Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
WTF are you talking about? I wrote "but for."But for PBS and NPR and their affiliates, news organizations these days have one primary agenda: profit. The days of the news division of a major network not being construed as a revenue center are gone. But for the non-profit news organizations, everything a media company does is to maximize profit/revenue, and the only way to do that is increase viewership.
No, I mean "but for" to mean "except for."PBS and NPR do not have "profit". By definition.
Did you intend the word "but" to mean "except"?
That's what I just asked. Might want to watch wording in future.
But for PBS and NPR and their affiliates,
But for the non-profit news organizations
I'm talking about ambiguity. Write clearly so that a phrase doesn't look like its own opposite.
There is no ambiguity to "but for." It means one and only one thing. Click the link I provided for "but for."
Of course he is. He's a white guy and they are the biggest terrorists in the US.Pretty straightforward question....just answer it.
WTF are you talking about? I wrote "but for."No, I mean "but for" to mean "except for."
That's what I just asked. Might want to watch wording in future.
But for PBS and NPR and their affiliates,
But for the non-profit news organizations
I'm talking about ambiguity. Write clearly so that a phrase doesn't look like its own opposite.
There is no ambiguity to "but for." It means one and only one thing. Click the link I provided for "but for."
If it wasn't ambiguous I wouldn't have corrected it.
"But" can be taken to mean either the archaic "except" or for what it looks like at first glance, "however". Usually this would be followed by a comma but not necessarily. So that's two things.
Hence, ambiguous.
Obviously that isn't so because the term "but for" is not ambiguous and you did attempt to correct it. If you'd click the goddamned link I provided you'd have discovered that. There is no confusion about what that idiom means. Zip, zilch and zero.If it wasn't ambiguous I wouldn't have corrected it.
I know. Educated Black men that know who they are frighten white people to death. However, we are talking about "terrorists" which is a different word than "terrorize". You can be terrorized by anything you fear and your case you fear Black men. Thanks for admitting to that.Of course he is. He's a white guy and they are the biggest terrorists in the US.Pretty straightforward question....just answer it.
Word play aside...that's make one thing crystal clear; no group "TERRORIZES" this nation and Americans more than Blacks....FACT!
Educated Black men that know who they are
It's not about the amount of bodies (although the Vegas carnage is staggering), it's about the intent and motivation. Bill Ayers was a terrorist and he is only responsible for the deaths of four or five people (as far as we know). Let's hope there is enough of Paddock's brain left to determine if he was suffering from mental illness although it seems unlikely since the mass shooting was so well planned. It will be interesting to find out where the automatic weapon came from.
Actually it will be pointless. Given that such automatic weapons EXIST, those who seek them will find a way to get them.
What would on the other hand actually be interesting is to find out where his motivation came from. As if we don't already know.
And as far as that goes --- for the gun fetishist it actually IS about the number of bodies. That's what they're going for.
WTF are you talking about? I wrote "but for."That's what I just asked. Might want to watch wording in future.
But for PBS and NPR and their affiliates,
But for the non-profit news organizations
I'm talking about ambiguity. Write clearly so that a phrase doesn't look like its own opposite.
There is no ambiguity to "but for." It means one and only one thing. Click the link I provided for "but for."
If it wasn't ambiguous I wouldn't have corrected it.
"But" can be taken to mean either the archaic "except" or for what it looks like at first glance, "however". Usually this would be followed by a comma but not necessarily. So that's two things.
Hence, ambiguous.Obviously that isn't so because the term "but for" is not ambiguous and you did attempt to correct it. If you'd click the goddamned link I provided you'd have discovered that. There is no confusion about what that idiom means. Zip, zilch and zero.If it wasn't ambiguous I wouldn't have corrected it.
WTF are you talking about? I wrote "but for."Agree...to a point. News organizations have their own agendas/narratives. If
the motive doesn't fit theirs they may drag their feet on it.
If they really don't know...that doesn't mean the Police don't know or
have a good idea.News organizations have their own agendas/narratives.
But for PBS and NPR and their affiliates, news organizations these days have one primary agenda: profit. The days of the news division of a major network not being construed as a revenue center are gone. But for the non-profit news organizations, everything a media company does is to maximize profit/revenue, and the only way to do that is increase viewership.
No, I mean "but for" to mean "except for."PBS and NPR do not have "profit". By definition.
Did you intend the word "but" to mean "except"?
That's what I just asked. Might want to watch wording in future.
But for PBS and NPR and their affiliates,
But for the non-profit news organizations
I'm talking about ambiguity. Write clearly so that a phrase doesn't look like its own opposite.
You missed the part about "knowing who they are". Typically Black republicans pretend they are white.Educated Black men that know who they are
You mean Republicans?
It's not about the amount of bodies (although the Vegas carnage is staggering), it's about the intent and motivation. Bill Ayers was a terrorist and he is only responsible for the deaths of four or five people (as far as we know). Let's hope there is enough of Paddock's brain left to determine if he was suffering from mental illness although it seems unlikely since the mass shooting was so well planned. It will be interesting to find out where the automatic weapon came from.
Actually it will be pointless. Given that such automatic weapons EXIST, those who seek them will find a way to get them.
