USPTO Fees are changing at the end of the month. PCT Fees are changing on October 1, 2020; US National fees are changing on October 2, 2020. In general, the fees are going up, not down. Beat the fees – file by September 30, 2020.
>>US National fees are changing on October 2, 2020. In general, the fees are going up, not down. Beat the fees – file by September 30, 2020.<<
If the fees are changing on October 2, 2020, shouldn't it be "Beat the fees — file by October 2, 2020"?
4.1
Shouldn’t it be “Beat the fees—file before October 2”?
3
Not a single comment about the fees.
3.1
Well, in all fairness Randall, the engagement here only has two (now three with yours) sub-threads, and the major one is somewhat of a big deal.
3.2
Happy to oblige: not only is it good that fees are going up, but they probably should be higher. The USPTO should aim to set fees at the revenue-maximizing point, and then plough the extra revenues into hiring more examiners so that each application can receive more hours of search and examination time. The higher fees will have the added benefit of discouraging some of the lower quality applications from even being filed in the first place, thus raising the overall quality of both applications and grants.
3.2.1
… spoken like a typical Pharma mouthpiece who has no trouble making the system be a Sport of Kings
2
OT, but it is good news for patent law that Ginsburg will be replaced. She understood nothing about technology, science, or business and yet believed that she should create the rules for patents.
It is great news for patents that she will no longer be able to shape patent law.
2.1
But it is bad news for the country. Nomatter the elections outcome, it would’ve been far better for Ginsberg to have died January 21st.
2.1.1
Let’s not jump the gun there Ben and presume (A SSume?) that Republicans will reverse their Obama-era position.
2.1.1.1
I wasn’t presuming any outcome. I think the situation itself is bad news.
The least divisive scenario I can imagine is where the current senate declines to consider a nomination during the current term, and in the next term the Senate majority’s party matches the president’s party. And even in that case the loosing side is likely to have a substantial fraction who are bitter about what happened. There would’ve been less of those feelings if she had died March 2021. And there are a few dozen ways it could be worse than that best case scenario!
Though if you want to talk about actual outcomes, it would not be a groundless assumption to think that the nomination will be handled during the current presidential term.
McConnell:
“President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”
Of course, McConnell would not characterize this as a reversal of his previous position.
2.1.1.1.1
Yes we should wait until after the election.
It just isn’t right to be nominating and appointing a justice as Trump intends particularly as the Rs refused to consider Obama’s nomination.
Frankly, I past tired of the Rs and the Ds.
2.1.1.1.1.1
I don’t think he should wait. The sooner the better. It would be better for the country if it were NOT a campaign issue. And I could give 2 cents about flipping Roe and Casey.
2.1.1.1.1.1.1
Well, as much as I wanted Ben to not be jumping the gun, his link and concurrent comments make it such that not only was he not jumping the gun, but that Trump is welcoming this AS an election issue.
This puts a substantive BITE into the political issues that ‘Basement Joe’ has been hiding from, and switches the discussion from personal foibles to longer term actual political stances.
I don’t see how this could be anything other than a campaign issue — and an important one at that.
2.1.1.1.1.1.2
+1
2.1.1.1.2
thanks for the link, Ben.
There is some pretty hefty spin there:
“In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.
By contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise.
President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”
Note that he provides an actual contrasting counter point to what happened in 2106.
Do you think that that counter point is going to be recognized?
2.1.1.1.2.1
Compellingly persuasive, as always. We’re still waiting for your persuasive response to
…
July 16, 2020 at 7:59 pm in 65 thoughts on ““The technology involved in this appeal is simple” and Allows Common Sense to Substitute for Elements Not in the Prior Art”
Oops. You missed one.
2.1.1.1.2.1.1
And how many have you missed, my Shifty friend?
2.1.1.1.2.1.2
Plus (as usual), your ACME plans are not working here, as it is unclear exactly what you feel should be “compellingly persuasive” about a post that thanks another for a link and asks a question about the content in that link.
