Are you trying to fuck me, or are we making love? LOL. I'm not advocating we give them PTSD, man! Just arm them with a little knowledge. Context. >> No. I'm not a big war monger, though I do like the toys. Love, >> maybe. Yup, love. Who wouldn't?!?! >> >> I'm just saying that a less focused approach would have served us >> better. This idea that all the terrorists came out of hiding and >> became soldiers to fight us in Iraq or whatever is silly. > > So we shouldn't have went to war in Iraq or Afghanistan, we should > have just called the Saudi Royals names. Oh I got it, we should have > sent the IL senator to use his smart power and they would have > apologized and the world we be one big happy. Did I say Afghanistan? We should have used the death and destruction we suffered to achieve more, IMO. Extracted every ounce of "counting". Iraq was part of an agenda. fucking LAME. >> To each their own. Some prefer war. I think it's hell. > > Necessary evil. Relatively. >> I think violence should be the last resort. > > It was With Iraq? What about "first strike"? What kind of lame-brained strategy is that? >> But my point was more, "what if our terrorists were out terrorizing >> other countries?". > > How does that play into our discussion? The [innocent in your left eye] Saudis? >>>> Sure, that would have worked. Who would have thought that we'd have a >>>> S&L.... oh.... yeah... >>> Funny how that worked out, and the GOP got the blame just like the >>> play book said. >> Stereotypes are a weird deal. Wonder how we change 'em? > > Stop reading the NY Times? I don't. But I wonder if I could stop associating with people that do. Maybe I should screen people. Come up with a little survey. "Are your ideas 'pure'?". Heh. >>>> War is hell. >>> Sometimes it's a necessary hell. >> Who decides? > > The elected leader. Depends on your frame of reference, I think. Don't you? >>>> And if it's about saving people, what about Darfur, etc.? >>> You changing subjects again? What about Darfur. So now we're back to >>> molding the reasons for the war so you can argue against those points? >>> Been there... >> No subject change. >> Maybe a better question would be "what criteria do they use to decide", neh? > > Are you for war in Dafur? Is that the necessary evil? Who decides? We do. >> If you're against the health care stuff because of the health care >> stuff --which you profess, but I have trouble believing-- that's fine >> and dandy and more power to you. >> If you're against it because it's "Obama's" plan, fuck off. > > It's not Obama's plan, he outsourced it to Pelosi and Reid. I'm not > against it because they wrote it, I'm against what they wrote. Alright. >> I think we're echoing each other, sorta. Both saying the other is >> more tied to the person than the principle. What a strange world. > > I'm a lover not a hater. I have nothing against Obama personally, as I > said I think several years in government might have made him and > excellent President. Now I'm convinced no amount of training would > have made him a decent president. That only means I wouldn't want him > to be leader of the free world. Nothing personal. I just don't understand how you can see him as any worse, if not a good bit better, than the last guy. Or, rather, I think maybe I do. You don't see McCarthyism the way most people do, you don't want Religion pushed out of government, you trust the Watchers, but not Legislature I mean, of course you'd like Bush43 better than a "S"ocialist "liberal" like Obama. I'm a pinko liberal (anarchist, really, but that's really what we have all the time, when you think about it, so...), of course I like Obama Maybe we are the oysters. >>>> The Tee Party does seem pretty organized for true grass roots, don't >>>> you think? Sorta Obama vs. Dean deal. Dean's being more "natural" >>>> IMO. >>> You're so Hollywood. Ordinary people with homemade signs bitching >>> isn't convincing. But people bussed in with professionally printed >>> signs seems more real to you? >> No, you misunderstood. Dean was the homey one. > > The Tea party doesn't have a leader. That's because it really is grassroots. I think there are a *lot* of people out there who wouldn't mind seeing a less powerful government. But there is National Security to consider. >>> Axelrod or was it Emanual created astroturfing. Yeah it's a democrat >>> thing. How do you think a black nobody became the president? >> Hard work? > > The man never worked a hard day in his life. He's a puppet. Obama is a puppet? It would be hard work just to look like you're working that hard. That's more "lube" than Bush43 gave. >> The Republicans have sorta lost it, neh? Searching for identity... >> while the Democrats infight as usual. > > They lost there conservatism and they're trying to get it back. They should talk to Ron Paul. ;-) >>>> I wasn't trying to. I thought that's how the theory worked. That >>>> people are naturally altruistic, we don't really need taxes or >>>> regulation and whathave you. It is in the powers that be's best >>>> interest to "bring up" those beneath. >>> That's out there. >> It's trickle down economics. :) > > You obviously don't understand that phrase. I freely admit that I don't see the logic. Abstractly, sure, but in application? It's been worse than the attempts at socialism. Give the banks a lot of money, don't regulate them, because it's in their best interests to loan it right back out. Rich people stay rich by investing their money. (Let's ignore the