Incorrect. Toaster ovens are the best way to reheat individual slices of leftover pizza, and are worth their value for that function alone. 
You wrote a post for the entire purpose of castigating someone for a spelling error. In the key part of that post, you made an exactly comparable spelling “error” yourself. Ask Gaudere to explain her Law to you sometime, schmuck.
You’re being castigated for (a) posting something utterly inconsequential, (b) flaming about someone else doing it while doing it yourself, (c) diverting the thread from the topic, and (d) once again looking like an fool. You dug yourself in much deeper than that by castigating someone else for ignoring what you yourself had posted instead of clicking on a link in a post that was already obviously foolish.
Does a light bulb begin to glow in the distance somewhere for you now, however dimly?
Exactly. He opened this thread to point out DeLay’s stupidity and invite commentary. That *might * have been apparent to you if you’d taken the trouble to actually read the thing you’re bitching about, before flaming anyone else for the same sin. Go sit on the same dunce’s stool as Unc - maybe you could sit on his lap; he might like it.
It’s quite notable, btw, that not even the most reflexive loyalist Republicans here are willing to actually discuss the conduct of their own House Majority Leader, isn’t it? The honest thing for them would be to say so, but one of the dishonest things they can do instead is the traditional diversion approach we see illustrated with such great frequency. Can’t any of you people step up with anything more respectable than the Chewbacca Defense? Anybody?
No, obviously not. Now go consider the implications of that.
Gotta second this, although I’d say “worth their cost”.
I’d say that too, if I wasn’t fond of meaningless statements that don’t mean anything. 
Good semantic catch…
ElvisL1ves is a mindreader, too. You are even more amazed now and somewhat jealous that you’re too stupid to use inductive reasoning.
The idea of judges NOT using the Internet is to me completely absurd. I can’t imagine a legal professional not taking advantage of Westlaw, Lexis, PACER, RACER, etc., in their work. Westlaw and Lexis have greatly streamlined legal research and I cannot imagine any reasonable objection to their use. God, what what DeLay think if he knew some court systems have gone electronic-only for all their filing?
Not always, though I’ve seen it, but leaving them off can be as much to save space as it is to clarify that it is a paraphrase.
Sez the man who’s contributed nothing but ad hominems to the thread.
Yup. But the current to power that bulb ain’t comin’ from your power plant. It’s been mothballed.
Actually, I’m even more amazed that you idiots keep referring to me as a Republican. I’ve never voted for a Republican above the level of state politics in my life. I also personally happen to think that Mr. DeLay is a moron. My entire contribution to this thread has been limited to pointing out ElvisL1ves’ typical posting style. He still hasn’t answered my request for a cite. One cite would blow me right out of the water. Too bad he doesn’t have one, and neither do you. That’s probably why you’re playing mindreader-you have no facts to support your accusation, so you’re doing your level best to fling enough bullshit to hide that lack of substance. Talk about a “Chewbacca Defense”!
Daniel
If you read post 144 of this thread, it may turn out that the operative phrase is not “the internet”, but “does his own research”. What we really need is one of our resident lawyers to weigh in on this.
Can someone conjure up minty, **bricker **or dewey?
Look at what you’re alleging here. You are alleging that LHD either a) intentionally violated the forum descriptions for some purpose or b) is so fucking stupid that after almost 6 years on this board he still hasn’t figured out that the Pit is for flames. I, on the other hand, allege that he does in fact know what the Pit is for and that he attempted to use it properly and merely came up short because he didn’t find out what he was really Pitting first. So why is he mad at me instead of you? I guess I’ll consider the possibility that you’re right – LHD, any thoughts? Did you or did you not ignore the forum descriptions and/or retain a 6-year ignorance of them?
I did say that the comment may very well be Pit-worthy. However, I want to reserve comment until I understand what the heck he meant by it. If on Rush today he says that Justice Kennedy ought to be reading his lawbooks in hard copy or having his clerks do his LEXUS searches for him instead of doing them himself I’ll happily admit his comment was stupid. And if that comes to pass, I will still happily and correctly maintain that someone who Pitted the comment prior to knowing what it was about is an idiot. Not as much an idiot as those who rush to defend it, but still.
Here’s a Primer on Inductive Reasoning for your edification. I’ll borrow from their example
Observation: Delay once again says something stupid and someone starts a Pit thread
Observation: manhattan does not offer a defense of DeLay’s statments; but instead comments on perceived failings in the OP.
Prior experience: manhattan repeatedly posts in a manner that deflects attention from the content/object of the OP to the substance of the OP.l
Conclusion: manhattan intentionally seeks to divert attention as a defensive mechanism since an objective defense is impossible.
I submit the conclusion is sound. Would you like to provide another possible conclusion?
I will try this once more, on the hope that you can wipe the spittle from your chin, sit down, shut up, and pay attention this time. However, I find that my previous explanation adequately covers all your questions, so I’ll just quote it.
In case it’s not clear, the answer to your questions is “no.”
AS DID I. However, I didn’t want to start two threads about it: I just wanted to start one. Therefore I started it in the Pit, so that, if it turned out to be as pitworthy as it initially appeared, I could flame the bastard in the thread I’d already started.
If you don’t like how I used the forum, feel free to issue me an official warning. Oh, wait! You’re not a mod any more–how about that? So why not use the report function instead, instead of junior modding your little keister off?
Daniel
Because, and I’ll say this a little bigger so you don’t miss it, I don’t think you violated the rules. Elvis thinks you violated the rules. I merely think you’re an idiot. There is a forum right here on this very message board where you could have asked factually what DeLay was talking about and not been flamed or even argued with (except as to the factual content of the statement). After learning what it is you want to argue, there’s another forum in which you could have argued about it without being broadly insulted. You know both these things. But you decided on doing it here, and now you’re all whiny because you’re getting an old-school flaming in the fucking BBQ Pit! That doesn’t make you a rulebreaker, it makes you an idiot. “I didn’t want to start two threads about it: I just wanted to start one?” Then you’re a lazy idiot.
You may have better luck conjuring Hamlet, who has participated in this thread and never mentioned that has being a problem when he gave his opinions on the issue.
…which is why I shouldn’t have bothered trying to explain it to you.
Daniel
More evidence there of your reading comprehension inadequacies. I have not commented upon that point, and if I did I’d think the title was just fine. Paraphrasing that still fairly represents the original is not a problem and never has been. But I’m wasting as much time as anyone else trying to explain it to you. :wally
You continue to try to draw attention away from the topic of the thread. It’s pathetically apparent why, too, to anyone else but you.
Homebrew, I think you’re right on target. Let’s get this thread back on track:
Resolved: Tom DeLay is either an idiot who doesn’t know dick about internet research or is cynically playing demagogue to idiots who don’t know dick about internet research. Either way, Tom DeLay comes out looking like a jackass who does not belong in a position of power…
Wrong, LHoD was open to the possibility that he might be wrong. If he wasn’t then I might consider reporting him to the administrator for being Reeder’s sock but, as it is, he’s done the perfectly normal thing in assuming that he is not in the possesion of all the facts and is willing to change his mind.
He is claiming that under any reasonable interpretation of that quote, and with no further migitating evidence, Delay is a major fucktard. Whether it really means Delay wants judges to not use the internet for research or midget porn or not at all, these are ALL pitworthy.