Hope this comment doesn't end with the same results that that one did.
-
And, for now, good bye everyone, this is my board suicide at least for the next 6 months. Thank you everyone for a wonderful, interesting environment to post and read in. No time to post anymore with recent positive, but time consuming, changes in my life. Good luck and best wishes to all.
If the patent is so long and complex, then how did a jury achieve a verdict against Samsung so quickly? Shouldn't they have been in deliberation much longer, to properly read and try to understand the patent?
Just read about the appeal issues... The jury foreman who is an owner of a ****ty tech patent, talked them into skipping all the "boring" evidence review and following the judge's instructions.
He just posed himself as an expert in the jury room and they followed his lead.
You'll be fine. Just like at weddings, you're not supposed to be doing any of the heavy lifting. Just support your gf and don't be as ass and you'll be fine. You will barely need to talk with anybody except to say "sorry for your loss". Your responsibility is just to be at hand. If somebody needs a hand with something, help out.
"Takes two to tango" I don't hold any ideals of being completely "innocent" on this matter, I'm well aware of my stubbornness, again however when the work I put into my half of the debate and it is constantly dismissed based on experience without really even being discussed I feel "frustration and tired" are very appropriate means of describing it.
well clearly you don't need any advice here, and have it all figured out. Why did you bother to ask whether your dad's arguments "hold water" if you already knew the answer?
I suggested trying an alternate approach and looking at it from his PoV and try to offer more respect and you basically just argue that youve done all you can.
I don't believe you. I believe you can do better. And yeah, I think I takes two to tango, and this back & forth between you is about more than just getting him to respect a few of your arguments.
That is something that should be investigated, and he should have an oversight committee hounding him. That is ****ing disgraceful.
Quote from Highroller »
You can stop frothing at the mouth now. The rabid dog act impresses no one.
Quote from Highroller »
Normally I don't like putting athletes on a pedestal. The fact that Tiger Woods made a public apology about something that was an entirely private matter, for instance, disgusted me.
My point is that saying that every single player dopes does not mean that going after Armstrong for doping becomes illegitimate. Never did I say that problem wasn't process,
never did I say that the USADA is either justified or unjustified in their actions.
sure you did:
Quote from highroller »
It is not, however, justified to complain about an oversight committee doing its job by going after someone who broke the rules. That's what they're supposed to do.
Quote from dcartist »
That makes no sense. Your statement assumes the committee already magically know Lance to be guilty before he is excessively investigated and harrassed.
Is it justified to complain about cops "doing their job" by relentlessly "showing unfair prejudice" harrassing and investigating people who are guilty?
And then you didn't address my reply. You didn't have a legitimate response so you resorted to accusing me of "frothing at the mouth". Meanwhile, you want the "****ing disgraceful" Lance Armstrong to be HOUNDED by an oversight committee, for something which is not a misdemeanor, let alone a crime of any sort:
Quote from Highroller »
That is something that should be investigated, and he should have an oversight committee hounding him. That is ****ing disgraceful.
Why do you have such a hard on to harrass the man. Did the money he raised for cancer research save the life of somebody you dont like?
argued back that while I don't have the personal experience he does I can easily do my own research and look back at the very same history he lived through and come to a conclusion that is not only very valid but in many cases can be far more correct due to a lack of emotional connection that would grant me a far more non-bias point of view.
This seems to be a reoccuring thing in any debate we have is he always falls back into this same tired and frustrating arguement. Does this kind of arguement hold water or is it what I personally believe, IE his way or dismissing what I say to avoid having the debate if he doesn't like where it is going?
In your OP you are strictly characterizing your dad as the closed minded bad guy, and you as the victim.
You can protest as much as you like that you are respecting him and only looking to be respected back, but your OP question doesn't reflect that at all.
You claim you are asking whether "this same tired and frustrating argument" "holds water", but you know that it doesn't "hold water" when the question is framed in the biased way you've framed it.
Quote from Captain_Morgan »
Either of you are looking for a strategic advantage over the other, highly competitive and probably a familial trait. To make up for his lack of education he uses experience as a justification where as you are using your inexperience and research as the "superior."
