Does EA have some weird hypothetical in mind where not restricting user mods will somehow cost them money? Or is it the result of some corporate culture that's so deeply ingrained that they don't even consider if a move like that will gain or lose them money?
Why? Because he's a troll, and people feed him here.
Steele then testified that Mr. Cooper had been angry and hostile once he knew the sale was going forward, and that Cooper had taken items from the property, caused property damage, and attacked or threatened people who came on the property.Strange, then, that either 1) the police were never contacted about any of it, or 2) Steele didn't bother to get copies of any of the police reports and present them to the court.
Samuelson admitted the camera pen was his, but insisted he was using it to prove a woman wasn't wearing any undergarments.Is there a school rule saying that students have to wear underwear? Not saying it would justify what he did, I'm just trying to figure out some way that what he said wasn't a massive non-sequitur.
Five males "photographing a mannequin on a bus bench"Hey, what if the terrorists figure out a way to use cameras to bring mannequins to life? That report might be the key to preventing our great nation from being torn apart by a horde of bloodthirsty mannequins!
He's just an attention seeking troll.
If he did (or has) left such a comment, Ken most likely wouldn't let it through, as the first comment anyone makes has to be approved by a moderator.
First of all, that makes no sense. Clearly, if someone gave a logical and detailed reason why no investigation was necessary, that would have likely made Heath rethink the entire story.But Fallon didn't want the reporter to rethink the story, he wanted the reporter to not publish the story.
The judgement doesn't seem to reference ASCAP's stupid little game of "we won't tell you which tracks you're no longer allowed to use". Did Pandora just not bring up that issue? IANAL, but there's just no way that can be legal.
It is eroding basic public trust in each other. Not to mention the cop is far less likely to follow his gut or instincts and rather will follow the letter of the law.The same could be said of citizens filming police.
When are you going to learn to reply to threads rather than create whole new threads for each response?
He never will, because creating new threads gets him more attention and more responses.
Look AJ, if you feel so strongly that what the NSA is doing is constitutional, then...
Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that he isn't just trolling, his strong feelings aren't about what the NSA is doing, but about Mike making legal claims without having done any research.
The various public reports from The Guardian, The Washington Post (and others, including Gawker) are flat out wrong concerning the nature of these companies' involvement with the NSA.I wonder if merely saying that little is a violation of the gag order? I mean, if they're accused of A, and say "we didn't do A", are accused of B, and say "we didn't do B", and so on, up until they're accused of Z, and say "no comment", then you know that Z is exactly what they're doing.
Lutz clearly knew long before the hearing that he wouldn't have been able to attend. A flight from Miami to San Francisco is over five hours long, and somewhere during those hours when Lutz was not on the flight, you'd think perhaps he would have called Duffy and told him he wouldn't be able to attend.To play devil's advocate: perhaps Lutz has a medical condition which acted up in a way which, for at least a span of five hours, not only prevented him from boarding a plane, but also prevented him contacting Duffy. And he wants to keep that medical condition private.
No, the way I see his argument is: if the police department decides to do something, they aren't doing it via passing a law, and since no law was passed it's perfectly fine. In other words, if a city's police department does something the city council doesn't like, the only means for the city council to deal with it is to make an appeal to the state government.
He's a troll, and knows that being anti-vaccine will piss people off, exasperate them, make them incredus, and so on, which will lead to responses; just ignore him.
But, a fan film (and one based on Final Fantasy 7 no less) is what gets their legal team in a rage?Just another thing which lets them rack up the billable hours.
Or, as someone else pointed out in another thread, he could have said, before he started testifying, "If I'm asked a question where either answering truthfully or refusing to answer would reveal classified information, I'm instead going to lie through my teeth. If that's not acceptable, I'm not going to testify at all."
If you found this out second hand from a reporter, rather than directly from Mike Rogers's attorney(s), then I doubt that he has any intention of actually suing.
Re: EA's crap shoot
So EA offered extra content for a price, but no one was buying any of it because there was so much available for free?