pulloverthatasstoophat
fingers_of_fury
cognos![[Power User]](http://www.hubdub.com/images/icon_superuser.gif "This user is a super user"){kind=icon}
markov
noah_reason
kruijs
theonecalledmichaeldan_the_omniscient
Net worth: H$27,774
Predictions made: 241
Member since Mon 28th Jan
Comments
dan_the_omniscient left these comments.
cha-CHING!
back on ur meds, yoga.
when bush lite is gone, ill sure miss the entertainment provided us by those with BPS (bush psychosis syndrome).
when bush lite is gone, ill sure miss the entertainment provided us by those with BPS (bush psychosis syndrome).
im with pics4d. if i had my say, it would be firing squad. to hell with those pulling the trigger, literally. the executioners would be no worse than the criminal they murder on behalf of the state.
if this is the conclusion, why wasnt it reached when it was outlined verbatim 9 weeks ago in comment #6? why wait for 4 months and $200k?
given the recent decisions, i dont know whats being smoked in the back rooms of hd hq, but it must be better than what i have currently.
if only half the attention was paid to voiding and co-opting my relatively solid questions, the other half could be put to far better use.
given the recent decisions, i dont know whats being smoked in the back rooms of hd hq, but it must be better than what i have currently.
if only half the attention was paid to voiding and co-opting my relatively solid questions, the other half could be put to far better use.
im losing faith in my understanding of how things should be settled/voided around here, so im gonna cash out a big chunk of this one (2.5%). gotta limit the potential loss. soz to those whose portfolios take a little dip. :D
perhaps. but surely u agree that building houses for poor ppl washes clean any amount of past, present and future subversiveness? ::)
has the deadline passed to file an intent of being a write-in candidate?
even if they have, note the very deliberate wording of my question. it makes no claim of how (legal or otherwise) he would do it. it only addresses if he "assumes" (definition provided in the settlement details) the office.
even if they have, note the very deliberate wording of my question. it makes no claim of how (legal or otherwise) he would do it. it only addresses if he "assumes" (definition provided in the settlement details) the office.
i agree. so what if a word's meaning conflicts with what some politician says? if the white house says blue is actually red, then by god blue is red! duh! ::)
^^^ second sentence should have been a new paragraph. i didnt mean to imply anything, as it is written.
honestly, it has to due with my man-crush on john bolton.
since i can no longer vote libertarian in good conscience (this includes ron paul), and since im not st00pid enough to buy what either candidate from the two party circus is selling, i intend on writing-in john bolton.
im also pretending like he did not endorse mccain already since i think very ill of mccain the politician.
since i can no longer vote libertarian in good conscience (this includes ron paul), and since im not st00pid enough to buy what either candidate from the two party circus is selling, i intend on writing-in john bolton.
im also pretending like he did not endorse mccain already since i think very ill of mccain the politician.
everyone is entitled to their opinion, nigel. come on back, bro. "poop" wherever u like. :-)
and to those carter worshipers, benedict arnold did great things before *his* treachery too. had he not accompanied ethan allen into the woods in ny, its likely they would not have captured the cannon at fort ticonderoga. without those cannon, many subsequent and necessary continental victories would have been made impossible. my point being that mr arnold was a HERO...until he crossed the line.
and to those carter worshipers, benedict arnold did great things before *his* treachery too. had he not accompanied ethan allen into the woods in ny, its likely they would not have captured the cannon at fort ticonderoga. without those cannon, many subsequent and necessary continental victories would have been made impossible. my point being that mr arnold was a HERO...until he crossed the line.
below is the spitzer market ive been referring to. sorry for the confusion, i should have posted a link to begin with.
http://tinyurl.com/3enq3r
http://tinyurl.com/3enq3r
diana wrote:
"See Get Satisfaction forum and user recommendation, particularly the market creator, mork. Settlement of this market is based on an act of terror, one that is reported as such by mainstream media and the US federal governement. The NY Times bicycle bombing can be interpreted as an act of protest, not an act of terror per se."
so should we expect the spitzer settlement to be reversed?
"See Get Satisfaction forum and user recommendation, particularly the market creator, mork. Settlement of this market is based on an act of terror, one that is reported as such by mainstream media and the US federal governement. The NY Times bicycle bombing can be interpreted as an act of protest, not an act of terror per se."
so should we expect the spitzer settlement to be reversed?
im glad i FINALLY met the only other person on the planet that thinks ill of restaurant cell phone use! when i become president, the non-smoking section will also imply non-cell phone use too. :D
ask a cop how many times domestic abuse victims claim they "fell." my point being that the victim's (public) viewpoint is definitive by no means.
the loose definition of the market's wording has been met.
ive cited source, where precedent has been demonstrated, of prejudice being given to a word's *meaning* rather than its usage by some reporter.
maybe some wish the question to be more specific (1000+ victims, $10mil in damage, perpetrated by 'brown' ppl). but it isnt that specific. it is what it is.