Captain Morgan saw it on POST NUMBER ONE, and I see the exact same thing. You are each straining for advantage by setting the ground rules in ways that favor yourselves, and my further exposition on it, and my discussions on WHY your father takes his position actually was conceding that he was doing it out of defensiveness, and actually favored you.
You're in total denial if you're going to continue to frame this as a "my dad always falls back on the same tired and frustrating argument" where he is the bad guy and you are the victim.
We're only hearing YOUR side of the story, yet still somehow we've both come to the conclusion that both you and dad are guilty parties in this conflict.
"He MAY have done all this good in the world WHILE breaking the rules in a bicycle racing game where practically every one of these grownups in shorts is breaking the rules."
His "heroism" stems from what he did for people with cancer.
You really think there are disillusioned cancer victims out there now going: "Gee, Lance Armstrong doped to win those races? I guess I have no chance to survive my lymphoma now... that bastard!"
Now, if you feel that the oversight committee in question is doing a generally terrible job of imposing fairness and integrity within a sport, that's a fair criticism. If you think they are showing unfair prejudice against Lance Armstrong, that is also a fair criticism.
It is not, however, justified to complain about an oversight committee doing its job by going after someone who broke the rules. That's what they're supposed to do.
That makes no sense. Your statement assumes the committee already magically know Lance to be guilty before he is excessively investigated and harrassed.
Is it justified to complain about cops "doing their job" by relentlessly "showing unfair prejudice" harrassing and investigating people who are guilty?
Of course, I'd complain. Because you're assuming guilt prior to investigation.
And USADA is not an "oversight committee". It is just a private organization.
Because Lance Armstrong is not merely an athlete, he's an icon.
Being an icon makes you no more and no less a citizen in the US. It is not a crime to be a fallen icon.
Normally I don't like putting athletes on a pedestal. The fact that Tiger Woods made a public apology about something that was an entirely private matter, for instance, disgusted me.
What the heck? You are wasting your disgust... and your sympathy.
Tiger CHOSE to make an apology, in order to try to salvage what was left of his huge marketing status.
He's a role model to millions of young kids, and people who bought apparel and gear that Tiger made millions off of. Tiger chose to cheat on his wife and child, and cheapen himself with some serious skanks. Nobody wanted to buy his gear anymore, and he CHOSE to apologize.
NOBODY MADE HIM APOLOGIZE.
Whats to be disgusted about other than Tiger's behavior. Nobody took away his titles. Nobody put him in prison. He is not a criminal, and neither is Lance Armstrong.
He lost his endorsements, because nobody wants to buy gear endorsed by a guy who ****ing cheats on his wife and baby. Tiger apologized in an effort at spin control, to save himself some of his millions and salvage his image.
But in this case, in the case that a man who is a hero and public icon would be revealed to have his successes in a sport achieved by cheating and lying? That is something that should be investigated, and he should have an oversight committee hounding him. That is ****ing disgraceful.
For what "CRIME" should he be investigated and chased on by an "OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE"?
What kind of mentality do you have that you think there should be a congressional oversight committee harrassing a private citizen for doing something that is NOT ILLEGAL? To do what?
Do you even understand what the thin premise was for the original Oversight committee investigating steroids in baseball? The ILLEGAL use of steroids was the excuse.
That is something that should be investigated, and he should have an oversight committee hounding him. That is ****ing disgraceful.
You are drooling at the thought of the US government spending millions to determine whether a guy should be disqualified from bike races from 7 - 13 years ago, that didn't even take place on US soil?
Seriously, get over it.
I think its outrageous that you want to harrass this guy, that you want congressional oversight committees hounding a man who didnt' even break the law. Your values are so misplaced, and your obsession with sport is ludicrous.
What does this man owe you? What is your endgame here?
And again, the Tour de France made millions on Lance Armstrong's coattails, because Armstrong actually made non-bike nerds actually care about the race. Should the tour return THAT money?
@highroller: The issue is PROCESS. You can't just go "Hmmmm... I think I'll go retest Lance's urine for more crap today. Because I want to, and I have so many of his urine samples, we have the ability to check as often as we like. For decades. No statute of limitations on it.
That's just a witch hunt.
"Mockery of his sport"? Please, don't get too pompous. When virtually everybody dopes, and its barely enforced and becomes the standard for the level playing field, how is Lance Armstrong making "mockery" of his sport?
