Current events discussion

A quote must verbatim, or it is not a quote.
Incorrect.
If a quote didn't have to be verbatim, I could just select a bunch of words you have posted, put them in between quotation marks, and claim it is a quote.
But you can.... and YOU do.
Do you REALLY not understand how quotes work, or are you just feigning ignorance?
It is very clear to me that you don't know how quotes work but you act like you do.
Now, tell me why they are talking about a partial quote if they don't exist.

Partial-Quote.jpg

English 101.
Maybe you should take a lesson or ten.
You sure you should be acting so cocky secretary man? Clearly you think arguing what verbatim is means you are right by default.
 
Incorrect.
Oh? This is a proof YOU posted to the thread.
The proof proves YOU wrong.
Look VERY closely. Their examples are verbatim quotes of PORTIONS of a sentence.
Not the first time you proved yourself wrong, probably not the last.

1747278351009.png

But you can.... and YOU do.

It is very clear to me that you don't know how quotes work but you act like you do.
Now, tell me why they are talking about a partial quote if they don't exist.

Partial-Quote.jpg


You sure you should be acting so cocky secretary man? Clearly you think arguing what verbatim is means you are right by default.
I'll post again the proof that YOU shared.
A proof that demonstrates how a verbatim quote can be a PORTION of a sentence.

Now, waste another half hour trying to backpedal and in some way claim the examples they give are complete sentences. Complete sentences that don't start with capital letters. Complete sentences that have no subject.

1747278745230.png

Explain how their example of "repeated their dialog verbatim" is not a verbatim quote, and you know they made a mistake, because your "biology degree" makes you just as much an expert in language as them.
 
Oh? This is a proof YOU posted to the thread.
The proof proves YOU wrong.
Look VERY closely. Their examples are verbatim quotes of PORTIONS of a sentence.
Not the first time you proved yourself wrong, probably not the last.

View attachment 65434

I'll post again the proof that YOU shared.
A proof that demonstrates how a verbatim quote can be a PORTION of a sentence.

Now, waste another half hour trying to backpedal and in some way claim the examples they give are complete sentences. Complete sentences that don't start with capital letters. Complete sentences that have no subject.

View attachment 65435
Explain how their example of "repeated their dialog verbatim" is not a verbatim quote, and you know they made a mistake, because your "biology degree" makes you just as much an expert in language as them.
Jesus Christ Rob, they are using the word verbatim in a sentence!!
 
Oh? This is a proof YOU posted to the thread.
The proof proves YOU wrong.
Look VERY closely. Their examples are verbatim quotes of PORTIONS of a sentence.
Not the first time you proved yourself wrong, probably not the last.

View attachment 65434

I'll post again the proof that YOU shared.
A proof that demonstrates how a verbatim quote can be a PORTION of a sentence.

Now, waste another half hour trying to backpedal and in some way claim the examples they give are complete sentences. Complete sentences that don't start with capital letters. Complete sentences that have no subject.

View attachment 65435
Explain how their example of "repeated their dialog verbatim" is not a verbatim quote, and you know they made a mistake, because your "biology degree" makes you just as much an expert in language as them.
There is a sentence in here that clears up what a verbatim quote is. So much so that nothing else is needed on this topic. I have quoted it verbatim to you and you have ignored it because you LOOOOVVVVEEEEEEEE to argue.

What is the sentence? I will quote it again.

"If you write something down verbatim, you can rely on it being a duplicate of the original document, recreated."

I want your explanation as to why you do not comprehend this verbatim quote. What is tripping you up?

BEING A DUPLICATE OF THE ORIGINAL.... DUPLICATE. What could that possibly mean????
 
"Deals with it daily". You mean you follow the rules and don't divulge personal client info?
Big deal. I do the same. Daily. I also have FTI access. And with just your name, I could find out more info about people than they probably know is out there. And I don't divulge that either.

