Posts by nimblelynx63

rowdyraven112 said:If the conversion wasn't done, then obviously yes.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy using Reddit

We'll just have to wait and see.
If the initial loan is totally void because of these factors, then everything stemming from it is void too. If it’s null and void, the parties are supposed to return the original assets to one another...

In that scenario, I—for instance—would have already paid back the entire amount to the bank before the conversion even happened, and now I'm paying off a second loan used to close out the converted one... basically, I'd be paying back way more than what should be required if the loan were actually void.

Now, what our legal experts with actual proven expertise will come up with? That remains to be seen...

driftinggull13 said:👍 Man, even I have to give you credit on this one. 😁 If it were up to me, here is how I would handle it.
We should probably put every single PhD and degree held by people occupying high-level government positions under a microscope. And not just the ones currently in power, but everyone who retired after holding those same seats too...

Since I'm clearly being flattered right now...
you're basically... advocating for... some kind of... I can't even say it out loud...

PURGES😲

driftinggull13 said:The whole second paragraph is just wrong. Besides, he isn't some novice. A doctoral dissertation is supposed to be an original piece of work, not a patchwork of stuff written by himself or anyone else. Following your logic, I could just write 500 different papers where I recycle my own text every single time and claim it's still "my" work, essentially using one single study to climb the ladder all the way to being a tenured professor. It’s pretty obvious that the mentor shares the blame, but that doesn't change what Barišić did... I mean, the relationship between a mentor and a candidate is supposed to be built on mutual trust, isn't it? The issue here isn't just about the formal rules, which is what Pavo Barišić keeps bringing up, or that jerk on the Supreme Court who copied his entire dissertation... What rules was the mentor supposed to warn him about? Is Barišić some little kid? He's a grown man with a Master's degree under his belt and several scientific papers already published... claiming he didn't know better is like killing your neighbor and then arguing you're innocent because nobody told you murder was illegal. Why not just admit the guy was cutting corners and somehow managed to get away with it... and it's not even the first time, either. He pulled the same stunt with his scientific articles.

I’d love to take a look at the "scientific" body of work produced by professors in the humanities... I bet what you're describing wouldn't be such a rare occurrence...

dustymarlin10 said:Look, buddy, your colleague was kind enough to drop some links for you.
Enjoy digging through the "hard work" of our dear party comrade.

It’s funny how you’re always the first one jumping to defend the Criminals and their legal team.

Once you've actually read it, I'll be waiting for that apology.

I'm not sure if you're talking to me here.
But if you are, let me educate you on a couple of things:
1) She isn't some "party colleague" of mine.
2) I only defend people when they're being targeted by baseless, disproportionate witch hunts that fly in the face of common sense. In this case, there was a very specific reason for it. If a supposedly "honest" minister can just push through a predetermined agenda, then fine. But if things in her department don't improve by even a hair, come after me.

I bet you're sitting there wondering if they marked your ballot against your will, too.
See, I voted YES, so I don't have those kinds of worries or frustrations...

dustymarlin10 said:Gospodja basically admitted that back when she was sitting on that independence referendum committee, she spent the entire night marking ballots "yes" just to make sure the vote actually went through.
And there you have it—the perfect visual representation of those Hadadezh fans.
If they’re actually brave enough to go public with stuff like this without worrying about the fallout, it makes you wonder what else they're getting away with behind closed doors.

I had a screenshot of that post floating around for a bit, but I ended up deleting it.
Maybe one of the experts around here who actually knows what they're talking about can drop a link?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you absolutely positive this wasn't about the referendum for joining the European Union?
Or maybe one of those elections where Mason pulled off a win?

Stop reading Dejan Jović's articles. He pushes this kind of absolute nonsense.
With a 92% "YES" vote, it really would have taken all night to fake that much...

driftinggull13 said:🤦 so you're talking about Q1 and Q2......😁

What a pathetic ad hominem attack. ☕

driftinggull13 said:Like I said... catch me copying someone else and suddenly I'll start rambling and somehow everything is fine all of a sudden...😁

To quote a forum regular: “read, read, and just keep reading”...

But you’ve got other things to worry about: you'd rather tattoo "conservative" on your skin.
Is your forehead really more important than your forearm?

Look, it wasn't published as an identical copy; they just took that specific section from Schlesinger's text. And by the way, it was properly cited in that Spanish paper.

driftinggull13 said:So what, if they catch you red-handed and you offer a little apology, suddenly everything is fine? 😁 Did it go through peer review again or something? The paper itself is different now, and those theories everyone thought were his aren't even his anymore... It’s like if I went out and published a study using someone else's experimental data, and then once I got busted, I just said "my bad" and claimed the results weren't mine to begin with. It doesn't really work like that... 😉

Look, if it's been republished in a corrected form, it obviously passed review. Where it was first published, I have no idea... or if that initial version was even reviewed at all.