Your own obsess10n is on display here Shifty. Do you want to remind the readers just what the results of that ‘crawl’ I mention at 2.1.3.1.2.1.1 were?
2.1.1.1.2.1.3
… and I have to chuckle at you and your “We’re still waiting”
Who exactly is this “we”…?
As of today, the threads as near in time as August 6 are closed to comments. Whoever this “we” is (in your mind), you are going to wait for a very long time.
You don’t get how this whole blogging thing works, do you?
2.1.1.1.2.1.4
3 attempts. How many more?
…
That same question applies to you (as does your ‘favorite’ meme/tell of Ding Ding Ding).
But you don’t seem very comfortable ever actually addressing questions put to you, my pal Shifty.
It is, of course, easy to see why.
…
Anon, you’re a d*ck, and a coward to boot.
…
Randall,
You are of course welcome to your feelings and opinions.
But if you want to speak in a vacuum and complete absence of past dialogues, you are also welcome to be wrong in the basis for those feelings and opinions.
…
Anon, at least I post under my real name. Why don’t you?
…
Y
A
W
N
Is that ALL that you have? – the “I use my real name” canard?
Seriously?
Maybe inform yourself as to the long and hallowed tradition of anonymous and pseudonymous use.
…
Anon? From what we have learned thus far, anon does not use his real name because he is not a U.S. attorney but hopes to be one someday. He still has trouble with the U.S. idioms. But he takes pride in being an Internet tough guy who can strut while sitting down. He has nothing of substance to add to any conversation and knows that everybody knows it. He is usually ignored. But he has a multitude of tells when he has nothing of substance to say. And now he will come with the tells.
…
The best “tell” from my Shifty friend is Shifty’s unwillingness to apply his own analysis to his own posts and answer simple questions put to him.
Hey Shifty, why don’t you answer our new sensitive friend Randall’s concern with “use your real name” and explain why YOU do not use your real name?
…
Oh. Did we tell you Snowflake tries to emulate the feckless U.S. lawyer thing about having the “last shot,” regardless of how devoid of substance? He seems to think it will get him into a real U.S. law school. Yes, we know, sad.
And he will not be able to help it with the tells. Yes, we know, sad.
Most just ignore him.
…
My pal Shifty,
The anvil strikes you in the head again, as not only do you not take up the question put to you, you make a noise that you personally cannot follow through on.
As I have already noted (below at 2.1.3.1.2.1.1.), you have an 0bsess10n and an inability to ign0re me.
As to the now extremely stale ‘tells’ meme of yours, what do YOUR tells tell of you?
Oh, that’s right, you ‘don’t do’ answers, do you?
As to ‘last shot,’ I have previously corrected you on this ‘tell/meme’ of yours: it is not merely ‘last shot,’ but is instead ‘last AND BEST shot.’
You should try paying attention to more than merely “oh, anon has posted.”
Will you actually be helping our new sensitive friend with his quandary of ‘posting with a real name?’
…
Did we mention about the strutting while sitting down? It’s so cute.
Most just ignore him.
…
What is your own tell/meme telling of you?
It is telling that you appear unable to answer the points put to you, and unwilling to help our new fragile friend understand postings done without using one’s real name.
Instead, you provide the same dross that you have always provided.
How has that worked out for you?
(are you still trying to pretend that your posts on this thread are actually TO Randall, whether then replies TO me? Are you unable to even acknowledge your 0bsess10n with me?)
Those, of course, are rhetorical questions, as we both know the answers, as has been confirmed by the hard data of the past crawl of the blog.
…
Did we mention about the strutting while sitting down? It’s so cute.
Most just ignore him.
…
Straight up repeats now?
Y
A
W
N
…
anon, you should see a doctor about all that yawning you’re doing. Could be a serious medical condition.