If you know as much as you claim to know about HIPPA rules, you would know excactly what you can and cannot divulge about a person. You would be able redact protected info in seconds, yet show the eligibility you claim is happening.
If you don't know what you would need to redact to stay within HIPPA rules, then you shouldn't be handling ANY of the info.

So quit slinging bullshit that you can't prove in any way.
OR, prove what you're slinging.
I didn't say it's a big deal that I don't violate HIPAA. I pointed out what a tool you are for implying you know more about HIPAA than somebody who works with it daily.

You're an idiot. I can't redact the info since ultimately, I'd have divulge at the very least the medicare/aid subscriber #, which is linked to all their personnel data and their medical records.

But should I violate HIPAA to prove something that is common knowledge? Let me know if you require additional proof.







 
I didn't say it's a big deal that I don't violate HIPAA. I pointed out what a tool you are for implying you know more about HIPAA than somebody who works with it daily.

You're an idiot. I can't redact the info since ultimately, I'd have divulge at the very least the medicare/aid subscriber #, which is linked to all their personnel data and their medical records.

But should I violate HIPAA to prove something that is common knowledge? Let me know if you require additional proof.







I think as long as you redact the PII (Personally Identifiable Information) within the HIPAA documents you should be OK. I too worked with HIPAA laws at Express Scripts.
 
I think as long as you redact the PII (Personally Identifiable Information) within the HIPAA documents you should be OK. I too worked with HIPAA laws at Express Scripts.
The problem is to prove that somebody is receiving Medicare/aid, you'd have to provide the subscriber number and what is that subscriber number attached to: all the PII and any medical procedure or drug received using that subscriber #.

I'm sure as fawk not going to provide Robbo with a bunch of people's medicare #s to prove a point, when Congress, NPR, et al have already proven that illegals are receiving medicare/aid. Additionally, you have states that have created work arounds such as shuffling citizens off state healthcare onto medicare/aid so that they expand their state healthcare programs for illegals. All this has been widely documented.
 
Can you show where my quote was not verbatim? Did you suddenly lose the language knowledge that you demonstrated so well in the past?
Screenshots would be the most appropriate way to compare my quote to your original post. Then, explain which words were changed, or where the order of the words changed.

You said that the events of Jan 6th were a riot.
What does planning have to do with an insurrection? Is planning a requirement or part of the definition?
If someone pulls a gun and shoots someone (killing them) in t he heat of passion (unplanned), does the lack of advance planning mean a murder did not happen?

You said the events of J6 was a riot, like the BLM riots.

If you dismiss J6 as just a "riot" and consider it the same as the BLM riots, then you must find the activities analogous. Burn a Target store, break into the Capitol to prevent the electoral vote.

Same stuff. Just a few riots.

I have no need to prove the events of J6 were an insurrection. The events themselves, and the legal aftermath for those involved, are the proof.
Are you now going to argue that the court convictions were all incorrect and politically motivated, in disregard of the law?
A few people in the J6 riot were convicted of "insurrection" or more accurately seditious conspiracy. What separated these individuals from others who weren't charged with seditious conspiracy: planning!!!

I'm not going to call J6 an insurrection due to the fact a couple morons thought they were going to overthrow the gov't. Additionally, I don't portray the BLM riots as an insurrection even though a small number of BLM rioters created the CHAZ and IIRC took over a police precinct. Since you're a very consistent person, I'm sure if I searched thru this thread, I'd find that you consistently refer to both the J6 riots and BLM riots as insurrections. I'm certain you wouldn't do something like downplay the BLM riots as just some innocent looting, when indeed the rioters created lawless zones that persisted for day and weeks in numerous cities.
 
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...

Similar threads

About this thread

Jimi77

Premium Member
CarAudio.com VIP
Thread starter
Jimi77
Joined
Location
Denver, CO
Start date
Participants
Who Replied
Replies
32,955
Views
506,191
Last reply date
Last reply from
ThxOne
IMG_20260506_140749.jpg

74eldiablo

    May 22, 2026
  • 0
  • 0
design.jpeg

WNCTracker

    May 22, 2026
  • 0
  • 0

New threads

Top