This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - CRDFNSKY
« on: August 08, 2005, 10:06:22 AM »
Hey Karl! Me again. Glance down at your keyboard.
Are you looking?
On the right and left side of the board there are two buttons labeled "Shift." Pressing either one of these keys simultaneously (at the same time) with any other letter key on the board produces an upper-case version of that letter.
Ok, now you try.
No, no. Not like that. Remember I told you to press them at the same time. Try again.
Good. Much better.
Next time we'll start with an explanation (I'll tell you what something means) of the "Caps-lock" key followed by a discussion of the various uses of upper-case letters. In the meantime, I have a homework assignment for you: see if you can find out what "Caps" in "Caps-Lock" is short for. This will be pertinent (important) to our next lesson.
By the way, you must bring a bib to our next lesson. Drooling on the keyboard is both inconsiderate (not very nice) and unsanitary (dirty). Stop mouth breathing so much at least.
« on: August 08, 2005, 09:40:22 AM »
I would say you're generally right about professors. They are humans after all, but my point is they do rely on a method for reaching conclusions about data that is more sophisticated than the average person's response when encountering information. Whether or not they are always right is another thing. Regardless of that, the poster challenged me to find evidence, and I did that. The main point of that report was not the part I highlighted, but that portion was relevant to this discussion. However, the main purpose of the report, which was ultimately to help the DoD meet recruitment goals, when taken with that evidence I highlighted raises an interesting implication. The military acknowledges that the qualified pool of potential recruits sees it as both dangerous and a default low paying job, so the qualified candidates with other options have opted out. The DoD is concerned with understanding these attitudes so they can tailor their recruitment efforts to attract qualified candidates and battle declining recruitment. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to read the whole report, but I bet the statistics I cited would be supplemented with specifics. I bet you're right though, media reports do play some role in deterring educated people from enlisting. Despite the reasons, educated people still realize they have other options, and the undereducated minorities cited in the excerpt realize they have few, if any, other options regardless of their media fed opinions about the military. When one has better options they usually take them. When one does not have better options they must take the default, and for many people the default is military.
Ok, now you can have your thread back. I'm moving today and will be off line for a week, and I fully expect this thread to be dead by the time I'm back on. MSU, thanks for your points, and I envy the non-primitive way in which you present them. Good-bye Sports.
« on: August 08, 2005, 08:55:48 AM »
Here's the scene: Karl Marx arguing before a judge somewhere in his bright future as a lawyer.
Judge: Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Marx. For what reasons should this court grant your motion?
The ever competent Karl Marx: The counsel for the defense uses poor grammar your honor. His spelling stinks, and he's a sh-theel.
Judge: Denied, Mr. Marx. And, for the record, you did not use a single capital letter anywhere in your entire brief.
« on: August 08, 2005, 08:34:27 AM »
I looked at mine, and everything was a mistake except my previous addresses, a couple of good standing credit accounts and a late Direct TV bill. This was the case on all three reports. There were things like credit accounts I never had, and all kinds of crap. I disputed all of it, but some of the stuff was justified by the credit grantors. Now all I can do is keep disputing until the creditors stop responding and then have it removed. It's infuriating b/c I know these accounts aren't mine.
« on: August 08, 2005, 08:08:59 AM »
Haha. Took up for me? I was stating what I knew on a subject of interest and posting links for her to continue her own research if she were so inclined. I was not making assinine blanket statements for the sole purpose of creating animosity. Don't sweat "taking up for" me, sport.
Go ahead and try to defend what you said with evidence. You cannot do it. Your statements are untrue, unfounded, and idiotic.
Sport? Where the hell did you come up with that? That sounds like something a couple of ivy league frat guys from the 40's would call each other. "Well done sport." Good show old man." "Let's go to Buffy's summer cottage for a game of croquet."
Anyway, I digress. Back to your assertion about lack of evidence. There may be some bad news for you. I found some evidence. Not much though really. It's just a reference to a report for the DoD thrown together by a few professors. But, what the hell do professors know anyway? It's not like they use scientifically gathered data to draw conclusions or anything. It really didn't take to long for me to find this evidence either. With the right Google search term, "reasons for enlistment," it was the sixth link listed. Here's an excerpt and the link. I've underlined portions of the text that may be of particular interest to you: The sophistication of the recruitment process becomes painstakingly clear when reading Attitudes, Aptitudes, and Aspirations of American Youth: Implications for Military Recruitment (2003), a text compiled by the Committee on the Youth Population and Military Recruitment (CYPMR). This committee, established by the National Research Council in 1999 in response to a request by the DoD, is a think tank composed of academics from the Universities of Minnesota, Michigan, California at Los Angeles, and Pennsylvania (among others) who analyze dynamics of recruitment including: gender and race, education and aptitude, physical and moral attributes, military life and working conditions, and values impacting enlistment decisions. These researchers have expertise in demography, military manpower, military sociology, psychology, adolescent development, economic advertising, communication, and private sector management. To compile this text for military policy makers and recruiters, CYPMR utilized DoD documentation, three national youth-based surveys, locally based cross-sectional studies, as well as information from the National Center for Education Statistics and the Defense Manpower Data Center. The primary goal of the authors was to understand why the military has experienced a recruitment downturn; forecast future military manpower requirements, future demographic characteristics of youth, and youth attitudes toward militarism; and finally to make recommendations so the DoD can meet its recruitment goals.