What would on the other hand actually be interesting is to find out where his motivation came from. As if we don't already know.
And as far as that goes --- for the gun fetishist it actually IS about the number of bodies. That's what they're going for.
The nature of the weapons does matter. Anyone with machining skills can easily convert semi-automatics to fully automatics.
If this was the case, the public should know about it. It shows that the laws against fully automatics are somewhat moot.
WTF are you talking about? I wrote "but for."But for PBS and NPR and their affiliates, news organizations these days have one primary agenda: profit. The days of the news division of a major network not being construed as a revenue center are gone. But for the non-profit news organizations, everything a media company does is to maximize profit/revenue, and the only way to do that is increase viewership.
No, I mean "but for" to mean "except for."PBS and NPR do not have "profit". By definition.
Did you intend the word "but" to mean "except"?
That's what I just asked. Might want to watch wording in future.
But for PBS and NPR and their affiliates,
But for the non-profit news organizations
I'm talking about ambiguity. Write clearly so that a phrase doesn't look like its own opposite.
Learn to read!
Remember, we've already had two members go on shooting rampages, one at the Holocaust Museum in D.C. and the other at an abortion clinic in CO.I mean a white supremacist like Tank or Steve McGarrett
I thought the USMB guy shot up a movie theater?
Louisiana Movie Shooter Thanked Dylann Roof for 'Wake Up Call'
Houser was briefly a member here yes. I didn't know about Dear and von Brunn being here.
As I remember he only made 50 or so posts
His account has since been deleted
Which one?
We'll know soon enough.Pretty straightforward question....just answer it.
Remember, we've already had two members go on shooting rampages, one at the Holocaust Museum in D.C. and the other at an abortion clinic in CO.
I thought the USMB guy shot up a movie theater?
Louisiana Movie Shooter Thanked Dylann Roof for 'Wake Up Call'
Houser was briefly a member here yes. I didn't know about Dear and von Brunn being here.
As I remember he only made 50 or so posts
His account has since been deleted
Which one?
Rusty Houser
Remember, we've already had two members go on shooting rampages, one at the Holocaust Museum in D.C. and the other at an abortion clinic in CO.To me, a terrorist represents a political cause and has some affiliation
I don't see a lone wolf with a grievance being a terrorist
What if someone is a white supremacist, but doesn't have a membership card with KKK or American Neo-Nazi Association (ANNA)?
That would be a case where a lone wolf would be a terrorist.
IF he is really a white supremacist and not someone who once said Obama was a jerk.
Then yes.
I mean a white supremacist like Tank or Steve McGarrett
It's not about the amount of bodies (although the Vegas carnage is staggering), it's about the intent and motivation. Bill Ayers was a terrorist and he is only responsible for the deaths of four or five people (as far as we know). Let's hope there is enough of Paddock's brain left to determine if he was suffering from mental illness although it seems unlikely since the mass shooting was so well planned. It will be interesting to find out where the automatic weapon came from.
Actually it will be pointless. Given that such automatic weapons EXIST, those who seek them will find a way to get them.
What would on the other hand actually be interesting is to find out where his motivation came from. As if we don't already know.
And as far as that goes --- for the gun fetishist it actually IS about the number of bodies. That's what they're going for.
The nature of the weapons does matter. Anyone with machining skills can easily convert semi-automatics to fully automatics.
If this was the case, the public should know about it. It shows that the laws against fully automatics are somewhat moot.
It's irrelevant. If this guy wanted to commit carnage, he was going to find a way to do it, regardless where he had to go to get it, or make it, and regardless what the laws are.
What's relevant is why he would want to commit that carnage in the first place. Without that motivation ---- none of those details matter. Because it doesn't even happen.
Okay...you clearly want to be intransigent. You do so.WTF are you talking about? I wrote "but for."
I'm talking about ambiguity. Write clearly so that a phrase doesn't look like its own opposite.
There is no ambiguity to "but for." It means one and only one thing. Click the link I provided for "but for."
If it wasn't ambiguous I wouldn't have corrected it.
"But" can be taken to mean either the archaic "except" or for what it looks like at first glance, "however". Usually this would be followed by a comma but not necessarily. So that's two things.
Hence, ambiguous.Obviously that isn't so because the term "but for" is not ambiguous and you did attempt to correct it. If you'd click the goddamned link I provided you'd have discovered that. There is no confusion about what that idiom means. Zip, zilch and zero.If it wasn't ambiguous I wouldn't have corrected it.
Yeah I'm afraid there is. Again, if there was not, it would not have caught my eye. Words matter.
He is not a terrorist.He is a typical, white, middle aged American gun owner.
WTF are you talking about? I wrote "but for."No, I mean "but for" to mean "except for."
That's what I just asked. Might want to watch wording in future.
But for PBS and NPR and their affiliates,
But for the non-profit news organizations
I'm talking about ambiguity. Write clearly so that a phrase doesn't look like its own opposite.
Learn to read!
Actually I am an editor/proofreader, and ambiguities like this jump off the page. So I go for clarity.
It isn't your quote anyway so learn to mind your own business.