He was successful playing on the same level field as all the other top cyclists, and in the meanwhile, he helped millions of cancer victims, and raised great amounts of money.
He did not do this by sucking the blood of babies he aborted.
He did not do this by bearing false witness to put innocent people in prison.
He MAY have done all this good in the world by breaking the rules in a bicycle racing game where practically every one of these grownups in shorts is breaking the rules.
"Mockery of the sport?"
Do you think that people who were inspired and gave money to cancer research want their money back now that they think Armstrong may have cheated at racing to win?
He's a HERO because he came back from cancer and potential death raced at that level.
He may be FAMOUS because he won those tour de frances... but that has nothing to do with why he is a hero. Lance Armstrong is historically more relevant than the entire world professional bicycling sport.
"Mockery of the sport"? Get over yourself, yeesh. Before Lance Armstrong, nobody outside of hardcore bicycling fans and Frenchmen gave a **** about the Tour De France.
You seem to want to pretend that you're the one being open-minded, but your words reveal that you are equally closed minded, and taking the stance that YOU are the ones who knows everything.
I'm telling him that his experience doesn't not negate the research and evidence I am able to present.
You're TELLING him? A man who knew you when you believed in Santa Claus?
I'm not telling him he can't use experience, or that his experience is wrong.
Sounds like that's exactly what you're telling him. The research and evidence you present trumps his experience.
I'm not trying to hinder or limit his ability to debate I'm trying to get him to understand that his experience doesn't "trump" everything else.
"Trying to get him to understand"? What a patronizing attitude to the man who taught you how to not crap your pants.
I think he understands you quite well. You are defining the terms of the discussion
You're telling me that I'm wrong, and I'm sure I'm right. You seem convinced you're right, and I get the impression you're only superficially reading what I write. This very thread you've chosen to frame the problem in a way that favors you, rather than recognizing it for what it is. You've decided he is simply closed minded, and you pay lip service to respecting his superior experience, when all you're doing is saying "I acknowledge you're experienced, but I don't think it negates anything I say."
"Evidence" you cite on most topics may or may not be of high quality. But because he does not have the ability to engage you on that particular level, you wish to keep things on that level. He is TELLING you just as you are TELLING him.
I think you are misunderstanding my stance when we come to this arguement. I'm not dismissing experience as useless or invalid simply pointing out that it doesn't invalidate research and also pointing out that research can actually provide a better perspective on a topic due to no emotional connection.
At no point did I or do I believe I have all the answers or know everything. I don't even have an issue with disagreeing to him and each of us having our own views. My issue is this belief that his experience negates any and all work I put into researching the history and present of the topic we are discussing.
I think you are the one who misunderstands.
You are taking your father's rather aggressive posture on that "experience trumps everything" as if he's asserting an absolute axiom. That would only be the case if he dropped that bomb,and turned his back on you.
He is just taking a very strong position on that stance. Remember when you assert your own relatively young, untested opinion rather assertively, you are putting pressure on his position, which he may not be able to articulate as well as you can, but because of his experience and wisdom, and having been in your shoes, he "knows" he is right.
If you don't acknowledge or on some level concede your fallibility in the face of his experience, then what argument is there to have? Because you can spout a few stats, or research or whatever (all of which is non-definitive) and he has no "research" to argue back with, then you're basically saying that your ability to tapdance while juggling data puts you on top of the argument. So he plays to his own strength.
Not saying that's the only way to look at things, but it is definitely one of the valid ways to look at this little dance.
You wish to define the "groundrules of debate" with your dad in a way that simply favors you on every level, then when he doesn't want to play by your rules, you whine here.
There's obviously something wrong with her being a *****, but why can't a woman be the dominant one in the relationship?
nothing wrong with being dominant.
This girl is being childish and a ***** and fighting with everybody else. By not letting her solve her own problems and lettin her avoid the confrontation and resolution, he is just making her worse by creating a little bubble around herself.
AND making himself miserable in the process.
This had nothing to do with "dominance", and it's odd that youd frame it that way.
You gotta set hard boundaries on that stuff. You're enabling her.
None of this "I feel uncomfortable, but if you really want me to..." stuff.
