but since I work in a job where we deal with copyright issues on a regular basis, it would be my judgment that this step over the line of what is considered fair use.
I hope Jerome et al have had a look and made their own determination, but at the institution I work for, I can safely say we'd never use something containing such a large percentage of an original work for fear of litigation.
platform, but for Macs, when you get to the letter with the diacritic, you hit option and the key of the letter that is most likely to have that particular mark (e=´, i=^, c=ç, u=¨, etc.), then key the letter you want.
includes text which states that the campaign referenced an extant article in the NY Post, which can only mean that the "gaffe" had already been publicized, so they didn't start the snowball - only responded to it.
of Clinton supporters whose identity is tied so closely to their candidate's that they would defend her if she shot Obama herself. You're not going to be able to reason with them because they've lost the last vestige of reasonability already.
If she was using the '68 campaign (and I would say "if") as an example of how long the process can take, then it was a weak argument since the first primary in '68 took place in May.
I will give her the benefit of the doubt on her motivation, but she deserves no small amount of disdain for making a terrible analogy. We don't need any more leaders making stupid remarks on a regular basis.
I'm not even going to address KnowVox directly anymore, because I don't believe it's worth my time.
Always the third or fourth commenter to alegre's diaries, no matter whether the substance is negative, neutral or positive, KV offers nothing constructive. KnowVox is nothing more than a subversive little troll using alegre's diaries to broaden the chasm amongst people with similar goals but contrasting means by fomenting negativity. I've been suckered enough and have better avenues on which to expend my energies.
I know you are hurt right now. I would be too, if I was in your position. The person you've supported, defended and completely invested yourself in just made a mistake. Any earlier in this hard fought contest, and it probably wouldn't have been fatal. But as an administrator alluded to today, context is important. And the context of her mistake makes it one that will be hard, if not impossible, to recover from.
I don't think she meant any harm by her comment. But it symbolized in brazen relief a problem that has been bubbling beneath the surface for a while now. It was a physical manifestation of exhaustion and desperation. And it likely signifies the end of a long and arduous journey for a historic campaign and those that have fueled its vehicle.
I don't blame you for lashing out. I might do the same. And I hope that you would, were you in my shoes, make the same consideration and offer the same sympathy that I am offering now.
I hope that soon, you will come to accept the reality with which you've been confronted. I can tell from your contributions to this site, that you will have a harder time than most to find peace with it. But I also know that as a member of the Democratic party, you have the capacity to overcome your emotions to help ensure that we serve the least among us by unifying for the greater good.
We're - none of us - possessed of the ability to foresee the future, so we're doing our best to make a decision about the best person to lead us out of the abyss constructed by 8 years of unadulterated conservative cynicism and rule by fiat. I know you don't agree with the choice we've made, but I also know that you have no more information on which to base your judgment than we have had on which to base ours, so the field, as they say, is level, and as evidenced by the outcome of the nomination process by the people, a choice has been made.
I hope you'll eventually come to realize that we're all on the same side, fighting the same enemy, in the same war, toward the same ends, and provide your person to the cause. We welcome all comers in the big tent.