…
Reminds us of the time (not long ago) Snowflake got so confused he called himself a liar.
…
nym theft now?
That’s beyond sad.
…
nym. New York Mets? Snowflake is so inscrutable. (and so confused)
…
Yet another anvil to your noggin as neither is ‘nym’ inscrutable, nor am I confused.
You yourself are merely confused in the regards that your lack of understanding does not set the bar as to blog discussions.
Clearly (given the immediate context), ‘nym’ theft has to do with the evidently false misappropriation of my pseudonym.
That my particular pseudonym happens to reflect anonymity is but a clever design choice.
And just as clearly, as many other things do, this just sails over your head.
But you should realize that your projections directly stemming from your own limitations simply do not set the standard for any type of dialogue on these boards.
You just don’t grasp how this blogging thing works, do you?
(That’s a rhetorical question, by the way — you don’t have to answer that one, and I would prefer that you at least attempt to answer the many other questions already put to you)
…
Straight up repeats now?
Y
A
W
N
…
Ah, flattery.
…
Most people don’t know what a nematode is.
…
I see that your nightly beddi-bedtime post has gone on a familiar tangent.
How has that ever worked out for you?
Wouldn’t you rather help out our new fragile friend?
…
We don’t remember your “nematode” tangent, Snowflake. Cite?
But it works out for us every time.
…
You are projecting again, Mr. Wile E.
Nighty-night
…
Ding Ding Ding!!! Something about a coyote.
You just won me 20 bucks!!! The boy just can’t help it with the tells !!!!
…
So yet again, what does your own tells/memes tell about you…?
…
… and by the way, I get five bucks for every time that I ask you a question and you fail to give an on point answer.
I am WAY ahead of you.
Why are you not helpful out our new fragile friend to understand anonymous and pseudonymous posting in contrast to the “I Use My Real Name” view that he has?
(and yes, that question is another chance for me to get five MORE bucks)
…
Two more questions (and potentially ten more bucks for me today):
Should I commission a supplementary crawl of the comments to this blog?
What kind of stats do you think would come of evaluating the difference between you and I when it comes to providing on point answers to questions asked?
…
3 attempts. How many more?
…
It is unclear what you mean by “attempts.”
These are questions which have just earned me five bucks a pop.
Are you going to try to actually be on point and answer the questions put to you?
…
By the way, the different character showing up (along with the delay of actually processing your post) indicates that you may have “f@tfingered” your email entry.
Perhaps you should not be in such a hurry to post your nonsense.
…
Nobody knows what it is you think you’re trying to say, Snowflake.
…
Ah, your old fall back to the tell/meme of you assuming to speak for others while also projecting your own lack of understanding as if I were the one fumbling about, when it is you that is doing so….
What does this tell about you?
Why are you not answering questions put directly to you?
Why are you not helping our new sensitive friend understand posting on a blog with pseudonymous and anonymous names rather than real names?
Are you tired yet of my making five bucks a pop at questions that you do not provide on point answers to?
…
They told us Snowflake would say that. We did not believe them.
…
Who exactly is this “they?”
Who exactly is this “we?”
What does this “tell” of yours to post in such a manner tell about you?
Do you enjoy earning me five bucks a pop with your ‘nighty-night’ inanities?
…
Can you expound?
L
…
Can you answer?
…
yes
…
Then do so – the onus remains on you.
…
Subway has some new sandwiches.
…
Part I: my friend and the put it to a third party, and I has been decided that your answer of “yes” with nothing more, does earn my five bucks. Your answers must be both substantive and cogent to count.
Part II: complete non-sequiturs (as in your “Subway” comment) earn me ten bucks a pop. They show that you are flailing in the exchange.
…
Let’s correct that first paragraph and autocorrect running rampant…
Part I: my friend and I put it to a third party, and it has been decided that your answer of “yes” with nothing more, does earn me five bucks. Your answers must be both substantive and cogent to count.
