THX_1138 Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 WOW, what a nutter! I did not point to a typo. I've gone through your posts and trust me, no one makes as many grammatical and spelling blunders as you do. You're getting personal again, not surprisingly. I am missing your customary abuses :hysterical: . They scare me so! Regarding "preventive detention" not being a part of the Constitution, I asked you to read Article 22(3). Do the homework before you start pooping again! Good to see you admit though, that you were horsesh1tting in the thread before. good to see you employ a spell check and capitalize the alphabet for a change; please do point out my grammatical and spelling errors (when you do stumble across them). Heck, i ll make a few here: incorrect use of a pause, missing apostrophe and incorrect use of a colon. i am not getting personal mate, but you are entitled to your whining. finally, preventive detention is not a part of the constitution, i beg your pardon, it is not a 'section' of the constitution; it was introduced by the preventive detention act of 1950. while article 22 of the constitution; again i beg your pardon, 'section' 22 of the constitution vis a vis a citizen's rights is what i have been referring to in my previous posts when i stated that an individual might not be subject to a detention of a period exceeding 24 hours without being informed of the nature of the charges on grounds of which the detention has been initiated. furthermore, said individual must be presented before a magistrate and must be provided access to legal counsel. in your next trite response make sure to spell check and capitalize your alphabets appropriately unless you do not mind a scathing correction.
THX_1138 Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 Absolutely. Some were quoting the Constitution without ever having seen it' date=' much less open and care to read it[/color'] :hysterical: 'are' 'have cared to read it'
THX_1138 Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 So you are saying' date=' that someone is PMsing ?[/quote'] well i have never private messaged a moderator with a school boy complaint, but i have received a few reprimands (each of which i respond with an apology that i do not mean in the least bit and return to my ill behavior without a moment's delay). however, we might have a poster here (insert name) who might be 'PMS'ing...
punjabi_khota Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 well i have never private messaged a moderator with a school boy complaint, but i have received a few reprimands (each of which i respond with an apology that i do not mean in the least bit and return to my ill behavior without a moment's delay). however, we might have a poster here (insert name) who might be 'PMS'ing... Yeah, I was refering to that, but probably a different poster than you allude to.:giggle::giggle:
THX_1138 Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 Nah, I couldn't care less about typos. I do understand, however, that it gives you that opening to deflect attention from the real issue. I'll ignore it. How exactly am I whining? I proved, and you admitted, that you pooped all over this thread "quoting" a source which you have never seen. Your second paragraph makes no sense, which again, is typical of your posts. As I said, go and friggin read Article 22(3) of the constitution before you post trash. Seriously, find it and read it. Post it here for everyone else to read. Aren't you the one who said there's nothing like lawful detention? Weren't you the one lecturing others about indian constitution only to subsequently admit that you didn't know Constitution existed? Joker! nah the only thing i left a warm turd over was your grammar.
THX_1138 Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 randomly looked at some of yours and this is what i found....just fun! don't poop again :hysterical: see, now you are doing something infinitely much more productive... informing the readers that there is a unique difference between heresy and hearsay. p.s. do you not know what a reafer is?
punjabi_khota Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 Cmon guys, some one please make a hitler reference, so that we can conclude the thread is over. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
THX_1138 Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 Readers are well informed. Not sure about you. Besides, I had my fun with grammar and spellings. Coming back to the topic, did you do your homework and read the provisions of Article 22(3)? Come back if you did. PS: It's reefer. both actually...
THX_1138 Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 Cmon guys, some one please make a hitler reference, so that we can conclude the thread is over. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law hitler
fineleg Posted August 21, 2008 Author Posted August 21, 2008 1. A guy was suspected by police 2. They detained and interrogated him (violating the constitution, but lets leave that for a moment) 3. They released him since nothing bad was found. 4. A big shot company decided not to be "associated with someone interrogated by police" - does not matter the police did NOT FIND anything and they released him. 5. Due to the above decision, they run a "check and find some odds" - fire him. And folks go? Yeah, happens, eh, no big deal :dontknow: Wow!
THX_1138 Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 1. A guy was suspected by police 2. They detained and interrogated him (violating the constitution, but lets leave that for a moment) 3. They released him since nothing bad was found. 4. A big shot company decided not to be "associated with someone interrogated by police" - does not matter the police did NOT FIND anything and they released him. 5. Due to the above decision, they run a "check and find some odds" - fire him. And folks go? Yeah, happens, eh, no big deal :dontknow: Wow! to quote the joker, the above is an example of what happens "when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable wall"... we tried to argue the case of the period of prolong detention, and the argument was: hey! it is permitted thanks to an overwhelmingly arcane and oppressive law (without once mentioning the injustice of detaining an innocent man for such a long period... really? it took the police 9 whole days to determine his innocence?); then we argued that the so called misrepresentation of information on his resume can only be determined by a court of law and the argument was: hey! the organization is within its rights to run a background check on its employees (without once mentioning that this very employee had previously been employed with this institution for a prolonged period of time and not once did anyone seek to run a background check then, but rather coincidentally when he is embroiled in a national security matter, a detailed scrutiny is conducted). i am done with this debate (though not done taking a **** on sarchasm, wait till i get 'personal')... somehow if your name suggests that you might or are of the muslim persuasion, then you can expect few favors with some of the posters (which we shall refrain form labeling as the right wing nut jobs, a courtesy they are unable to extend to those who disagree with them and are labeled 'psec', as if that was somehow an insult).
fineleg Posted August 21, 2008 Author Posted August 21, 2008 Frikkin' Tendulkar stuff...now I know where suddenly all the anger and personal attacks start coming in on an Infy thread...the tendulkar comments apparently hurt some poor souls :giggle: and they still remember to attack the poster even in chit chat :haha:
fineleg Posted August 21, 2008 Author Posted August 21, 2008 to quote the joker, the above is an example of what happens "when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable wall"... we tried to argue the case of the period of prolong detention, and the argument was: hey! it is permitted thanks to an overwhelmingly arcane and oppressive law (without once mentioning the injustice of detaining an innocent man for such a long period... really? it took the police 9 whole days to determine his innocence?); then we argued that the so called misrepresentation of information on his resume can only be determined by a court of law and the argument was: hey! the organization is within its rights to run a background check on its employees (without once mentioning that this very employee had previously been employed with this institution for a prolonged period of time and not once did anyone seek to run a background check then, but rather coincidentally when he is embroiled in a national security matter, a detailed scrutiny is conducted). i am done with this debate (though not done taking a **** on sarchasm, wait till i get 'personal')... somehow if your name suggests that you might or are of the muslim persuasion, then you can expect few favors with some of the posters (which we shall refrain form labeling as the right wing nut jobs, a courtesy they are unable to extend to those who disagree with them and are labeled 'psec', as if that was somehow an insult). Meh, if someday the sons/daughters of some of them decide to fall in love with a Muslim guy/gal... Oh God Allah save them kids-in-love! :haha:
THX_1138 Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 Frikkin' Tendulkar stuff...now I know where suddenly all the anger and personal attacks start coming in on an Infy thread...the tendulkar comments apparently hurt some poor souls :giggle: and they still remember to attack the poster even in chit chat :haha: It might be that or maybe sarchasm is PMSing... Pre Menstrual Syndrome
Guest dada_rocks Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 What are we discussing again.. sala kahan se kahan pahunch jate ho tum log bhi
THX_1138 Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 Speaks the man with considerable personal experience :giggle: 'Spoken like a man'
THX_1138 Posted August 22, 2008 Posted August 22, 2008 Also, Thus spake the man :-D spoke spake is not contemporary english
Recommended Posts