as i see it, hd is gonna have to either settle this as 'yes' or go back on precedent somewhere. im equally interested in either choice they make. what i dont like is indecision and the 'put it up to a vote' method. they need policy for the rest of us to follow, so we can all reasonably know what to expect.
im done with the soapbox. who wants it now? ;-)
the loose definition of the market's wording has been met.
ive cited source, where precedent has been demonstrated, of prejudice being given to a word's *meaning* rather than its usage by some reporter.
maybe some wish the question to be more specific (1000+ victims, $10mil in damage, perpetrated by 'brown' ppl). but it isnt that specific. it is what it is.
as i see it, hd is gonna have to either settle this as 'yes' or go back on precedent somewhere. im equally interested in either choice they make. what i dont like is indecision and the 'put it up to a vote' method. they need policy for the rest of us to follow, so we can all reasonably know what to expect.
im done with the soapbox. who wants it now? ;-)
diana wrote:
"Talk continues within Hubdub that this was an act of "terrorism"; however, admins did not come across major mainstream media coverage labeling this as an act of terrorism--we're talking NY times, CNN, etc."
if hd DOES rely on the media's wording (rather than th emeaning of those words), then the spitzer settlement needs to be reversed if u are to maintain any consistency. after all, SEVERAL "major mainstream media" outlets declared he had resigned when he had only *announced* his intent to do so.
what say u?
"Talk continues within Hubdub that this was an act of "terrorism"; however, admins did not come across major mainstream media coverage labeling this as an act of terrorism--we're talking NY times, CNN, etc."
if hd DOES rely on the media's wording (rather than th emeaning of those words), then the spitzer settlement needs to be reversed if u are to maintain any consistency. after all, SEVERAL "major mainstream media" outlets declared he had resigned when he had only *announced* his intent to do so.
what say u?
its certainly deceptive. but hopefully our discussion will shine some light on it for others who might wager under the same misconception that we were under.
hehe, this markets gonna look like a roller coaster ride. ive personally changed positions a couple times. :D
ive posted links to the stories where they HAVE reported it. maybe *they* didnt use the word terrorism, but they reported acts that are clearly included in the definition of the word.
if hubdub relied solely on the media's wording, the spitzer thing would have been settled differently as many news outlets DID report that he had resigned before he actually had. but it wasnt settled based on the media's wording. it was settled according to the market's wording, whose meaning was governed by the english dictionary.
what would be nice would be to NOT have to guess why there is no settlement, but for an admin to explain hd's position rather than ignore us.
if hubdub relied solely on the media's wording, the spitzer thing would have been settled differently as many news outlets DID report that he had resigned before he actually had. but it wasnt settled based on the media's wording. it was settled according to the market's wording, whose meaning was governed by the english dictionary.
what would be nice would be to NOT have to guess why there is no settlement, but for an admin to explain hd's position rather than ignore us.
ah, but fox.com is not a "news site". however foxnews.com IS: http://siteanalytics.compete.com/msnbc.com+foxnews.com/?metric=uv
how about some clarification from the author?
how about some clarification from the author?
i dont call him a hypocrite for his back pain and subsequent addiction. i call him a hypocrite for lambasting libertarians that call his show over there being "no right to privacy" (rush's words), then having his attorney argue in court that rush's medical records shouldnt be unsealed in the criminal investigation because of rush's "right to [medical] privacy".
the opening odds on this one seem way off to me. im not looking at statistics atm, but isnt it common knowledge that [p]msnbc is far less popular than fox? and arent the odds of a tie almost incalculably remote?
as in the spitzer question (if we're referring to the same one), words mean things. the dictionary defines "resign" clearly, as it does for the wording of this question. this market DOES NOT refer to body counts or dollar loss. it says what it says. any attempt to make it say otherwise, after the fact, is bogus.
maybe this is another one of those questions whose settlement requests will be ignored w/o explanation?
http://tinyurl.com/6yvx3n
http://tinyurl.com/6yvx3n
JESUS! how did i miss this market??? started at 60, went as high as 90%+!!! i couldve milked the crap out of this one!
kinda surprised it didnt get voided for its starting odds.
kinda surprised it didnt get voided for its starting odds.
http://www.newsmax.com/politics/primary_scramble/2008/04/04/85543.html
"LANSING, Mich. -- Michigan Democrats are not going to hold a do-over presidential primary.
The official decision came Friday in a statement from the state party's executive committee. The state party officials say "it is not practical" to conduct a party-run primary or caucus as a way to get the state's delegates seated at the Democratic National Convention this summer."
its a SHOCKER! NOW can we settle this thing? ;-)
"LANSING, Mich. -- Michigan Democrats are not going to hold a do-over presidential primary.
