The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Judge cites jurisdictional grounds, makes no comments on arguments
You may now continue your insane ranting.
To quote the judge from a better article
The way the defendants handled criticism from Joseph Wilson "may have been highly unsavory," the judge wrote, but "there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism ... by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level executive branch officials."
You may continue your whimsical surface skimming of the article subtitles rather than reading substance.
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter
"The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
The way the defendants handled criticism from Joseph Wilson "may have been highly unsavory," the judge wrote, but "there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism ... by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level executive branch officials."
Wow, it's the exact same quote that's at the end of my article! I wonder how they could have fit that quote in with the subhead. Oh, I see, your article explains it:
U.S. District Judge John Bates said the lawsuit raises "important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials." But in a 41-page decision, he found Plame and her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, failed to show the case belongs in federal court. [...] Bates, a Bush appointee, agreed with defense arguments that federal law protects Cheney and the other top administration officials from being sued for actions taken as part of their official duties.
So, Bates said that they couldn't be sued because they were doing their jobs as government employees. But he did not actually say whether or not any improper behavior did or did not happen. So, you might almost say that the judge cited jurisdictional grounds to dismiss the case, but didn't offer an opinion on the arguments (beyond, you know, calling them 'highly unsavory.')
Shocking! The subtitle and the substance actually match!
edit: Changed wording because I know it would have been parsed incorrectly.
THEY!!111 OMG WTF LOL LET DA NOMADS AND TEH S3D3NTARY PEOPLA BOTH MAEK BITER AXP3REINCES
AND TEH GRAAT SINS OF THERE [DOCTRINAL] INOVATIONS BQU3ATH3D SMAL
AND!!1!11!!! LOL JUST IN CAES A DISPUTANT CALS U 2 DISPUT3 ABOUT THEYRE CLAMES
DO NOT THAN DISPUT3 ON THEM 3XCAPT BY WAY OF AN 3XTARNAL DISPUTA!!!!11!! WTF
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I fail to see how the subtitle:
"Judge cites jurisdictional grounds, makes no comments on arguments"
in anyway squares with the judges written comment considering it would appear he actually is commenting on the accusers arguement namely
The argument being that it was improper...about which, as has been shown, he did not comment.
merely that the case was dismissed due to "lack of merit."
It is not stated that the case has no merit. It is stated that this judge does not have standing to give an opinion on its merit because the defendants are protected from prosecution.
God I'm tired of people parsing text into absurdity. He said they could not be sued. He did not say what they did was right or acceptable (or wrong, for that matter, though he hinted that he didn't really like it.) That was my point...that you cannot make a claim about whether the defendants' action were morally right or wrong based on this dismissal, as wiglaf was obviously doing. I'm sorry it takes a long argument to get a simple point through to you...it really wasn't worth the effort.
"In the beginning was the Word. Then came the ******* word processor." -Dan Simmons, Hyperion
"The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.
The argument being that it was improper...about which, as has been shown, he did not comment.
Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
God I'm tired of people parsing text into absurdity. He said they could not be sued. He did not say what they did was right or acceptable (or wrong, for that matter, though he hinted that he didn't really like it.) That was my point...that you cannot make a claim about whether the defendants' action were morally right or wrong based on this dismissal, as wiglaf was obviously doing. I'm sorry it takes a long argument to get a simple point through to you...it really wasn't worth the effort.
Cepting Wiggy (or myself for that matter if you read our posts clearly) never claimed any such thing. I refer you back to his statement.
I am so sick and tired of hearing about Valerie Plame and being hot...I think people should be realizing that her suit against Bush was just REJECTED BY A FEDERAL JUDGE FOR LACK OF MERIT and therefore nothing she has alleged stands up in court.
I see no inference that Wiggy claimed proper or improper behavior. You on the other hand knee jerked and read something into statements that were never made. Just as you did with the subtitle of the article, when clearly one of the accusers arguments was explicitly addressed by the judge's ruling and commentary. Namely that the administration officials were within their job descriptions in responding to Wilson's oped v. the claims of the Plame/Wilsons' "Plame had argued that what they did was illegal and outside the scope of their government jobs."
My point all along is you attempted to slam Wiggy for inability to read said article attributing things to him that he never said all the while showing your own inability to comprehend Wiggy's statements or the falsity of the article subtitle.
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter
The way the defendants handled criticism from Joseph Wilson "may have been highly unsavory," the judge wrote, but "there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism ... by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level executive branch officials."
Umm...not when the rebuttal includes outing CIA agents.
Tweet
Comment