Posted on 05/09/2006 6:39:37 PM PDT by axes_of_weezles
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin Inaccurate
(05/09/2006)Statement Today’s report by the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, “U.S. tipping Mexico to Minuteman patrols,” is inaccurate. Border Patrol does not report activity by civilian, non-law enforcement groups to the Government of Mexico. During a detention of a legal or illegal immigrant that produces an allegation of improper treatment, Border Patrol reports the allegation and allows the appropriate consulate to interview the individual in custody.
This is consistent with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 that provides consular access to foreign nationals being detained by a foreign government. This is the same agreement that protects United States citizens when they travel to foreign countries.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Border Patrol continues to appreciate the efforts of civilians who contact law enforcement authorities regarding suspicious activity.
prime example being your flame over the presence of one single ASCII 32 in between the words "here" and "on", in your efforts to enforce the use of the word "hereon" (which any rational person will recognize as a portmanteau word (pardon my French), made of "here" and "on").
I find it hilarious you accuse me of going into overdrive in my efforts to prove there's not a word recognized which is spelled here on. Shall we chalk it up to be one of those "irrational" beings of which group I'll gladly stand up and be counted as being a part of.
As far as my resort to such nitpicking, it only took one of my sentences for the moth's to be drawn to a flame while the rest of my response was consigned to the trash heap. Just remember, pbrown's cherry picking of my posts completely ignores a couple of very valid posts I did my best to explain. Here's a hint for you and for pbrown, cherry picking phrases to flame out over, does nothing in getting one's message accross. pbrown's nasty, snide response to me did absolutely nothing to convince me her side was in the right. The only message received from pbrown's post was a lesson in how to name call, relegate me to her perceived cast of enablers and to let me know my supposed asking what to me was a legitimate question, was playing dumb, does me a disservice. Judging from your taking up any of responses pbrown could have made in their own defense leads me to believe pbrown doesn't have the mental capacity to handle their own posts.
I regret you were blown away, I do hope you were able to find yourself back home.
One simple question for you though; Have you yet managed to determine which of the existing sides I stand for and work towards? Or were you having too much fun getting your jollies off by attacking the messenger while ignoring the message?
Oh my, not only an inveterate nitpicker, but paranoid to boot?
How delightful! It looks as if certain types of chivalry aren't dead when it pertains to the Internet. Is pbrown unable or incapable of 'putting me in my place?' Or did pbrown feel the need to call in trusty reinforcements where pbrown could continue addressing others as asinine or enablers or accuse them of playing dumb as was done in pbrown's first response to me.
Sorry, no one "called me in". Get over yourself.
Um, I hate to break it to you, but "here on" is not "a word."
I find it hilarious you accuse me of going into overdrive in my efforts to prove there's not a word recognized which is spelled here on.
LOL!
Methinks the concept of portmanteau words has eluded you. Oh well.
The rest of your lengthy flame consisted of nothing but (what else?!?) more nitpicking, and I am not inclined to enable you by "nitpicking your nitpicking." Apparently your life, so to speak, is such that you find some kind of meaning, or outlet, or whatever (or if you prefer, "what ever" :) in idling away your hours online, seeking those whom you may nitpick.
Just out of curiosity, do you play these games with people in real life too? Or are your human contacts restricted to those you may chase down and nitpick online?
In any case, I gotta run. I've got a life. I've no doubt you'll nitpick this communication too, it seems to be your M.O. I don't think you could stop if you tried -- and, I don't think you'll try. Knock yourself out. Don't be too offended if I ignore any further nitpicks from you. My ankle has been scarred over the years to the point that I am inured to the effects of tiny teeth scraping against it.
Bye now.
"IT WAS A LIE!!!!!"
I wish it was a lie too but it's not.
Kind of late to the party, but thanks for the info about Judith Anne.
We are being steered.