The official decision came Friday in a statement from the state party's executive committee. The state party officials say "it is not practical" to conduct a party-run primary or caucus as a way to get the state's delegates seated at the Democratic National Convention this summer."
its a SHOCKER! NOW can we settle this thing? ;-)
i need my h$ out of this market, so im being forced to cash out partially. i sure would appreciate an explanation as to why this hasnt been settled.
just by chance, i was cruising thru my voided predictions, when...
http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/By_March_20th_how_high_will_the_reported_death_toll_in_Tibet_be_4404
not that im suggesting a void, but of the necessity of "independent" reports in settling markets.
http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/By_March_20th_how_high_will_the_reported_death_toll_in_Tibet_be_4404
not that im suggesting a void, but of the necessity of "independent" reports in settling markets.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/03/29/zimbabwe.election/index.html
"The Zimbabwean government has denied CNN and other international news organizations permission to enter the country to report on the elections."
does this count as "reports"? more like reports *of* reports. "side A said 'side B sucks,' and side B said 'no, side A sucks!" exactly the same source of the widely discredited katrina reporting. considering the sources, i couldnt make myself go all the way thru the two articles cited in the settlement requests again, but did anyone reporting for these agencies actually SEE anything for themselves? or is it just the reporting of party rhetoric?
"The Zimbabwean government has denied CNN and other international news organizations permission to enter the country to report on the elections."
does this count as "reports"? more like reports *of* reports. "side A said 'side B sucks,' and side B said 'no, side A sucks!" exactly the same source of the widely discredited katrina reporting. considering the sources, i couldnt make myself go all the way thru the two articles cited in the settlement requests again, but did anyone reporting for these agencies actually SEE anything for themselves? or is it just the reporting of party rhetoric?
thats another thing. the "reports" smack of katrina-reporting. "well we werent there, but we *heard*..."
well, the opposition party alleges "widespread irregularities", but they also claim to be confident of victory. if they DO win, how widespread could the rigging have been?
perhaps a wait-and-see approach to settling this one is warranted?
perhaps a wait-and-see approach to settling this one is warranted?
u keep telling me about "meteorites" crashing to earth. but not so much on the "meteor[s]" (as used in the wording of the market).
btw, u can have ur goat back. ;-)
btw, u can have ur goat back. ;-)
he has a long way to go from growl to bite, but certainly no lack of will to do it. there is another question around that queries the us' likelihood of "war" with russia by 2010. if it were clearly marked to include cold war, id have fat cash on the affirmative.
i dont think so. ultimately, if one side is pushed too hard they're gonna break from the cease-fire. that may mean 1) al-sadr himself rescinds the cease-fire, 2) al-sadr loses control of the mahdi army and whomever assumes control rescinds the order (as theyre chomping at the bit to do), 3) the isf and coalition forces grow weary of increasing violence and rescind the order themselves so as to begin cleaning house beyond the break-away factions.
the worst case scenario that i could envision (regarding the settlement of this market) is that perhaps the mahdi army dissolves before the date indicated in the question. but, according to the definitions provided, this would count as "yes".
but im eager to hear from anyone else who can imagine any complicating scenarios regarding the settlement of this market. i doubt ive thought of everything. :)
the worst case scenario that i could envision (regarding the settlement of this market) is that perhaps the mahdi army dissolves before the date indicated in the question. but, according to the definitions provided, this would count as "yes".
but im eager to hear from anyone else who can imagine any complicating scenarios regarding the settlement of this market. i doubt ive thought of everything. :)
aside from the somewhat vague wording, this is an excellent question that i thought about posing a few days ago. i look forward to some clarification so i may participate in this market.
certainly not. until the brass of either side (or their spokesman) says the deal is off, we still have a cease-fire order. perhaps not a very well observed cease-fire order, but the order stands nonetheless.
maybe what is happening is al-sadr is losing control of his movement? subsequently, an iraqi or coalition figure may unilaterally declare the agreement effectively void and al-sadr no longer in control of the mahdi army. in that case, this question could be settled. but no matter how u cut it, the order must be rescinded from the top, not disobeyed from below, to settle this market.
case in point: north korea. there has been a cease-fire in effect for many decades, yet both sides regularly exchange small arms fire from across the dmz. this just means that those taking part in the fracas are in violation of the cease-fire order, not that the order is no longer in place.
btw, thx for soliciting my opinion. :)
maybe what is happening is al-sadr is losing control of his movement? subsequently, an iraqi or coalition figure may unilaterally declare the agreement effectively void and al-sadr no longer in control of the mahdi army. in that case, this question could be settled. but no matter how u cut it, the order must be rescinded from the top, not disobeyed from below, to settle this market.
case in point: north korea. there has been a cease-fire in effect for many decades, yet both sides regularly exchange small arms fire from across the dmz. this just means that those taking part in the fracas are in violation of the cease-fire order, not that the order is no longer in place.
btw, thx for soliciting my opinion. :)
global warming/climate change has already *been* proven. its happened over and over again on this rock. i believe whats currently in contention is whether the current cycle is man-made.
question correction needed?
question correction needed?
terrorism n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341695,00.html
"'The peace protesters are not peaceful," said Catherine Moy, executive director of Move America Forward, which released the report. "They are violent. They are causing havoc in an illegal manner on recruiting offices across the United States.'"
wow, its almost like reading the definition of terrorism again!
note that the picture on the foxnews article ive linked to shows such an attack, complete with ideological/political slogan, further bolstering my application of the term "terrorism" to this attack.