It's funny how you felt the need to lecture me on how things work, especially regarding experimental results...
I have plenty of papers in Q1 and Q2 journals to know exactly what I'm talking about.

The whole point of me dropping that link is to prove my case: Barišić didn't just quote it, he published it outright. He didn't offer an apology or anything—he just went ahead and cited it in the next edition

Check this out. This is one of those articles talking about how

From what I recall, they used this exact format for local use back when some magazine used to cite it properly...

Laura Chavez93 said:According to Article 16, Section 10, Bank of America collects what I’ll quote here: "information regarding the source of funds that are, or will become, the subject of a transaction or business relationship."
The issue, however—and this is where things get messy—is how they interpret that law. They aren't just looking at suspicious activity anymore; they are vacuuming up every single scrap of data under the guise of fighting money laundering and terrorism. It's absurd... they're targeting people like a college student receiving a few thousand dollars from their parents every month. 🙄
It isn't the bank's job, nor is it the police's job, to hunt down terrorists—nor is it the IRS's job to chase down tax evaders.

Look, every cent you have was already part of some transaction if it ever reached your hands, and it’ll be part of a business relationship once it hits your account. It doesn't mean those funds are specifically tied to doing business with Tom at Bank of America. The way this is written is just plain stupid.

Even the "famous" Reuters hasn't been signed by every single country on the planet.
And besides, this whole thing only matters to what Americans care about.
Did anyone actually bother to ask us if we want our government signing off on this?

Personally, I couldn't care less about them. If they're so obsessed, they should just hire more people for their intelligence agencies instead of having banks force data down our throats.

Linda White64 said:I'm trying to figure out what actually happens to a patient if they decide to walk out of a hospital before being officially discharged. I don't care about the specific reason—let's just say their rights aren't being respected, or the staff is being dismissive and disrespectful—but assuming they've already notified the doctors and the nursing staff, what are the real-world consequences?

What kind of consequences are we even talking about?

Chris Carter10 said:By the way, if anyone here who wrote legal articles on this topic is reading, I know a thing or two about this. Legally speaking, a donor card does make you a donor. For everyone, if the card isn't on file, they check the registry to see if they're listed as donors or if they've opted out. That's how they proceed. If there's no record either way, they ask the family, even though they aren't legally forced to.🥱🥱

I agree with you—shadownomad43 is definitely spinning this to suit her own narrative. Twelve corrective surgeries—unless we're talking cosmetic stuff—hardly qualifies as "not extending your life." You didn't just say you're against donation; you said you're against deviating from your "natural life path." Well, if you're so against it, why go under the knife for surgeries meant to keep you going? 🤔

Clearly, you were "writing articles on this topic" or maybe just "sleeping through class"—no wonder you're yawning.
There isn't even a donor registry in America.
If you want to opt out of being an organ donor, you just get a code from your family doctor. They send that info straight to the Department, and that’s how they keep track of everyone who says "no thanks" to being a donor. That's basically how the registry works—it's specifically for those who DON'T want to be donors.
A donor card carries absolutely zero legal weight here in the States. Period.

Just so we're clear, that donor card doesn't actually carry any legal weight. It was basically just a marketing gimmick from back when they were trying to drum up awareness about organ donation.

In the US, organ donation is governed by the principle of presumed consent. This means you AREN'T officially a donor unless you’ve specifically filed that declaration with your primary care physician.
Before those grief counselors start talking—and honestly, it's because of people like them—doctors who identify potential donors and manage the pre-transplant process NEVER register anyone without sitting down with the family and getting their explicit consent.
So, sure, it's great that you signed the card, but it’s way more important to actually talk to your family and make sure they know exactly what your wishes are.
If anyone here thinks they "heard" or "know" of someone in America having their organs harvested without family permission, feel free to reach out—DM me if you want—and I will gladly help you report that to the proper authorities.

One question for shadownomad43 (respecting your religious and personal views here): during any of your 12 surgeries, or in the recovery periods afterward, did you ever receive blood or blood products? I ask because a transfusion is essentially a form of transplantation in the broader sense.
And thankfully, in the US, awareness regarding transplants has finally started to boost interest in the importance of voluntary blood donation.

Susan Smith said:Hey there,

I'm trying to wrap my head around how someone actually gets on the liver transplant list here in the US. Is there an actual official protocol for this? I assume doctors from smaller regional hospitals just send referrals over to the major centers in Washington, D.C.? Or do you seriously have to be Bob Dylan to get priority for a liver? Specifically, we're looking at a 53-year-old woman with zero connections, no influence, nothing... What kind of chances are we actually looking at? 😢

Pretty good.
I'd guess the gastroenterologists working directly at the transplant center handle the listings.
Word is the wait time is about 6 weeks.

Why on earth would I bother installing an ad blocker just because someone was too lazy to fix a blatant error?
If they want to mess up, let them deal with the consequences.