B.S. I come from a long line of farmers, and have actually "walked the soybeans" myself. Are you claiming that pulling weeds out of rows of soybeans stretching over dozens of acres through days of hot, muggy, buggy midwestern summers is not hard physical labor? And, if your claim is that technology has now made that unnecessary, what's your point? If technology can eliminate grueling manual labor, what do we need illegals for?
Exactly.
ROTF!
Please read Don's #1410. It's an eye opener and I think worthy of a ping list.
FR is being taken over; it's a professional job and I think Don has nailed it.
They and their ilk really have changed FR for the worse, but FR seems to be self-healing and regenerative, painful as it is to watch.
" I am ashamed of the behavior and the lies and bogus attacks on one of the finest, most honorable men to ever occupy the Oval Office.
This is despicable."
Yes, Ronald Reagan was ALSO 'one of the finest, most honorable men to ever occupy the Oval Office. But he was NEVER attacked with the kind of evil, hate-filled force as the moral and honorable George W. Bush has been.
The attackers may cloak themselves as conservatives, but they cannot hide that they are INdecent people attacking a decent and good man.
Ronald Reagan would be appalled, not only at what is being done to President Bush in the name of 'conservatism,' but also the deification of himself by the very same people who attacked him during his Presidency.
I am continuing to pray for this forum. The left is attempting to destroy it...........and they are coming close to succeeding...........and sometimes in the name of Ronald Reagan.
That I feel exasperated about all this would be an understatement. I am absolutely certain that most of these people are here only to make trouble. The downside is that it influences perception and perception is everything.
There are immigration issues that need to be addressed as soon as possible, but the all or nothing crowd has essentially ensured that we get nothing. I don't say this often, but I think it goes beyond cowardice. They have become part of the problem, standing directly in the way of any progress towards a solution.
It is neither morally right, nor intellectually honest, to complain so bitterly about one's leadership when a person is partially responsible for the situation and doing absolutely nothing constructive to change it. Pathetic is right.
My husband and I were discussing it one day and decided it could be worse. We may be part of the same political party, but at least we're not married to them. LOL.
You remind me of Sara Brady.
I don't know why you were banned, I don't see anything wrong with your posts!
As a Roman Catholic, I don't even go that far for the Pope!! heh
Pity, I liked Do not dub.
Well, duh! Did you finally get around to looking up here on vs hereon>/u> in your trusty-dusty dictionary?
You might want to direct your discovery to your friend pbrown since I've never used here on and pbrown has. My pointing out there was no such word as here on was the trigger which brought you into this thread where you could get on your high horsey.
Get over yourself.
Just remember sweetie, when you point one finger at someone else, you have three pointing back at you.
Sorry, but I'm not the one with an inflated ego who feels a burning desire to belittle those they think they can get away with it. Too bad you picked the wrong person this time.
Methinks the concept of portmanteau words has eluded you. Oh well.
For the edification of any readers who might give a flying flip at this late date:
portmanteau word n. A word formed by merging the sounds and meanings of two different words, as chortle, from chuckle and snort. portmanteau word
n : a new word formed by joining two others and combining their meanings; "`smog' is a blend of `smoke' and `fog'"; "`motel' is a portmanteau word made by combining `motor' and `hotel'"; "`brunch' is a well-known portmanteau" [syn: blend, portmanteau]
And welcome to my virtual plonkfile. (There's another portmanteau word for you.)
BTW, when I informed you that "here on" was not "a" word -- singular -- it was because you were waxing livid over your imagined assertion that others were using the word sequence as "a" word -- singular -- and hence, your loony "proof" that it is not "a" word -- singular -- is nuts!
I will leave you with this thought: "here on" are TWO words, plural. Try to meditate on that concept until it sinks into your nitpicking skull. Or, don't. I don't care, I am through with you. Life's too short for nitpicking pests. I have enough stuff on my plate in real life (none of your f'n business) that I don't have the time or inclination to wrestle in the mud with you. (You know what they say about "don't do it, because they enjoy it, and you get muddy.")
Enjoy yourself, and good bye.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.