"The Pentagon reviewed the report but couldn't confirm that the more than 50 incidents listed were actual 'attacks.'
'Beyond incidents of vandalism, it's obviously difficult to count non-violent protests as an actual attack since these demonstrations usually do not result in deliberate acts against the U.S. military,' said Paul Boyce, a U.S. Army spokesman at the Pentagon."
plz note that move forward america counts many peaceful protests as "attacks". in this article, the government obviously disagrees on this point. but paul boyce (spokesman for the pentagon, in case u missed that) makes clear in the first 4 words of his quote that destruction of property is indeed viewed as an "attack".
so lets review: we have the definition of "terrorism" met 100%. a pentagon spokesman classifies destruction of property as an "attack". take ur pick from any number of said attacks on recruiting stations located in the united states' "homeland": http://www.moveamericaforward.org/index.php/MAF/Report. and last i checked, the 2008 election was still going strong.
seems to me that this question couldnt be any more ripe for settlement. so should this settlement request fall on deaf ears (or inboxes, as the case may be), i expect a valid reason to be offered on how the conditions of this question have not been satisfied.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341695,00.html
"'The peace protesters are not peaceful," said Catherine Moy, executive director of Move America Forward, which released the report. "They are violent. They are causing havoc in an illegal manner on recruiting offices across the United States.'"
wow, its almost like reading the definition of terrorism again!
note that the picture on the foxnews article ive linked to shows such an attack, complete with ideological/political slogan, further bolstering my application of the term "terrorism" to this attack.
"The Pentagon reviewed the report but couldn't confirm that the more than 50 incidents listed were actual 'attacks.'
'Beyond incidents of vandalism, it's obviously difficult to count non-violent protests as an actual attack since these demonstrations usually do not result in deliberate acts against the U.S. military,' said Paul Boyce, a U.S. Army spokesman at the Pentagon."
plz note that move forward america counts many peaceful protests as "attacks". in this article, the government obviously disagrees on this point. but paul boyce (spokesman for the pentagon, in case u missed that) makes clear in the first 4 words of his quote that destruction of property is indeed viewed as an "attack".
so lets review: we have the definition of "terrorism" met 100%. a pentagon spokesman classifies destruction of property as an "attack". take ur pick from any number of said attacks on recruiting stations located in the united states' "homeland": http://www.moveamericaforward.org/index.php/MAF/Report. and last i checked, the 2008 election was still going strong.
seems to me that this question couldnt be any more ripe for settlement. so should this settlement request fall on deaf ears (or inboxes, as the case may be), i expect a valid reason to be offered on how the conditions of this question have not been satisfied.
not exactly. i was thinking it had to be in the 4 or 5 range by now though.
when its tallied up, make sure not to forget this one: http://www.newsmax.com/us/atlanta_tornado_body/2008/03/22/82324.html
when its tallied up, make sure not to forget this one: http://www.newsmax.com/us/atlanta_tornado_body/2008/03/22/82324.html
"order: n. An authoritative indication to be obeyed; a command or direction."
an order is *to be* obeyed...but it doesnt always work out like that. a sunni cop taking a pot shot at a mahdi army member has no bearing on the order itself...other than to potentially influence the brass of either side to rescind it.
an order is *to be* obeyed...but it doesnt always work out like that. a sunni cop taking a pot shot at a mahdi army member has no bearing on the order itself...other than to potentially influence the brass of either side to rescind it.
related market: http://tinyurl.com/2t59ek
my apologies to those who lost h$ on this market.
this question was most certainly dependent on the referenced market, yet the admin who falsely settled it interpreted it otherwise DESPITE my explicit instructions. moreover, in further email correspondence they have refused correct their mistake.
this question was most certainly dependent on the referenced market, yet the admin who falsely settled it interpreted it otherwise DESPITE my explicit instructions. moreover, in further email correspondence they have refused correct their mistake.
i guess i missed where it said pakistan has given the ok, tacit or otherwise, for "troops" to operate inside their borders. equipment alone does not equal troops, if thats where the thinking is...
http://www.tfd.com/troops
i believe its definition 2b that applies here. and if u want to parse it, and just use "military unit", the drone may fly over the border but its operator does not. ergo the "unit" as a whole does not operate within pakistan's border, regardless of permission.
http://www.tfd.com/troops
i believe its definition 2b that applies here. and if u want to parse it, and just use "military unit", the drone may fly over the border but its operator does not. ergo the "unit" as a whole does not operate within pakistan's border, regardless of permission.
i feel ya satyaki. i would suggest citing w/e source is used in the wiki article, assuming its reliable.
bribes-for-edits aside, wikipedia should never be as a definitive source, given its open nature.
dont get me wrong, its an excellent tool and i love it. but it should be used as a jumping off point only. all the ppl who criticized the hell out of wikipedia over the last year or two needed to realize this instead of expecting more out of the site than it was ever designed to be.
dont get me wrong, its an excellent tool and i love it. but it should be used as a jumping off point only. all the ppl who criticized the hell out of wikipedia over the last year or two needed to realize this instead of expecting more out of the site than it was ever designed to be.
using wikipedia as a definitive source is highly flawed.
a great question that id *like* to put h$ on if this, and the things above, were fixed.
a great question that id *like* to put h$ on if this, and the things above, were fixed.
heh, even the source in the settlement request i made was ignored.