…
Snowflake is so inscrutable. It’s his thang.
…
What does “inscrutable” mean to you?
Why would you think it applies here?
Do you realize that you are projecting your own lack of understanding as if your lack is someone else’s problem?
Again?
(ka-ching)
…
Snowflake tries the inscrutable thang. When that doesn’t work out for him he falls back on the old reliable clueless act. act(?).
…
Your attempted projection of cluelessness is deliciously ironic.
That’s not a good thing for you.
…
+1
…
I’m, sure.
Ok
…
+ 3.14159
…
… the tell/meme of your posting completely unrelated material merely to have a post in the back and forth of our dialogues earns me 20 bucks a pop (bumped up from 10, given that the thread has moved to page 2, and it shows that you are spending more effort being more meaningless).
Keep that money flow to me going, my pal!
…
Yo quero Taco Bell .
…
Another twenty – thank you.
In all of your obsessive posts to me, has this tactic of yours ever worked for you?
Ever?
Hint: the two letter answer starts with “n” and ends with “o.”
…
Off the top of my head, the time we demonstrated that your understanding of the law of the doctrine of equivalents was based on an error in Wikipedia. And the time we queried you to the extent that your own designated expert concluded that you are an incredibly sloppy reader, writer, and thinker. And the time you became so befuddled you called a statement of yours, read back to you verbatim, an “outright lie.” We’ll check the notes for a few other examples.
…
If you had meant “off with my head,” I would have probably agreed with you.
For all else in your last comment, you are in clear error.
You are quite mistaken in what you think to be your ‘victories.’ You celebrate the wrong things, my pal Shifty.
“Off the top of my head, the time we demonstrated that your understanding of the law of the doctrine of equivalents was based on an error in Wikipedia.”
This affected ‘we’ of yours as a tell/meme… What does that tell about you?
Also, you (singular or plural) never demonstrated any such error of understanding, because I have never provide any such error.
You are mistaking your OWN error when it comes to Wikipedia, because this “DOE” reference was your own attempt at covering up when I lambasted you on the Wikipedia use that I DID use in regards to the Nobel Prize – and to which I provided a confirming direct link substantiating the point that I used from Wikipedia.
Like a puppy who shat in the wrong area, your nose was rubbed in your own feces. All you did was make up entirely this notion of DOE and Wikipedia and falsely accused me of this nebulous thing in an attempt to put salve on your wounds.
Just more salt for you instead of salve.
“And the time we queried you to the extent that your own designated expert concluded that you are an incredibly sloppy reader, writer, and thinker. ”
LOL – you want to claim that as some type of victory? Too funny. My expert ON A TOPIC is an expert on a topic – he is most definitely NOT an expert on battling on a blog, and he carries a sore spot because I actually showed him up on a different topic that he wanted to hold himself out as an expert on – but is not (the notion that criminal law was the only place that Void for Vagueness has application). I showed that he was expressly wrong and rubbed his nose in it. After that, he simply held a grudge. That grudge makes him no less the expert for the item that I give him credit for, but just because I give him credit in one area, his feelings and opinions on other things do NOT escalate somehow up to ‘expert’ status.
That you somehow think this to be AND want to claim this as one of your victories only confirms my point that you are clueless as to how this blogging thing works. You make my point for me.
More salt for you.
“And the time you became so befuddled you called a statement of yours, read back to you verbatim, an “outright
l
i
e.”” (interesting artifact of editorial control – a direct cut and paste still nabs a George Carlin filter for me)
again, never happened. You tried to claim this and I directly refuted your games as I indicated the context of the comments and that your own attempts at double spin were the outright lie (not my own comments).
Three swings – three strikes.
That ‘plural’ you need to get better notes.
…
Nobody is fooled, Snowflake. We can smell the flop sweat when you panic and pound the table and make stuff up.
…
You are projecting again.
Nothing made up at all in my response.
Everything I said is perfectly accurate.