You say "I am on your side but I can't do that. You don't enjoy dealing with this issue, and neither do I. You are the person who should be hanging it and I have your back."
If SHE wants to break up over that, or make you miserable because you stand up for yourself, THEN you break up.
But try setting some firm boundaries rather than letting her walk all over you simply by being dominant and a *****. That's no way to live.
Hope this comment doesn't end with the same results that that one did.
-
And, for now, good bye everyone, this is my board suicide at least for the next 6 months. Thank you everyone for a wonderful, interesting environment to post and read in. No time to post anymore with recent positive, but time consuming, changes in my life. Good luck and best wishes to all.
He just posed himself as an expert in the jury room and they followed his lead.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390
I suggested trying an alternate approach and looking at it from his PoV and try to offer more respect and you basically just argue that youve done all you can.
I don't believe you. I believe you can do better. And yeah, I think I takes two to tango, and this back & forth between you is about more than just getting him to respect a few of your arguments.
sure you did:
And then you didn't address my reply. You didn't have a legitimate response so you resorted to accusing me of "frothing at the mouth". Meanwhile, you want the "****ing disgraceful" Lance Armstrong to be HOUNDED by an oversight committee, for something which is not a misdemeanor, let alone a crime of any sort:
Why do you have such a hard on to harrass the man. Did the money he raised for cancer research save the life of somebody you dont like?
In your OP you are strictly characterizing your dad as the closed minded bad guy, and you as the victim.
You can protest as much as you like that you are respecting him and only looking to be respected back, but your OP question doesn't reflect that at all.
You claim you are asking whether "this same tired and frustrating argument" "holds water", but you know that it doesn't "hold water" when the question is framed in the biased way you've framed it.
Captain Morgan saw it on POST NUMBER ONE, and I see the exact same thing. You are each straining for advantage by setting the ground rules in ways that favor yourselves, and my further exposition on it, and my discussions on WHY your father takes his position actually was conceding that he was doing it out of defensiveness, and actually favored you.
You're in total denial if you're going to continue to frame this as a "my dad always falls back on the same tired and frustrating argument" where he is the bad guy and you are the victim.
We're only hearing YOUR side of the story, yet still somehow we've both come to the conclusion that both you and dad are guilty parties in this conflict.
"He MAY have done all this good in the world WHILE breaking the rules in a bicycle racing game where practically every one of these grownups in shorts is breaking the rules."
His "heroism" stems from what he did for people with cancer.
You really think there are disillusioned cancer victims out there now going: "Gee, Lance Armstrong doped to win those races? I guess I have no chance to survive my lymphoma now... that bastard!"
That makes no sense. Your statement assumes the committee already magically know Lance to be guilty before he is excessively investigated and harrassed.
Is it justified to complain about cops "doing their job" by relentlessly "showing unfair prejudice" harrassing and investigating people who are guilty?
Of course, I'd complain. Because you're assuming guilt prior to investigation.
And USADA is not an "oversight committee". It is just a private organization.
Being an icon makes you no more and no less a citizen in the US. It is not a crime to be a fallen icon.
What the heck? You are wasting your disgust... and your sympathy.
Tiger CHOSE to make an apology, in order to try to salvage what was left of his huge marketing status.
He's a role model to millions of young kids, and people who bought apparel and gear that Tiger made millions off of. Tiger chose to cheat on his wife and child, and cheapen himself with some serious skanks. Nobody wanted to buy his gear anymore, and he CHOSE to apologize.
NOBODY MADE HIM APOLOGIZE.
Whats to be disgusted about other than Tiger's behavior. Nobody took away his titles. Nobody put him in prison. He is not a criminal, and neither is Lance Armstrong.
He lost his endorsements, because nobody wants to buy gear endorsed by a guy who ****ing cheats on his wife and baby. Tiger apologized in an effort at spin control, to save himself some of his millions and salvage his image.
For what "CRIME" should he be investigated and chased on by an "OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE"?
What kind of mentality do you have that you think there should be a congressional oversight committee harrassing a private citizen for doing something that is NOT ILLEGAL? To do what?
Do you even understand what the thin premise was for the original Oversight committee investigating steroids in baseball? The ILLEGAL use of steroids was the excuse.