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Mich_Primary_Plan_Dropped/2008/03/21/82112.html
"Michigan's House starts a two-week break on Friday. The Senate begins its own two-week break at the end of the month, meaning that the legislature can no longer pass a bill authorizing the re-run vote with the required 60 days notice."
thats what u get for using cnn. i think al-jazeera might be more reputable.
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Mich_Primary_Plan_Dropped/2008/03/21/82112.html
"Michigan's House starts a two-week break on Friday. The Senate begins its own two-week break at the end of the month, meaning that the legislature can no longer pass a bill authorizing the re-run vote with the required 60 days notice."
thats what u get for using cnn. i think al-jazeera might be more reputable.
boy, i wish i could get service like this. ive bitched about the very same thing before and all i get is ignored.
this market needs voided since its dependent market is no longer able to be settled (voided).
btw, ryanj -10 points.
btw, ryanj -10 points.
no good. thats not what the question says.
if thats indeed how the question will be settled, i want out. id cash out, but i would lose money through no fault of my own. *flagging*
if thats indeed how the question will be settled, i want out. id cash out, but i would lose money through no fault of my own. *flagging*
uhh...what if they do not currently hold office? is it where they live? or where they last held office?
oh yeah...<insert anti-bush grumblings here>.
oh yeah...<insert anti-bush grumblings here>.
the reasoning for the void is not sufficient. military death pools are also "offensive to some users", but they do not get voided. clarification plz?
historyteacher,
"about freedom of speech on the internet, does the internet change the speech?" next sentence: "Is the printed word different on a computer screen or the spoken word different because its on YouTube?" would i have been able to understand that sentence before technology (and al gore) gave us the internet and sites like youtube?
and why all this talk of abrams tanks, apache helicopters and personal tactical nukes when the issue is handguns, cheap or otherwise? its like how war-on-drugs ppl are with the "gateway" propaganda: lots of bs for the sole purpose of ginning up fear.
also, many of the ultra zealots u speak of have grounds for concern. i have a ruger 10-22 rifle that was banned in the late 90's. it fires .22 caliber LR cartridges. its the same cartridge in rifles that many (non-gun nazi) parents allow their children to graduate to after their bb gun. not that it cant be lethal, but its about the last weapon any sane person would choose to go into battle/rampage with. nonetheless, it made the "assault weapon" list and was banned. inexplicable.
let there be no doubt: once we're disarmed and deprived of free speech, its all over. there is a reason that those are the FIRST two amendments.
"about freedom of speech on the internet, does the internet change the speech?" next sentence: "Is the printed word different on a computer screen or the spoken word different because its on YouTube?" would i have been able to understand that sentence before technology (and al gore) gave us the internet and sites like youtube?
and why all this talk of abrams tanks, apache helicopters and personal tactical nukes when the issue is handguns, cheap or otherwise? its like how war-on-drugs ppl are with the "gateway" propaganda: lots of bs for the sole purpose of ginning up fear.
also, many of the ultra zealots u speak of have grounds for concern. i have a ruger 10-22 rifle that was banned in the late 90's. it fires .22 caliber LR cartridges. its the same cartridge in rifles that many (non-gun nazi) parents allow their children to graduate to after their bb gun. not that it cant be lethal, but its about the last weapon any sane person would choose to go into battle/rampage with. nonetheless, it made the "assault weapon" list and was banned. inexplicable.
let there be no doubt: once we're disarmed and deprived of free speech, its all over. there is a reason that those are the FIRST two amendments.
so then the US must have also have been practicing terrorism when we were peeling hitler off of europe and north africa? after all, we were wasting more krauts than the fatalities they were inflicting upon us.
obviously, kill count does not define one as a terrorist. so why dont u just tell us what u really think about america?
obviously, kill count does not define one as a terrorist. so why dont u just tell us what u really think about america?
i agree that words mean things and that recession means "two quarters of negative...". but not all industries are still reporting positive numbers. we all know about the home construction crisis, but my industry (tech) is also feeling it. my numbers from the first quarter of this year compared with last year are down a whopping 88%! never in my nearly 10 years of self-employment have things dropped off so suddenly. but until there are enough sagging industries to bring the mean numbers to negative territory, i dont see how anyone can call it a recession...yet.
so does that mean free speech on the Internet is NOT protected under the first amendment since said computer network did not exist circa 1776?