So what’s your next tell/meme?
…
Ever try self-awareness, Snowflake?
…
Coming from perhaps the least self-aware (and yet continues to refer to himself in the plural) person to ever post on this blog, your question rises to the heights of hypocrisy and attempted projection of your own inadequacies.
It’s an odd combination with your evidenced obsess10n with me.
By the way, you have already ployed this “self-awareness” meme/tell.
When I asked ‘next,’ I was hoping for at least something different.
>>US National fees are changing on October 2, 2020. In general, the fees are going up, not down. Beat the fees – file by September 30, 2020.<<
If the fees are changing on October 2, 2020, shouldn't it be "Beat the fees — file by October 2, 2020"?
Shouldn’t it be “Beat the fees—file before October 2”?
Not a single comment about the fees.
Well, in all fairness Randall, the engagement here only has two (now three with yours) sub-threads, and the major one is somewhat of a big deal.
Happy to oblige: not only is it good that fees are going up, but they probably should be higher. The USPTO should aim to set fees at the revenue-maximizing point, and then plough the extra revenues into hiring more examiners so that each application can receive more hours of search and examination time. The higher fees will have the added benefit of discouraging some of the lower quality applications from even being filed in the first place, thus raising the overall quality of both applications and grants.
… spoken like a typical Pharma mouthpiece who has no trouble making the system be a Sport of Kings
OT, but it is good news for patent law that Ginsburg will be replaced. She understood nothing about technology, science, or business and yet believed that she should create the rules for patents.
It is great news for patents that she will no longer be able to shape patent law.
But it is bad news for the country. Nomatter the elections outcome, it would’ve been far better for Ginsberg to have died January 21st.
Let’s not jump the gun there Ben and presume (A SSume?) that Republicans will reverse their Obama-era position.
I wasn’t presuming any outcome. I think the situation itself is bad news.
The least divisive scenario I can imagine is where the current senate declines to consider a nomination during the current term, and in the next term the Senate majority’s party matches the president’s party. And even in that case the loosing side is likely to have a substantial fraction who are bitter about what happened. There would’ve been less of those feelings if she had died March 2021. And there are a few dozen ways it could be worse than that best case scenario!
Though if you want to talk about actual outcomes, it would not be a groundless assumption to think that the nomination will be handled during the current presidential term.
McConnell:
“President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”
link to republicanleader.senate.gov
Of course, McConnell would not characterize this as a reversal of his previous position.
Yes we should wait until after the election.
It just isn’t right to be nominating and appointing a justice as Trump intends particularly as the Rs refused to consider Obama’s nomination.
Frankly, I past tired of the Rs and the Ds.
I don’t think he should wait. The sooner the better. It would be better for the country if it were NOT a campaign issue. And I could give 2 cents about flipping Roe and Casey.
Well, as much as I wanted Ben to not be jumping the gun, his link and concurrent comments make it such that not only was he not jumping the gun, but that Trump is welcoming this AS an election issue.
This puts a substantive BITE into the political issues that ‘Basement Joe’ has been hiding from, and switches the discussion from personal foibles to longer term actual political stances.
I don’t see how this could be anything other than a campaign issue — and an important one at that.
+1
thanks for the link, Ben.
There is some pretty hefty spin there:
“In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.
By contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise.
President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”
Note that he provides an actual contrasting counter point to what happened in 2106.
Do you think that that counter point is going to be recognized?
Compellingly persuasive, as always. We’re still waiting for your persuasive response to
…
July 16, 2020 at 7:59 pm in 65 thoughts on ““The technology involved in this appeal is simple” and Allows Common Sense to Substitute for Elements Not in the Prior Art”
Oops. You missed one.
And how many have you missed, my Shifty friend?
Plus (as usual), your ACME plans are not working here, as it is unclear exactly what you feel should be “compellingly persuasive” about a post that thanks another for a link and asks a question about the content in that link.