Several trends and recommendations mentioned in this text have direct importance for countering military recuitment. The DoD, which is the largest employer in the nation, must successfully recruit 200,000 new recruits each year to maintain a military force of 1.2 million. According to the CYPMR, the cohort of available 18-year-olds is expected to increase from 3.9 million (1999) to 4.4 million by 2009. However, the population distribution is not expected to stay constant. Whites will experience a decrease in their percentage of the population (from 66% to 57%), Latinos will jump from 14% to 22%, while blacks will remain steady at 14%. The CYPMR noted that the greatest threat to recruitment among these groups will be a stark increase in college attendance resulting from the influence of parents with college degrees and few high-paying jobs available for those without a college degree. While whites will experience a great increase in college attainment, the CYPMR noted that blacks and Latinos will not experience much increase in college attainment. This means the projected recruitment market will ultimately be heavily brown and black youth. Furthermore, recruiters will increasingly target college campuses to attract potential college "stop outs" and dropouts. Many times these are lower-income youth who take time off of school to work to pay for tuition or youth who received a poor k-12 education. Recruiters will also be emphasizing the "money for college" offered by the military. But this is deceiving since 65% of youth who enter the military do not receive a degree from a four-year institution and many enlistees never receive any educational benefits at all.http://www.comdsd.org/article_archive/SteppingUpRecruitment04.htm
Apparently a few college professors relied upon by the DoD seem to agree with me. I suppose their findings are untrue, unfounded and idiotic too, right?
« on: August 07, 2005, 05:32:11 PM »
Maybe later on we can talk about the pathetic style in your post. Now that does need proofing. Capitalization, capitalization, capitalization. Slept through Kindergarten did ya? Whose the sh-theel now? Have you heard the one about people who live in glass houses? Yeah, you guessed it. They shouldn't throw stones.
« on: August 07, 2005, 05:26:46 PM »
Sheeit mofo. And to think I zealously stuck up for you in the thread about credit where you posted about the 45 day period on credit report disputes. That girl got downright snotty with you, and I backed you up. That's the last time I have anyone's back here. Sheeit.
« on: August 07, 2005, 05:22:33 PM »
I wouldn't say they are stupid. They made it through law school didn't they? They just make a pitiful living doing their best to return criminals to the streets. They help people, but mostly hurt society. The people they help generally don't deserve it. They do as a matter of right, but usually not behavior. I could give a few examples if you'd like. Just a note: as a rational person, I recognize there are exceptions to most everything.
By the way, I know the difference between here and hear. I just have better things to do than proofread my posts on this inconsequential website. Is that the best you can come up with to refute my post. You have a bright future as a lawyer. Here's a good tip: calm down when you get mad. You'll make more sense.
Wait a minute. A Public Defender? That should be a hint right there. I here they love Cooley grads over there.
yeah, public defenders are stupid...so stupid that they can use the correct form of "hear," shitheel.
who the #@!* do you think you are? seriously. public defender is a noble profession. it's not for me, but why would you rag on people who help others for comparatively no pay? some people, I tell ya....
it's amazing how most attorneys don't cast any aspersions on where you're going to law school. it seems to be something that remains a concern for law school applicants and biglaw. honestly, as long as you work hard and aren't last in your class, they'll be options for you out of school. if Cooley is what you get into, make the best of it.
« on: August 07, 2005, 05:06:18 PM »
My avatar is a local personal injury attorney named Darryl Issacs who everyone around town has a good laugh about. He's called the Kentucky Hammer and his slogan is "One call, that's all. We'll get you the money you deserve." He also calls himself "The Heavy Hitter" quite appropriately.
And as far as the push-ups go, I'm a competitive sprint distance triathlete, former college lacrosse player, varsity lettered all three seasons and all four years in high school in cross-country, ice hockey and lacrosse. Also, I was last years power lifting champ for my weight class at the university where I attended graduate school. Push-ups are old news.
But, I managed to stir up some *&^% here it looks like. Mission accomplished (in Bush propaganda terms). I'll guess you'll never know how I really feel about the military. At 30, I'm a little old for service. I'd rather not be enlisted with a bunch of eighteen year olds, and I'm to old to have much a future as an officer. See, I know this because I talked to a Marine recruiter last year when I was considering my options regarding careers. That's almost the same way I know about the FBI. That info came from an FBI interviewer via a friend who interviewed with the FBI. Maybe you should read my posts a little more carefully. You see, I rely on good sources. I Had fun hijacking this thread. Later
« on: August 07, 2005, 12:49:07 AM »
Really social drinker? Can you point me to the FCRA amendment that says this? Seriously, I hadn't known that there was any change to the FCRA at all regarding the new access law.
Social Drinker is right. It is 45 days. This is not an amendment to the FCRA per se, but a provision of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction (FACT) Act of 2003, which is an amendment to the FCRA. This applies to all disputes made after 12/1/04. This law also relaxes the rules regulating employer investigations of employees in workplace misconduct inquiries, inter alia. Search FindLaw by the full name of the act, and you will find everything you'd ever want to know about this new act in plain language (not that new really- signed on 12/1/03). It's worth reading as this act changes the rules pretty significantly for and against the private individual in some areas.
I found a link to verify what I'm telling you about the 45 days.http://www.consumersunion.org/creditmatters/creditmattersfactsheets/001628.html