perhaps future questions involving colors should list their options in RGB or CMYK codes rather than common names? ;-)
as a cat person, i would like to point out that i find the thought of an attempted kitten assassination to be inflammatory. :)
but that nail might get in the way when changing magazines. although it would probably be extremely useful for clearing jams. and when ur firing a chinese-made rifle, such a thing would be invaluable.
i assumed that was what u meant. its just that the extra verbiage of "...that is effective the moment he says "I will Resign" (or anything to that effect)..." could allow for parsing by those who might lose h$ on the question. i just wanted to help u get it nailed down early on. :-)
keep up the good work. i think i bet on more of your questions than those of any other single hd user.
keep up the good work. i think i bet on more of your questions than those of any other single hd user.
i didnt mean to imply that he must use the exact word "tender", but instead its meaning. consider: "Will Malaysian PM Abdullah Ahmad Badawi tender his resignation by April 1, 2008?" i assume *this* is what ur question is asking?
this question's wording could lead to more contention. do u mean to ask if he will *tender* his resignation by april 1, 2008?
yeah, im getting ready to write off foxnews.com. this last week or two, its starting to remind me of the crap i read while waiting in line at the grocery store.
a whole bunch of blather...but no one able to reference of definition of "resign" that doesnt also require relinquishing power, as well as a formal notification.
"but the headlines all say it" = "dewey beats truman!"
"but the headlines all say it" = "dewey beats truman!"
an opinion from someone who has, and who has had, no money in this market:
http://www.tfd.com/resign
"v.tr.
2. To give up (a position, for example), especially by formal notification.
3. To relinquish (a privilege, right, or claim).
v.intr.
To give up one's job or office; quit, especially by formal notification"
seeing that he has yet to give up the office, he has not fulfilled both parts of the definition of resigning.
words mean things, and thats where the dictionary comes in. perhaps someone can find a dictionary that defines "resign" as just providing notification of intent? until then, looks like this one was settled correctly.
http://www.tfd.com/resign
"v.tr.
2. To give up (a position, for example), especially by formal notification.
3. To relinquish (a privilege, right, or claim).
v.intr.
To give up one's job or office; quit, especially by formal notification"
seeing that he has yet to give up the office, he has not fulfilled both parts of the definition of resigning.
words mean things, and thats where the dictionary comes in. perhaps someone can find a dictionary that defines "resign" as just providing notification of intent? until then, looks like this one was settled correctly.
having grown up near enough the fault line, i can remember a couple of earthquake drills in elementary/junior high. seemed kind of goofy at the time as quakes really arent our thing.
i remember the dead nigel question. and i so hoped that it wouldnt be pulled (not that i had any h$ riding on it). despite his doing so on perfectly justifiable grounds in accordance with hd's rules, i wonder if nigel now regrets its voiding? thats the thing with censorship: its a pandora's box. im reminded of something i read/heard some time ago: if words can cause problems, then it is not thru less words that we may solve them, but more.
1. jersjusttrolling, ty for ur service.
2. i also find such questions distasteful (well, those regarding coalition service members anyway - i couldnt care less about celebrities). however, one of the ideals for which jersjusttrolling served to protect was free speech. and, as one who believes whole-heartedly in the general concept, if i find a particular question to be offensive i simply refuse to contribute to it. problem solved.
3. kudos to jersjusttrolling and anyone else raising awareness about markets involving coalition service member deaths. if ur a loyal citizen of a coalition member country and are participating in such markets, shame on u.
<rant>and if ur a citizen of a civilized, but non-coalition member country, wtf is ur government waiting for??? america is badly strained and the world isnt gonna save itself! what will u all do when an economic collapse or the modern day isolationist (anti-war) movement causes the US to pull back to only the barest of essentials, leaving u all to deal with ur problems yourselves?</rant>
2. i also find such questions distasteful (well, those regarding coalition service members anyway - i couldnt care less about celebrities). however, one of the ideals for which jersjusttrolling served to protect was free speech. and, as one who believes whole-heartedly in the general concept, if i find a particular question to be offensive i simply refuse to contribute to it. problem solved.
3. kudos to jersjusttrolling and anyone else raising awareness about markets involving coalition service member deaths. if ur a loyal citizen of a coalition member country and are participating in such markets, shame on u.
<rant>and if ur a citizen of a civilized, but non-coalition member country, wtf is ur government waiting for??? america is badly strained and the world isnt gonna save itself! what will u all do when an economic collapse or the modern day isolationist (anti-war) movement causes the US to pull back to only the barest of essentials, leaving u all to deal with ur problems yourselves?</rant>
question: so even if it were an anti-war group found to be culpable, the nyc recruiting station bombing wouldnt be considered an act of terrorism? if not, im compelled to ask what hubdub's definition of terrorism is, since it obviously wouldnt match up with what the dictionary says?
in the settlement details, "eradicate" (as used in this market) is defined to mean a set of specific actions.
it didnt say that when i posted it. in fact, the article evolved (in that it grew to almost twice its size) in the time it took me to post that message. it wasnt until a day or two later that the story changed to the photo behind the claim of responsibility being "an incredible coincidence." perhaps a little too incredible...
im still confident that this will turn out to be an act of terrorism. however, im not confident that it will be deemed as much by those in charge of settling the market. nigel may well have been right not to settle this one yet, but not for the reason provided. if it *was* an anti-war group, then this is most certainly the doings of a "terrorist".
im still confident that this will turn out to be an act of terrorism. however, im not confident that it will be deemed as much by those in charge of settling the market. nigel may well have been right not to settle this one yet, but not for the reason provided. if it *was* an anti-war group, then this is most certainly the doings of a "terrorist".
