I take the opposite tack. Until we find some case law that "exercises" the
statute law, we really have no clear way to interpret what that statute law
really means. We can make interpretations of it, but we cannot rule out other
interpretations that could be gleaned from it as well. And we all know how
widely disparate various interpretations of the same law can be.
In a message dated 9/8/2008 3:01:39 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
It could but until we find some case law that goes against statute law
we accept state law.
**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
geni wrote
> 2008/10/1 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>:
> > It's The Register, ignore it. It looks like we caught they guy and
> > blocked him several months ago, so it's a bit of a non-story, really.
>
> A rather irregular RFC an arbcom case and far to much of WP:AN
> suggests otherwise. More like a past story as it is now over but it
> took far too long to get there.
The flattering picture of media power in the hands of WP (we didn't run Byrne's line on short selling, so it was ignored by the Wall Street Journal and New York Times?) deserves a short response. As in: "Come on!" We're the unique reliable source, now?
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
In a message dated 10/1/2008 10:00:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
It's the same problem we have
in our fiction articles as we get grotesquely long plot summaries -
people narrate things event by event instead of tracing major threads,
and treating the article like an argument with a thesis statement and
evidence to back it up.>>
--------------------------------------
I'm a bit of the camp that these things work themselves out over time. The
more editors you have in one article, the more grammar and style. I work on
a few articles, detail by detail to make them smoother. It doesn't help
however when someone like Britney keeps making news and then we get another dozen
new editors adding bits here there and all over messing up my beautiful
narrative!
Okay I don't think I've ever worked on her, there's only so much time and
there are so many scandals!
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
In a message dated 10/1/2008 2:31:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgerard(a)gmail.com writes:
He's famous for the
science, the personal life is not particularly relevant to that and
probably shouldn't go into the article.)>>
____________
*Unless* it's been cited and sourced for 20 newspapers and his ex was on
Oprah dishing him right?
The Johnson and Johnson family is well-known for being wealthy, but they are
also well-known for having one of the largest will-contests in history.
I'm sure we wouldn't want to advocate hiding information that is already
well-known among those who know anything about it in the first place.
Will Johnson
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
In a message dated 10/1/2008 6:25:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
nawrich(a)gmail.com writes:
I read the article - it says it was published in Forbes, with a few
paragraphs added connecting his criticism of naked short selling to the
current crisis. It isn't hard to predict a disaster after it has already
happened.>>
--------------------
Ah but you're ignoring the fact that the SEC issued new regulations curbing
naked shorts.
So evidently it wasn't only Byrne who felt there was some connection is it?
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
I wouldn't go that far Thomas.
By the way here is a lazy link to an Arb case on Mantanmoreland
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmore…
d_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmorel…)
The point of the article in The Register, in part I think, is that this
situation of attacking Byrne was allowed to continue for a very very long time.
And now the FDIC has "fully vindicated him". I'm not sure if that is an
accurate way to put it, but it certainly puts the entire history in a new light
doesn't it?
He was decrying naked short selling for quite a while, while WP insiders
like Mantanmoreland were able to squelch him. And now he was right, and they
were wrong, at least per this article. And it's egg on our face, for treating
the opposing sides in such a one-sided manner.
Of course we're not alone, since the WSJ wouldn't publish Byrne's article at
the time, but now Forbes has.
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
In a message dated 10/1/2008 6:02:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
nawrich(a)gmail.com writes:
Although, perhaps there was more -
the "never published" editorial, maybe?
Does not the article, which you didn't read, state that the editorial *was*
published in Forbes?
I seem to recall it saying that or something very similar to that.
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
In a message dated 10/1/2008 3:16:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgerard(a)gmail.com writes:
He and Judd Bagley were kicked off Wikipedia (and keep being kicked
off Wikipedia) for massive sockpuppeting, harassment and stalking. If
someone does that, they'll get treated like someone who does that.
No-one could give two hoots about the content issue, and I'm amazed
you consider it an excuse.>>
---------------------
You mistake my slant. I don't consider the content an "excuse" for his
conduct.
I do however consider content which is dramatically negative, and which
content is being held in place by an insider with a particular
chip-on-his-own-shoulder (COI), but who gradually works his way up to a trusted position -- to
be not really good news for our project.
Fellow editors could not necessarily know that Mantanmoreland had undeclared
issues, and I'm not necessarily casting aspirtions on any one else here or
there. I'm certainly pleased that Mantanmoreland is gone, at least
apparently. It seems to me however, that the situation went on quite a bit too long.
In the meantime, certain high-placed people should not be known to add fuel
to the fire by calling anyone insane. Which is probably why it took this
long, to get here.
Will Johnson
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
In a message dated 10/1/2008 2:44:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
shimgray(a)gmail.com writes:
Arguing against
using it in general cases of less remarkable people, however, with
"but what if it's notable! what if it's famous!" is a bit of a red
herring, because it almost always *isn't*.>>
---------------------
When Elizabeth Taylor divorced Richard Burton it was front-page news across
the country.
When Wallis Warfield married the King she made the cover of Time Magazine.
.
If the divorce is mentioned in dozens of sources, we should mention it as
well. Even if it was messy, and probably especially if it was messy. It comes
back to RS and V with NPOV and Undue thrown in for good measure. Which is
why BLP shouldn't be repeating what these policies already say, it should just
say that BLP requires extra-care in following these policies and err on the
side of restraint.
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial
challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and
calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)