You are drooling at the thought of the US government spending millions to determine whether a guy should be disqualified from bike races from 7 - 13 years ago, that didn't even take place on US soil?
Seriously, get over it.
I think its outrageous that you want to harrass this guy, that you want congressional oversight committees hounding a man who didnt' even break the law. Your values are so misplaced, and your obsession with sport is ludicrous.
What does this man owe you? What is your endgame here?
And again, the Tour de France made millions on Lance Armstrong's coattails, because Armstrong actually made non-bike nerds actually care about the race. Should the tour return THAT money?
If that picture were any blurrier, I wouldn't even know it was a bug.
I did find a dried bug on the ground that looked vaguely like that one.
That's just a witch hunt.
"Mockery of his sport"? Please, don't get too pompous. When virtually everybody dopes, and its barely enforced and becomes the standard for the level playing field, how is Lance Armstrong making "mockery" of his sport?
He was successful playing on the same level field as all the other top cyclists, and in the meanwhile, he helped millions of cancer victims, and raised great amounts of money.
He did not do this by sucking the blood of babies he aborted.
He did not do this by bearing false witness to put innocent people in prison.
He MAY have done all this good in the world by breaking the rules in a bicycle racing game where practically every one of these grownups in shorts is breaking the rules.
"Mockery of the sport?"
Do you think that people who were inspired and gave money to cancer research want their money back now that they think Armstrong may have cheated at racing to win?
He's a HERO because he came back from cancer and potential death raced at that level.
He may be FAMOUS because he won those tour de frances... but that has nothing to do with why he is a hero. Lance Armstrong is historically more relevant than the entire world professional bicycling sport.
"Mockery of the sport"? Get over yourself, yeesh. Before Lance Armstrong, nobody outside of hardcore bicycling fans and Frenchmen gave a **** about the Tour De France.
Because many people would catch on and give 1s and 2s without saying much, when products suck.
Target simply doesn't seem to allow low reviews to slip through.
"Trying to get him to understand"? What a patronizing attitude to the man who taught you how to not crap your pants.
I think he understands you quite well. You are defining the terms of the discussion
You're telling me that I'm wrong, and I'm sure I'm right. You seem convinced you're right, and I get the impression you're only superficially reading what I write. This very thread you've chosen to frame the problem in a way that favors you, rather than recognizing it for what it is. You've decided he is simply closed minded, and you pay lip service to respecting his superior experience, when all you're doing is saying "I acknowledge you're experienced, but I don't think it negates anything I say."
"Evidence" you cite on most topics may or may not be of high quality. But because he does not have the ability to engage you on that particular level, you wish to keep things on that level. He is TELLING you just as you are TELLING him.
You are taking your father's rather aggressive posture on that "experience trumps everything" as if he's asserting an absolute axiom. That would only be the case if he dropped that bomb,and turned his back on you.
He is just taking a very strong position on that stance. Remember when you assert your own relatively young, untested opinion rather assertively, you are putting pressure on his position, which he may not be able to articulate as well as you can, but because of his experience and wisdom, and having been in your shoes, he "knows" he is right.
If you don't acknowledge or on some level concede your fallibility in the face of his experience, then what argument is there to have? Because you can spout a few stats, or research or whatever (all of which is non-definitive) and he has no "research" to argue back with, then you're basically saying that your ability to tapdance while juggling data puts you on top of the argument. So he plays to his own strength.
Not saying that's the only way to look at things, but it is definitely one of the valid ways to look at this little dance.
You wish to define the "groundrules of debate" with your dad in a way that simply favors you on every level, then when he doesn't want to play by your rules, you whine here.
This girl is being childish and a ***** and fighting with everybody else. By not letting her solve her own problems and lettin her avoid the confrontation and resolution, he is just making her worse by creating a little bubble around herself.
AND making himself miserable in the process.
This had nothing to do with "dominance", and it's odd that youd frame it that way.
None of this "I feel uncomfortable, but if you really want me to..." stuff.
You say "I am on your side but I can't do that. You don't enjoy dealing with this issue, and neither do I. You are the person who should be hanging it and I have your back."
If SHE wants to break up over that, or make you miserable because you stand up for yourself, THEN you break up.
But try setting some firm boundaries rather than letting her walk all over you simply by being dominant and a *****. That's no way to live.