924

+290 (second amendment interpretation 216: Argument For The Whole Amendment- 9)

 

923

 

+289 (second amendment interpretation 216: Argument For The Whole Amendment- 8)

922: Being Just Versus Refusing Reality

 On one hand one may wonder how can that difference in earning by gender in soccer be justified by the quality of playing the game. On the other hand, it seems that most, if not all, well known tennis tournaments have the same winning prize money for men and women. If I were having the authority there, I would have made better justice my first priority. For example, I would not let how much it could be taken as suggesting men being better than women in that sport (even though the comparison is only top to top) make me hesitant to make that prize based on actual performance. That is because being just and fair is what I feel the calling for. Other than that, I am not the creator of the world and do not consider it may responsibility to replace reality with something else. I think that many people may not be applying sufficient attention to that line. Although, also to be just, I have always had the feeling that requirements are often unnecessarily reduced on women's versions of sport games and that takes away from women the capability of presenting themselves through the best medium possible for  comparing their performances with men's, and having only three sets for women versus five for men in tennis often occurs to me as one of those things.    

921: Commentating on Women's Soccer Here

I again want to ask, even assuming there is a reason for confusion here, how hard could it be to watch how commentating is done in any of the so many countries were soccer is popular and do like that? So why is the commentating on women's soccer here is unbearable like this? The first priority in commentating is what is going on on the field at the moment, not pushing that to the background and replacing it with other far from the field talk about the game and players.  There is a difference between hearing commentating on the game and watching the game in a public place while you hear two people having conversation related to the game behind you. This difference include even deeper analysis to what is going on on the field if it comes at the cost of lengthy abandonment or distraction from being with the actions in the field at their direct level. And even in the very few occasions, elsewhere, were a commentator allows itself to stray away a little bit from the field, that commentator may immediately interrupt itself with any increase in the significance in playing the game. Here you may even see a player near the penalty area and one step from passing the ball to where there is a scoring potential while the commentator continues its out of the field story as if the audience came in the first place to listen to the talk of that commentator and the game itself is the secondary supportive thing.             

Penalty in Soccer

 Watching how two penalty awards spoiled the most recent game in the current NWSL competition makes me argue against this law in the game again. This all or nothing foul system for violations inside the penalty area does not make sense but people are sticking to it as if they are under a contract to do so. A person who commits any intentional foul can also be excluded from the remaining of the game. After all soccer is not supposed to have any intense physical contact among the players. But that is not practiced. So why is it okay to mess the game with the current penalty law? 

Like I suggested before, the law for violations in the penalty area can require multiple goals by shooting from the penalty mark in order to count as one goal in the score of the game, and the determination for the number of kicks can be left to the referee under some general guidelines and limits. Alternatively, the current penalty law can be applied for only the five minutes, or some other short period, at the end, while for the rest of the time the law would depend on adding up errors in that area until the total level of violations there deserves the penalty kick award. The solution can also include a combination of those two suggestions. 

I of course did not miss how, before those signs we currently see near the end of a game declaring the amount of  additional time, leaving that to the determination of the referee was also treated like a law from the sky. And what about those video reviews which sometimes require even the referee to pause the game and attend to them personally? And imagine how much one in the past could have been ridiculed for suggesting going back in the game if an error was determined after reviewing the video while the game is still being played. So how long this penalty law will continue to mess soccer until it becomes accepted that it is essential to have a better law and probably even more essential than those changes just mentioned?

By the way, the talk about selection for women national soccer team reminds me to point out how, although they might have had good individual skills, the playing of the team in that last world cup, was, frankly speaking, horrible in being unharmonized and more like street soccer and unlike how women soccer clubs I am currently watching here seams to play as team . I do not know how one can avoid blaming the coach for that. The beauty of team playing was the first thing I noticed in women's soccer in that world cup but that was often missed with the US team. My favorite team to win that world cup was England's team (although not a fan of how tight some of their players were wearing their shirts).         

919

 

+288 (second amendment interpretation 215: Argument For The Whole Amendment- 7)

 Picking things from after the argument for the word "the" in "the security" in the preceding post, I do not know what made me wonder that far for something like this. The first comma preserves the abstraction of the two part clause "A well regulated Militia". Since an abstract Militia belongs to an abstract State, the test for the necessity of a well regulated Militia in the Amendment includes only what exist externally at the general environment and with the words "free" and "security" applying only externally. Clearly this test leads to the answer of no necessity for our time.

I may come back to elaborate on the core above but I did not want to postpone it for that. The same goes for the argument for the implementation versus concept for a Militia in the preceding post, which also was wrong. However, I still want to mention here that because of how the abstraction suffices by itself, it seems that the capitalization on both sides around the first comma is needed only for the same reason that was discussed before which is related to how the descriptions "well regulated" and "free" should exist as statuses not just descriptions for what is being described.