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335828,00.html
"The Associated Press obtained a copy of an e-mail from the office of Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein to other lawmakers Thursday that reads:
'A few offices on the House side have received a letter today addressed to `Members of Congress' with a picture of a man standing in front of the Times Square recruiting station that was bombed in New York today with the statement `We did it.' He is standing in front of it with his arms spread out and he's attached his political manifesto.'"
so we have "unlawful use of force" "against property" in connection with a "political manifesto". game set match, my friends.
"The Associated Press obtained a copy of an e-mail from the office of Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein to other lawmakers Thursday that reads:
'A few offices on the House side have received a letter today addressed to `Members of Congress' with a picture of a man standing in front of the Times Square recruiting station that was bombed in New York today with the statement `We did it.' He is standing in front of it with his arms spread out and he's attached his political manifesto.'"
so we have "unlawful use of force" "against property" in connection with a "political manifesto". game set match, my friends.
ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm) n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
so how is the BOMBING of a MILITARY RECRUITING CENTER, potentially by a POLITICALLY motivated group, NOT terrorism???
so how is the BOMBING of a MILITARY RECRUITING CENTER, potentially by a POLITICALLY motivated group, NOT terrorism???
http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/Clinton_Secondwind.jpg
yikes. but ill take the h$.
never underestimate a clinton's ability to *hold office*!
yikes. but ill take the h$.
never underestimate a clinton's ability to *hold office*!
"A recession is 2 consec[u]tive quarters of negative growth. The last quarter of 2007 growth was .%6. Thats small but not negative, so theres no way the economy will be in recession in 19 weeks...correct?"
dieseldog isnt just making this up. any recession story u read says the same thing.
however, warren buffet says otherwise: http://moneynews.newsmax.com/money/archives/articles/2008/3/3/084049.cfm?s=mnh
"Buffett said that 'from a common-sense standpoint right now, we're in a recession,'"
dieseldog isnt just making this up. any recession story u read says the same thing.
however, warren buffet says otherwise: http://moneynews.newsmax.com/money/archives/articles/2008/3/3/084049.cfm?s=mnh
"Buffett said that 'from a common-sense standpoint right now, we're in a recession,'"
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Israeli_Troops_Withdraw_F/2008/03/03/77280.html
"In the early hours of Monday, Palestinians counted nine separate Israeli airstrikes all over Gaza, one of them near the office of Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, who was not in the area at the time."
oh, i can almost taste it!
"In the early hours of Monday, Palestinians counted nine separate Israeli airstrikes all over Gaza, one of them near the office of Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, who was not in the area at the time."
oh, i can almost taste it!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332808,00.html
looks like the outages were a result of more than one reason - storms and a fire, leading to a nuclear plant's shutdown. void? :(
looks like the outages were a result of more than one reason - storms and a fire, leading to a nuclear plant's shutdown. void? :(
just wanted to nail it down early on. especially given the high rate of voids on questions im interested in.
maybe i misunderstand, but isnt the suspend date the date at which no more bets may be placed? and NOT the date the market must be settled?
"Okay with all the back and forth, how about we void this question, give everyone thier money back and start over. Bets made and then terms change isn't fair."
agreed. ive flagged this one, requesting my h$ back.
agreed. ive flagged this one, requesting my h$ back.
it seems chicagoland's infamous blue wall may throw this one under the bus.
survey: MORE or LESS creepy than oj?
survey: MORE or LESS creepy than oj?
must they use the exact words "act of aggression"? or will a simple condemnation, expressly portraying it as a cloaked weapons test, do?
i understand. but what im saying is that that link, ran from two different machines simultaneously, will produce a differing number of hits. now as to what order those hits are returned, my (very limited) test returned consistent results. so, hopefully, there wont be any issues with *your* question.
CAVEAT: google's results can vary from computer to computer. i performed the search from two different machines just now. the top 5 were the same, but one returned 200+ million results, while the other returned over 10 billion.
dbarraza, u think 5% was too low, yet the market was never too far off. not to mention that the question was created after more than a week had gone by out of the shortest month of the year. AND the fact that february is not known for tornadoes. AND that the question stipulated at least one fatality as a result! living in the heart of tornado alley, i can tell u there are far more twisters than there are fatalities from them.
btw, looks like the following question started out with around the same % for 0 to 1 twisters for this month. so off with ur void stick u go then!
http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/How_many_tornadoes_with_a_least_one_fatality_will_there_be_in_the_US_during_March_2008_2325
btw, looks like the following question started out with around the same % for 0 to 1 twisters for this month. so off with ur void stick u go then!
http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/How_many_tornadoes_with_a_least_one_fatality_will_there_be_in_the_US_during_March_2008_2325
as stated in the background info:
"All aspects based on local time (gmt+1).
