It's good to see this stuff get called out. It would be nice to see more anti-worker employment contract stuff addressed as well. Non-compete contracts, for example, are nothing more than legal shackles to keep employees from working for the best company (or starting their own business). I've seen contracts that forbid exiting employees from trying to recruit their friends. It's amazing the number of protections given to an employer that are not afforded to the employee. If they are guilty, then every company in these suits should be fined until it hurts.
Thanks. It took me a while to think it up, but I like the way it flows.
Remember how I was talking about context... even linking to articles I read to support my claims? Here you just say "they don't say what you think they said" without offering any supporting information.
Yes I did. And now you're just being purposefully misleading about what any idiot can just read in my previous posts.
It's almost as if you aren't interested in having a conversation and more interested in simply saying "you're wrong" over and over again... without ever even conceiving of the possibility that you yourself may have been wrong.
Hey, smart-guy, this was begun by someone stating a list of purported facts with no basis in truth. I pointed out that I had not heard any of those things, and then because you have some kind of strange attraction to anything I write, you jumped in the middle to defend something that nobody was saying.
Then, you projectile vomited a couple of links and claimed that they said things that they never, ever, actually said. You essentially lied and tried to play it off as a truth because...well...you seem to be delusional.
Instead of arguing sh*t that nobody is arguing about, how about you address the original list of 3 facts and failures. Since you seem to believe that those statements were made, for-realsies, show me. Or shut up. Because I'm not arguing that the response to this issue was perfect, nor am I arguing that Ebola is fixed. Nor am I arguing that the CDC is filled with magical faeries that can and are solving all of our ebola problems.
I'll say that again: I'm not f*cking arguing with you about that.
All I'm doing is pointing out that the original collection of 3 statements and failures that was posted was not true.
So you can feel super satisfied with yourself for pointing out all the failures that occur while we address this problem, but until you answer my original statement, you aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with yourself.
Sorry to crap all over your dystopian dreams, buddy.
So you accuse me of taking your quote out of context... but actually failed to provide context then or not. Sure you quoted jinx both times, neither of you specified which news reports or who was being reported on... so I did.
Creative misinterpretation of words isn't the same as context.
More so, I seem to recall even the CDC director saying that they would be able to prevent a spread from Duncan. Never mind the fact that when the first of two nurses tested positive... he went on to blame her for a breach in protocol.
Like I said, creative misinterpretation. Go back and read the words that show up when you click those links and you'll be pleasantly surprised to find that they don't match any of what you said.
The CDC director said they should be able to contain an epidemic. That's been done. That some folks might get ill was suggested in the first link. No intelligent person doubted that could happen.
And the CDC director didn't "blame" anyone for breach of protocol. The fact that the disease got out shows that the protocol wasn't followed correctly OR we have a new vector. These folks aren't morons, and the suggested protocols have done a pretty good job of helping to contain this stuff in the past. Sh*t happens, however, and by all accounts, this hospital was not prepared for this. The CDC isn't in charge of the management of every hospital in the country, and if they tried to take on that task, you and your ilk would be the first ones to scream government over-regulation.
So, jump back on your Fox Powered Rage Cycle and take another lap.
Thanks for taking my comment out of context and then running a near marathon with that strawman. I'll go ahead and put it up there again so you can be sure to re-read it:
- Officials: "It won't spread to the cities".
- Reality: It did.
- Officials: "It won't spread in the cities if it gets there, it's too hard to contract".
- Reality: It did.
- Officials: "It won't make it to Europe or the US"
- Reality: It did.
Now, please show me where a CDC official ever stated any of that. Or you could just slither back to FreeRepublic.com and look for more reasons why Obummer beat Liberty to death with a copy of Das Kapital.
I don't know what kind of news you have been listening to for the last 40+ years, but I've heard officials say exactly the opposite of what you claimed they have said.
if nothing else, it's never a good idea to use absolutes...
Maybe since they weren't armed and they weren't touching the ballots it's a little bit different?
Florida always plays games with it's voting, to the point that folks in charge of keeping the elections fair have their jobs threatened when they point out that electronic voting machines are hackable. The 2000 election was far too close to be considered theft regardless of who won, but there were a lot of games played with the ballots.
Possibly the real reason "Windows 9" was skipped: http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/01/windows-10-9-naming-rumor/
Sadly, that seems to be the more plausible reason for this. Blame would lie with both MS as well as developers. MSFT, because they can't seem to settle on a version/naming convention for more than 1 or 2 releases, and developers for hobbling their software based on a version. How about you just assume your software works in every version until it doesn't. I can't tell you how many times we had to deal with installers that choked on later versions of windows simply because the installer decided to be a version cop.