concept of "interest" for now, o.k.?) >>> So the problem with the grassroots movement is they couldn't get you >>> to read there message? I think that 's your problem, you judged or >>> were told incorrectly. >> Most of it I gleaned off your defense of them. What have you "really" >> been telling me? > > I only defend the parts you attack. I wasn't attacking the Tea Party, I was attacking the Tea Party seeming to attack health care more than fiscal responsibility in general. >> For some reason "constitutionalists" didn't spring to mind. > > You didn't attack that part of the agenda. You were more focused on > them being fake and didn't seem to care what their purpose was. That's > the talking points from the left, discredit quickly so their message > is ignored. Looks like it's working to some extent. You can't deny that there's a partisan element to this whole deal. The Tea Party hasn't been exactly courting Democrats why telling the Republicans to get off their jock. With the current Republican party make-up, there's that whole religious string attached. I think there are a lot of constitutionalists who are turned off by the whole "stop pushing religion out" mentality. >> It's just a piece of paper, really. > > You do know Bush never said that right? Oh, if only reality were so cut and dry. :-) Big Lies are their own truth. Crazy, right? >>> I'm sure there's waste to be cut like $2000 hammers someplace but you >>> don't just cut something because it's big. Especially the safety of >>> the world depends on it. I know you're thinking we have no business >>> protecting Poland from Russia, but I do. >> I thought you were fiscally responsible! > > Protecting Poland is being fiscally responsible. You need to look at > long term costs of another world war. WWI, the war to end all wars. Why not. I like chess! >> So you *wouldn't* automatically look at your largest expenses (first >> even!), when trying to do a budget? No wonder the country ended up in >> such a rough spot after "you guys" ran the show for 8 years. ;) > > I didn't say we shouldn't review it. I said we should do across the > board cuts like Clinton did. I never advocated such. Ever seen that movie "Dave"? Heh. >>> Let's say you like your house but would think it would e helpful to >>> have another bathroom. Do you add an extension or do you knock the >>> house down and start over? >> Depends on the shape of the house I'd think. > > Repeat: > Let's say you <add> really really </add> like your house but would > think it would be helpful to have another bathroom. I don't think it's about liking, it's about infrastructure. Sometimes adding a bathroom isn't just adding a bathroom. That said, why not reform the health care stuff versus repeal it? >>> Playing safe? You're right, nobody can ever know what directly effects >>> the economy, we can only guess. So Obama's actions get a pass. >> Like it matters. Some people think Regan had it right, some not. > > Really, who's in the not column? I long time ago I posted some interesting comments from the "not" column. Thinking hindsight is 50/50 vision in economics seems foolish to me, however. It's similar to the weather, and yet people think we have all this control over it. We don't even understand the effects of our "control", IMHO. >> Course, some people think cutting taxes and spending more (for a good >> cause!) is being fiscally responsible, so... > > You mean cutting taxes, which in turn generated more tax revenue, and > then spending that new money? Sounds like pay as you go. You make it sound so easy! >> I'm now living beyond my means. Can't put the bill collectors off for >> ever though, and I don't want to be paying them off for ever, either. >> >> No new tech gadgets in years. Last big buy was 2 grand for a TV, 2 years >> back. > > That's a lot of money. I was doing my part for the War. >> Haven't vacationed in 2 years. Used my leave to care for my family >> (hospital fun, etc.), and got written up for using "too much" of *my >> own fucking time* ta boot. 2 2 2 too! > > Sounds hostile. You don't know the half of it. Still, it's not all bad. People survive. Make the best of it, even. More power to 'em. >> Guess it's time to move on, neh? =) > > What about the pension? And insurance. I've applied someplace else inter-uni for now. I figure it's a start. >> Heh. You probably think the only reason I'm pro health care reform is >> because I think it would help pay my bills (it won't). The medical >> related stuph I've been through (not me, personally) the last few >> years drove home a lot that I wouldn't have cared about before, >> though. That much is true. > > Wouldn't you prefer to fix the system rather than let the government > take it over and decide what care you deserve? It wasn't fixing itself. Seems like we require a lot of hype to affect change. >> However, I'm pretty sure the main problem is the 10 grand less I make >> without the overtime, and the increase in medical bills + new monthly >> $200+ script expenses. > > Are you too tired for overtime or was it cut because our economy is > doing so well? It was principle. Den principle. I'm bummed things worked out as they did, as far as the money goes. I wanted to spend a good chunk of it on Alagad. Who knows what might have been... alas. Ah well. Somehow it will all work out for the best; it always does. :DeN -- The strongest man in ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:321456 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