Question to be voided should Kosovo not declare independence in February 2008."
"All aspects based on local time (gmt+1).
Question to be voided should Kosovo not declare independence in February 2008."
bitter? no. tart, perhaps. :D
theonecalledmichael, the assumption is part of the question. having a "no independence declared" option wouldnt make sense in the context of the question. furthermore, if u check the settlement details (posted in the background info area), instructions have been left for exactly what to do, should Kosovo remain a part of Serbia for the remainder of this February. if u dont like the question, then u should pass on it. but thats a long way from declaring it void.
theonecalledmichael, the assumption is part of the question. having a "no independence declared" option wouldnt make sense in the context of the question. furthermore, if u check the settlement details (posted in the background info area), instructions have been left for exactly what to do, should Kosovo remain a part of Serbia for the remainder of this February. if u dont like the question, then u should pass on it. but thats a long way from declaring it void.
admins/moderators: plz take the time to read the question AND specific settlement details before getting happy with ur void button.
not having the 'no endorsement' option makes this a different question. ergo, no duplication. if anything, the wording of the other question should be corrected.
and u may well do that with this one as well. but any moderator who would acquiesce to ur demand would have some answering to do with questions like the following still on the market.
http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/Will_world_wide_negative_opinion_towards_the_US_change_if_we_get_a_Democrat_as_the_new_president_1709/view
bawwf, ppl getting killed is news. this site is for betting on news.
http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/Will_world_wide_negative_opinion_towards_the_US_change_if_we_get_a_Democrat_as_the_new_president_1709/view
bawwf, ppl getting killed is news. this site is for betting on news.
agreed.
i use to run a very popular game server (tribes). its a very old game with an extraordinarily large, well-dated following. mods continue to be churned out for it, but a long-time lack of support for the game means cracks have opened up with some of the modding. long story, short: i learned it was much more smooth, and fair, not trying to legislate everything and instead letting the game dictate what went on. in this case, the game (hubdub) has the advantage of being well-supported and hence able to be fixed whenever needed. </my $0.02 from 5yrs of experience in public gaming services>
i use to run a very popular game server (tribes). its a very old game with an extraordinarily large, well-dated following. mods continue to be churned out for it, but a long-time lack of support for the game means cracks have opened up with some of the modding. long story, short: i learned it was much more smooth, and fair, not trying to legislate everything and instead letting the game dictate what went on. in this case, the game (hubdub) has the advantage of being well-supported and hence able to be fixed whenever needed. </my $0.02 from 5yrs of experience in public gaming services>
"Voided Today 4:36pm PST by thedoctor's picture thedoctor: Dan can you repost and include an outcome regarding Kosovo does not gain independence. This is just so all options are allowed to be voted on."
the wording of my question is very deliberate. plz read it again, the restore it. thx! :-)
the wording of my question is very deliberate. plz read it again, the restore it. thx! :-)
in case u didnt bother to read the article i linked to:
"... {yesterday] a suicide bomb attack killed at least 20 people and wounded 45 at an election rally in a northwestern town."
newsflash from pakistan: not a very nice place, atm. some might even say its a hotbed of radicalism. and did i mention their upcoming elections? and that elections are a rallying point for violence for the enemies of moderation?
im not saying its gonna happen, but that its certainly plausible given the circumstances on the ground.
"... {yesterday] a suicide bomb attack killed at least 20 people and wounded 45 at an election rally in a northwestern town."
newsflash from pakistan: not a very nice place, atm. some might even say its a hotbed of radicalism. and did i mention their upcoming elections? and that elections are a rallying point for violence for the enemies of moderation?
im not saying its gonna happen, but that its certainly plausible given the circumstances on the ground.
whats wrong with the question?
hell, it damn near happened yesterday:
http://www.newsmax.com/international/pakistan_us/2008/02/09/71446.html
hell, it damn near happened yesterday:
http://www.newsmax.com/international/pakistan_us/2008/02/09/71446.html
does "wins" refer to delegates? or whole states? a reasonable argument could be made for either, i suppose.
this should be voided, imho.
this should be voided, imho.
how ever will this one be settled?
ot: and who gives a F about what the rest of the world, that expects to be protected but shrinks from the task, thinks? ;-)
ot: and who gives a F about what the rest of the world, that expects to be protected but shrinks from the task, thinks? ;-)
i never saw the other one either. this has happened to a question i created also. hubdub -10 points. >:(
good question. im stunned that we havent had one since 9/11. something to be said for taking the fight to the enemy? nah... ::)