918

 

277

 Not wearing a face mask here, and if I were with the authority, I could have invaded Florida for that fake court which supposedly tried Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin. The system is so corrupt that, Zimmerman, because of the strength of the corruption force backing him, appeared so far from being really concerned about what was going on to the level of probably struggling to keep a serious face.

917

 

276

 Still proudly never wore face mask and fighting that corruption.  

916

 

+287

 Related to the preceding post, I am not okay with the level of arguing with regard to the connection for the clauses around the first comma but I posted yesterday because I did not want a potential deadline to pass without making the best argument I can. Also it is not a bad idea to give the readers more time to think about what was made while I try to add what I think is still needed.

915

 +286 (second amendment interpretation 214: Argument For The Whole Amendment- 6)

914

From Blog Corruption And The Government

275: Corona, Corruption And Conspiracy - 14: Again The Response Looks Missing The Target

Even though there maybe a significant amount of questioning for how this virus was called as the cause of death for many of the situations that involved pre existing conditions, still if there is one thing that may answer the question in the preceding post it is that pre existing condition explanation. However, the response that is supposed to be because of this virus is again wasting energy and imposing restrictions on the general public to whom infection for the vast majority would most probably be like a passing flu. On the other hand if I were somebody with a related pre existing condition I may appreciate something that enables me to stay far from the probability of infection like a financial support for example but it would not make me alter even a little the precaution I take not to be infected by the outside having even everybody else wears breathing mask.

913

From Blog Corruption And The Government

274: Corona, Corruption And Conspiracy - 13: Counting In That Elephant In The Room

Up to this point my conspiracy talk here did not extend to the data itself that is related to the death count related to this virus. But now I do not see a trust in any reporting out there that is capable of stopping this question:

How could an infection related disease have that many mortality cases in countries like this while not affecting even close to that many other places where infection has much bigger opportunity to spread? Look at the statistics about other countries. If this virus kills that many here with this level of cleanliness in the public environment and interactions among people, how many it would have killed at places like where I came from and other places that are even not as good as the latter in those qualities? Isn't this a joke? Like how all the consumption here for butter and saturated fat makes sense for things like heart disease and stroke to be more common here, it should be the other way around with infections. Nothing can explain this except a game and conspiracy being played at some selected countries.

912: Resetting Time Again

With regard to my personal issue at the court, even though time would not need to be counted differently from other  new cases, having noticed the option in post 905, I would not feel good without doing what I am declaring doing here and that is to go back and stay at point zero with regard to counting time, until I post declaring changing that. My intention is not to do that before making some additional input related to my Second Amendment argument.     

911: The Most Important Question

The most important question related to the approach described in the preceding post is about how much by exhausting the country and shutting it down like that we left those who died and in need for a special focus because of the virus to themselves without help as if we are in some serious situation where every person is for itself not some joke of corruption and playing around. 

910 Another Reminder About This Continued Fraudulent Joke

I want here to make another reminder about how the reasonable behaviour should be with regard to this corona virus situation. It does not appear even close to the level that needs to be dealt with by focussing on not spreading the virus to others instead of just informing the people and depending on every person to protect itself from infection. It was spinned like this in order to stop the economy.

 

909

Related to the preceding post, I actually did not forget but initially thought it is okay or ignored the issue then changed my position after reviewing myself.   

908

In the past when I talked about how I would call for starting to count time for my issue at the court if I want, I intended that to mean while it will still have the same content, time starts to count like a new case.  However, I forgot and did otherwise,  at least when I made that demand in post 903. I, of course, remember that I paused that demand, but the point here is about my attitude.

907

From Blog Corruption And The Government

273: Suffocating The People

The corruption of this corona virus exaggeration scam is at the dirty level of even chasing people on their basic necessities like groceries. Yesterday, I saw a TV short news about a woman throwing stuff out of her cart in a grocery store because she was told to put on a mask. While she has no right to do that, the stronger feeling related to the story for me was about how much she seems to be  frustrated for being chased with this nonsense to be forced against her will while all what she wants to do is just to buy food necessity.
She did not just dump her cart but instead was throwing items individually as if trying to counter a feeling that she needs to buy that thing for each of them.

906:

Even though I made it contingent on having the right to do that, I want to declare here pausing the demand I made in post 903 after I recovered my rights.

905: Bypassing The Court

It seems that the authority of the court on half the offer I made to the corruption guy is dependent on the continuity of the case and that would seize to exist if the two parties resolve their problem themselves. In addition, a contract can be made requiring the party toward whom payment from that half of the offer could be required to come from the other party, to return or refuse any such payment. I am saying this in case someone wants to satisfy the offer I made to the corruption guy without the court in the middle. However, it needs to be checked with me before taking this path because I consider myself free to  change and no longer accept this path at any time.

Whether taken or not, now that I made this offer I feel free to think about the Second Amendment and win anything over what I kept to myself from the offer I made to the corruption guy that could have been associated with a performance related to arguing that Amendment, at the court. And by the way, unlike what I said in a post before, if I do win, I no longer intend to return anything of that to the authority of the court again.