tanon500

Given the revelations of the past couple of years, especially these, it's very difficult to attempt to cap the scope of these operations. Combine that with a heavy case of impostor syndrome and I find myself questioning everything.

Gay marriage? Can such a large portion of the country actually be against gay marriage and homosexuality? I can count perhaps 1 in 20 or 1 in 30. Is that just because I don't associate with those who are against it, or was the entire debate a construct of a group of insiders with immensely powerful tools such as this to keep us busy?

Presidential elections? Grow up with a president personally? Oh, you grew up with the Senator? Sure he's not part of some secret club that's running the elections and simply putting whoever they want into power? You are? Well, I don't know them personally, nor can I unequivocally prove that they or any of the operations we feel are part of a legit democracy are actually real. Yep, just tap on that screen and your voice will be heard. Pinky swear.

I spent some time in Iran during an election cycle there - at least it's obvious the president is hand selected by the supreme leader. There's some sense of comfort in that. All we've done in this country is prove that our paranoia might not be so out of line, and that's a ridiculously frightening concept. It's time for some fucking real transparency. The cost of which is a lot less than the cost of this secrecy.

Can you explain how? DKIM signatures would be pretty difficult to forge...

Organization who allegedly asked the lawyer to take action: http://www.kisstrust.com/

* Maybe this was just an incompetent attorney, but regardless, taking legal action against a website for a comment posted really demonstrates that the company isn't capable of using its good reputation to handle the situation, and therefore lacks said reputation. Can't compete on the merits - GTFO. /rant

We're all selfish and make decisions in our best interest (our families' and close ones' interests _are_ our own) - whether or not you look at those selfish decisions as a "sin" isn't a distinction I've made or intend to.

If you have the power and opportunity to change a wrong, but do nothing, then you're as culpable as whoever caused the wrong in the first place.

In this case we're proving that a wrong occurred by attempting to get retribution for the alleged wrong - whoever is targeted (be they Rep. Dem. Lib.) is inconsequential for the general public, aside from adjusting voting patterns in the future.

Once the suit determines culpability, we can find ways to prevent the wrong from happening in the first place.

The experiment simply lacks controls - remove the booth babes from the conference all together (from all your competitors booths), and show me increased conversions relative to a typical booth babe presence.

Why do you consider this a conclusive demonstration?

Also, since I'd like to respond to it appropriately, can you expand on what you're trying to make me think about myself by calling me "Slick" - is that an insult?

They don't convert - but they do make the conference and the conversions possible. Am I the only one who enjoys being in the company of attractive people? I doubt a convention like CES (which I attended, and performed real business at) would be nearly as popular if it weren't so damned entertaining; it's popularity that ensures the audience you actually need to meet is there.

And though I thoroughly separate ambitions/intelligence/drive from appearance when I'm hiring (if you can help me make money you're in), I'm inclined to use a throwaway account so I don't get publicly chastised for PCness.