U.S. District Judge states Georgia discriminates against the Deaf

[Grayma]

Maybe not that particular post, but the inference that Jiro was a habitual troll. I really don't follow along closely any more. Differing views, supported by reputable sources, does not equal trolling. Making outlandish statements, and supporting them with blogs and biased websites, does equal trolling.

Just my opinion, as usual. No sources given.

Outlandish statements- that is in the eye of the beholder.

Blogs are the new media, and they have broken multiple news stories ahead of the old legacy mainstream media. There's nothing inherently false about information appearing on a blog.

there are no unbiased sources. The worst are those that pretend to be unbiased.

Trolling is not making statements that are out of the mainstream, unpopular, or contrary to one particular party line. Trolling is not defined by reading and sharing blogs. It's not trolling just because you disagree.

Trolling is repetitively posting deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument,it's turning every thread into the troll's particular hobby horse, no matter what the original post was actually about.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

 

[saywhatkid]

Outlandish statements- that is in the eye of the beholder.

Blogs are the new media, and they have broken multiple news stories ahead of the old legacy mainstream media. There's nothing inherently false about information appearing on a blog.

there are no unbiased sources. The worst are those that pretend to be unbiased.

Trolling is not making statements that are out of the mainstream, unpopular, or contrary to one particular party line. Trolling is not defined by reading and sharing blogs. It's not trolling just because you disagree.

Trolling is repetitively posting deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument,it's turning every thread into the troll's particular hobby horse, no matter what the original post was actually about.

Urban Dictionary: troll

We disagree. No surprise there. If you want to consider an angry Liberal blogging about OWS as a reputable source for someone to back up their opinion, I will consider a Rush groupie's blog against it. Fair enough?

 

[Jiro]

You trust government far too much, and it's dangerous and naive. Politicians are human beings. Political power corrupts. And when government officials are given blind trust and little oversight, combined with lots of power and money- it's ridiculous to expect that being of one party or the other would somehow make them behave like saints. They are human beings and politicians, and generally the politician part comes first.

where did I say that I trust government? where did I say one party is a saint?

Did you really read this thread? or are you just here to join the troll-bully wagon? From the very beginning, I've been trying to get detailed information for accuracy purpose in order to confirm what Steinhauer were saying and I haven't gotten any. All I see here is you and others making accusations against me that you can't even prove (like you saying I trust government far too much).

FACTS -

ah.... a typical propaganda by Democrats to make you believe Democrat's all about people while Republican's all about $ $ $ $ $.

You want the truth? Both parties are equally corrupted and equally greedy. Both parties make money from people for their greed and agenda. Republicans make money from instilling fear in people while Democrats make money from instilling false hope in people. Both just do it differently to get $$$. Once in a while.... we do get some good men with noble goals from both parties.

In case you didn't notice...... most of those good men with noble goals are and were from Republican Party

Example -
-Abraham Lincoln
-Ronald Reagan
-Teddy Roosevelt
-Howard Taft
-Herb Hoover
-Dwight Eisenhower
-Richard Nixon (lol debatable)
-Gerald Ford
-GWB lol

Democratic Party
-FDR
-Harry Truman
-Woodrow Wilson
-JFK
-Slick Willy

I've got beef with both parties but point is - right now... on this issue... it's the GOP

and that's just a couple of examples. there are dozens more similar posts where I have heavily and harshly criticized all politicians and government regardless of their political affiliation in many political threads.

You are the one who turned this into a partisan thread once again. It's predictable and boring.

hey there! joining the wagons here to complete a circle around me?

I see this is another usual predictable tactic by a certain faction in AD - finger-pointing, accusation, and spinning. Sad thing is... they cannot and/or would not even produce any credible proof to back their claims/statements.

 

[Grayma]

We disagree. No surprise there. If you want to consider an angry Liberal blogging about OWS as a reputable source for someone to back up their opinion, I will consider a Rush groupie's blog against it. Fair enough?

I wouldn't consider either of them reputable, not being an angry liberal or a Rush groupie.

However, I would expect any adult who can read would be able and willing to read both blogs and sift them for themselves, separating out the facts from the hype, and I would be open minded enough to read both to see what they said. Those who prefer an echo chamber obviously prefer echo chambers.

And the thing about disagreeing is- there are actually facts that are not a matter of agreement or disagreement.
It was blogs who caught the mainstream press using forged documents in more than one incident.
It was blogs who caught the mainstream press using photoshopped pictures, more than once.
It was blogs who caught Fox using a photograph of one crowd at an event and representing it as a crowd at a separate event.
It was blogs who caught the media cropping out details from their pictures that did not support the narrative.

I can also supp0ort my definition of trolling with multiple links to actual definitions. It's not 'my' definition- it actually is common usage.

Is your definition based on anything other than 'a troll is somebody whose opinions and sources I don't like?'

 

[saywhatkid]

I wouldn't consider either of them reputable, not being an angry liberal or a Rush groupie.

However, I would expect any adult who can read would be able and willing to read both blogs and sift them for themselves, separating out the facts from the hype, and I would be open minded enough to read both to see what they said. Those who prefer an echo chamber obviously prefer echo chambers.

And the thing about disagreeing is- there are actually facts that are not a matter of agreement or disagreement.
It was blogs who caught the mainstream press using forged documents in more than one incident.
It was blogs who caught the mainstream press using photoshopped pictures, more than once.
It was blogs who caught Fox using a photograph of one crowd at an event and representing it as a crowd at a separate event.
It was blogs who caught the media cropping out details from their pictures that did not support the narrative.

I can also supp0ort my definition of trolling with multiple links to actual definitions. It's not 'my' definition- it actually is common usage.

Is your definition based on anything other than 'a troll is somebody whose opinions and sources I don't like?'

I objected to the comment "Jiro is trolling in another thread" to which you rushed in with your brand of aid. It was wrong to make that comment; matter of fact, that is MY definition of trolling.

If an opinion differs from mine, I take it with a grain of salt. Sometimes I learn something. When someone calls out another member and calls them a troll, I might object. It is my right to do so. You want to protect your Brotherhood of Conservatives? Do it. Proudly. I don't care. The Right outnumber the Left leaning members by a significant amount now. Where are the Left voices, you ask? THEY ARE NO LONGER POSTING HERE. O-TAY?

 

[Steinhauer]

Mind getting back on topic guys? Not trying to be rude.

Courthouse News Service

Georgia's Treatment of Deaf Adults Violates ADA

He also rejected Georgia's argument that the ADA did not require it to provide ASL-fluent practitioners, finding that the state had "failed to rebut plaintiffs' showing that communication between deaf patients and hearing practitioners, aided by interpreters, is not equal to communication between hearing patients and hearing practitioners."
Belton and Erickson had proven that the state's failure to reimburse health care providers for interpreting services, a "necessary ingredient of the state's provision of mental health care services to deaf consumers," discouraged practitioners from serving deaf patients, according to the ruling.
Story noted that the extra 5 percent payment from the state looked "more like a profit margin" than an effort to reimburse providers for interpreter services.
He declined to rule on the funding issue, noting that, since the state had failed to provide deaf people with equal access to its services, the level of funding was not material.

 

[Foxrac]

You trust government far too much, and it's dangerous and naive. Politicians are human beings. Political power corrupts. And when government officials are given blind trust and little oversight, combined with lots of power and money- it's ridiculous to expect that being of one party or the other would somehow make them behave like saints. They are human beings and politicians, and generally the politician part comes first.

You are the one who turned this into a partisan thread once again. It's predictable and boring.

Hey great grandmother,

You are intimidating this guy.

Just messing with you and I think you should have better word to say.