Your own obsess10n is on display here Shifty. Do you want to remind the readers just what the results of that ‘crawl’ I mention at 2.1.3.1.2.1.1 were?
… and I have to chuckle at you and your “We’re still waiting”
Who exactly is this “we”…?
As of today, the threads as near in time as August 6 are closed to comments. Whoever this “we” is (in your mind), you are going to wait for a very long time.
You don’t get how this whole blogging thing works, do you?
3 attempts. How many more?
That same question applies to you (as does your ‘favorite’ meme/tell of Ding Ding Ding).
But you don’t seem very comfortable ever actually addressing questions put to you, my pal Shifty.
It is, of course, easy to see why.
Anon, you’re a d*ck, and a coward to boot.
Randall,
You are of course welcome to your feelings and opinions.
But if you want to speak in a vacuum and complete absence of past dialogues, you are also welcome to be wrong in the basis for those feelings and opinions.
Anon, at least I post under my real name. Why don’t you?
Y
A
W
N
Is that ALL that you have? – the “I use my real name” canard?
Seriously?
Maybe inform yourself as to the long and hallowed tradition of anonymous and pseudonymous use.
Anon? From what we have learned thus far, anon does not use his real name because he is not a U.S. attorney but hopes to be one someday. He still has trouble with the U.S. idioms. But he takes pride in being an Internet tough guy who can strut while sitting down. He has nothing of substance to add to any conversation and knows that everybody knows it. He is usually ignored. But he has a multitude of tells when he has nothing of substance to say. And now he will come with the tells.
The best “tell” from my Shifty friend is Shifty’s unwillingness to apply his own analysis to his own posts and answer simple questions put to him.
Hey Shifty, why don’t you answer our new sensitive friend Randall’s concern with “use your real name” and explain why YOU do not use your real name?
Oh. Did we tell you Snowflake tries to emulate the feckless U.S. lawyer thing about having the “last shot,” regardless of how devoid of substance? He seems to think it will get him into a real U.S. law school. Yes, we know, sad.
And he will not be able to help it with the tells. Yes, we know, sad.
Most just ignore him.
My pal Shifty,
The anvil strikes you in the head again, as not only do you not take up the question put to you, you make a noise that you personally cannot follow through on.
As I have already noted (below at 2.1.3.1.2.1.1.), you have an 0bsess10n and an inability to ign0re me.
As to the now extremely stale ‘tells’ meme of yours, what do YOUR tells tell of you?
Oh, that’s right, you ‘don’t do’ answers, do you?
As to ‘last shot,’ I have previously corrected you on this ‘tell/meme’ of yours: it is not merely ‘last shot,’ but is instead ‘last AND BEST shot.’
You should try paying attention to more than merely “oh, anon has posted.”
Will you actually be helping our new sensitive friend with his quandary of ‘posting with a real name?’
Did we mention about the strutting while sitting down? It’s so cute.
Most just ignore him.
What is your own tell/meme telling of you?
It is telling that you appear unable to answer the points put to you, and unwilling to help our new fragile friend understand postings done without using one’s real name.
Instead, you provide the same dross that you have always provided.
How has that worked out for you?
(are you still trying to pretend that your posts on this thread are actually TO Randall, whether then replies TO me? Are you unable to even acknowledge your 0bsess10n with me?)
Those, of course, are rhetorical questions, as we both know the answers, as has been confirmed by the hard data of the past crawl of the blog.
Did we mention about the strutting while sitting down? It’s so cute.
Most just ignore him.
Straight up repeats now?
Y
A
W
N
anon, you should see a doctor about all that yawning you’re doing. Could be a serious medical condition.
Reminds us of the time (not long ago) Snowflake got so confused he called himself a liar.
nym theft now?
That’s beyond sad.
nym. New York Mets? Snowflake is so inscrutable. (and so confused)
Yet another anvil to your noggin as neither is ‘nym’ inscrutable, nor am I confused.
You yourself are merely confused in the regards that your lack of understanding does not set the bar as to blog discussions.
Clearly (given the immediate context), ‘nym’ theft has to do with the evidently false misappropriation of my pseudonym.
That my particular pseudonym happens to reflect anonymity is but a clever design choice.
And just as clearly, as many other things do, this just sails over your head.
But you should realize that your projections directly stemming from your own limitations simply do not set the standard for any type of dialogue on these boards.
You just don’t grasp how this blogging thing works, do you?
(That’s a rhetorical question, by the way — you don’t have to answer that one, and I would prefer that you at least attempt to answer the many other questions already put to you)
Straight up repeats now?
Y
A
W
N
Ah, flattery.
Most people don’t know what a nematode is.
I see that your nightly beddi-bedtime post has gone on a familiar tangent.
How has that ever worked out for you?
Wouldn’t you rather help out our new fragile friend?
We don’t remember your “nematode” tangent, Snowflake. Cite?
But it works out for us every time.
You are projecting again, Mr. Wile E.
Nighty-night
Ding Ding Ding!!! Something about a coyote.
You just won me 20 bucks!!! The boy just can’t help it with the tells !!!!
So yet again, what does your own tells/memes tell about you…?
… and by the way, I get five bucks for every time that I ask you a question and you fail to give an on point answer.
I am WAY ahead of you.
Why are you not helpful out our new fragile friend to understand anonymous and pseudonymous posting in contrast to the “I Use My Real Name” view that he has?
(and yes, that question is another chance for me to get five MORE bucks)
Two more questions (and potentially ten more bucks for me today):
Should I commission a supplementary crawl of the comments to this blog?
What kind of stats do you think would come of evaluating the difference between you and I when it comes to providing on point answers to questions asked?
3 attempts. How many more?
It is unclear what you mean by “attempts.”
These are questions which have just earned me five bucks a pop.
Are you going to try to actually be on point and answer the questions put to you?
By the way, the different character showing up (along with the delay of actually processing your post) indicates that you may have “f@tfingered” your email entry.
Perhaps you should not be in such a hurry to post your nonsense.
Nobody knows what it is you think you’re trying to say, Snowflake.
Ah, your old fall back to the tell/meme of you assuming to speak for others while also projecting your own lack of understanding as if I were the one fumbling about, when it is you that is doing so….
What does this tell about you?
Why are you not answering questions put directly to you?
Why are you not helping our new sensitive friend understand posting on a blog with pseudonymous and anonymous names rather than real names?
Are you tired yet of my making five bucks a pop at questions that you do not provide on point answers to?
They told us Snowflake would say that. We did not believe them.
Who exactly is this “they?”
Who exactly is this “we?”
What does this “tell” of yours to post in such a manner tell about you?
Do you enjoy earning me five bucks a pop with your ‘nighty-night’ inanities?
Can you expound?
L
Can you answer?
yes
Then do so – the onus remains on you.
Subway has some new sandwiches.
Part I: my friend and the put it to a third party, and I has been decided that your answer of “yes” with nothing more, does earn my five bucks. Your answers must be both substantive and cogent to count.
Part II: complete non-sequiturs (as in your “Subway” comment) earn me ten bucks a pop. They show that you are flailing in the exchange.
Let’s correct that first paragraph and autocorrect running rampant…
Part I: my friend and I put it to a third party, and it has been decided that your answer of “yes” with nothing more, does earn me five bucks. Your answers must be both substantive and cogent to count.
Snowflake is so inscrutable. It’s his thang.
What does “inscrutable” mean to you?
Why would you think it applies here?
Do you realize that you are projecting your own lack of understanding as if your lack is someone else’s problem?
Again?
(ka-ching)
Snowflake tries the inscrutable thang. When that doesn’t work out for him he falls back on the old reliable clueless act. act(?).
Your attempted projection of cluelessness is deliciously ironic.
That’s not a good thing for you.
+1
I’m, sure.
Ok
+ 3.14159
… the tell/meme of your posting completely unrelated material merely to have a post in the back and forth of our dialogues earns me 20 bucks a pop (bumped up from 10, given that the thread has moved to page 2, and it shows that you are spending more effort being more meaningless).
Keep that money flow to me going, my pal!
Yo quero Taco Bell .
Another twenty – thank you.
In all of your obsessive posts to me, has this tactic of yours ever worked for you?
Ever?
Hint: the two letter answer starts with “n” and ends with “o.”
Off the top of my head, the time we demonstrated that your understanding of the law of the doctrine of equivalents was based on an error in Wikipedia. And the time we queried you to the extent that your own designated expert concluded that you are an incredibly sloppy reader, writer, and thinker. And the time you became so befuddled you called a statement of yours, read back to you verbatim, an “outright lie.” We’ll check the notes for a few other examples.
If you had meant “off with my head,” I would have probably agreed with you.
For all else in your last comment, you are in clear error.
You are quite mistaken in what you think to be your ‘victories.’ You celebrate the wrong things, my pal Shifty.
“Off the top of my head, the time we demonstrated that your understanding of the law of the doctrine of equivalents was based on an error in Wikipedia.”
This affected ‘we’ of yours as a tell/meme… What does that tell about you?
Also, you (singular or plural) never demonstrated any such error of understanding, because I have never provide any such error.
You are mistaking your OWN error when it comes to Wikipedia, because this “DOE” reference was your own attempt at covering up when I lambasted you on the Wikipedia use that I DID use in regards to the Nobel Prize – and to which I provided a confirming direct link substantiating the point that I used from Wikipedia.
Like a puppy who shat in the wrong area, your nose was rubbed in your own feces. All you did was make up entirely this notion of DOE and Wikipedia and falsely accused me of this nebulous thing in an attempt to put salve on your wounds.
Just more salt for you instead of salve.
“And the time we queried you to the extent that your own designated expert concluded that you are an incredibly sloppy reader, writer, and thinker. ”
LOL – you want to claim that as some type of victory? Too funny. My expert ON A TOPIC is an expert on a topic – he is most definitely NOT an expert on battling on a blog, and he carries a sore spot because I actually showed him up on a different topic that he wanted to hold himself out as an expert on – but is not (the notion that criminal law was the only place that Void for Vagueness has application). I showed that he was expressly wrong and rubbed his nose in it. After that, he simply held a grudge. That grudge makes him no less the expert for the item that I give him credit for, but just because I give him credit in one area, his feelings and opinions on other things do NOT escalate somehow up to ‘expert’ status.
That you somehow think this to be AND want to claim this as one of your victories only confirms my point that you are clueless as to how this blogging thing works. You make my point for me.
More salt for you.
“And the time you became so befuddled you called a statement of yours, read back to you verbatim, an “outright
l
i
e.”” (interesting artifact of editorial control – a direct cut and paste still nabs a George Carlin filter for me)
again, never happened. You tried to claim this and I directly refuted your games as I indicated the context of the comments and that your own attempts at double spin were the outright lie (not my own comments).
Three swings – three strikes.
That ‘plural’ you need to get better notes.
Nobody is fooled, Snowflake. We can smell the flop sweat when you panic and pound the table and make stuff up.
You are projecting again.
Nothing made up at all in my response.
Everything I said is perfectly accurate.
So what’s your next tell/meme?
Ever try self-awareness, Snowflake?
Coming from perhaps the least self-aware (and yet continues to refer to himself in the plural) person to ever post on this blog, your question rises to the heights of hypocrisy and attempted projection of your own inadequacies.
It’s an odd combination with your evidenced obsess10n with me.
By the way, you have already ployed this “self-awareness” meme/tell.
When I asked ‘next,’ I was hoping for at least something different.